After all that, Matthew Broderick excellent in Starry Messenger!

I posted about this on the other board, and just felt that because he'd gotten such a bad rap after not knowing his lines during the first preview, it was only fair to express my enjoyment of Starr Messenger this past weekend. The play is way too long, but Broderick's performance is nuanced and moving, and Kieran Culkin is also terrific in this.

Positive response here. Saw "The Starry Messenger" last Tuesday night after reading all the vitriol on the boards coupled with some glowing reviews and very much enjoyed myself. Thought Broderick was the best I've seen him and I say that as a child raised on Ferris Bueller and someone who has sat through the good and bad of his stage outings.

One of my friends saw it last week and said that Broderick was outstanding. After reading some of the reviews here and also some of the press reviews, my interest is definitely piqued. I'm thinking of seeing it in a few weeks.

---

"I posted about this on the other board, and just felt that because he'd gotten such a bad rap after not knowing his lines during the first preview, it was only fair to express my enjoyment of Starr Messenger this past weekend. The play is way too long, but Broderick's performance is nuanced and moving, and Kieran Culkin is also terrific in this."

How lucky we were that you did not limit your opinion to the other board.

Once upon a time I thought that Matthew Broderick was terrific. Sadly, that is no longer the case, and it has been that way for quite some time now. And it has nothing to do with his not knowing his lines. He knew his lines fine when I saw this play. The problem was, just as he was in "The Philanthropist," "The Odd Couple,""and "Taller Than a Dwarf," he was horrible. Not just horrible, but HORRIBLE. "Nuanced?" Nuanced my eye. He's giving the same deadly, zombified performance here that he's been giving for years. And the play is HORRIBLE,HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE. One of the worst things I've ever seen, a moribund, unending, self-indulgent, dead-fish stinking bore.

But thanks for sharing your opinion.

Updated On: 11/30/09 at 11:47 PM

And how lucky am I, After Eight, to know that you think Broderick is "a self-indulgent, dead-fish stinking bore!" To each his own, but man, what did this guy ever do to you? lol...

Broderick's style is not for everyone, granted. Perhaps you saw him on an off night because the two performances I saw were just the opposite. To each his own. I did not see Taller Than a Dwarf, but did see the other two shows you mentioned. I hated The Philanthropist, not because of Broderick, but because that play was HORRIBLE all the way around. There is no way you can put The Starry Messenger in the same category. Besides the fact that it's too long, this play has so many threads of humanity in it that I found it to be very absorbing.

I still don't understand why his Odd Couple performance was so trounced. It really wasn't that bad. I have seen so much worse by actors that were considered to be much better than him yet he seems to draw the arrows the most.

---

Updated On: 12/1/09 at 07:19 AM

it's possible -- maybe even probable -- that the point-in-time rule applies here. Broderick really was awful in previews (even after the prompter was retired). That said, why is it so difficult to believe his performance has improved? he's a seasoned accomplished actor, certainly capable of embracing a steep learning curve. he may not be to every taste, and people who don't like his method are certainly entitled to that opinion, but it sounds as if his performance here is not to be judged on the early previews.

just a thought ...

---

Yes, I saw the play in previews; he had already learned his lines. If he has improved drastically, well, good for him. The problem is, he was giving the same exact performance he gave in "The Philanthropist." So that's what his acting has devolved to nowadays, as it has for some time now. Maybe that's an acting style you enjoy; I certainly do not. And I do not like to see the same bad acting style repeated again and again in every play in which he appears.

Whatever 2: The problem with your hypothesis is that the reviews were equally divided over his performance. Some critics indeed noted that he was giving the same dull performance he had given in "The Philanthropist," which seems to undercut the notion of his "embracing a steep learning curve." It is clear from this thread that some people like his acting style. Others hate it, like me.

Updated On: 12/1/09 at 10:54 AM

"The problem was, just as he was in "The Philanthropist," "The Odd Couple,""and "Taller Than a Dwarf," he was horrible. Not just horrible, but HORRIBLE."


Wow, what's the matter, did Matthew pee on your Playbill? HORRIBLE is he? Not just in his current show but also in his last three shows too, BUT you continue to see his shows. That says more about you than anything about his work.

That was going to be my reply to after eight, but you beat me to it. I'd be damned if I hated a performer so much but paid good money to see them and they continually disappointed me.

"The problem with your hypothesis is that the reviews were equally divided over his performance. Some critics indeed noted that he was giving the same dull performance he had given in "The Philanthropist," It is clear from this thread that some people like his acting style. Others hate it, like me".

Sorry to disagree with you, but the reviews were not equally divided over this production. They were decidedly favorable both for the production and Broderick's performance.


In terms of other performers getting panned, just recently Bill Irwin has been criticized for his over the top performance in Birdie, as well as John Goodman last season. Good actors sometimes give bad performances, sometimes they give good performances in bad productions, but the bottom line is no one is forcing us to go see them and then come onto a theater blog and bash them. It was quite evident from the pre-opening of both this show and The Odd Couple that someone had an axe to grind. It's almost unheard of in most other productions that the AP newswire reports something that goes on in previews of a Broadway show. It isn't like Broderick is this mega superstar that is coming to Broadway for the first time. He is a theater rat. Perhaps it's because he's married to a high profile celebrity but whatever.

I do love theater as well and can usually find something positive about a show even if it's not something I really like overall. I think that's what loving theater is all about.

---

Updated On: 12/1/09 at 07:38 PM

Whatever,I just copied and pasted his response to you, which is what I was disputing. He states that the reviews for this play were evenly divided and I was stating that they were not. I'm sorry to have included your name in the paste.

He's obviously not a fan of Broderick's and that's fine with me. I just don't get why he keeps going to his shows.

---

no worries, mc1277 ... the quotation marks confused me!

---

After Eight, I heard your reason why you continue to see his shows. I just don't buy it. Perhaps you get freebies so it doesn't cost you anything. Then it would make more sense.

Again, to each their own. Just stating what I feel as you are. No hard feelings, I enjoy the banter and passion of the board.

---

Updated On: 12/2/09 at 07:41 AM