THE ODD COUPLE - REVIEW

[OneEros69]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 1:01am

I saw this play on Wednesday October 19th. Since a week won't help this lemon, I figured I'd let the cat out of the bag before it opens. Yes... it really is that awful! First of all the play is dated and Neil Simon should update it, or he should ban it from being produced for another forty years so it can become a statement of the 60's. The original was funny. The actors were terrific. It held your attention. Do not expect this 2005 lemon to do the same. Everyone in the theatre was fidgeting. It was very smart of the Director (if there was a Director present for this mess) to perform this version with two act breaks, because if there were the three that it was written with, the only audience these performers would be playing to would be relatives. Attention Directors: Putting retro furniture on the stage is not ample reason for us to believe that what transpires in front of us... is taking place in the 60's. I want to know where Oscar lives because I never heard a car horn with all those open windows.

Nathan Lane is surprisingly good as Oscar. If any of you have had the opportunity to see Nathan Lane eating at Sardis, or anywhere else around town, he always appears to be the most miserable working actor on Broadway. Yet, get him on a stage, and he really does shine. His, Oscar is always belivable, likeable, and doesn't ever feel like a copy of those that came before him. Mathew Broderick on the other hand is aboslutely horrendous. Someone should rip him right off the stage and put Brad Garrett in his place. First of all you can not even hear Broderick, who it appears, is trying to channel Tony Randall, but somehow ended up getting one of the stooges. And not the funny one. One of the ones that has been turned into a zombie from Dawn of the Dead. Felix Unger IS anal-retentive. It's just not funny watching someone try to play an impersonation of an actor playing anal-retentive. Broderick obviously is not a method actor (not that that is always a good thing)just a cartoonish actor. You can just see him connecting A move to B move to C move. If I wanted to torture myself to prove the point, all I would have to do is go back and see the show the following evening, and I would bet you that Nathan Lane would give a great solid performance with a different twist, and we would watch Broderick perform the same sad tricks night after night. I'd bet big money and put my own money where my mouth is that I could do better with three days of rehearsal. His performance truly is that embarrassing.

Can't you just see the glee in the eyes of the producers when they put these two actors together again. All of them counting their money. Instant Trillionaires. Box office records. Tickets should be available soon. And if you have them, sell them to the idiots who are paying $1000 and laugh all the way to the bank because you won't be laughing during this production.

If the producers of this mess had any sense they would have realized that Garrett would have made a much better Felix. It's against type. Ever heard of that guys? Tryi it sometime. To see Garrett standing next to Nathan Lane is well... just funny to start with. Put an apron on him and you have an instant hit. It doesn't take a genius to figure this one out. He's an actor who actually understands comedic timing. Plays like "The Producers" and "Spamalot" are over the top comedys. The Odd Couple is a serious comedy. It is only funny when it is played seriously. I don't know what's up with Broadway Comedy these days, but it's becoming cartoonish. The rest of the cast is subpar. None of the poker players stand out, as a matter of fact two of them are down right terrible. One can barely talk he's straining his voice so much. I'll let you guess which one it is. The Pidgeon Sisters are sadly just okay, but once again, this is just so dated it's ridiculous. Who are these Pidgeon Sisters? It's hard to blame the actresses. However, they laugh because they are supposed to laugh. They cry because they are supposed to cry. Neither one stands out from the other.

If you want my opinion ...

RUN, don't walk and buy tickets to "DOUBT" which I saw the following evening. If you are going to spend $100 on a ticket see how the pros do it and enjoy some real theatre. Although it is a drama, there are some really funny moments, and unlike the Odd Couple, all of them are intentional.















Updated On: 10/30/05 at 01:01 AM

[WISHIHADATONY]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 3:06pm

OneEros69? Your "review" of THE ODD COUPLE kinda lost credibility when near the very beginning you have the following line:
'Nathan Lane is surprisingly good as Oscar.'

No one knowledgable within the theater community, heck even casual theatergoers, EXPECT Mr. Lane to be "at least" good as Oscar in THE ODD COUPLE. Your saying that Nathan Lane is 'surprisingly' good as Oscar.........simply makes no sense.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 3:09pm

Oh geez, WishedIHadATony, give them a break.

They were surprised he was good, because that is their opinion.

[pab]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 3:39pm

OneEros69, I have not seen this production and I will not see it because it's sold out so I have no problem with you opinion on what you saw in this production except for the fact that it's not just the production that you seem to have a problem with, and, IMHO, it should be.

In your first paragraph you say "I saw the play on Wednesday Evening. The simple fact is... it is awful." Are you saying the PLAY is awful? If so, then we differ on that point as well. Then you go on to say "First of all the play is dated and Neil Simon should have updated it . . ." This is where I have my main point of disagreement with your review. The play is what it is. The producers decided to do it, so why should Neil Simon have to go and updated it for them? What if he were not around any more, should people then just not do his plays because they are dated? Thousands of plays are dated so should they not be done either?

I will not defend the production since, as I have mentioned before, I have not seen it but as for the play and Mr. Simon, will that's another issue.

Oh, and as for it lasting through the holidays, a little checking would have told you that this production is SOLD OUT through April.

