Munk's opening night ODD COUPLE review

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 2:36am

I decided not to read any of the press reviews before I posted my thoughts on here, because I wanted my opinion - atleast my written opinion - to be as "fresh" and unbiased as possible.

The show (and subsequent scenes) begins with energetic, charming original music by Marc Shaiman, which instantly reminds the audience that it's indeed 1965, and not 2005. The first thing we are presented with is all of the male supporting characters sitting around a card table, and cigar smoke swirling about the dumpishly lavish apartment of Oscar Madison. And here is where the evening begins.

The group of "guys," (Brad Garrett, Rob Bartlett, Peter Frechette, and Lee Wilkof) are all exactly what they should be - present, but not wildly obtrusive and distracting. It doesn't really matter what they are, because at this point - whether we (or they) like it or not, everyone's attention is already on Brad Garrett. And while at this point it's only because the two "stars" aren't on stage yet, what the audience doesn't realize is that what they see - right there in the first 5 minutes- is truly as good as it will get the entire evening.

Brad Garrett is criminally underused - but atleast he'll resume the role of Oscar eventually. I wasn't a big fan of his before this, but he certainly impressed me tonight. Rob Bartlett, along with the other two guys, are exactly what they should be, and entirely appropriate.

Enter Nathan Lane. Okay, admittedly I am not a Nathan Lane fan. I believe strongly that Nathan Lane plays Nathan Lane everytime. Pseudolus is Max Bialystock is Nathan Detroit is Nathan Lane is (Birdcage role) is Oscar Madison. If you've seen Nathan play one role, you've seem him play all. Well, that's more what I thought before this evening. While for much of the evening he brings to mind every performance he's ever done, he half pulls it off - and, for the first time that I've seen Nathan perform, I was actually interested.

This is not to say that this performance of his is better than his others - it's just - FOR ONCE - atleast one degree different. It's also hard to judge his performance here because he's working against the wind, against the current, and totally against the odds here. He brings so much life to the stage, partially because he has to.

Matthew Broderick. First it was line memorization problems, then it was reports of him just not finding the character. I have no bearing on whether or not he was pulling dialogue out of his ass tonight, but I DO know for sure that he is - in a word - absolutely deplorable. He's just terrible in the role. He walks around the stage in a stiff sort of zombie plod that one things of a George A. Romero film rather than neat freak Felix Unger. His line deliveries are all off. His comic timing is nonexistant. He's terrible.

The first act couldn't have ended soon enough for me - it was as stale and as musty as it could have possibly gotten.

In act two, there is a brief - BRIEF, mind you - breath of fresh air when the two sisters enter. Olivia d'Abo and Jessica Stone are charmingly quirky and appropriately cute, but even their brief reprive can't resurrect this dead corpse. Their routine is tired after the first two minutes. When Nathan exits and leaves Matthew on stage with them, those 5 minutes were perhaps the longest of the entire show.

I feel truly bad for the cast, as they are so incredibly hindered by Broderick's shortcomings here. I have never wanted a show to end so badly as I did with this one tonight - and I'm not trying to sound bitchy and acidic, but it's true.

Mantello's direction is almost nonexistant. Did someone guide this show? Is this honestly someone's vision? Or did he just sitback and let THE PRODUCERS play? This is an embarrasing production and Mantello should feel embarrased to list it on his resume.

Mantello isn't all to blame - because this production could be decent. Fire Broderick. Brad Garrett needs to play Oscar, and Nathan Lane needs to play Felix. Then, this show might actually have a heartbeat.

For those of you who didn't get tickets - don't feel bad - you're missing absolutely nothing. For those of you that already HAVE tickets - seriously consider whether you feel comfortable with spending big bucks for this. Selling your tickets for cash is definitely a good alternative to sitting through this monstrous bore.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 2:41am

Thanks for the review munk!

I must say, after seeing Broderick in The Foreigner, I lost a lot of respect for him. He was dreadful.

Shame.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 2:43am

I forgot to mention:

Quite honestly, the hightlight of the show was having Neil Simon on stage during the curtain call. Mantello must have been humiliated knowing that Simon was in the audience - what an embarrassment.

[OneEros69]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 2:58am

Hey ... Munkustrap178

You better watch out. They will hunt you down and write horrible things about you. Who you ask? All the people that attacked me for my review. Half of them haven't even seen the show. Go read it. You won't believe the similarities.

