This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Are you familiar with the character "Geordi" on Star Trek the Next Generation? He's a blind character on the Starship Enterprise, Chief Engineer. The problem? He just happens to have a visor that enables him to see perfectly, so he's basically no different from a sighted person. Just a gimmick with a goofy visor.Similarly, in "Music Within", we get a supposedly deaf man, but after a 12-second montage of him learning to read lips, he is absolutely "normal". He understands people just fine (even when their backs are to him), and when they speak to him he looks them in the eye, not the lips (major oversight by actor Ron Livingston). And just like Geordi's visor, he has a mysterious device strapped to his telephone that makes him able to understand everything perfectly (even though we're repeatedly shown that $1000 hearing aids don't work for him).Why am I making such a big deal of this seemingly insignificant point? Because it undermines the supposed message of the whole story: that disabled people are exceptional *in their own right*. By making the lead character a deaf person who can hear, by making Geordi a blind man who can see, Hollywood glosses over the reality of having a disability thereby reducing it to trivial.And that's my gripe with this movie; it's has a very "ABC Afterschool Special" feel to it. The producers tackle a difficult subject but only superficially. Just enough to give us a rousing feeling of warmth.Is that warmth, or is that just my colostomy bag springing a leak again? Sheesh.Like several other reviewers, I give this movie a thumbs up for a great subject, but I give it a thumbs down for its clunky, superficial and slightly hypocritical presentation. The whole thing feels somewhat contrived.The scenes showing discrimination are cartoonishly brutal, and it makes you think everyone in the 70s was a tactless creep. I was alive in the 70s, and while I fully agree that disabled people were overlooked, I never noticed the outright hatred that is portrayed in this film. And we're supposed to believe that the American Disabilities Act suddenly made people tolerant & friendly? That's a little too black&white for me to swallow.On another note, I agree with what another reviewer said about casting Ron Livingston as Richard Pimmentel. The real Richard Pimmentel is a heavyset man. Why couldn't the producers cast someone who weighed 280 lbs like the real Pimmentel? Or did they themselves discriminate based on looks? Sheesh.One day Hollywood will make a movie about disabled people and cast REAL disabled people. Until then, I won't be impressed by any lofty message they're trying to impart. We can applaud Michael Sheen all day for his portrayal of a man with Cerebral Palsy, but somewhere out there is an actor with real CP who's out of work because directors figure he's too much trouble to work with.

"Music Within" shows us that you don't have to wear tights and fly through the air to be considered a hero.The movie tells the true story of Richard Pimentel (who was acted perfectly by the underrated Ron Livingston), a man who was unloved in life, but had a knack for public speaking. He even auditioned to a prestigious college for the speech team, but was turned down because he lacked real experience.So Richard enlists in Vietnam, and during the time there he's a victim of a bombing which took away his sense of hearing. Newly disabled, he tries to get a job only to run into continuous roadblocks because of his newfound liability.He forms an odd friendship with Art Honeyman (also wonderfully portrayed by Michael Sheen), a man with a crippling disability that renders his body mostly useless, but still maintains an above-average intelligence. Together they take on the system that has shunned them, and thanks to their persistence and effort, Richard is given the opportunity to run programs that allows the disabled to be hired in government positions.Richard Pimentel is an anti-hero. He drinks, he ignores his girlfriend, and he's volatile...which goes to show that a hero doesn't always have to be perfect...they just have to have a vision and the determination to see that vision come to fruition. A truly inspiring story.

Generally I enjoy writing comments, but there are two situations where it carries some substantial qualms. One is when a filmmaker sends his/her film to me for commenting. The risks of this are obvious, because I have two audiences: my regular readers who look for something interesting and ideally illuminating, and the filmmaker who I want to encourage.The other case is when I have a bad film of a real life, presumably a noble life. I've watched two recently, both true stories of broken boys who died in the wild. Here we have something different: a living man, who I assume is considered to have done worthy things. I also assume that major facts are more or less true.But its a disaster as a movie, and because it has no value reflects badly on a life. The basic problem of course is that what makes this man worthy of a film cannot make a worthy film. But the problems are deeper.Its at least three films. One is about his relationship to his mother which is filmed in a fantastic and stylized manner with voice-over narration. A second is about his love affair. As with most such stories, this depends on the various attractions of the actress. Here it is a pretty girl, who is unique in being an Australian actress who cannot act. But she is pretty and sexy. This story works against the biography because even with her deficiencies (both as actress and character), she outshines her man.The third movie is about the guy and his work, annotated by his friendships with the "handicapped," plus his own handicap.In a better film, these three stories (plus the handicapping) would be integrated. They would weave into and enhance each other, warping suggestive texture and opening lacy opportunities for us to relate our own urges/lives.But this doesn't.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

What a masterpiece this is. I luckily got to see it and boy, the first thought that came to mind after seeing this movie is 'this ain't any less than The Shawshank Redemption'. Undoubtedly one of the most (under-rated) inspiring movies I've ever seen. The direction by Steven Sawalich is excellent and three lead characters Ron Livingston (Richard Pimentel), Melissa George (Christine) and Michael Sheen (Art Honeyman) did full justice to their roles. Special mention of Michael Sheen who played Art Honeyman in this movie is fantastic. In the very first scene of his, he catches your attention when he tries to open the Coke bottle. His characters is way too funny with perfect one line dialogs, for example when Richard gives Art the draft of the book he has written (to read and comment), Richard asks in between (while Art is reading the book in the toilet) "What page you're at?" to which Art replies "I'm at the page shut the f*** up". This also shows the kind of special bond shared by Richard and Art. I rated this movie a perfect 10/10. Do your self a favor, watch this masterpiece.