The Music Man

Reaction to this production has been very emotional and on the musicals board I have had to endure the most incredible bashing because I actually liked it.

Some people have been critical of my opinion because I had the temerity to assume they were comparing it to the classic movie version, which I adore. They weren't thinking of that at all. Yeah, right.

This was a great production of this great musical. I have no reservations. I'm sorry if the Harold Hill was not the creepy crawly we are used to in Robert Preston or that Marion was not the sweet fickle thing we knew in Shirley Jones. It is of the nature of musicals and of stage plays that were not written as screenplays in general to be open to various interpretations in various producations. I've seen a dinner theatre version of West Side Story that was better than the movie.

I just don't get the criticism, most of which is based on our image of Broderick, who will turn 40 next month. He lacks neither the talent nor the presence nor the experience to pull this off, and boy did he pull it off!

At the risk of making a ludicrous juxtaposition, a musical as great as Music Man is like Shakespeare. It has to be defeated by wilfull misinterpretation rather than lifted into triumph by faithfulness to what it is all about, because just doing it right is all that is needed. The Disney production was not a misinterpretation, and it does it right.

This re-make is absolutely great!!! The musical numbers are fabulously choreographed and the songs are catchy. The actors all turn in wonderful performances and the script is almost identical to the original version. Although this version is not QUITE as good as the original (let's face it - nobody does it like Robert Preston), it is still a well-done re-make. I would give it 8 stars out of 10. It rocks!!!

Well, The Music Man is one of my all time favorite musicals. There were aspects about this one that I preferred to the original and some that I didn't. I have been in the stage version before and I noticed that they made this movie more similar to the stage version than just like the original movie. For example, they put in the reprise of pick-a-little, talk-a-little, etc...

First of all, the casting. I thought that if I hadn't seen the original movie version of this musical I would have enjoyed Matthew Broderick in this role a lot more. I thought he was good, but he didn't hold a candle to Robert Preston's performance as Harold Hill. He wasn't as convincing as Harold Hill as I hoped he would be. Overall, I wasn't impressed with him.

Kristin Chenoweth is definitely someone in this musical that I was impressed with. I really didn't think I would like her in this role, but I think I actually liked her better than Shirley Jones. I knew how well she fit the role of Sally in the new Broadway version of "You're A Good Man, Charlie Brown" and after that, I was having trouble picturing her as Marian Paroo. I still found her speaking vioce a little annoying and Sally-ish, but I thought she made it work. I think what I liked most about her performance was the change I saw in the character of Marian throughout the movie. I saw the transition from the up-tight librarian to a woman who is a lot looser and not as shrewish. I never saw that in the version with Shirley Jones. I really saw Marian fall for Harold Hill in this version, I don't think Shirley Jones played that up as well as she could have.

A couple complaints I have about this version are the fact that I found the girl playing Zaneeta Shinn pretty annoying and...well...not very good. Her "Ye Gods" was...well...just kind of...blah. I found the dance number of Shapoopi to be pretty weak, also. I thought that Harold and Winthrop's thing was cute and I thought that the Shinns' thing was cute, but where was all the fun dancing?

I don't really know how I felt about Molly Shannon playing Eulalie. I thought Hermione Gringold was perfect in that role in the original movie, but I really had no problem with Molly Shannon in this role. I didn't think she was better or worse, just different. Victor Garber could have been better, though. The role of the mayor is an entertaining role and he didn't really play up the mayor's stupidity as much as he could have. Same for the guy who played Marcellus. He could have put more into it. Buddy Hackett made this role unique and fun. This guy just made it...okay. Not bad, but not very good either.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie more than I thought I would. Mainly because of Kristin Chenoweth. I didn't think this movie was great, but it wasn't bad. It was...fine.

I think some of the previous commenters have been perhaps a bit too harsh on this remake. I myself dearly loved the original "The Music Man" (1962) - it was a very important movie in my childhood. My folks bought the soundtrack LP, and I must have heard every song on that album about ten thousand times. (Same can be said for "Oklahoma", "My Fair Lady", "Mary Poppins", etc.) Later, in my youth, I took up the trumpet, and would later actually play several of the songs from "The Music Man" in various band settings.

So it was with keen reservations that I tuned into this 2003 version of the same movie. I really admire Matthew Broderick, yet I was somehow reluctant to allow "Ferris Bueller" the privilege of portraying Professor Harold Hill. Well, no sooner did he begin singing and dancing some of his required Music Man numbers than I was completely won over by his talent, not to mention the easy grace with which he tackled the role.

Suffice it to say that I stuck it out to the end of the film, wholeheartedly enjoying every minute of it (with one slight reservation: there were too damned many commercial interruptions.... oh, and one more thing, I would have loved to see this in a wide-screen format).

I also loved Kristin Chenowith as Marian Paroo. She looked absolutely fabulous and had a divine singing voice that really melted me to the core.

In summation, I'm glad that Disney produced this effort to put "The Music Man" back on the screen, because I think it is a story that today's viewers (especially young people) could certainly bear watching. That's mainly because I fear that the 1962 version (which may arguably be a better version) would unfortunately be overlooked by today's viewers. I mean, nowadays, who has ever heard of Robert Preston??

No one does it like Robert Preston. That's the main think this movie proved. This was the second of two classic musicals that Disney has tried to remake into TV movies in the past few years. They did the same thing with this as they did with Annie, and the result was the same as well. Both movies seem just a little too... for lack of a better word, unnatural.

Of course, this movie had to compare to an original that has been considered a classic for a long time. It's the story of "professor" Harold Hill, a traveling salesman who's latest trick is to find trouble in a town and then use it to make the townspeople believe they need a boys band to reform their youth. He sells them all the instruments, music, and uniforms they need, then heads out of town before he can teach them a thing. Hill's latest target is River City, Iowa. Everything seems to be going fine, but he just might have met his match in the town librarian, one of the few who won't buy his story.

Yes, the story is classic, but it wasn't quite enough to save this rather unnerving remake. Disney pulled together quite a cast: Matthew Broderick, Kristin Chenoweth, Victor Garber, and Molly Shannon. However, that didn't save this film either, though the performance of one of the leads certainly is a large part of the reason this film has the rating it has. It's hard to say exactly why this film fails to satisfy, but it sadly does just that. First of all, it just doesn't seem to work quite as well as the original. The extended dance sequences seem out of place and weird, even though they are splendidly done. Probably, the largest reason of all that this film just isn't great is because no matter how much you deny it, you are comparing it to the original. It just doesn't compare. However, there is one thing that makes it worth while.

Kristin Chenoweth shines as Marian Paroo, the town librarian. With this film, she proves that she can easily take on a leading film role. Ms. Chenoweth really steals the show with her unmatchable voice and superb acting. I really think she out-did the original woman in the role. It's near the end that you realize that she truly is a lead. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Matthew Broderick. One has to give him credit for being brave enough to take on such a set-in-mind role, but that is actually his downfall. He just isn't Robert Preston- no one ever will be again. Mr. Preston gave one of the better performances of our time, and Mr. Broderick simply can't beat that. At times, he even borders on what looks like insanity. Poor, Matthew. This won't shine as a fine moment in his career at all. The only other really good performances in the show were Debra Monk and David Aaron Baker as Mrs. Paroo and Hill's friend Marcellus, respectively.

Really, the only problem with this is it's not the original. Unfortunately, there won't be a remake that can ever equal the original. As I said before, no one does it like Robert Preston. This film proves that. 5/10 stars.

Jay Addison