A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC Reviews....- Page 3

[wickedfan]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 6:20pm

Most likely. He didn't care for the production when it was in London. This is hardly a surprise. I'm more interested to see what the other critics say.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 6:24pm

Michael Somers for the New Jersey News Room is Very Positive


http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/movies/catherine-zeta-jones-and-angela-lansbury-shine-in-a-darker-a-little-night-music

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 6:25pm

Considering that he had generally positive things to say in London (and a flat out rave for Hannah Waddingham, this change of heart is fascinating.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 6:26pm

Wow, Brantley REALLY hated this revival!

[mywonderwa11]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 6:33pm

Wow, Michael Sommers loved it. Who's next? Who's next?

[lovinlovett]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 6:47pm

Here's a little stage door footage of CZJ.


CZJ

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 6:58pm

Another example of Brantley's confused reviews. At least he raved about Lansbury.

I get the sense that Brantley's only favorable review for a musical is going to be for FELA! He raved about it Off-Broadway and couldn't fathom some of the show's flaws when it opened uptown. Plus, his rave for the Off-Broadway gave so much attention to Ngah (or however you spell it) that it would have been embarrassing for him to re-review the show with anything but a rave. But I digress.

Please, Addams Family, do whatever has to be done to fix it out-of-town so that Brantly will not be able to ignore it.

Updated On: 12/13/09 at 06:58 PM

[mywonderwa11]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 7:06pm

Oh CZJ, how can any one person be that stunningly beautiful?

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 7:06pm

Variety seems Mixed-to-Positive with raves for Zeta-Jones and Lansbury
It might be just Mixed. I'm bad at judging these things.

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117941777.html?categoryid=33&cs=1
Updated On: 12/13/09 at 07:06 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 7:11pm

Hollywood Reporter is an absolute rave for Zeta-Jones



Bottom Line: This uneven but welcome revival of Sondheim's classicmusical features a triumphant Broadway debut by Catherine Zeta-Jones.

Zeta-Jones, younger than the performers who have traditionally played the role, is captivating as Desiree. The actress has musical theater experience, and it shows; she has terrific stage presence, unlike so many movie stars who tread the boards, and she sings and moves beautifully.
Her rendition of the oh-so-familiar "Send in the Clowns" is a revelation, and she handles the poignant and comic aspects of her character with equal aplomb.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/a-little-night-music-theater-review-1004053273.story
Updated On: 12/13/09 at 07:11 PM

[wickedfan]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 7:14pm

The review is practically a slap in the face to Nunn. This is mixed at best. He loves Lansbury, heavily likes Zeta-Jones, Whitaker and Lazar and has mixed/negative feelings about everything else. This would be a mixed/negative review if it weren't for Lansbury's glowing notice.
*EDIT my post is about Variety*

Updated On: 12/13/09 at 07:14 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 7:27pm

Associated Press is Mixed with a big rave for Lansbury. I'm so glad he noted Angela's display of the character's aging. Myself and others have noted that, and it's a brilliant choice.

As Desiree's mother, the luminous Lansbury is a wonder. She is just about perfect as the worldly wise Madame Armfeldt, a woman who has tasted all that life has to offer and still enjoys the remembrances â?? and cynicism â?? that goes with it.
The 84-year-old actress does something extraordinary, too: her Madame Armfeldt progressively gets more frail as the evening progresses, subtly commenting on one of the musical's more profound themes â?? the mortality of all, no matter what their station in life. The aging process has never been more eloquently put on display.

http://www.seattlepi.com/artandlife/1404ap_us_theater_review_night_music.html

Updated On: 12/13/09 at 07:27 PM

[mywonderwa11]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 7:37pm

Man, the Hollywood Reporter did NOT like Trevor Nunn's work at all. Slap in the face.

I'm so thrilled that the two leading ladies are getting such wonderful remarks.

I'm getting more and more excited to see this!

[theatreguy]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 7:43pm

Looks like Zeta-Jones and Lansbury could be well on their way to Tony Awards #1 and #6, respectively. At this point does either have them have any serious competition?

