HOLIDAY INN Reviews- Page 2

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 10/8/16 at 4:31pm

There were so many classics that Roundabout could have revived, so I was already disappointed in the choice to do a commercial Berlin jukebox musical.  These reviews just make me even more disappointed.

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 10/8/16 at 11:01pm

The Wall Street Journal review accused Roundabout of just cynically producing a show of no substance that would generate a lot of cash for them.

With an average ticket price of $59 and capacity in the sixties and seventies, it must be really cheap to put on if it's generating lots of cash for them.

[DramaTeach]

Posted: 10/10/16 at 7:59am

Perhaps it was because of low expectations due to the reviews on here, but I thoroughly enjoyed my little respite at Holiday Inn.  It's like eating a doughnut - sugary and sweet, and while you know you shouldn't want it, you really do.  On a day that ended in the depths of humanity at the presidential debate, Holiday Inn was a nice moment of class and innocence. 

Updated On: 10/10/16 at 07:59 AM

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 10/10/16 at 10:30am

http://exeuntmagazine.com/reviews/review-holiday-inn-studio-54/

[MANDYPATINKIN2012]

Posted: 10/10/16 at 9:29pm

I still loved it.  Happy to see there are some positive takes out there as well - 

http://variety.com/2016/legit/reviews/holiday-inn-review-broadway-1201880340/

[MANDYPATINKIN2012]

Posted: 10/10/16 at 9:29pm

I still loved it.  Happy to see there are some positive takes out there as well - 

http://variety.com/2016/legit/reviews/holiday-inn-review-broadway-1201880340/

[mpkie]

Posted: 10/10/16 at 9:37pm

Can someone explain why this show is constantly said to be "cheap"? It certainly doesn't look cheap -- it looks rather polished. They have beautiful costumes for their entire large chorus of dancers that change for every single number, they have moving set pieces, pyrotechnics, etc.

Please don't discredit the cast either by calling it a cheap show, they are pouring their full energy into this as well, and not once did I ever feel they were phoning it in.

Someone please explain the economics of what cheap vs. not cheap means when it comes to mounting a show.

Full disclosure: I am someone who loved the show, I brought my mom and she loved it too. Although I don't feel like I need to see it again, I definitely wouldn't mind it. I liked it more than She Loves Me, and I saw that twice and paid for the BroadwayHD to see it twice again. I can't understand why that was such a huge darling here when it seemed like such a basic, cliche plot.

[BenjaminNicholas2]

Posted: 10/10/16 at 10:05pm

I thought it was charming and good entertainment

 

Was it at the level of, say, Crazy For You?  No.  It didn't have several of those showstopping Sto moments, but it was on the whole a very entertaining production.

[Copperfield2]

Posted: 10/11/16 at 9:50am

I am one of those few I guess who hated Crazy for You on Broadway. I saw the first cast and might have liked it more with Karen Ziemba. It wasn't until I saw the show done at Stratford Ontario with new choreography that I really loved the show.

I saw Holiday Inn with Noah Lacey, Patti Murin and Gavin Lee (who was a replacement!) near the end of its runs at Goodspeed and it had a great deal of charm. It's a shame Patti and Noah weren't brought back. I was afraid in its Broadway transfer the show would be pushed to be bigger and broader.

I will see this version two weekends from now.

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 10/11/16 at 1:23pm

Thanks for the informative reviews. I would never had made the connections to the MGM films.

I think that people younger than the Boomers probably don't get turned on much by Irving Berlin. Most are at least a little familiar with Cole Porter, Rodgers and Hart, and George Gershwin.

Thinking, for example of the very popular When Harry Met Sally, which included some Gershwin and Rodgers & Hart, especially the very fitting last two lines of "I Could Write a Book" used at the climax:

Then the world discovers as my book ends
How to make two lovers of friends.

[decotodd]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 4:23pm

I love the original 1942 film (Paramount not MGM) which is much better than the later semi remake WhiteChristmas from the mid 1950s. 

But the new musical does seem like a cynical attempt to take some old Berlin songs and bring in the non-discerning holiday tourist dollar. I must confess that similar fear initially kept me away from American in Paris, which turned out to be a delightful surprise. I loved Bryce P in GG -- Maybe I will give this a try 

Updated On: 10/13/16 at 04:23 PM

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 10/16/16 at 12:06pm

mpkie said: "Can someone explain why this show is constantly said to be "cheap"? It certainly doesn't look cheap -- it looks rather polished. They have beautiful costumes for their entire large chorus of dancers that change for every single number, they have moving set pieces, pyrotechnics, etc.

Please don't discredit the cast either by calling it a cheap show, they are pouring their full energy into this as well, and not once did I ever feel they were phoning it in."
 

