9 to 5 Reviews — Page 9

#201

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 11:33am

No one pans the Dolly
No one says her show's not good
No one gives it nothing but a rave

#202

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 11:37am

I was mildly interested in this show. But I think this one is off my list.

I think it will do better than N2N, though..and that makes me sad.

#203

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:06pm

I take it back. somethingtotalkabout, you must be the 4th horsemen of the Broadway Apocalypse.

Cash is ultimately king of Broadway NOT art. If you strip away all the glitz and celebrity casting you still pay $120 a ticket. That's a helluva lot of dough to spend on brick-walls and unknown talent.

Dear God in Heaven.

In essence you're saying that Broadway should just be the testing ground for future touring productions and should pump out productions that will make a tourist feel better about dropping $120 because they got to see the winner of Dancing with the Stars or So You Think You Can Dance perform in the stage version of "Shall We Dance?"

Am I the only person reading this slop? I guess I should expect nothing less coming from the person boasting an avatar from "SPIDERMAN: The Musical" starring starlet and on again/off again Marilyn Manson beau Evan Rachel Wood with a score by first time Broadway composer: U2's Bono.

Yes, the bar SHOULD be HIGH on Broadway. The fact that I can walk down Shubert Alley and play the "Movie to Stage" game and have an 85% success rate is absolutely frightening.

#204

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:10pm

I am very upset about Brantley's pan of the show (and his harsh comments on Stephanie Block which were completely uncalled for),

Why were they uncalled for? He felt her performance was wooden, and said so. His job is to state his opinion of the performance, which he did. He never personally attacked her. He simply stated he didn't particularly care for her.

I'm unsure why you take such personal offense to his opinion.

#205

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:14pm

BECAUSE NO ONE PANS THE DOLLY
NO ONE PANS THE STEPH J BLOCK
NO ONE PANS THE JANNEY OR THE HILT

#206

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:15pm

I'm not taking personal offense to Brantley's opinion on Stephanie. I just loved her performance in "9 to 5" so much and am saddened that he did not see how great she was as Judy.

#207

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:19pm

you said the comments were UNCALLED FOR. if he thought her performance was wooden (which he said he did) then the comments were called for, as part of his job.

Now if he had called her a big nosed, talentless tree stump with a vagina, that would be uncalled for.

---

when ducks grow thumbs then maybe my opinion will change.

#208

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:22pm

Thanks Phyllis, I needed that laugh. My keyboard didn't need diet Coke all over it, but it will survive.

---

Experience live theater. Experience paintings. Experience books. Live, look and listen like artists! ~ imaginethis
LIVE THAT LESSON!!!!!!

#209

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:22pm

Brantley's review was spot-on. He really nailed it on this one. Couldn't agree with him more. Sounds like he hated it just as much as I did.

#210

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:22pm

Good news!
She's wood!
The Stephanie Block is wood!'

The woodenest wood you've seen on stage
Guaranteed to drive her detractors to a rage
She's wood!


Good wood!

#211

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:26pm

I'm sorry, Zoneace, but I still think his comments were "uncalled for" because Stephanie's performance in "9 to 5" was excellent.

#212

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:27pm

What rolls down stairs
alone or in pairs,
and over your neighbor's dog?
What's great for a snack,
And fits on your back?
It's Block, Block, Block

It's Block it's Block,
It's big, it's heavy, it's wood.
It's Block, it's Block, it's better than bad, it's good."

Everyone wants a Block
You're gonna love it, Block
Come on and get your Block
Everyone needs a Block
Block Block Block

*whistle*
STEPHANIE J. BLOCK FROM BLAMMO

---

when ducks grow thumbs then maybe my opinion will change.

#213

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:28pm

YOU THOUGHT HER PERFORMACE WAS EXCELLENT, HE THOUGHT IT WAS SH**TY. It is his job, like as in he gets paid, to write his opinions about broadway shows. there was nothing uncalled for about his comments

---

when ducks grow thumbs then maybe my opinion will change.

#214

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:29pm

"Now if he had called her a big nosed, talentless tree stump with a vagina, that would be uncalled for."


