Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Mojochi 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

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!

jacklmauro Here this - I am by NO MEANS married to the original, and Preston typically gives me a sick headache. So, let's forget the original (mostly - see below). Let's just take this as is. Which is a clinker, and which clinks really badly because of some of the most amazingly bad casting ever. Broderick. If the idea is to hope that boyish charm will carry him as one of the slickest salesmen in theater/movie history...where is it? The boyish thing is still there but it's inert. Hill is above all a salesman; Broderick plays him like a PC repairman, usually confused and never remotely charismatic, and his broad musical moments have an embarrassed feel to them. At least Preston knew that pure, focused energy was key here, for God's sake. Then, Chinoweth has a voice but, sadly, not the face of the innocent Marion, and not even the right voice. I realize that Marion is not a young girl, but Chinoweth's hard lines reveal a woman too old. Then there's the voice. Yeesh. If any soprano must be creamy, it is Marion, but Chinoweth hits the high notes like a tight siren. Even Victor Garber, brilliant musical man that he is, is utterly miscast as the mayor. He quite simply exudes too much intelligence to play such a fool. On the plus side, the direction flows in a novel way. This would've been a swell and lively production, if only someone had thought to get the right performers.

Mark Iaconetti I was born in Gary and always thought this musical was a bit archaic. And now I read some of your comments. What are you all? About a hundred? Matthew Broderick is phenomenal. He practically makes this musical worthy of going down in history!!!! It's a beautiful cast, well choreographed numbers as well as great sets, costumes etc. I love Shirley Jones and Robert Preston, particularly in "Victor Victoria," However, their version is a cartoony 50's formula musical, which is fine. Think: Joe E. Brown does Al Jolson's "Jazz Singer!!!!" Boy are times a changin!!!! Give Broderick another chance!! He's reminiscent of the golden age of Hollywood for me in this day and age; up there with Johnny Depp and a very few others. His version is also cartoony, but much more appealing due to the underlying depth of his character however subtle compared to the one dimensional portrayal by Preston. Check this version out!!!!