ALL IN: COMEDY ABOUT LOVE Reviews- Page 2

[Wick3]

Posted: 12/23/24 at 3:44pm

I’m also surprised how the critics mention pricing especially when the show is able to sell tickets at tho prices.

Had they sold this at a cheaper price, scalpers would have bought those tix and resell them for $500-$800, keeping the profits.

[Tom5]

Posted: 12/23/24 at 7:53pm

I'm also surprised that there are no women involved in readings about love. On Broadway, yet. 

[JasonC3]

Posted: 12/23/24 at 8:23pm

Tom5 said: "I'm also surprised that there are no women involved in readings about love. On Broadway, yet."

Several women are in the different casts. To what are you referring?

[Jonathan Cohen]

Posted: 12/29/24 at 12:21pm

Wick3 said: "I’m also surprised how the critics mention pricing especially when the show is able to sell tickets at tho prices.

Had they sold this at a cheaper price, scalpers would have bought those tix and resell them for $500-$800, keeping the profits."

According to the The Broadway League data for the week ending December 22, the top ticket for the show was $425 with an average of $171.38 per ticket. 

While yeah, on the website there are few random days in February with a small amount of $799 tickets, generally speaking, there's still nothing stopping scalpers from selling good orchestra seats for $500-$800, if they thought there was demand. 

The pricing isn't about scalpers, it's just normal Broadway prices for a show where the actors aren't being asked to learn their lines. It's a strategy that's both working and can reasonably be called tacky.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/29/24 at 10:22pm

I won’t say I hated this tonight but I REALLY disliked it. The audience all around me started out riotously laughing at every word then after about 20 mins just chuckled and laughed some. Other parts of the house were LOUD with laughter throughout so it was an odd thing. However at curtain call everyone immediately jumped to their feet screaming and cheering, maybe some to justify the money they had spent. 

Walking home, I realized this is the kind of show that in 2005, we would have paid $20 for at 11pm at Joes Pub and some random assortment of Broadway people would come down after their show and read this stuff for the audience while we all drank. That’s where this belongs. 

[Leaf Coneybear]

Posted: 12/30/24 at 12:36am

Jordan Catalano said: "I won’t say I hated this tonight but I REALLY disliked it. The audience all around me started out riotously laughing at every word then after about 20 mins just chuckled and laughed some. Other parts of the house were LOUD with laughter throughout so it was an odd thing. However at curtain call everyone immediately jumpedto their feet screaming and cheering, maybe some to justify the money they had spent.

Walking home, I realized this is the kind of show that in 2005, we would have paid $20 for at 11pm at Joes Pub and some random assortment of Broadway people would come down after their show and read this stuff for the audience while we all drank. That’s where this belongs."

I totally agree. It’s not that it was bad - I enjoyed parts of it, like the baby noir story. But the audience was laughing at EVERYTHING when, frankly, there weren’t many jokes and IMO it wasn’t al that funny. Sweet, yes. Entertaining, sometimes. Funny, occasionally. If I saw this in a smaller theater for about half the price (or even a third) I wouldn’t be complaining so much. 

[Kad]

Posted: 1/12/25 at 11:10am

Saw this last night. I had a fine time and was entertained- I certainly laughed and it's always a delight to see Mulaney and Kind. But this is easily one of the slightest shows I have ever seen on Broadway and... if this is a showcase of Simon Rich's talents as a writer, it's not much of one. The stories are all kind of essentially the same- a clever concept involving some kind of unexpected juxtaposition (pirates as parents! a talent agent buying more time on earth by signing death! toddlers in a film noir!) and then ending on a very saccharine note (these people love each other). They all should've been New Yorker cartoons. Rich certainly can pull out a funny one-liner from these concepts, but for a show built around love, there's very little connective tissue and basically no insights or clever observations about such a well-worn concept. The stories feature love in varying forms and degrees, sure, but what they're really about is Rich's cleverness.

I was surprised by how wildly unequally the performing duties are divvied up. Mulaney is far and away the most featured- I would even call that track the lead with the other 3 as featured and disregard this being billed as an ensemble play. Kind is second with a couple of featured stories, and then Chloe Fineman in a series of thankless wife roles and then the finale story, with Armisen having extremely little to do and really only showcased in 2 stories as a supporting character.

Any of the show's success as a piece of entertainment is really due to Mulaney here. He's so great at storytelling and holding an audience in the palm of his hand- you never know what off-kilter emphasis or tone he'll bring, finding laughs in nothing and heightening weak jokes. He also brings a needed cynical edge to a show that is often sweet to the point of cloying. I really cannot imagine this working without him and particularly not with the earnest theatre kid energy of folks like Lin-Manuel Miranda or Jimmy Fallon.

But overall, Jordan was right- this is the sort of show you'd see and have a nice time at Joe's Pub back in the day. It's a $40 dollar experience being upsold wildly and just comes across as a money printer. And it apparently is succeeding in that.