Neil Simon was there? That must have been like throwing holy water on the devil. I would have paid $400 to just sit and watch his face during that production.

Good review.

Peace and Good Luck ... the wrath is coming.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 3:03am

P.S.

Bway.com has a video.

Munk is right - Broderick is unbearable in that video. I guess it could be better...but I doubt it (since its the same way he played The Foreigner).

[FalmouthJ]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 9:30am

OneEros:

Had you seen the show after it was "frozen," and posted the identical review last night, I would have no argument with it. You're entitled to your opinion as we all are. But posting as you did so early in previews, with the clear intention of slamming the production just reveals your lack of knowledge and respect for the process of putting on a show.

Personally, I have been amazed at the range of reaction to this production. Some audiences are roaring with laughter from the curtain, others are almost silent throughout. The decidedly mixed reviews reflect this, and the really interesting discussions going on today are about the expectations game. Barnes in the Post called the hype an "albatross" around the neck of the actors. he felt they overcame it, others didn't. Some thought Simon's play is "stale" and "irrelevant," other said, "brilliantly structured," and a "comic gem."

I love the debate, especially when it won't put actors out of work.

And now we have another very controversial show about to open...looking forward to your (and everyone else's) Sweeney review next week.

[OneEros69]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 10:12am

Dear Jane3

It was clear a week ago that six more months of rehearsal was not going to help this show. My hope was that any poor soul who had spent good money on tickets would sell them for the $1000 that has been reported and laugh themselves all the way to the bank because they certainly wern't going to be laughing in the Kerr theatre.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 10:21am

Oh I don't know, Doubt has some pretty funny moments.

[FalmouthJ]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 10:25am

I think you meant to say the Atkinson.

I,too, hate the whole scalping issue and I would never pay more than face value for a ticket. But it's just the economics of supply in demand. I also would never urge anyone NOT to see a show based on my opinion. Updated On: 10/28/05 at 10:25 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 10:25am

I was just going to say that.

Eros: I don't want to sound like a hack - because I agree with your opinions on the show, but just give everyone a break and stop trashing the show at every chance you get - there's an entire thread of you doing it already, no need for it to ooze into mine.

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 11:01am

Actually Eros we won't be trashing munk. This is a well worded and fully realized review. He gives reasons and examples of why he disliked the production. But he also presents it as opinion. That and Munk is respected, smart and super hot.

[tagiunagi]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 11:32am

I don't see the Odd Couple video on bwy.com

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 11:46am

I would LOVE to see Garrett play Oscar.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 12:10pm

Munk, I guess if you are not a Lane fan you would not really care for most of his stuff, so I'm not sure why you go. But, having said that, you are entitled to your opinion and at least you kept it professional, unlike OneEros who most of us now refuse to answer since everything is a personal attack to him (against the actors, the writers, the director AND the people on this board). There are a number of very positive reviews out there and it is, as expected, a mixed review for this show.

I truly believe that most people can't get their heads back to a time when this play was acutally current and therefore find it uninteresting as a character study and a commentary of relationships. I did enjoy it.

I do have to disagree with most of the posts about Garrett. I did not find anything special in his performance and found his lack of stage experience caused him to perform as if he were on a sitcom. He missed the physical comedy in the opening scene as far as I'm concerned. But that is my opinion.

As for the vitriolic attack going on on the other thread, my advice to OneEros would be to read what he originally wrote which was that the entire show sucked (not just Broderick or any one of the performers) but the script etc. If you read the reviews, even the worst of most of them does not slam the production itself. Most focus on Broderick.

Our opinions aside, this show is sold out and I think that tourists from other parts of the country who are not as urbane and expectant as New Yorkers will probably get a lot of the 60s comedy taht comes from a more innocent time.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 12:37pm

tag - go to the review (on the right side).

Then in the top right corner it says "Watch Video"

[Dolly_Levi]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 4:22pm

Do they play the show as TWO acts or THREE?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 4:34pm

Sam: I always see Nathan with the hopes that he'll impress me, and that I will change my opinion of him. I didn't even say bad things about Nathan - in fact, I thought Nathan was quite good, given the circumstances.

