Watch The Music Man For Free

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

I'm not going to bash this film and I'm not going to bash Matthew Broderick (not too much). This movie just doesn't have much of a spark. What there is comes from original script and the Meredith Wilson music. Broderick does a so so job of delivering things. For some reason, he seems to have caught the eye of Broadway producers who could have their pick of thousands of really competent people. I thought the musical version of "The Producers" was good, except for the flat, dull performance of Broderick. Anyway, it's absurd to criticize youth and inexperience here because the original actors were every bit as young (or nearly so). It's the production numbers that suffer. Comparing the "Marion the Librarian" from the Preston version to this one isn't even fair. There's also a gentleness to the original. The updating really diminishes things. This is a musical of a time and somehow that time has been stolen from this version. It poked fun at the great state of Iowa and small-town America. Somehow it falls flat in that respect.

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.

Who are these people in the US who are making botched TV versions of excellent musicals that were cinema-perfect the first time? What the hell is teddy bear Matthew Broderick doing in the role of a robust charming con man when his performances are permanently Leo Bloom from THE PRODUCERS...?... and he was absolutely awful in the movie version of that musical too. Remakes of ANNIE and GYPSY and SOUTH PACIFIC that nobody asked for, groanworthy miscasting... I just find myself exasperated as an audience member that these 'TV greeting card' versions of tough and quite humanist musicals are rendered impotent because of the misconcieved reasons for remaking them. Broderick as The Music Man Prof Harold Hill is ridiculous. He pussyfoots his way, looking befuddled, like, well, Leo Bloom, again. There is some nice production values and some precision dancing from what looks like Disney theme park performers... but the main and basically only problem is overweight bug eyed shuffling Ferris Bueller in his teen school production as seen in this boring musical remake. . I await, with gritted teeth the Paris Hilton remake of Dirty Dancing.....