INTO THE WOODS reviews.....- Page 3

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 1:16am

I did not know that Morgan James worked for Talkin' Broadway!

[PlayItAgain]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 1:18am

Even with the bad NYT review, theres so many other raves i'd be very shocked to not see this on broadway by seasons end

[Visceral_Fella]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 1:39am

"I did not know that Morgan James worked for Talkin' Broadway!"

This has made my night, haha.

I've been following this thread, and I say "****" every time I see a mixed or bad review. I really want this to transfer, but I'm not as confident now.



Updated On: 8/10/12 at 01:39 AM

[MazingerZ]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 2:18am

The show that I saw tonight is reflected in the reviews by the NY Times, AMNY, NYPost, and definitely Talkin' Broadway. Bravo for them. The production was out of focus, and a mess. The performances were on average bland and uninteresting. How can they put so much money into something like this? I agree with Talkin' Broadway that the Wolf "eating" Red Riding Hood as in giving her oral sex, was too much and unnecessary. Also the narrator being a kid, doesn't work. The reviews that I mentioned above speak the truth. I hope this show never transfers anywhere, and can soon be forgotten.









Updated On: 8/10/12 at 02:18 AM

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 2:20am

Broadway World hasn't reviewed the show.

[jv92]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 2:41am

I'm not a big Ben Brantley lover either, bwayphreak, but I have to agree with him on this one. I had high hopes, but it just didn't do it for me.

I was, however, really moved by the staging of "Children Will Listen." THAT'S when the little boy narrator concept worked for me. Too bad I had to sit through 2 hrs and 55 minutes of the rest of it. I think the idea of INTO THE WOODS in Central Park is wonderful-- I just wish the production had been better.

[binau]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 6:05am

This discussion has probably be 'done to death' but to be clear is the consensus that the production has 'lost' something transferring from Regent Park, or is the problem here that the Regent Park production is inherently misconceived?

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 7:56am

That Matthew Murray review is hilarious. I will read it again and again.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 8:09am

It's a sad state of affairs that one man at the Times still has so much power, i honestly don't know why. Surely audiences can make up their own mind. His opinion should be guide like here in the UK, not something that is decision making, that's just beyond sad.

[AnythingGoes23]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 8:09am

How can you have a source who says the times reviews has caused the transfer to not happen. The review was only out hours ago!

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 8:20am

Yes AlfieByrne, I did take into consideration the prices Scalpers are selling tickets to this production as well as the longevity of the previous two Broadway runs. Those are things I would seriously pay attention to if I were an investor considering putting out a lot of money with any thought of a return on investment. Now when you add the mixed reviews and poor word of mouth for a very limited engagement that has a unique spin of being Into the Woods outside...it doesn't look promising from an investor point of view.

I am not a fan of reviews. I read them but they do not influence my decision to attend or not attend a show. Unfortunately all too often the general public does read them and attend based upon what they are told.

I love Into the Woods. I've loved it for years. Saw the Original Broadway production and revival, love the CD and DVD (which is MIA in my house and I am going nuts wishing I can watch it now). Still not seeing that a transfer is going to be financially or critically successful let alone wanted by an audience beyond genuine followers of Broadway.

I too enjoyed the Matthew Murray piece.

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 8:21am

"And neither of the last two ITW productions turned a profit on Broadway."

I wonder why.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 9:03am

Looks like things have been mostly favorable. Besides Brantley they have a solid bunch of reviews.

Though I disagree with Murray's vitriol, I will agree with him on Glick. I've found him grating in everything I've seen him in. Positively one-note.

I am thrilled to see Mueller getting some well-deserved attention!

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 10:07am

I read with interest these lines from Matthew Murray's review:

"It's crucial to the plot that a cow be white, so why does the ramshackle War Horse–style puppet used here have a brown body? If the giant that terrorizes the newly independent villagers is supposed to be threatening, why is it the spitting image of Dame Edna?"


Does anyone notice the irony here?


The text of Into the Woods is not being respected. Milky White is supposed to be white, not brown. The giant is supposed to be threatening, not Dame Edna.

So now the glass slipper is on the other foot.

Good.

