I don't really want to harp on this production too much, because this musical in any form is a favorite of mine. However, though I found this outing to be fair, it also seemed rather run-of-the-mill or paint-by-numbers, & suffered greatly from a lack of charisma in its performances.I'm really trying to not let the influence of the original film color my interpretation here, but there's something missing in the presentation of the two lead characters, as written, that causes a breakdown of the chemistry between them that makes this scenario less believable.Don't get me wrong. Both Kristin Chenoweth & Matthew Broderick are good performers, & have both displayed that in others presentations, but here they really only manage to be cute together. I didn't get the romance, that's supposed to be happening between them, nor any of the other emotional content that's in this story. Chenoweth is really good, and it sucks to bring it to this level, but she has a look about her that makes this character a hard sell for her, & though she makes a better go of it than anyone else in the film, it falls a little flat, especially at the endTo be frank, Broderick was a miscast. He gets completely drowned out vocally by Chenoweth, in "Til There Was You" & he just does not have the charm, confidence, & plain masculinity to carry the part of a character whose mere presence turns a simple town on its emotional ear. Nor does he have the depth to present the genuine change of heart that happens to Harold Hill at the end. He seemed kind of spongy or milktoast, & the result was that the production was like an air filled donut where jelly should be.Hugh Jackman could do it in his sleep, but they ain't getting him for a TV movie. Sadly, I didn't see any performances that really made me feel this story come to life, which I suppose makes the production seem a bit lackluster, literally... lacking in luster

I have liked Matthew Broderick in many of the roles he has played. But this role seemed far beyond him. He is mush and milk-toast. Something I hadn't expected of him. Never even approached the "Spell binding cymbal salesman' that Harold Hill is supposed to be. The remainder of the cast is fun and effervescent. Kristin Chenowyth is delightful and Molly Shannon is a hoot. Some of the dancing is a little modern, but fun. The look of the show was solid. I would rate this a 9 out of 10 if Hill had been played more fully and successfully. I had to fault not only Broderick but the Director for allowing the performance in the first place. The music is well presented. It is a fun show. If you have not seen other Harold Hills you might like Broderick's performance. But I was supremely disappointed.

It seems as if all of these reviews run the gambit of saying all different things about this newer version. I can basically "sum up" one theme that I hear coming from everyone, and that is: whatever anyone really liked about the older version, and which is lacking with this one... well... that is the major criticism. And some who, in general, see little difference, and loved the first film, loved this one as well.I personally agree with many about some of the acting, especially the point about the lines not being quite expressed in the same manner. Of course, this could be a case of always feeling the original is better, which is the tendency. For instance, if this version was the original, or say, if this was the first version a person has seen, say a child of today, and then they watched the 1962 version, would they still feel the acting was better in the first? In that case it could be (in reverse) they like the 2003 version because it was seen first. However, I honestly believe, all things being equal, if someone could watch them both for the first time on the same day, the acting lines were expressed better in the original. There may be, of course, exceptions, from scene to scene perhaps.My main complaint was actually how, for such an "updated version," the cinematography was not all of that. It was as if they wanted to "be" the original version, even in the quality of film. And I also agree some with the "political correctness" stuff, which I noticed as well. It was almost as if there has to be a black or 2 in each scene, and they had to be at equal basis with the whites. Don't get me wrong, i agree with that! But, i mean, why not have it half black then if you want to be completely fair. It gets ridiculous if you want to do all of that. I'm for every human being is equal on the planet in every way, and should be treated that way. But, it just appeared odd to me, or as if they did it FOR THAT REASON alone. It's like if someone was filming a movie with an all black church, but felt they should put a few whites in it so it wouldn't seem "too much" or something. it just seemed a little silly to me, that's all. However, even as I elaborate about this, I feel bad about saying it. For maybe there should have been more blacks in it. Who am I to say! But just so we all understand why, because we'd like to all think of a world where it should have been, not necessarily the way it typically was in a small Iowa town at the time. And that's fine. Art has no boundaries. After all, everyone in a small Iowa town did not continually get up and dance and sing either! :-) My personal main complaint is actually a not very "nice" one. I actually liked the voice of Kirtin. What I didn't like was maybe what others did about her. it's something she can't help I realize. But, I think her figure was a bit too much for the role if you know what I mean. it almost seemed silly. She was supposed to be the most innocent one. And I realize woman can have figures like that and be very innocent. However, in a movie, it doesn't really role pay well, as well as the movie itself took advantage of her figure by "advetising it!" Don't get me wrong, I'm a guy a like a womanly figure. But come on, for a pure storyline it's ridiculous, having that extreme of a figure for that role. At least if she had the role she could wear clothes not to advertise it. And the "not so nice" part is that I felt her face is not so attractive. I know that is harsh. But to be a leading lady I feel it's important. She has a great voice. But, close ups of her face, well, reminds me of a lizard the whole time. I'm sorry, but there it is. She's a wonderful person personally, I know. But this is a profession. I would never say such a thing if there were not constant close ups of her face for such a movie constantly. It just didn't work for me. Sorry. The dancing and music was good.

If the Music Man has fanilows, I am one. I loved the 1962 movie, never having been to Broadway until 1979. In the mid-70's my two brothers and future sister-in-law were in a summer dramatic presentation at our high school(where Richard Gere and I started out) and I know the script nearly verbatim.Matthew Broderick is a handsome, talented young man, but he and his co-conspirators have a lot to learn about delivery. So many lines were blown, being recited far too fast, without proper cadence or emphasis.I found it troubling that the producers tried to put modern political correctness on a scene from the early 1900's. I would bet the farm that, in that day, in a very small town in Iowa, there were no middle- class black people. If there were any non-farming blacks, they would be a guy playing piano in a bordello or saloon or possibly a groom at the livery stable or smithy.When it was over, I called baby brother and exclaimed, "I'm aghast - simply aghast!" to which he replied, "you mean agog - simply agog." I knew he would be watching it, as well. We agreed on all points. Sorry to pan it; I hate vicious critics.