Guys and Dolls Review Posts go here!- Page 2

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 7:44pm

http://www.usatoday.com/life/theater/reviews/2009-03-01-guys-and-dolls_N.htm

[CSonBroadway]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 7:46pm

Well I admire her for being such a TV actress and wanting to do something different.

[Theatreboy49]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 7:46pm

I agree that not only is she not a name but really none of them are. I think producers dropped the ball a few years ago not bringing the london production with ewan mcgregor and jane krokowski over.

[Schmerg_The_Impaler]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 7:47pm

I didn't understand the nagging about Oliver Platt at first. All I needed to see was the 30 second clip of him singing and I agree with the nagging.

What clip is this? Now my curiosity's piqued (and I can't find anything on YOUknowwhatsite or the official site).

[whatever2]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 7:48pm

AP is negative:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/03/01/arts/AP-Theater-Review-Guys-and-Dolls.html

this is close to my favorite musical, but i have no interest in seeing this production -- simply put, it was fatally miscast.

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 7:48pm

I think they mean the clip from NY1.

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 7:50pm

Lizzie posted USA Today (** 1/2 stars)

Imagine having dinner in a fabulous restaurant with two couples. One pair is delightfully witty and has sizzling chemistry; the other two seem so awkward that it's almost painful to be with them.
That's something akin to the uneven, frustrating experience offered by the new revival of Guys and Dolls (* * ½ out of four) that opened Sunday at the Nederlander Theatre.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/theater/reviews/2009-03-01-guys-and-dolls_N.htm

[KChenowethfan]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 7:53pm

I admit I am a bit of a Lauren Graham fangirl and although the she was still finding her way when I saw the show a few weeks ago, she was by far not the worst thing about this production. The role isn't really suited to her, I don't think, but she was by no means horrible.

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 7:55pm

Oh God what I would have given for the MacGregor/Krakowski or Reilly/Hathaway/Wilson/Messing productions to happen.

What an uninspiring cast they got. I mean, really.

[Schmerg_The_Impaler]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 7:57pm

Oh gosh. Just saw the NY1 clip. And... Oliver Platt is...yucky. It's like he seemed too exhausted to DO or EXPRESS anything in every second of footage. Titus Burgess' Sit Down sounds awesome, though. If there's a cast recording, that'll be the one song I know I'll download.

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 8:02pm

My beloved Matthew pans again! See you in hell!

His idea of energy is Dustin O’Neill’s ugly video backdrops, which render this Guys and Dolls’s New York both unduly busy and one-dimensional when they’re not inspiring motion sickness. What he needed to do instead was inspire his cast to kinetic greatness, to help them unlock the frantic hearts that pursue profit and the opposite sex with equal abandon. That’s the only way to do true justice to Swerling, Burrows, Loesser, and - yes - Runyon himself.

http://talkinbroadway.com/world/index.html

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 9:02pm

They're not being as hard on Lauren Graham as I was expecting.

I am glad Mary Testa is getting positive notices for her small role.

[broadwayman17]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 9:19pm

Entertainment Weekly- C+
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20262306,00.html

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 9:35pm

Looks like Des is taking the Bad Blame.
It's a thin line between directing and re-invisioning a classic Musical and pasting together Beatlemania, I mean JERSEY BOYS.
Everyone has their Ups and Downs in this business.
Updated On: 3/1/09 at 09:35 PM

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 9:36pm

Backstage is a PAN:

"Did someone forget to baptize Guys and Dolls? Seems unlikely — but how else to explain why a nigh-perfect musical entertainment has been plunged into limbo, suspended between cartoon and noir in director Des McAnuff's appalling revival. Of course, there are worse places than limbo — but we go there too. Perhaps McAnuff thought he was directing The Divine Comedy?"

http://www.backstage.com/bso/news_reviews/nyc/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003946486

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 9:43pm

The Chicago Tribune is negative.

"NEW YORK— Broadway has always been a floating crap game. But as this show-killing recession deepens, beleaguered producers are clearly feeling like every new opening is like attempting a Hail Mary pass against Big Jule’s crooked dice.
The first Broadway revival of the musical “Guys and Dolls” since Nathan Lane and Faith Prince cracked up the Rialto with their follies nearly two decades ago offers a sense of what it must have felt like to been one of the victims during the St. Valentine’s Day massacre.
You’re on the wrong end of a whole lot of intense, desperate scatter-shot.
Des McAnuff’s strangely cast, uncharacteristically insecure and weirdly unfunny revival—which features Oliver Platt as the perennial bachelor Nathan Detroit and “Gilmore Girl” Lauren Graham as Miss Adelaide—seems to have about six different concepts for this show, tries to do them all at once, and manages to make none of them land."

http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/the_theater_loop/2009/03/gus-and-dolls-on-broada-a-floating-crap-game-ith-mriad-directions.html

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 9:51pm

It's so sad that McAnuff basically wasted a revival of GUYS & DOLLS. We could have had the great West End production transfer--and I wouldn't have minded waiting till Krakowski became available to be part of it, or we could have waited for a great director or great cast to assemble for the show. It's not like anyone was jonesing for a production of the show starring Lauren Graham and Olvier Platt that just needed to happen now.
It seems like every single review has mentioned Mary Testa. Good for her.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 9:52pm

Who the hell put this little girl in this hideous costume, wig and hat?

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 9:53pm

It seems pretty clear WEST SIDE STORY will win Best Revival. Yeah, I know HAIR is still to come.

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 9:54pm

The Hollywood Reporter is MIXED-TO-NEGATIVE:

""Guys and Dolls" is a nearly perfect musical, which it has to be to survive the frequent mistreatment it receives in the new revival staged by Des McAnuff. Filled with lavish directorial touches that add little to the proceedings and featuring several surprisingly pallid performances, the show still manages to provide a good time thanks to the brilliance of Frank Loesser's score and the hilarity of Jo Swerling and Abe Burrows' book. But those with strong memories of the superb 1992 revival starring Nathan Lane, Faith Prince and Peter Gallagher will find much to quibble about here."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/theater-review-guys-and-dolls-1003946470.story

[jovie27]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 9:57pm

How come Joan Marcus did not do the Production Shots?

[Rentfan931]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 10:07pm

Maybe I missed it while checking the thread, but did Brantley post his review yet?

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 10:08pm

Theatermania (mixed?):

"As America endures what might be called "The Great Recession," it's fascinating that in the revival of the classic musical Guys and Dolls, now at the Nederlander Theatre, director Des McAnuff has shifted the action of the musical to "The Great Depression." McAnuff serves up a simultaneously razzmatazz and tawdry affair, which, despite Frank Loesser's dazzling score and Jo Swerling and Abe Burrows' top-drawer zingers, never fully transports audiences to a mythic New York,where a kind of perpetual sense of hopefulness exists, even when things are at their worst."

http://www.theatermania.com/new-york/reviews/03-2009/guys-and-dolls_17715.html

[Actor 7]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 10:10pm

Wow! These reviews are consistently poor. I would like to hear opinions as to how many weeks/months this GUYS & DOLLS will be playing at the Nederlander? Casting choices seem to be the most contentious issue that all of the reviewers seem to agree on. Too bad. I wonder why the preview period didn't provide the clues for the director and producers that serious miscasting of certain actors in certain roles could sink this revival? Is there any hope this may still play for five or six months? Serious estimates, PLEASE!

[Smaxie]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 10:20pm

Brantley is also negative.