Because Cinderella is supposed to marry the prince and live happily ever after.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 10:10am

I think it's interesting that neither previous Broadway productions turned a profit, yet the show is (I believe) the most licensed of any Sondheim show ever. I think the subject matter (and his work) are the reasons why so many high schools, community theatres, colleges, stock and regional companies have done it and continue to do it.

Yet the Broadway productions "flopped" (according to the accountants).

I don't think these reviews are any clear indication of whether or not the show will or should transfer. One of the major complaints critics have is about the "unmanageable" set, which couldn't transfer to a Broadway house "as is" anyway.

Who knows? I actually think a movie adaptation would be closer to a reality than another Broadway revival. But if they can get the names to go with it and perhaps do a limited run, I could see it happening.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 10:27am

It is worth noting, as several have, that the Times review does not reflect the consensus among mainstream critics. Yet the points Brantley raises also point so an aspect of this staging against transfer: It's not all that child-friendly. You probably don't do INTO THE WOODS a third time, in today's fragile climate, and not look for the WICKED overflow. This is a kind of deconstruction of the show, and the employment of a child as narrator (shaky for reasons persuasively argued by Brantley and others) doesn't help children identify, since the stylization is best appreciated by at least teenagers. Who aren't exactly top ticket purchasers. Who would be the target for this show on Broadway? Sondheim fans -- there's that first three months of the FOLLIES run -- and die-hards. And then? The concepts at play in this show will make it harder for anyone to recommend it to traditional "family" audiences. And that is actually clearly explained even in the good reviews.

[dreaming]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 10:41am

Auggie-I think if this transfers, it will be a strictly limited run, especially with the cast having such limited availability. So, it's not likely they are looking at an open-ended run.

And don't we have enough kiddie fare? (Disney, plus Matilda coming, all those holiday shows and Annie). It's sometimes nice to have some adult entertainment-even if it doesn't last as long as the kiddie oriented stuff.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 10:57am

Ah, After Eight, ever the maestro of false equivalence!

[jv92]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 10:59am

The first Broadway production didn't recoup? I thought it made a small profit.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 11:26am

So the only thing Murray liked about this production was Denis O'Hare..? K.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 11:49am

A limited run? How could that be financially feasible? The transfer costs are extraordinary -- starting with the physical production; ostensibly, a new set is required -- and the nut would not be small with or without Adams (but really, would this move without her?). I'm not clear: Who would transfer a show so severely panned by the Times for 3-6 month run? What would the expectation be? "Best Revival" Tony if not a profit? Profit still rules and I don't see what's in this for anyone, if it's not an established artistic success.

[dreaming]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 11:56am

Auggie-Lots of shows come in as limited runs now. I don't know what expectations they have as far as profit/awards goes, but I think a limited run is the only way this thing is going to make it with the key cast members. As for the upfront costs, I cannot imagine it's any more than most transfers. A limited run might make it a 'hotter' ticket and therefore sell it out-particularly if Adams is prominently featured. Just saying...

And the Times is the only critic that didn't like it (Matthew Murray aside). As pointed out, Mr. Brantley has an odd tendency to like things once they transfer. (I don't get that, but it's how he is.) I don't think he should deter any producers from taking a chance on this show, the production of which I prefer to last season's production of Follies.

[artscallion]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 12:16pm

Is Amy Adams really as big a name/draw as people are making out? The only things I associate her with are Junebug (small but memorable role,) Enchanted (that kids' movie I wanted to see but never got around to) and Julie & Julia (terrific performance of a really unlikable character.) I know she's done more. But I just don't think that she's a big enough asset/draw to cling to if her performance is pretty unanimously being reviewed as "adequate".

I say a transfer should include the necessary cast changes (Adams & O'Hare). Costumes would probably be made more "Broadway" as a matter of course. The set would necessarily be more intimate, solving a few issues. A transfer actually might be just what this show needs to bring it into focus, making it work.

[dreaming]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 12:18pm

Artscallion-I think if O'Hare were taken away and replaced with someone who had better chemistry with Adams, she'd be fine. They need to keep her-and yes, she is a big enough draw.

I also think it would work in a proscenium setting just fine. I'd be fascinated to see how it would change for a transfer.

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 12:19pm

Considering Adams and O'Hare received mostly positive reviews, I doubt they'd be replaced. Although I would love a new Baker. I don't see it transferring without Adams; I think she would definitely be a draw.


Updated On: 8/10/12 at 12:19 PM