Actually thats the way I always describe Brantley ......... well, maybe not the big nose. Oh, and I use the c word instead of vagina

#215

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:29pm

WAT, that's your opinion. The review is Brantley's opinion, and it's only that - an opinion. Something is "uncalled for" if it is unnecessarily mean. As ZoneAce so hilariously put it, if he attacked her personal character or called her names, then it'd be uncalled for. He thought her performance was wooden and he has the right to say so. He's paid to give his opinion. He didn't say she personally was a disgusting human being.

Updated On: 5/1/09 at 12:29 PM

#216

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:32pm

Some of you theater geeks think you know everything about Broadway. The average Joe will love this show !! Sorry its not up to all of you " wanna be critics" standards .Really if any of your reviews mattered you'd be a critic but your not your just ego filled know it all's posting your "review " which in the end is your opinion and you know what they say about opinions !!!! Some of you all need to switch to Sanka!!!

#217

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:37pm

Enjoy the show! Just do it!

Hey, that would make a great advertising campaign in the future!

**Laughter**
**Applause**

Updated On: 5/1/09 at 12:37 PM

#218

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:41pm

The only reason you think it's uncalled for is because you enjoyed her. He didn't, and stated why.

He never personally attacked her, as has been said repeatedly.

He's a critic, therefore, his opinion is quite called for.

#219

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:41pm

I, for one, am not saying the average Joe SHOULDN'T like the show. If he does, good for him. I just don't think it's a good show and don't get WHY someone would like it. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't.

And at least I'm a theatre geek who can tell the difference between "your" and "you're." Yeah, I went there.

Oh, and I know at least one critic personally and he knows absolutely nothing about theatre. So don't always consider critics the be-all end-all. They're just giving their (often misinformed) opinion.

Updated On: 5/1/09 at 12:41 PM

#220

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:51pm

If someone had called Alice Ripley's performance "wooden," don't you think that would be uncalled for as well?

#221

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:54pm

Unwarranted would be the term.

Uncalled for makes it sound like he walked to the theater and slapped her in the face.

#222

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:54pm

If Brantley thought she was wooden, he has ALL right to say so. It's not like he wrote, "Stephanie J. Block is a talentless, stupid, mother****ing ****."

Saying an actor is wooden is not a personal attack.

If a critic called Alice Ripley's performance "wooden", I'd go "oh, well, I didn't think so. Whatever." and move on with my life.

You can't get all bent out of shape whenever a critic has the audacity to ...criticize.

---

"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."

Updated On: 5/1/09 at 12:54 PM

#223

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 12:58pm

Exactly, Kad.

If someone had called Alice Ripley's performance "wooden," don't you think that would be uncalled for as well?


No. It would be uncalled for if he called her fat, ugly, mean, or whatever. Saying a performance is wooden is one person's opinion. He explained why he didn't like her and the production. He didn't simply say, "Stephanie J. Block is no good as Judy." He stated his reason for not liking her in the role.

I'm surprised Val hasn't joined WAT in this thread to defend Stephanie J. Block.

#224

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 1:02pm

Ok, maybe I should have used "unwarranted" instead.

I never said that saying an actor is "wooden" is a personal attack.

I'm just a fan of hers and I was really pulling/hoping that this would be the role to garner her some positive reviews. She was panned in THE BOY FROM OZ, panned in THE PIRATE QUEEN, lost her chance at rave reviews and a Tony Award for WICKED, and now gets panned in 9 TO 5. In my opinion, her performance in 9 TO 5 was the best she's given on the stage since WICKED, and I think she deserved better than what Brantley dished out.

#225

re: 9 to 5 Reviews

Posted: 5/1/09 at 1:04pm

Yes, but something that is "uncalled for" means it was a personal or unnecessary attacked. Your last paragraph is a much more measured response. It's a shame for you that he didn't see the performance from Block that you did.

I've always thought she would benefit from some acting lessons. Her voice is incredible but her acting has never been dynamic, for me.

Updated On: 5/1/09 at 01:04 PM