Mjeteconer
Just perfect...
InformationRap
This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.
Kaelan Mccaffrey
Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.
Kent Strange
For anyone who has actually seen the play or performed in it, both of which I have, this screen adaptation of the Wilson musical is a dream come true. You can read the script to the play to the 1962 and find that the script writers completely threw out the dialogue and left the songs as they are with the exception of "Being in Love", which was created for that movie to replace the stage musical's "My White Knight." I am happy to inform that all of the original dialogue and all of the songs are from the stage musical are present instantly making this far superior to that mockery from the 1960's.Of course, even then the problem it does have is like the 1962 film where a man too old for the role of Harold Hill is cast. Harold's lie is that he graduated from the Gary Conservatory of Music in 1905 and the fact that people actually believes that gives some clue to his age. As the age of graduation would be twenty-two and thus since the story is set in 1912 that would mean Harold is twenty-nine. Robert Preston was forty-four and Matthew Broderick was forty-one. They both have the ability... Okay, the latter has the ability, the former has nothing... But they are both too old.NBC may doe this play someday. It may be just as faithful as this adaptation and thus superior to that mockery from the 60's. If they do, then here is hoping that they get an actor the proper age for Harold.
wantafarm
No idea what the movie was 'going' for. The Professor was played like a script-read-through. Zero personality or emotion. Nothing to fall in love with. No charismatic charm by which a town could be transformed. With such an odd, flat protagonist, it was impossible to get lost in the movie, even for a minute. Puzzled why this happened. Was this style a choice of the director or Mr. Broderick? I'd love to hear the background, because everyone I talk to says the same thing. One friend said, "His acting seems sarcastic - like he didn't want the role, so he simply read his lines in the least caring way possible." The addition of black and white people in the same town, "way back then" works, because this is not an historical document. The choice makes the town feel more innocent and dear as a community.
johntbass
This is an awful remake of the original. The colors of everything, houses, clothing, etc. are all muted and subdued. The musical performances are OK but not as good as the original. Matthew Broderick gives us a truly uninspired and emotionless Harold Hill. I guess he thought he was doing a remake of a Buster Keaton film. As wonderful as Kristin Chenoweth as Marian Paroo is, she cannot save this turkey. The original is 100 times better than this piece of junk. I would rather jump into a swimming pool filled with double edged razor blades than watch this a second time. If you saw the original and you saw this one, like me, I think you would be upset at what they did to this beautiful work of art.
laurajaykay
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.
