AIRLINE HIGHWAY Previews
Posted: 3/31/15 at 7:25pm
Posted: 4/2/15 at 9:19am
I didn't care for it at all. For one, it was too long 2:25 is just not acceptable. Too much is left unresolved. To many undefined people on stage. No Tony for this.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 9:22am
Two hours and twenty-five minutes is "too long" and "just not acceptable"? Jesus, is this what's become of the human attention span?
Posted: 4/2/15 at 9:22am
Why is 2:25 unacceptable for a play? Can you say more?
Posted: 4/2/15 at 9:48am
At an hour, Constellations was 30 minutes too long for me. Guess MTC felt guilty for ripping people off.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 9:53am
Yes, there were a half a dozen or so characters that did not move the story along at all, doing a two minute bit. Cut that. They clutter the stage. The set is a pretty interesting recreation of the motel with 7 rooms visable. Some of it needs to be cut IMO. In Chicago it is listed at 2 hours 10 minutes. They added 15 minutes.
Updated On: 4/2/15 at 09:53 AM
Posted: 4/2/15 at 9:59am
To evic
You only get ripped off if, knowing it is only an hour long, you buy a ticket anyway.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 10:19am
^ Not really, Roxy. To some, that could've been the most thrilling hour of theater.
To others, (myself included), it could've dragged on for what felt like 3 hours. Yawn.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 10:21am
I respect your opinion but I disagree with it.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 10:25am
Do you believe that a play's "worth" is connected to its length? Seriously?
Posted: 4/2/15 at 10:28am
AC, you must've missed the entire Constellations thread. I can't tell you how many folks questioned the length vs. the value of the the piece/ticket price, making arguments like "I paid more than a dollar a minute for this!" and so on. So silly.
Updated On: 4/2/15 at 10:28 AM
Posted: 4/2/15 at 10:30am
To each his own.Calling it silly to think about it is not listening to someone's opinion is it?
"How many folks" indicates a number of people felt the same way so it is not just me. If you like paying $130 plus for an hour, knock yourself out. Not our cup of tea. If it is for you great. This is what is called listening and valuing other opinions and not just dismissing them outright.
Updated On: 4/2/15 at 10:30 AM
Posted: 4/2/15 at 10:40am
I will question your opinion, because it's ridiculous. A play's value has nothing to do with its length.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 10:49am
I question yours but will not call it ridiculous. Same as many on the board. You cannot merely disagree but have to do this. We can go on and on but neither one of us will change their opinion. There is no right answer. Oh wait there is you are right and I am wrong. If that makes you happy fine.
Let a show be 10 minutes long. If you want to see it, enjoy yourself.End of discussion on this. If you want to continue, have at it.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 11:07am
I never write reviews, mostly because I'm not good at writing, but also because I don't think anyone should be influenced by someone else's views on a show. But I feel that this show has been so unfairly represented on this thread that I needed to come to its rescue.
I was deeply moved by this show last night. I found it hilarious and heartbreaking. The acting was all phenomenal, and Judith Robert's monologue at the end brought me to tears. The show didn't feel long to me at all, but there definitely were some characters that were unnecessary. Did the stage feel cluttered? No, it's supposed to be a celebration for a woman who was loved by many. So I expect many to be there. But the subplot-that-never-was with the temporary guests in the room below was bizarre, and I definitely expected that to flesh out in the second act but never did. The set was great, and I even found the transformation for the party oddly moving.
This show may not be for everybody, but it was definitely for me. I'm not one to give generous standing ovations, but it brought me to my feet immediately. However, a joke about M.S brought the people sitting in front of me to their feet and out the door in the first act. Either way, see this show because you want to, not because of what other people (myself included) say about it.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 11:16am
For one, it was too long 2:25 is just not acceptable.
In that case, I hope you didn't see August: Osage County.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 11:34am
^ And DEFINITELY stay away from Wolf Hall. Or Iceman Cometh.
Very glad to read your review xoffender. Looking forward to this one.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 8:27pm
I do think that Constellations felt short because it stopped as I was getting the most invested in the characters. But I enjoyed the time I spent with them and I didn't feel the play was a waste of money. Then again, I got a 30 Under 30 ticket.
As for the general running time question, I think it depends on how they use the time on stage. Way over two hours is unacceptable if it's just indulgent and you're not using that time purposefully. If the story justifies the running time I don't mind a long running time as long as there's an intermission for me to get up and stretch and I don't end up getting home too late. But to each their own.
Posted: 4/3/15 at 8:30am
Who would spend $100 for 70 minutes of entertainment? Moronic star gazers, that's who. Ooooh Jake is soooo cute!
There is no reason why a second one-act play could not have preceded Constellations. That was the major rip-off of the season. Quality theater or not.
And to anyone who complains about a 2:30 show being too long: Stay home with your remote control in your hand. You'll save a lot of money and won't have to tax your attention span for longer than three minutes. You don't belong in a theater, anyway.
Thank God this pathetic mentality wasn't around when Miller and Williams and ONeill were writing for the theater.
BroadwayWorld TV