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 1/13/25 at 12:28am

Got a lottery ticket for this last night and while I found it diverting, I'm glad I didn't pay any more for my ticket.  For those curious we got balcony row A, last two seats on the right which were technically partial view but only really obstructed the band.

I think I had read the first story online, but I was unfamiliar with Simon Rich stories otherwise and I'm a little puzzled as to what made them think they should have an evening of stories focused on his works billed as a "comedy".  While I think there's humor to them I find them more amusing than laugh out loud funny (though my audience would probably disagree), and I just couldn't help feeling that many of them would come across better on paper than as live performance (especially since they weren't really written to be performed).

All the performers were fine, sometimes great, though I agree the division of labor felt wildly unequal.  While they all had scripts open, a lot of the time they were barely used or only referred to with a quick glance.  And while I enjoyed the music, I think it just left everything feeling even more disjointed (though the incidental music and sound/lighting effects during the stories were quite well done and I did enjoy the touch that the back wall projections added).

I had previously considered continuing to enter the lottery for this just to see other performers I like down the line in their runs, but after seeing what this is I can safely say I don't need to see it again.  Though on that topic, based on rehearsal footage, I'm not sure if they swapped the chairs around but Andrew Rannells is sitting in John Mulaney's spot while Lin Manuel Miranda sits in Richard Kind's spot.  And while I do think those tracks suit them as actors I wonder if they'll give John Mulaney's opening to Lin, being the more famous one, or if they'll reconfigure any of the tracks.

[RussT2]

Posted: 1/13/25 at 8:27am

Saw the final performance of ALL IN last night on 1/12/25 with John Mulaney, Richard Kind, Fred Armisen and Chloe Fineman. I didn't know what to expect. My husband and I are big Mulaney fans so we got tickets when they went on sale last December thinking it was a comedic play. We didn't know it would be the actors sitting in chairs the entire time. We went in with open minds. Well. This show was HYSTERICAL. It was absolutely perfect and I don't think these 7 stories could have worked as a typical play where the actors are walking in sets with props. They have performed it enough that they didn't even read from the book, they were basically acting and playing off each other while seated or moving around in the chairs. Perhaps because we were seeing this casts final performance they knew the material really well, so they could perform it from memory, but we both LOVED it and it had many, many laughs. We were sitting in the balcony but had a great view. Absolutely worth the $200 a ticket. We did the stage door afterwards and Mulaney took the time to sign, talk and do photos with everyone.

Updated On: 1/13/25 at 08:27 AM

[inception]

Posted: 1/13/25 at 9:22am

Actually makes a lot more sense for Rannels to take Mulaney's material.

chrishuyen said: "

. Though on that topic, based on rehearsal footage, I'm not sure if they swapped the chairs around but Andrew Rannells is sitting in John Mulaney's spot while Lin Manuel Miranda sits in Richard Kind's spot. And while I do think those tracks suit them as actors I wonder if they'll give John Mulaney's opening to Lin, being the more famous one, or if they'll reconfigure any of the tracks."

 

[GottaGetAGimmick420]

Posted: 1/13/25 at 3:59pm

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/When-Is-a-Performance-Not-One-The-ALL-IN-Debate-20250113

When Is a Performance Not One? The ALL IN Debate

... The issue is the folks who bought tickets before performances began on December 11 or even before opening on December 22. Would a reasonably diligent person in their position have been able to make an educated purchasing decision based on the words “read live”? How about the people who relied on the wording before it changed? And if a reasonably diligent person wouldn’t have been able to make an educated purchasing decision, is that a reason for a refund? Or do producers not have to inform consumers about the type of theatrical offering they are purchasing tickets to because buying tickets is always a risk? The answers to these questions will determine how you feel about this issue. But, one thing is for certain, no one wants unhappy ticket buyers. Even if the impact of their bitterness is not felt financially on an individual show, it damages the industry.  

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 1/14/25 at 12:29pm

The next rotating cast begins tonight: Lin-Manuel Miranda, Nick Kroll, Andrew Rannells, and Aidy Bryant.

Anyone going?

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/14/25 at 6:47pm

I saw this show this past weekend, and I'm going to offer up a slightly different take than I am seeing from lots of folks. 

I'm not sure the problem with this show is that the actors are on book (though that in and of itself is kind of ridiculous--why would it ever occur to someone buying tickets for a Broadway show that anyone would be on book unless advertsed specifically and explicitly as a reading?)

The problem is that the material, itself, has no business being on stage. 

These stories are, at best, mildly cute entertainmant that would act as a minor distraction that you can read on your morning train ride to work. Something in the Shouts & Murmurs sections that you read once, has little impact, and you never think of again. 

There is nothing about them that is stageworthy, or asking for actors to play out the circumstances--which is why everyone is sitting in chairs. There's nothing to *do*. 

I suppose I have seen worse show than this in that I've seen shows that have genuinely bad writing and genuinely bad acting. 

But I do think this show commits the biggest sin of all: it's absolutely, through and through, completely boring and unremarkable. One could not even hate watch this...just wish for it to end, because it's perfectly talented people reading perfeclty fine stories that have no business ever being on stage. 