I honestly don't understand why you feel the need to come to the defense of the show - and basically say that although there are bad reviews, there are still some good ones. What does that have to do with anything? All the reviews that I read were negative - save for some on Nathan's performance. I understand that this is a "period" piece. I understand that this play was written long ago - and it set in 1965. To say that I didn't enjoy the play because I couldn't think in the mindset of that period is like saying that someone can't enjoy SWEENEY TODD unless they think like their in the late 1800's. Why make excuses for this show? It's obvious that there is potential here - mainly with the supporting cast (with an ounce of Lane,) but this production has no backbone. It has no vision, it has no spine, and it has NO direction. Did Mantello just phone this one in, since he knew that it was already a financial success? That's what it looks like to me. And again - I do not enjoy Nathan LAne, but I ejoyed him more last night then I ever have before - and I would consider going back if he assumed the role of Felix, opposite someone else's Oscar. Yes, this show may be a financial success - but we all know that money in the bank has nothing to do with artisic achievement - especially in this case. Yes, this show is a certified, well-make financial blockbuster. Otherwise? It's about as funny and spectacular as watching my dog clean herself.

DOlly: Only two acts.


I think my favorite quote from a review of this show comes from Kissel (Daily News.) It went something like this:

"Word is that this show is already completely sold out. If you were unable to get a ticket, consider yourself lucky."

And I don't think I could have said it better myself.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 5:31pm

Jane3, you said this

Had you seen the show after it was "frozen," and posted the identical review last night, I would have no argument with it. You're entitled to your opinion as we all are. But posting as you did so early in previews, with the clear intention of slamming the production just reveals your lack of knowledge and respect for the process of putting on a show.

Now not to stick up for oneeros, but that is just double stanards there, most of the people on this board where seeking blood for "In my life"..So going by your own standards here. "But posting as you did so early in previews, with the clear intention of slamming the production just reveals your lack of knowledge and respect for the process of putting on a show."

So that means all the people reviewing "Sweeny Todd" have a lack of knowledge and respect.?

Or is it just one rule for THAT show and a different one for everything else..

Updated On: 10/28/05 at 05:31 PM

[SamIAm]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 5:45pm

Munk I have read nearly all the reviews and there are a number that are really good (including Clive Barnes who I consider a reputable critic, if there is such a thing) and a number of others. Some are mixed and some are bad, so the opinions are as varied as the ones expressed here.

I do not feel the NEED to defend this play but was stating my opinion that I enjoyed it and that I thought that there were some good performances and some not so strong. That's all. I don't think it should be tossed out with the trash, as some on this board do and I'm sorry if that is in conflict with the opinions expressed here. But, I did like the play, as did a lot of the critics so let's at least be honest about that.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 5:50pm

Understood.

Not that his has anything to do with what you're saying, but consider Clive Barnes to be pretty clueless with his reviews. He's up there with Roma Torre (NY1) and Linda Winer (Newsday.) They just don't have any business reviewing theatre.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 11:49pm

And as an addition (and confession), I do not see what is so remarkable about this play. Maybe 30 years ago it was something clever - as Brantley said - but now, it's just tired. The TV series was far more entertaining (and far better acted) than this revival...I just don't understand why this material is considered so classic. Yes, it created timeless, unique, legendary characters - but the play itself is really nothing to squawk about.

[OneEros69]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 11:55pm

Hey .... munkustrap178

Then why did you jump onto my thread? Hmmm ... and on top of it all you actually tell everyone you didn't read my review yet you make a reference to George Romero.

Interesting.

Keep up the plagerism.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 10/29/05 at 12:00am

Jump onto your thread? All I said was that I was seeing it that night. What's your point?

I tell everyone that I didn't read your review? Where did I say that?

And you're claiming that I plagiarized your review? Right. You caught me!!!!! Of all people, I choose to rip off of yours because you're an amazingly talented individual that can't even spell plagiarize.

[Dolly_Levi]

Posted: 10/29/05 at 12:12am

Thanks Munk for the info about the acts.

Can you tell me where they broek the acts? What happened right before the Act One Curtain? What opened Act 2?

I am curious bc the play is printed as three acts in all versions I have read, or seen.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 10/29/05 at 12:15am

Um...I honestly do not remember how Act One ended - I ran to the bar in a frustrated fury.

Act Two began - I'm pretty sure - with all the guys sitting around the table playing poker. If that's ANY help.