Young Frankenstein Review- Page 3

[gumbo2]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 12:25am

brooksfan, that's written in the script.

I didn't like it as much as everyone has seemed to. It was definitely entertaining, what with the massive (and amazing) sets, and the dancing was great. The performances were definitely the best part, namely Christopher Fitzgerald and Megan Mullaly.

It seems like it has all the pieces to be a great show but it doesn't quite click. I thought that most of the songs were pretty forgettable and there were some really hysterical jokes, but they were sprinkled into a script with a lot of mediocre ones. Puttin' On The Ritz was probably the highlight for me, it was turned into an awesome production number, but other than that I wasn't particularly thrilled.

I saw it on August 21st so it sounds like they've done some tweaking and cutting here and there. I wish it the best and I'm sure it'll do amazingly on Broadway (what with all the hype and Mel Brooks' name and all). Maybe it just wasn't my cup of tea. And to answer a question posed earlier in the thread, I thought the music in The Producers was significantly better than this.

If you see the show I think it's hard not to be entertained, but I was underwhelmed by the product as a whole.

[WickedForever2]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 3:12am

The hump thing is supposed to happen. And that's sad Andrea was out, she might be the best part of the show... And yes they always had barriers when I went, please tell me they haven't taken them down. That always make life more hellish at the SD and I am in serious need of better pics next weekend.

[MsNina]

Posted: 8/28/07 at 6:14pm

I was at the same show as brooksfan, and while I was disappointed to see that Andrea Martin was out, Linda Mugleston covered the Blucher role quite effortlessly and won the same raves from me as others have given Martin. Her timing was flawless, she and Christopher Fitzgerald stole the show.

Roger Bart was fantastic, the man has got talent to spare (luckily the rest of the cast does not need it). Megan Mullally was hysterical, her Elizabeth has some glaring similarities to Karen from W&G, but she was my favorite part of that show, so of course I did not mind it. Seeing her perform "Deep Love" is worth the ticket price alone. Christopher Fitzgerald was hilarious, I have this image of him striking a pose before going out to find the monster... his physical comedy just killed me. Shuler Hensley was a fun to watch and shines in "Puttin' on the Ritz."

The rest of the cast was great as well, the only (dare I say) disappointment was (really brace yourselves people) Sutton Foster. Honestly, it was the material she was given to work with that was disappointing. I'll admit it, it was odd seeing her play a sexy bombshell with legs and boobs everywhere, but her singing was perfect, she danced the hell out of the choregraphy, and she easily got the biggest laugh of the night with "I only laughed once" (along with a little help from Roger Bart). But she did seem to fade from the spotlight (crazy, considering how much stage time she had), because she either wasn't given enough to do or was overpowered by another performance or even the sets(!). During "Roll in the Hay" I was paying a surprisingly large amount of attention to the cool projected backdrop than the actual song. WickedForever2 was sure right about the competition on stage. I left feeling a tad disappointed about her part, I guess I had high expectations because it was Sutton Foster, but realized that Inga could be played by anyone.

Speaking of the sets, they were insane. The laboratory was especially delicious. It was a major character in the show, much like the house in Mary Poppins. However, some were just plain ridiculous, like the ship in the third scene of the first act. With a gigantic set piece that only spend five minutes on stage, the producers made it clear that an ungodly amount of money was spent on this show.

But that's pretty much Young Frankenstein in a nutshell: overwhelming and in your face. As mentioned before, it is a prisoner of the movie with the majority of the gags being easily spotted from a mile away. I can't wait to hear what kind of comparisons this show will draw with The Producers, which was far less faithful to it's original material compared to Young Frankenstein. I feel like as of today, The Producers is the better show, but hopefully Young Frank will get tightened up enough to surpass that Brooks behemoth because the cast deserves it and the creative team certainly outdoes their Producers work. The the songs were witty (although there were some forgetable ones) and were given rich orchestrations by Doug Besterman. As a side note, Peter Kaczorowski should be given some sort of trophy (or at least a Pontiac convertable). Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the show. I would rank it about the same level as Curtains (which, as you probably guessed, I also enjoyed). Nothing prolific, but a great time nontheless.

[broadwaybaby086]

Posted: 10/13/07 at 1:45am

I went tonight, had a good time. I'm not a huge Mel Brooks fan, which I remembered about halfway into the first act; his comedy just doesn't sit with me. It's funny, but I don't laugh out loud, usually. Christopher Fitzgerald was the standout for me, overall. I wasn't sold by act 1, but really enjoyed act 2. Act 1 felt very long, a bit longer than 1:15, I believe, so hopefully that'll be shaved down. The scenery to "Roll in the Hay" was brilliant. I was a little too excited about the tesla coil because a) there was a freaking tesla coil on stage and b) the frequency was adjusted to fit the key of the song. Nice.

I was sitting in the lotto seats, so the strobe lighting was a bit intense for me, and the fog drying to the throat. But after seeing act 2, I'd definitely like to try again! I definitely would not pay $450 for that. Not...ever.

Updated On: 10/13/07 at 01:45 AM