[bwaylvsong]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 7:47pm

^CZJ has Christiane Noll and Kate Baldwin, and potentially Bebe Neuworth (sp) and Kristin Chenoweth as her competition.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 7:59pm

Backstage is Positive and a Critic's Pick. Though has issues with Davie's direction, and Herdlicka.

There are plenty of countervailing new pleasures to be found in Nunn's thoughtful take on this Broadway classic.


http://www.backstage.com/bso/reviews-ny-theatre-broadway/ny-review-a-little-night-music-1004053277.story
Updated On: 12/13/09 at 07:59 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 8:04pm

USA Today gives it 3 out of 4 stars. Big rave for Lansbury.



http://www.usatoday.com/life/theater/reviews/2009-12-14-nightmusic14_st_N.htm
Updated On: 12/13/09 at 08:04 PM

[Greatwhiteway3]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 8:05pm

HOLY COW. Not how you want your first review ever in the NY Times to be I would imagine!! Ouch!

"Ramona Mallory is all breathless fluster, squeaks and squeals. Hunter Ryan Herdlicka brings a loud, cartoonish angst to Henrik"

[JasonM12480]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 8:13pm

Ms. Lansbury can rest well tonight, and begin writing her Tony acceptance speech tomorrow morning. LOL

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 8:16pm

FINALLY...someone who agrees with my assessment of Leigh Ann Larkin. (Okay, so it's Brantley.)

"Leigh Ann Larkin, as the earthy maid Petra, oversells the 11 o’clock number 'The Miller’s Son,' a hymn to sex as a life force, with autoerotic gestures that suggest an audition for a job as a pole-dancer."

I also agree with him about Lansbury. She is unforgettable.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 8:18pm

I think both Lansbury AND Zeta-Jones will have an amazing shot at the Tony. Neurwith's role apparently isn't great. And we don't know how Chenoweth will fare, though most think she is miscast. Ragtime and Finian could unfortunately be closed by then, and that will hurt the chances of Noll and Baldwin.

I also think Hanson and Lazar have a great chance of being nominated.
Updated On: 12/13/09 at 08:18 PM

[jv92]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 8:34pm

Don't forget Barbara Cook!!!

And glad to see Zeta-Jones and Lansbury, the best things about the production, are getting good reviews.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 9:39pm

ljay---After reading Brantley's review of Lansbury and her rendition of Liaisons, I'm beginning to see how the departure is working. You mentioned that it was very different from her book scenes, and he did a good job of explaining why.

The video clip felt out of step to me by itself, but in context with the rest of the show, I can see how it would work as a contrasting "window" into her past. It's almost as if her personality is changing during her reflections of those romances. If she had played the rest of the role this way, it would have been a huge mistake, but I'm beginning to see how this interpretation might work.

And good for Lansbury for getting fairly uniform raves, even in the bad reviews.

I figured most of the negative critiques would go directly to Nunn for his choices, but I'm surprised that some of it is coming down on the writing (Sondheim and, in particular, Wheeler). I wasn't expecting that. Especially from Brantley, whom I would have guessed had seen at least one or more successful productions of this show in the past. While I wouldn't call it a "perfect" musical, it's one of the most romantic musicals ever written, and the writing is first-rate.

It's also a comedy of manners, and that's where I think the direction might be missing here. The characters aren't as two-dimensional or vapid as Brantley thinks. If the show is directed properly, there are many instances where the characters are saying and doing one thing, while clearly thinking and feeling something else. It's all about the subtext, not the text. That's how it's written, and the directorial choices can either add compelling layers to it (as it should) or merely reflect the literal words, which would be a big, dull mistake.

So why didn't Brantley pick up on that? Instead he mostly criticizes the material, not the choices being made in this particular production.

That, to me, is very short-sighted for someone in his position at the Times.

Updated On: 12/13/09 at 09:39 PM

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 9:49pm

The first thing I thought after reading Brantley's review was the same exact thing yankeefan posted. What happened between London & NY that made him do a complete 180?

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 9:51pm

As Wickedfan noted, I've also heard that Brantley actually DIDN'T like it in London, although he loved Waddingham and Lipman.