9 to 5 Reviews- Page 11

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 5/1/09 at 3:37pm

I refuse to take the quiz. After all, I'm a boisterous young fowl.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 5/1/09 at 3:38pm

I stole the answer sheet. You're good shbrt.

[massofmen]

Posted: 5/1/09 at 3:42pm

i think Trace is a shill for Irena;s Vow.
right? that's how that works right? If you like a show you are a shill?
trace is a SHILL FOR IRENA"S VOW!!!!! burn him at the stake.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 5/1/09 at 3:43pm

so, you're retarded?

[evic]

Posted: 5/1/09 at 4:26pm

Saw this Wed. matinee with an audience of mostly older crowd. They seemed to enjoy it....I thought it was overproduced mediority. The score is not good, the choreography is sloppy and dirivitive the book is the movie- no surprises... One of the Boys is Roxie from Chicago with tables. It is a bit crude, vulgar...Janney does have lots of charisma and is funny..Hilty is one note....bad directorial choices- esp Judy's last feminist scene- she throws her ex's husband's jacket on the floor- then she picks it up and gives it to him before she throws him out- any self respecting bitch would have made him pick it up and kicked him. I laughed when I read the AMNY review and Wyndman's last line is something to the effect that one will get a kick out of hearing some of the lines from the film!!!!- Why not just rent the film. Easy for him to say- he is not shelling out $126.50. I thought the critics who gave it mixed reviews were kind out of respect for Dolly who is so likable. Too expensive a nut to run- closes on or before labor day.

[logan0215]

Posted: 5/1/09 at 4:30pm

Wow, evic, you just made Brantley's review look like a love letter!

Can't say that you were wrong on any points though.

[fbueller]

Posted: 5/1/09 at 5:22pm

"Brantley's a sexist, egotistical, lying, hypoocritical bigot."

WishingOnlyWounds2--

That owns me. So funny!!!

[TIGGOSAURUS]

Posted: 5/1/09 at 6:23pm

OK, so this thread seems to have turned into a 'review of Brantley's review' (along with a slew of bitchy personal comments - gotta love BWW): NOT!

One question: does the NYT review REALLY matter that much any more?

I saw a few shows in NYC last month and found Next To Normal and 9-5 by far the most enjoyable amongst them. I would be absolutely delighted if N2N won the Tony for Best Musical (especially as it's a new & original American piece), and I can't see anyone beating Alice Ripley to the 'best leading actress in a musical' award (much as I ADORED Allison Janney and am glad she received such positive notices).

But I agree with those who think Brantley's review was OTT, overly-vindictive and somewhat poisonous. 9-5 doesn't set its stall out to be anything other than a crowd-pleaser which may well draw a new/different audience to the theatre. In fact I think it succeeds far better in that respect than many of the Disney/Dreamworks shows I've seen. If it draws crowds for that reason, then more power to it (and less to the negativity espoused by BB and some of the regulars on BWW and ATC whose condescension to those who have different opinions seems to know no bounds).

Thoughts? (preferably minus any personal abuse directed at me or my POV)!

Updated On: 5/1/09 at 06:23 PM

[MamasDoin'Fine]

Posted: 5/1/09 at 6:53pm

'evic' sounds as poisoned as Brantley.
Sad really.

[broadwayrocks2]

Posted: 5/1/09 at 7:18pm

Shubertalley 44 you're boisterous and you're definitely foul !!!

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 5/2/09 at 12:53am

Quaaaack.

[roadmixer]

Posted: 5/2/09 at 1:21am

Thanks so much for your positive comments TIGGOSAURUS! It's refreshing to read that someone gets it. 9 to 5 does not purport to be anything other than what it is. It is beyond me why the critics (especially Mr. Brantley) seem to make some sort of arbitrary decision on what musical theatre should be and if a show does not fit that mold then it's bad. I would imagine that if Brantley had reviewed Rock Of Ages rather than Isherwood then the outcome would have been very different. "Theatre" can consist of a number of genres from Shakespeare to Cirque du Soleil. How can the same (apparently highbrow) standard be used to judge all things? I would love to see the producers of 9 to 5 take out a page in the Times rebutting the undue criticism and announcing that they will not advertise with that paper going forward. Why contribute to the coffers of your assassins? On another note, I saw a great comment by one reviewer that the show's humor was in the vein of something like "Three's Company"... isn't that show still making money years and years later in syndication??!!

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 5/2/09 at 2:33pm

I'm actually happy with these reviews. They're fair. When I saw 9 TO 5 a few weeks ago, I saw people around me going apoplectic and I was wondering what I missed.

I saw the show in LA and thought it was "okay," but figured they'd iron all the wrinkles out before opening on Broadway. When I saw it in NYC, I felt they'd fixed what wasn't broken, took some of the heart out of the show and left in story lines, songs and characters that only contributed to dragging down the action.

But I thoroughly enjoyed the performances. Terrific cast.

[jv92]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 12:17pm

I saw 9 to 5 yesterday afternoon and found it a cute, mildly enjoyable two and a half hours. Not worth 15 Drama Desk nominations. Not worth a gigantic pan from Ben Brantley either. Just cute and mildly enjoyable.
The choreography was a very bad Michael Bennett-Promises, Promises imitation without originality or zest. The score was tuneful, yet filled with imperfect rhymes. The second act was predictable schlock. The Roz camp needed to be toned down. The show was overmiked. Yet, the set was clever, the cast was excellent and I got a few laughs out of the book. Not too bad, says I.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/3/09 at 12:25pm

Ah, another case of "well, the critic of note hated it so now I HATE THEM!!"