Profile for TulitaPepsi

Delighted for Kayden. She's the only aspect of the show that all the critics love.

What I said. Extended to April 28.

Thanks for that link, PJ. Steketee's review is exceedingly nuanced and articulate, and reflects the feelings of those of us who were repelled by the play.

Expect an extention till April 28.

Garland was no saint. She was a complex, troubled woman who is rightfully considered one of the very greatest singers and all-around perfomers who ever lived. Her last years would make a gripping play. But as I've said before, THE END OF THE RAINBOW isn't it. It reminds me of when Howard Stern played Judy's audio tapes of her unfinished biography as something to be laughed at.

Growl: This is true. Isherwood definitely points out elements in the show that he thinks don't work, and finds some parts banal and schmaltzy. But the overall tone is most definitely a rave. He's fairly beguiled by the whole enterprise, weak spots and all. And his criticisms are leavened with creamy dollops of warm praise, cheering the casts' "winning personas, Mr. Bowen’s frisky songs and the generous doses of off-kilter humor" While admitting that he doesn't think the show is as strong as [...

TheaterMania is a RAVE.

NewJerseyNewsroom is a RAVE: "Created and performed by the makers of “[title of show],” their latest tuner with yet another appellation sure to make copy editors crazy is named “NOW. HERE. THIS.” A distinctively original effort, the musical proves to be a delightfully quirky piece regarding the importance of savoring fully the present moment.The musical’s positive message about appreciating the now-here-this joys of our fleeting existence on Earth is well worth hearing and heeding. The score’...

Isherwood in the TIMES - pretty much a RAVE and a choclate-covered Valentine to the cast! "Good news, ardent fans of offbeat musical theater. The lovable gang from “[title of show]” is back with an endearingly goofy new diversion called “Now. Here. This.” Thin as a vanilla wafer but just as sweet, it opened on Wednesday night at the Vineyard Theater, where the same collaborators’ first show played before its little-engine-that-could chug to Broadway. (It closed pretty quickly, but still: Broa...

BACKSTAGE is mixed-to-positive.

Talkin' Broadway is mixed.

Liza's father is mentioned disparagingly several times, including wisecracks about his sex life. None of Judy's children are mentioned in the play.

I'm not sold on Rosie as Hannigan, but there are worse ideas. Like Jackie Hoffman. (I agree with the Leavel & Testa suggestions. They'd be perfection.)

MusicalMo, there is no doubt Garland was a wreck the last year of her life - and Bennett actually sings better than Judy did for most of that time. Bennett isn't the problem - she has a remarkable instrument and in the hands of a more sensitive director and a better author, she might well create a great Garland (I'd love to hear a Bennett does Garland does Mama Rose) I do fault the author for focusing only on the relentlessly shrill tabloid-fodder Judy at the expense of creating a three-dimen...

A major problem with the show is that one never sees the charming Judy who beguiled people so much that they returned to work with her even after her problems drove them away. From the first scene she is manic and unbalanced and that stays that way varying degrees throughout the show. Many people have remarked at Judy's ability to laugh at herself at even her lowest point. But as directed Bennett just mumbles. Cumpsty is completely charmless character who mostly glowers at an ever-exasperated...

I thought the show was numbingly awful. It isn't boring - Bennett gives a powerhouse performance but the play itself is cliched garbage that revels in Garlands descent into a pill-induced mania. It's might well have been written by the National Enquirer. The Mens room line at intermission was telling - lots of dumbfounded stares and unimpressed shrugs. But there were lots of audience members practically peeing themselves screaming ovations at the curtain call. While Bennett sings Garland stun...

Saw it last night. I have never seen the film. A month ago my friend Marc - who is usually very stinting in praise of any show - called me from the street. "I just saw ONCE. As soon as we hang up, you are going to buy a ticket. You will thank me for this." Well, OK. If you say so, Marc. It was nearly impossible to score a ticket, but I did for last night. Whenever I know I am seeing a show I purposely read no reviews (I avoided this thread as well) I did hear that Brantley was a bit "ehhh". I...

Glad to learn this. I like Kind a lot.

And suggesting Nathan Lane for every woman's role is even more tiresome.

Kad: totally agree. I had no idea. And I never laugh at shows, but I was keeling over with laughter at it. Like, 'side-splitting' laughter.