I'll bet you are right. I'm going in with an open mind and hoping for the best. I'm not one of those who go to a show looking to hate or be mean. That said, if it sucks, I will say so! If it is awesome, I will shout it from the rooftops... LOL
What is going on with BWW review system? On the review ratings, they called the Times review 7/10, which it obviously is not. (Brantley basically says it's awful in the first sentence.) Just seems as if BWW didn't even read the review.
I know the Daily News is like the kid from the other side of the tracks and the Times is the kid from the best family in town. Having said that they gave it a favorable review while acknowledging some of the weaker points . This is criticism not self masturbation as Brantley is wont to do in his reviews .
Having typed that, I'm not surprised that it received the reviews it did. What I have noticed, over the many years I have attended the theater, is that reviews are often written in response to the aura and buzz projected around a production. Let me explain... Shows like Rocky, which arrive with a fanfare often have a much harder time getting a positive review. It happens, but its a difficult slope, and the more the show's pre-word is "the next great thing", the more difficult getting the critics onboard. Conversely, shows that are modest in their approach have a far greater chance at positive notices.
I think its a hubris sort of thing, perhaps mixed with expectations. Rocky's arrival was grand and it feels that in some ways the critics needed to put it in its place.
Now, this isn't always the case. Phantom of the Opera arrived with a greater anticipation and we all know how that turned out.
Anyway, as I wrote above, I loved Rocky and despite its lukewarm reception with several key critics, I hope it finds its audience and prospers. For those who were thinking of attending, still do. You might find yourself more than pleasantly surprised.
ARTc3 formerly ARTc. Actually been a poster since 2004. My name isn't Art. Drop the "3" and say the signature and you'll understand.
How dare you have the audacity to enjoy the show when several key critics said you had no right to. You cannot exercise free will and demand you take back your praise.
Only kidding. Glad you enjoyed it and like you I hope it finds an audience and is able to stick a finger at the nastier critics.
It kind of makes no sense for 2 guys pummeling each other to break into a song.
To Art 3
Exactly. After the Producers, Young Frankenstein (which we liked) had a lot of hoopla surrounding it. I knew the critics would not stage another love fest and had to put Brooks in his place. This is exactly what happened. Clowns like Brantley do not like to be shown up and like the bully he is he will only get nastier. It is sort of like poking a dog with a stick. Poke enough and the dog attacks.
I wasn't suggesting they should, just wondering if there has ever been another musical that had songs throughout building up to... no big final song. Can't think of any.
The original version of Little Me ended with a series of scenes. "Here's To Us" sounds like a finale, but is three scenes before the ending in the original book. The revival incorporates "Here's To Us" closer to the end, but also adds a reprise of "I Love You" to close the final scene, instead of a tableau.
I was on the fence about seeing this before the reviews came out--now I definitely will go. I want to see how they do the boxing ring at the end. That sounds amazing.
Brantley's review doesn't really seem out-of-line with the other critics or even many board reviews in this thread. I don't always agree with Brantley, but 20+ years as a Times Theater critic is more than enough experience to qualify him. And I find some serious irony in seeing posters in this thread who clearly have a vested, but undisclosed, interest in shows taking pot shots at Brantley's background without revealing their own.
Seeing the Brantley-bash suddenly spread to other threads for shows he hasn't even reviewed yet just makes this seem like a childish hissy-fit. It is possible to defend the show you care about without resorting to that.
"And I find some serious irony in seeing posters in this thread who clearly have a vested, but undisclosed, interest in shows taking pot shots at Brantley's background without revealing their own."