ADDAMS FAMILY Reviews- Page 3

[Kad]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 8:43pm

Down the line pans/near-pans from every major publication will kill a show good. Brantley's will be the cherry on top. The ticket prices are very high, people coming in will be a lot more wary about spending their hard earned cash on something, even if it does have a brand name and Nathan Lane.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 8:44pm

For what little it's worth, I saw the show about a month ago and felt that it was just a mediocre show -- not that awful but certainly not all that great. I certainly wouldn't recommend it to anyone as an example of what Broadway does best. But it's painless. I'm sure that when Nathan Lane leaves the show, its days will be numbered if it hasn't already shuttered.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 8:44pm

"A year and a half and it turned to be the biggest flop for Disney on Broadway."

Tarzan did worse

[Piper3500]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 8:44pm

^ nice pun.

i do agree that it will be around for as long as Nathan (and Bebe) are involved.

also, as said, what about the terrible Wicked reviews? I think that is a different kettle of fish though.

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 8:45pm

Oh, the show will run, no doubt. But it's naive to think that the awful reviews won't affect them.

And the chances of it winning a Best Musical Tony are now slim to none, and the award pretty much guarantees the winner to turn a profit.

It will continue, but not without a fight, that's for sure.

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 8:48pm

I hope Brantley or Isherwood rave about the show. Then all the people who love the show and say reviews don't matter will constantly bring up the rave (ala Shlock of Ages).

Updated On: 4/8/10 at 08:48 PM

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 8:48pm

also, as said, what about the terrible Wicked reviews? I think that is a different kettle of fish though.

For the nth time, Wicked never got terrible reviews.

And had Wicked gotten the worst reviews in history, it would still be one in hundreds of Broadway flops which closed because of the bad reviews.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 8:57pm

I'm not so sure about winning the Tony guarantees a profit at the box office when the final tally comes in. Examples that come to mind are Passion, Titanic, Hallelujah, Baby!, Jerome Robbins' Broadway, Kiss of the Spider Woman and Sunset Boulevard -- shows of varying degrees of quality, whose runs may have been prolonged by the prestige of winning -- but not, in the final run, profitable.

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 9:03pm

I'm not so sure about winning the Tony guarantees a profit at the box office when the final tally comes in

At least in recent times, it does. All Tony winners for Best Musical in the past decade turned a profit except for one. So, I'd say it is very close to a guarantee.

Updated On: 4/8/10 at 09:03 PM

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 9:05pm

Mary Poppins got trashed by the New York Times and recouped sometime last year.

[James885]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 9:08pm

Mary Poppins wasn't panned by the Times, was it? I thought it was more mixed-to-negative. I didn't think it was an outright pan the way The Little Mermaid was.

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 9:10pm

It was certainly very negative, but it wasn't a pan. He still found redeemable qualities in a few aspects of the show.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 9:11pm

It was panned both reviews, London and Broadway. I got the impression Ben hated it.

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 9:13pm

He certainly didn't like it, but didn't overlook some of the bigger numbers and production values and found Gavin Lee charming.

At the same time, a Brantley pan is very rare, but I can't remember a show in recent history surviving one.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 9:15pm

Cheers for that I thought it was a pan.

Some of the biggest grossing shows on Broadway; Mama Mia, Jersey Boys, Wicked, Lion King didn't get critics pick from The New York Times, however they get fairly decent write up, sometimes disguised.

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 9:19pm

Yeah, reading Brantley on Mary Poppins, his pet peeve was that it was unbearably preachy, but he did call the set "glorious" and no pan would include such a word.

Reading it again, he didn't like Lee as I though he did, but I think he recognized the production values as eye-candy.

Updated On: 4/8/10 at 09:19 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 9:22pm

The only one I care about is Michael Feingold and his review won't be out til next week.

[kidbroadway2]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 9:23pm

Should Brantley's review be up by tonight?

[ifuweregay93]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 9:28pm

http://www.didhelikeit.com/shows/wicked-reviews.php

That's not a pan?? Updated On: 4/8/10 at 09:28 PM

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 9:37pm

Brantley wrote a love letter to Chenoweth. To the point where I thought he was proposing.

He didn't hate Wicked, but I'll stop telling Wickedites this because they're under the green spell, and love to feel that the Times panned their hit show. Whatever makes them feel better.

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 9:41pm

How about linking the actual review and not an inconsistent review-round-up site.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/31/movies/theater-review-there-s-trouble-in-emerald-city.html

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 9:41pm

No, that's not even close to a pan.

[BroadwayBound115]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 9:45pm

But if he writes a love letter to Nathan Lane, the review won't be classified as a pan??

I'd say that Wicked review is fairly negative, despite the praise to Menzel's voice and Kristin Chenoweth overall. I am not whining, but let's be honest, that wasn't a review I'd be proud of.

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 9:49pm

No, but he did find quite a few redeemable factors about the production. It certainly wasn't positive, but it did acknowledge the positives. A pan gives none of that.

[Calvin]

Posted: 4/8/10 at 9:51pm

The Wicked review is mixed-to-negative. Pans begin something like: "Loved the shoes. Loathed the show. O.K, I exaggerate. I didn't like the shoes all that much."