O Homem da Música

I liked that the story was not totally changed as some remakes have been. It was good but not great. It seemed more like a high school or community production than a professionally made movie. I think Victor Garber is a very good actor but he was miscast as Mayor Shinn. I also thought Kristen Chenowith not right for the role of Marian Paroo. What happened to her mothers Iris accent?

I am not racist however facts are facts. The movie is set in early 1900's Iowa. Black and white people did not interact the way they do in the movie. Racism was alive and well at that time. Blacks were not treated as equal with whites.

It was enjoyable but I would not go out of my way or pay money to see it again. The original was much better so I bought a copy.

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

Well, I've read a lot of comments on this remake of Meredith Wilson's musical. My feeling is that no matter how good this movie may be, people would <i>still</i> find fault with it because it's not the "original," keeping in mind that the actual original would have been the 1957 stage version. Besides Preston, the only actor that I can find who made the transition from stage to screen was Pert Kelton as the Widow Paroo. Oh, how I wish I could have seen Robert Preston on Broadway. But I wasn't born yet.

The 1962 film version has had forty years to amass an audience of die-hard fans. Most of us probably don't make it to New York to see original Broadway productions, or even local dinner theater shows, so the movie version is most likely the only thing that a lot of people will see, whether it's at the local Cineplex, or on video/DVD. I've been fortunate enough to see a local dinner theater production of <i>The Music Man</i>. Like everyone else here, I made comparisons between the actor portraying Harold Hill and Robert Preston, and of course the local actor came up short. How could he <i>not</i>? I mean, after all, I've seen Preston's interpretation <i>countless</i> times thanks to my VCR. But after a while, I stopped making comparing and just had <i>fun</i> watching another interpretation of a great musical. Sure, Robert Preston remains the quintessential Harold Hill for me, but I can keep an open mind and watch someone else in the role. Besides, I can always watch the '62 version if I'm hankering for Preston, if ya don't mind my saying so...

Some people have bashed Broderick for his interpretation of Prof. Hill, citing his youth, subtle performance, singing ability, etc. Here are some things to keep in mind: At the time the movie was made, Robert Preston was only <u>four years older</u> than Matthew Broderick is now. Preston's vocal range was limited, so the songs were written with that in mind. He spoke a <i>lot</i> throughout his songs.

Although Preston originated the role of Professor Harold Hill on Broadway, Hollywood did not want him for the part in the film version, citing that he was too <i>old</i> to play opposite Shirley Jones. It was only after numerous other actors turned down the part, that Preston was allowed to reprise his performance.

Typically, actors on stage pump up their performances, in order to reach everyone in the theater, including people in the back row. Conversely, actors in film and television have to dial it down, because their audiences can easily see and hear what the actors are doing, and subtle is the key to a more believable performance as opposed to an "over the top" style.

Whereas Preston chose to reprise his fast-talking, mischief-making style from the stage, Broderick's con-man is more smooth, easy, and under the radar. Interestingly enough, Preston's version of Prof. Hill always came off as a conniving crook from the first time I laid eyes on him. There is no doubt that he has charisma and appeal but I wonder why anyone would buy <i>anything</i> from him. Broderick's Harold Hill, on the other hand, looks completely innocent and unassuming, which would make him perfect for selling someone swampland as viable real estate. And come on, would any of you <i>really</i> have accepted Broderick more readily if he chose the bombast and snappy patter? Or would you have just said "Preston wannabe?"

There was a lot I liked about the remake. I liked seeing more of the stage version make it to the screen. I liked the nontraditional casting for the citizens of River City (I know, it's highly unlikely that people of color would be interacting with caucasians in Iowa in 1912, but The Music Man was always an <b>idealized</b> version of life in a midwestern town) and for me, Kristin Chenoweth was 50 percent of the reason I wanted to watch this movie. In my opinion, she made a wonderful Marian Paroo.

I've always liked Debra Monk so it was fun to see her here as the Widow Paroo. My only criticism of Cameron Monaghan is that he didn't spit as much as Ronny Howard when he lisped through his lines (and maybe that's not a bad thing because I can't get Daffy Duck out of my mind as I write this) and he is so much the spitting image (pun intended) of Johnnie Whitaker, that I was expecting his surname to <i>be</i> Whitaker until I saw otherwise.

So who did I miss from the original? Well, I did miss Buddy Hackett as Marcellus Washburn, and although the school board members turned barbershop quartet were okay, I did miss the Buffalo Bills. But the guy I really missed was Harry Hickox. Who's Harry Hickox, you might ask? Why, none other than that traveling anvil salesman Charlie Cowell! Now <i>that</i> was a role that called for someone loud, bombastic, and over the top. Unfortunately, Patrick McKenna playing the vengeful fellow salesman just didn't do it for me (I wish he would have dropped his anvil case just once).

All in all, I'd say that this was a fine remake. I hope that it will attract the notice of younger audiences, so they can see that musicals aren't "lame." And maybe it'll get them interested in the film that was made over 40 years ago, starring Robert Preston and Shirley Jones.

But they'll probably prefer the Matthew Broderick version.

I am sorry, but to those who felt this was better than the screen version, I completely disagree. Where was the energy in the musical numbers? Full of boring close-ups and TERRIBLE orchestrations was this. I am a huge musical fan, and turned it off after an hour. Someone states in his review that the older film looked too much like a broadway musical filmed. What's wrong with that? That's what it was! A Broadway musical. This is really bad, Matthew Broderick is great as an actor, but he was not in any way right for professor Herold Hill. I was not even remotely convinced. Do yourself a favor and see the 1962 film version.

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.