Other people here could answer this far better than me, but since they won't take the trouble, I would say a cheap show to produce has no big stars that command a big weekly salary, no 30 piece orchestra that must be paid according to union agreements, no complex set and lighting that require many stagehands to function and no large chorus. It's not a revival of a monster Broadway hit that would cost the musical big bucks to license, and the organization that is putting on the show already owns the theater and does not have to pay any rent.

There is not reason to question your status as a discriminating musical fan for liking Holiday Inn. Take the best songs of one of the great composers, performed by a talented and ingratiating cast, and it would be strange if you didn't enjoy the show. The book is not very deep, but not different from the plots of the many MGM musicals that are called classics.

But don't expect the critics, professional and amateur, to gush over this type of musical, which bears a closer resemblance to the jukebox musicals than to standard book musicals. Even the most respected jukebox musicals did not get much respect from Brantley. He called Beautiful a "friendly, formulaic bio-musical." Complained that "[i]n its first act, the show seems to exhaust itself — it sure exhausted me — as it dutifully wedges such songs into production numbers." 

The only praise he had for the production was for Jesse Mueller, and she received a lot of it. In the same review, Brantley also said that "Jersey Boys demonstrated that you can’t go broke helping AARP members recall the soundtrack of their youths."

So don't feel guilty about enjoying it. And even if it did fall into the category of "guilty pleasures," we're all allowed a good number of those. Consider Brantley and Honeymoon in Vegas. (I know, quite a few folks agreed with Brantley, but not enough of those buying tickets.)

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 10/16/16 at 12:07pm

mpkie said: "Can someone explain why this show is constantly said to be "cheap"? It certainly doesn't look cheap -- it looks rather polished. They have beautiful costumes for their entire large chorus of dancers that change for every single number, they have moving set pieces, pyrotechnics, etc.

Please don't discredit the cast either by calling it a cheap show, they are pouring their full energy into this as well, and not once did I ever feel they were phoning it in."
 

Other people here could answer this far better than me, but since they won't take the trouble, I would say a cheap show to produce has no big stars that command a big weekly salary, no 30 piece orchestra that must be paid according to union agreements, no complex set and lighting that require many stagehands to function and no large chorus. It's not a revival of a monster Broadway hit that would cost the musical big bucks to license, and the organization that is putting on the show already owns the theater and does not have to pay any rent.

There is not reason to question your status as a discriminating musical fan for liking Holiday Inn. Take the best songs of one of the great composers, performed by a talented and ingratiating cast, and it would be strange if you didn't enjoy the show. The book is not very deep, but not different from the plots of the many MGM musicals that are called classics.

But don't expect the critics, professional and amateur, to gush over this type of musical, which bears a closer resemblance to the jukebox musicals than to standard book musicals. Even the most respected jukebox musicals did not get much respect from Brantley. He called Beautiful a "friendly, formulaic bio-musical." Complained that "[i]n its first act, the show seems to exhaust itself — it sure exhausted me — as it dutifully wedges such songs into production numbers." 

The only praise he had for the production was for Jesse Mueller, and she received a lot of it. In the same review, Brantley also said that "Jersey Boys demonstrated that you can’t go broke helping AARP members recall the soundtrack of their youths."

So don't feel guilty about enjoying it. And even if it did fall into the category of "guilty pleasures," we're all allowed a good number of those. Consider Brantley and Honeymoon in Vegas. (I know, quite a few folks agreed with Brantley, but not enough of those buying tickets.)

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 12/22/16 at 2:43am

I saw this tonight, I thought I was a charming old fashioned show that provided great entertainment and the big numbers were great. I didn't love it, but I liked it a lot! Two thumbs up. 

[Different Drum]

Posted: 12/22/16 at 8:43am

My partner and I caught Holiday Inn recently and found the show charming and entertaining. Sure it's old fashioned, but it's not trying to reinvent the wheel. The songs are great and the choreography is fantastic. All that being said, I'm not sure how a musical like this fits into the Roundabout's mandate.

[theatreguy12]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 11:02am

Someone asked earlier how it compares to White Christmas.  I recently caught a performance of WC at the Pantages, on a whim, and ended up really liking it.  I know it was on Broadway some time ago and has been on the touring circuit for a number of years.  I thought what the heck. I'll give it a try.  And I was in need of some holiday cheer.

It really delivered for me.  Great performances!  Of some great classic hits.

Of course, I'm not one who needs an emotionally deep, message musical about the human experience at every turn either. Though I love those too.  The cathartic impact of a DEH, N2N, Rent, can really be what the doctor ordered too.

I can also have that need for fluff on occasion.  So was wondering how this compares to WC.  It sounds like some posters on here are appreciating it for what it is, and leaving satisfied.

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 11:46am

Every dinner party I've been to in the past month has had at least one person mentioning how they want to go see this show, which is so interesting to me because the reaction from most on here is quite the opposite. Just a random little tidbit. It seems to have some sort of buzz outside the usual theater crowd. 

Updated On: 12/23/16 at 11:46 AM