Guys and Dolls Review Posts go here!- Page 3

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 10:21pm

Updated On: 3/1/09 at 10:21 PM

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 10:36pm

It's up.
http://theater2.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/theater/reviews/02guys.html

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 10:42pm

Damn.

How did they manage to screw up Guys and Dolls?

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 10:44pm

The New York Times (with Ben Brantley) is VERY NEGATIVE:

"Certain words, in certain contexts, are best left unspoken. In Des McAnuff’s uninspired new revival of “Guys and Dolls” at the Nederlander Theater that word happens to be “chemistry.” It is dropped — with a thud and a shatter — and hovers for the rest of the evening like a neon-lighted reproach.

“Chemistry?” says Sarah Brown (Kate Jennings Grant), the rigid Salvation Army officer, with a dropped jaw and you’ve-gotta-be-kidding italics. She has just been told, by the handsome gambler Sky Masterson (Craig Bierko), that love is something that can’t be planned or anticipated. Miss Brown is having none of this radical concept.

Oh, Sarah, Sarah, I do so know where you’re coming from. Chemistry is something you don’t understand until you experience it, with all the attendant happy chills and dizziness. And, honey, there ain’t no chemistry in your show: not between the two pairs of leading lovers, or between the singers and their songs, or the actors and their parts."

http://theater2.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/theater/reviews/02guys.html

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 10:44pm

Much of what made Jerry Zaks’s 1992 revival so heavenly was the quirky credibility of its stars, especially Faith Prince, who found the key to Miss Adelaide as much in the stripper’s bone-deep tiredness as in her celebrated sniffles and coughs.

So sad, so true.

If it really is 2 million against 9, I don't see it ever recouping. And to think we'll have to wait at least another decade for another attempt to have a revival that is worthy.

[JasonM12480]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 10:50pm

Oh, Broadway. What on earth are you doing??

Maybe they'll get it right next time.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 10:52pm

McAnuff seems to be the culprit. At least, from the reviews. Pacing, chemistry, misconceived, mis-designed, etc. It all leads to him at some point. I'll be seeing this next week and will make my opinion then, but it isn't looking good.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 10:54pm

Brantley's review wasn't half as bad as I was expecting.

[nlm]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 10:56pm

If it really is 2 million against 9, I don't see it ever recouping.

Especially if it's over the $10 million they're been tossing around now. It reminds me of the Variety article last week that talked about the weeks when Legally Blonde wasn't breaking even. It's an out there comparison I know, but like G&D it was on a $10 million budget. So when LB was grossing approx $500,000 per week it wasn't breaking even because the cost was approx. $650,000 a week to run the show. So going by that comparison, G&D would have to pull in around at least $650,000 per week to start recouping.
Updated On: 3/1/09 at 10:56 PM

[singtopher]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 11:07pm

Wow, we can't even put on a decent production of Guys and Dolls.

[Sauja]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 11:19pm

What is up with this season?? I mean...Pal Joey, A Tale of Two Cities, 13, The Story of My Life... Broadway suddenly seems incapable of turning out a good new musical OR revival. Fingers EVER so tightly crossed for 9 to 5, West Side Story, Next to Normal, and Hair.

I realize Billy Elliott and title of show have numerous supporters. One of them I didn't see, and the other left me underwhelmed. So...the only ON Broadway musical treat for me this season was Liza.

[Dolly_Levi]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 11:20pm

I'm sad to read these reviews.
The production sounds like a bomb from top to bottom.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 11:42pm

I am sad also Dolly. Mainly because GUYS & DOLLS usually has enough sparkle that even lacklustre community stagings can work.

I have fond memories of the 1992 revival, which had sparkle to spare.

At least in this case there is no need to worry about a cast album with so many very fine recordings of the score already in print.

I'd rather the labels concentrate on titles that are not already recorded.

[HITcards]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 11:42pm

I didn't see it, but apparently the guy from WNBC loved it. He said it was the best thing he's seen since South Pacific. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 12:01am

Maybe he had a good dinner.

[inlovewithjerryherman]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 12:18am

haha - that was funny, paljoey.

IMO, the reason this show has gone so haywire is because it was so rushed.

From the way the reviews read as far as performances and staging are concerned, it just seems like everyone is self-conscious and hasn't quite found their "groove" yet.

it's underrehearsed. they didn't have an out-of-town tryout, they didn't really get much of a chance for anything - they had barely finished casting four months ago - rushed rushed rushed.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 12:26am

There really should have been an out of town tryout. I agree.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 1:07am

It's really a major accomplishment to screw up this badly.

This is on par with Rockaby Hamlet, except that was a crapsicle (I worked on the original in Charlottetown and it was poo poo there) and this is GUYS AND DOLLS for G sake. You don't mess with Guys and Dolls, you don't change the concept, tinker with the setting or period. You put it up, put it up well and people will come. Hell, it ran with an all black cast and a hip jazz orchestration and got better reviews and 239 performances, which I daresay will far outlast this one..

[A Director]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 2:26am

How did they manage to screw up Guys and Dolls?

As someone I knew once said about a bad production, "They must have practiced to be that bad."

Form some of the reviews, it appears that Des was trying to recreate the movie version on stage. As Orson Wells said to Abe Burrows about the movie, "Abe, they dropped at turd on your show."

Wonder what the Burrows and Loesser estates think of the production?

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 3:44am

I didn't like it when I saw it. I couldn't tell if I hated the show or this production. Maybe it's both? But this production is def. lacking.

[Rentfan931]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 3:54am

I kinda wonder how long this will run now that the reviews are out.

[Kevn520]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 5:32am

I saw this last week. It didn't do anything for me. I went into this without knowing anything of Guys & Dolls. I enjoyed score immensely. The first act I think was saved by Kate Jennings Grant. She had this stage presence that the other 3 leads lacked. She kept my attention. I enjoyed the dancing in both acts. Mary Testa stole the show and had me laughing so hard I was crying (not Tony-worthy, but funny as hell).

Despite the above, I felt the rest of the show plodded along. I didn't know if this was just because of the show or not. It kept my attention only because the story was new to me.

[jordangirl]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 5:40am

Looks like they'll have to go to the NBC station here in NYC for a POSITIVE review. Sadly, that piece of crap is not to be found on their website, but I sat there with my mouth open in shock as he heaped praise on it.

My favorite (SARCASM) was when he compared it to last season's South Pacific saying it was up there in quality with SP.

I don't think he saw the same show the rest of us did...

[KingKong]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 6:06am

Maybe he had a good dinner.


or a handy in the back row?

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 6:46am

I didn't see this posted yet.

The New York Post: 2/4 stars

"This production of Frank Loesser's masterpiece is a puzzle, all right: How can something so zippy be so tedious? As his megahit "Jersey Boys" showed, McAnuff is great at keeping things moving. He smoothly segues from Nathan and Adelaide's scenes to the show's other star-crossed couple, gambler Sky Masterson (Craig Bierko) and Save-a-Soul do-gooder Sarah Brown (Kate Jennings Grant), and makes colorful use of the flashy showgirls and small-time crooks Damon Runyon, on whose stories the book is based, so vividly brought to life.
But McAnuff just can't ratchet up the energy at crucial times, a problem that's particularly glaring since "Guys and Dolls" is packed with fantastic songs. Typically, when Mary Testa's Gen. Cartwright hijacks "Sit Down, You're Rockin' the Boat," her rude 10-second eruption slaps the audience awake and into spontaneous applause."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03022009/news/columnists/this_revival_is_a_bad_bet_157635.htm