Gideon24 ABC/Disney mounted an elaborate and entertaining remake of the 1977 Broadway musical Annie for television in 1999 which, for my money, was vastly superior than the theatrical version released back in 1982. This version was directed by Rob Marshall, whose next directorial assignment was a little thing called Chicago. Marshall knows what a musical should look like and having him at the helm as director and choreographer made a big difference in making the piece work, as opposed to the 1982 version which was directed by John Huston, a competent director but clueless where musicals are concerned.For those who don't know, this is the story of a little girl named Annie living in an orphanage during the depression, run by a cruel and sadistic witch named Miss Hannigan, who is chosen to spend a week in the mansion of a billionaire named Oliver Warbucks, a publicity stunt arranged by Warbucks' secretary Grace Farrell. We then watch as a relationship develops between the lonely philanthropist and the little girl and how Miss Hannigan sees Annie's good fortune as a ticket to Easy Street (which is, BTW, the name of one of the show's best songs).Kathy Bates is deliciously evil as Miss Hannigan. I found Bates' interpretation of the character much richer than Carol Burnett's take on the role in 1982. Burnett played Miss Hannigan as a drunk, but Bates brought the greed and viciousness back to the role that Dorothy Loudon introduced to the character back on Broadway in '77. Bates also surprised as a competent vocalist. Her version of my favorite song in the score, "Little Girls" is just superb.I have to admit that I found Victor Garber a little bland as Daddy Warbucks. I actually preferred Albert Finney in the '82 version , though Garber's solo, "Something was Missing" was lovely. Alicia Morton is competent as the title character and Audra McDonald brings a substance to the role of Grace that has been missing in previous versions of the show. Alan Cumming and Kristen Chenoweth are brilliant as Rooster and Lily, Miss Hannigan's brother and his girlfriend, who are Hannigan's cohorts in extorting money from Warbucks through Annie. Cumming, Chenoweth, and Bates bring down the house with "Easy Street".Other songs in the Charles Strouse/Martin Charnin score include "Maybe", "It's a Hard Knocks Life","I think I'm gonna like it here", "You're Never Fully Dressed without a Smile", and, of course, "Tomorrow". During the production number, "NYC", there is actually a cameo appearance by Andrea McArdle, who originated the role of Annie in the original 1977 Broadway production.For me, this is a much richer version of this musical, that takes the show back to the basics, remaining faithful to the original piece while benefiting from strong direction and choreography from Rob Marshall and some on-target casting.

mysticnox Contrary to what most of the others are saying, this is NOT better than the 1982 production in any way, shape, or form.In the original, the acting is better, the connection between the stars is stronger, and its just much more entertaining.Yes, they got the sets right in an excellent way. And I had no idea that Kathy Bates could sing so beautifully. That doesn't mean it was good.Now I won't say it was horrible, but it wasn't good.The multiracial thing... at this time period in history it wouldn't have happened. Period. It may have been Disney's idea, but you'd think that even they would have a bit of respect for history.

elshikh4 This is nearly a nightmare of a casting : The girl (Alicia Morton) can sing but lacks charisma and looks like a 20-year-old miss. (Victor Garber) is so young to play (Oliver Warbucks), being in his late thirties or something. And (Kathy Bates) seems too dressy, fresh and beautiful to be (Miss Hannigan).The script is deadly dry; there is nothing you can call "funny" in here. I didn't watch dazzling anything either. The musical arrangement wasn't special at all. I know that the director is (Rob Marshall) who'll make later (Chicago – 2002) and (Nine – 2009) but OH MY GOD he just made the numbers this time into very tight sets, cadres (and budget !). Suffice it to say that he got the nerve to shoot (Easy Streets)'s number all around one desk (at this point I was about to be asphyxiated!).Actually the differences between the first cinematic version and this TV production define what writing for movies is all about. Here (Warbucks) loved Annie so fast. You must miss the beauty and the beast thing between the 2 characters which was stronger. Where are the BIG numbers? Where are the gags (put the Mona Lisa in my bathroom)? Where is (We Got Annie) routine, (At The Movies), (Sign) or (Maybe) sang by (Warbucks) ? Where is the character of the Indian magician bodyguard ? And where is the BIG finish?? As a whole it missed the most the charisma and the originality that discriminated the first movie. And speaking about missing, I know that I missed too much (Ann Reinking)'s dancing talent, smile and legs !And even without much comparison : The evil brother thinks about the scheme of masquerading as Annie's parents before the announcement of the money reward for Annie's parents ?? (so he'd win what exactly ?!), how Annie didn't recognize Miss (Hannigan) as her false mother ? And it turns into bad comedy at the end when we see President (Franklin Roosevelt) as only the private detective of (Warbucks) !, or how (Warbucks) discovers that he loves his secretary "all of a sudden" ?!!In a word, everything this movie has; proves how great the first one was. However it's not a disastrous movie. It's a musical evening into the (Movie of The Week) format; however just poor and so TV (rather TeeVeeeeeeee !). Without much to be distinct with (only the number of "NYC" and "Someone"), I really asked myself why they remade this lovely musical, after one lovely movie, into one not-as-lovely TV movie ? (else hearing the songs from other performers !). I think I know the answer. Which's simply owning the right of the original play, since a full $9.5 million was paid for it by Columbia Pictures in 1982 (one of the biggest, if not The biggest, sums ever paid for a play, so how about being a cinematic flop at the moment as well ?!). They wanted to utilize the rights but not the fun. So, sadly, I still must ask : Why ?!It could have made a wonderful sitcom or mini-series if you ask me, more than another yet useless needless movie.

Anna I found the acting was good, but not as good as the original. Also, the songs, staging, and virtually everything were kept precisely the same, which made this remake unnecessary. The new actress playing Annie didn't have the same charm as the original, but had a good singing voice. Kathy Bates is one of my favorite actresses, so the opportunity to see her singing and dancing was quite a pleasure. That being said, she is no Carol Burnett, who was divine in the original. My daughter thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and I enjoyed it as well, but it paled in comparison to the original.