SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Bergorks If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

blu3jay I don't mind remakes, even of movies that were made perfect the first time around. This one, though... OUCH! If there's one thing Broderick can't play it's a con man. I have some serious reservations about his abilities as an actor, too....Broderick's Professor Hill couldn't talk his way out of a wet bag. I know a lot of actors (especially the big names) like to put their own stamp on the characters they play in remakes. I don't understand why it would be necessary if the character was played perfectly the first time! Robert Preston's Hill could've sold a refrigerator to an eskimo.The other characters are equally wet. Wilson's play was silly, hokey and corny, and everyone loved it. Preston, Jones & Co. played it up just right. This new cast took themselves far too seriously and ended up with an anvil on their big toe.

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!!!!

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.

selffamily I loved the original, hackneyed and corny as anything; I loved the energy and the way that the song and dances numbers just flowed seamlessly into the story. With this version, it was just people doing a song or a dance. I wouldn't buy a chocolate ice cream off this guy and he was supposed to be convincing a whole town to buy band instruments and uniforms? I know they are all capable and good actors elsewhere - but what happened? It was like someone took the batteries out of them all before they started shooting. Sorry but if it ain't broke, don't fix it - this doesn't work for me at all. Marks for nice hats. Why has no-one done a remake of Sound of Music or Mary Poppins? (well they may have, just no-one has heard of them) Because they are unsurpassable. So was the original Music Man. This was toothless; Robert Preston was a charming villain; this poor man looked bland and terrified. I like Matthew Broderick - or I thought I did - until now. You need to be able to do more than carry a tune or a few steps to remake a classic. Huge disappointment - an outrage in fact.