[lildogs]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 3:40pm

I heard a similar comment (not here) saying the same thing, but in this case, the comment meant that the viewer had been surprised at Lane's masculinity; a problem most out actors have I think--if we know you're gay, we're on the lookout for any fey signs when you're playing straight---I'm sure Harvey deals with the same sort of comments with Fiddler...or maybe OneEros thinks Lane sucks as a rule, and doesn't here--I don't want to speak for him, just trying to add some insight.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 4:11pm

Gee, where should I start? Oh, I know...how about with the fact that this person JOINED the boards today obviously just to trash the Odd Couple...so take that with a grain of salt.

a) I have seen the show and it is a retro show...supposed to be...if you didn't want to see that you should not have gone

b) Broderick is still finding his Felix but was far from awful in his performance.

c) To state that Brad Garrett (previously a stand up comic and a TV star with no experience on the stage) outshines everyone else's comedic timing etc., really strains the credibility of your review. Garrett is adequate as Murray the Cop...and misses much of the physical comedy and the sweetness of the role.

d) What on EARTH does seeing Lane in a restaurant eating have to do with his performance? Whether is a happy person or not has nothing to do with his skills on stage and frankly the stories of Lane's morose behavior in public are OLD HAT...so lose them. Everyone in the theater and most people in New York know that Lane is shy and I wouldn't expect him to be entertaining the public while eating dinner...so...your comment about his being 'surprisingly good' aside, I don't know that many people were of the opinion that Lane could NOT play Madison...Simon in fact only wanted Lane for the role.

e) Finally, I don't know what mid-week audience you saw this show with (maybe they were all too tired) but the audience I was in was even earlier in the run and they enjoyed it.

f) the show is sold out thru its April end date and will probably extend so I don't think the producers are crying too hard over your review.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but had you been a little less focused on character assassination and a little more credible in your readings of the actors on stage (for example Lee Wilkoff is doing good work...Brad Garrett is NOT) I might be more inclined to take it to heart.

As it stands now, and in light of your brand new membership on BWW..I have to say you are trolling.

[kasim]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 4:21pm

so is it worth spending 300 dollars for a ticket for it :) :-p

[lildogs]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 4:24pm

What is trolling, Sam? I was once accused of it, and I have no idea what it means...and thanks for posting kasim...always love seeing that avatar!

[mirramar]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 4:28pm

Trolling is basically posting a message on a board just to cause an uproar.

[lildogs]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 4:37pm

Ah, I thought it meant you were posting alot so you could move up in the ranks...I was WAY off...

[pab]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 4:43pm

Trolling - To utter a posting designed to attract predictable responses or flames. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies"; which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling";, a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite.

[lildogs]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 5:11pm

I knew the fishing reference...just didn't connect it to this...we got alot of those folks! I got two threads deleted that were in retrospect MAJOR trolling...

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 6:25pm

SamIAm - OneEros's opinion of Matthew Brodericks performance is shared by everyone else I know who has seen the play. Not surprising , he does the same nerd schtick in everything he does nowadays.
Updated On: 10/21/05 at 06:25 PM

[OneEros69]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 7:42pm

Everyone knows Nathan Lane is a great actor, one necessarily doesn't see him as the first choice for Oscar. Which is where the "Surpise" comes from.

[OneEros69]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 7:45pm

Although it's Sold Out, I'm betting you'll be able to grab a ticket in under a month. Go see it and then we can discuss this.

[OneEros69]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 7:52pm

Dear Sam I Am ...

I joined Broadwayworld.com to try and save any poor fool who would waste $100 to see this show. Again I will tell everyone to go see DOUBT. I wanted to like the odd couple. But it is stale. No one should pay $100 to watch someone find a part. Broderick wasn't even close. It's pitiful. And if you think there is anyone on that stage that stands out other than Lane and Garrett, get yourself back to acting class.


Updated On: 10/21/05 at 07:52 PM

[OneEros69]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 7:53pm

If they pay you $300 to watch it? Maybe.

[OneEros69]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 8:01pm

Trolling? Interesting word. I'm sorry I stupidly thought that message boards were created so that we may voice opinions. One of the joys of life is that we may debate those opinions. If and when you ever see the show I will be happy to debate it. I was just trying to save you all the money. But go ahead, see it, and then we'll see who's trolling.




Updated On: 10/21/05 at 08:01 PM

[442namffug]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 8:21pm

I haven't seen the show, and don't plan on seeing it, but I totally agree with Eros' comments regarding the lack of necessity in re-producing this work. Across the country, theatre companies (and even highschools) produce this work as a very "safe" piece. The laughs are very even, expected, and stereotypical.

Why is there any reason to bring this back to BROADWAY? Nothing new or inspiring can be created from this very tired play, and the entire piece is simply re-created for the stage and for money. For example, look at one of the production photos: it's Felix pointing the ladle at Oscar.

Wow. How original and artistic.

There are so many untold stories out there waiting to be produced. Even smaller or less common comedies that have already seen a staged production could be re-worked and produced on a Broadway stage.

Producing The Odd Couple in 2005 on Broadway is completely bland and pointless. Sure the actors are talented, and Nathan and Matthew will sell tickets no matter what, so why not create a production that is worth seeing?

[OneEros69]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 8:27pm

442namffug

Thanks ... My point exactly. Your wording was less critical, but thankfully you will be spared watching the show.

[442namffug]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 8:49pm

[pab]

Posted: 10/21/05 at 10:03pm

"Why is there any reason to bring this back to BROADWAY? Nothing new or inspiring can be created from this very tired play, and the entire piece is simply re-created for the stage and for money."

I guess you will say the same thing about any new production of "Hamlet" or "Macbeth" or . . . .

[OneEros69]

Posted: 10/22/05 at 1:04am

Surely you jest! Simon is no Shakespeare!

[pab]

Posted: 10/22/05 at 1:07am

I did not say he was.

[OneEros69]

Posted: 10/22/05 at 1:28am

Listen PAB ...

As I stated in my review ... the play needs to be adjusted or it needs to be taken out of commission for another twenty years so it can be appreciated. The jokes revolve around numbers and issues that have no meaning anymore.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. Neil Simon has written some wonderful plays. Some will stand the test of time, some will not. It truly is that simple.