Even as a cash grab, I'm stumped as to why anyone would consider putting this on stage. I'd have been happier if you sat these four people (for my performance: John Mulaney, Chloe Fineman, Richard Kind, and Fred Armisen) on stage and let them just chat about their day without any script. That probably would have been funnier and more entertaining. 

Instantly forgettable. 

And for the record: I saw this for free, and part of me still wants my time back. 

Updated On: 1/14/25 at 06:47 PM

[BoringBoredBoard40]

Posted: 1/14/25 at 10:53pm

I thought Lin, Kroll, Andrew and Aidy were INFINITELY better than the first group.

They actually felt engaged with the material and like they were trying to play characters instead of just reading out of binders (which now are made up to look as if they are fairytale like storybooks)

For those wondering about who is doing what

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Aidy is playing all the same tracks that Chloe and Renee did

Pirates - Andrew and Nick on leads

Elephant Man - Nick is the physician, Andrew is Elephant Man

Detective - Lin is the detective

New Client - Nick is Death, Andrew is the Narrator, Lin is the Agent

Also everyone came out very quickly and signed, of course autograph leeches were waiting for Lin, probably 20 of them (I was one of the first out to the stagedoor)

[Kad]

Posted: 1/15/25 at 11:04am

Who got the opening 12 inch pianist story?

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 1/15/25 at 11:49am

Even as a cash grab, I'm stumped as to why anyone would consider putting this on stage.

Because they know the average theater-goer won't come here or think too much of the wording "read live". It's pretty gross honestly. 

 

 

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/15/25 at 12:44pm

Sutton Ross said: "Even as a cash grab, I'm stumped as to why anyone would consider putting this on stage.

Because they know the average theater-goer won't come here or think too much of the wording "read live". It's pretty gross honestly.



"

I agree it's sketchy. Whether they say "read live" or not, without explicitly and clearly calling it a (barely) staged reading, it's flase advertising, IMO. It just simply would never occur to someone paying full price for Broadway tickets that actors would be on script. It feels like one of the most fundamental and basic terms of the unwritten contract of handing over the exorbitant amount of money tickets cost--that you will get actors who know their material well enough to not be reading to you (barring understudies saving the day before put-ins, etc). 

But for me, that isn't even the big problem here. If they were on stage sitting down reading--I don't know--a selection of the best SNL sketches or an actual play with any level of cohesiveness, I'd still be aghast at the choice to have scripts but at least I'd feel I was watching something the called for a staging and was entertaining. 

This is literally just short stories. And frankly, I think I would have found them more amusing if I just read them on my own time on the subway to see something else. 

Nothing against the actors. And honestly--not even sure it's anything against Simon Rich. I just think presenting the material like this props it up to be something more than it is, which makes it look worse than it is for its original intent (to be read silently to oneself). 

Updated On: 1/15/25 at 12:44 PM

[JoeyEvans1206]

Posted: 1/15/25 at 5:23pm

If individuals are upset and disappointed that actors are on book and the evening plays out as a staged reading - I can certainly understand that.

It would be great to refrain from referring to it as a "cash-grab" - even the most modest Broadway shows cost millions to mount and hundreds of thousands to operate each week. 

This is a limited ten week run which means IF the show is able to recoup in such a short amount of time, there is only small margins of profit post-recoupment. So there's not really much money to be grabbing at the end of the day. All of these stars could be making exponentially more doing film and television work so even the talent is not part of any sort of a cash grab. 

Maybe its a miscalculated theatrical experiment, but not one that I think is motivated by greed. I can't imagine a limited ten week run is very profitable for anyone. I could be wrong?

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 1/15/25 at 6:00pm

Supposedly, there is already a sequel to this in the works for next season called All Out. I’m not even kidding. My source is a trusted NY theatre professional. 

[Tom5]

Posted: 1/17/25 at 2:18am

Is it anything like 'Nothing On'?

[RussT2]

Posted: 1/17/25 at 10:17am

Kad said: "Who got the opening 12 inch pianist story?"

Are you saying you didn't get the humor in the opening story about the 12 inch pianist? I thought it was very funny when John Mulaney delivered it. The audience did too, so this isn't just my opinion. I loved the show with Mulaney, Armisen, Kind and Fineman.

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 1/17/25 at 10:26am

I believe he was responding to the previous post regarding the new cast, which discussed who did which story ("got," as in who performed it.)

According to Reddit, LMM did the opening story.

[RussT2]

Posted: 1/17/25 at 2:09pm

OK, thank you for explaining his comment.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 1/19/25 at 8:51pm

I went again tonight since i bought tickets before knowing what this thing actually was and wanted to see Lin, Andrew and Aidy. And while i actually enjoyed it a bit more with this cast it’s still not something i really ever want to sit through again. 

However, the entire show all I kept thinking was how I wanted to see Aidy Bryant in “Oh, Mary”. 

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 1/28/25 at 3:17pm

Jimmy Fallon makes his Broadway debut tonight, taking over for Rannells.