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 The addition of black and white people in the same town, "way back then" works, because this is not an historical document.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.

desapp14 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.

TeaStation Wow! I hate when they remake a movie and try, try, try too hard to either make it there own, when a masterful one had been made prior (1962 Original Movie) OR try to up it to politically correct standards which in the original you will notice the lack of African-Americans and in this one they are all over the place, which wouldn't probably have been the case in this story's time line. Not as free Americans walking around with the white folk like they are depicted here (and I mean no disrespect, just a fact). Matthew cannot sing near as well as Robert Preston did or even folks who have made reprisal CD's of the original movie or Broadway Show and Matthew is no stranger to Broadway.I guess if you haven't seen the 1962 Original movie watch this one, or better yet, IMMEDIATELY send this one back to Netflix or whoever or wherever you got it from and rent the 1962 Original with Shirley Jones and Robert Preston, then after that one has soaked in a bit rent this one. Honestly I could not watch more then 5 minutes of this one before I was ready to lose it. I love the original 1962 version, always have, always will and pretty much unless they can make an even better production which this is not then I am not up for watching a remake. The lack of voices and instruments compared to the 1962 movie in all the musical numbers is also very apparent, like this movie is missing something? Like everything :) :) :) Oh well, as they say on Ghosthunters, on to the next!