All Shook Up Reviews — Page 3

yeah the diary thing was pretty harsh but its true, it definitely downplayed the racial issues.

Updated On: 3/25/05 at 02:13 AM

I've said it before and I'm going to say it again..The NY Times under Brantley's helm, has become a predictable, agenda-driven tabloid..at least where theatre criticism is concerned.

The key to Brantley's agenda lies in the first paragraph and the words "synthetic jukebox musical." Sort of sounds like the dreaded "pop" musical Brantley loves to hate, doesn't it? or the notorious "British Mega-musical"?

From most of the accounts I've read online and everyone I've spoken to who's seen this show, ASU is a highly entertaining night at the theatre. But these people don't view this show as a threat to civilized musical theatre that Brantley likes to brand as jukebox musical...In fact, I'm betting Brantley now wishes he panned Mamma Mia!

Clearly to me, Brantley and the Times think they should be able to dictate the type of shows that are on broadway...Therefore, any type of musical that falls outside of the agenda faces an unduly tough uphill battle to win favor. In fact, snow in August stands a better chance of happening.

In my opinion, Brantley and the Times are charting a dangerous course here for the future of broadway. Criticial and popular tastes are becoming more and more divergent. Critics like Brantley appear to me to be stuck in the dark ages, inflexible and unwilling to change, and then when they review a show like this, they write the type of tired diatribe said by old queens at boring dinner parties. Like it or not, the NY Times still has a great deal of power. I have no doubt that there have been a countless number of promising shows vetoed by producers because of the critical reception the show would receive on broadway.

I do realize Brantley isn't alone here, but I've found the predominance of this agenda laden mentality lies with the NY critics. And Brantley is the most powerful of the lot, who also writes the most sickeningly pretentious, pompous, snobbish reviews.

IMO, Brantley has to go.

Updated On: 3/25/05 at 02:21 AM

NY Post:

As the show's posters put it: "The story is all new. The hits are all ELVIS."

Guess what? It's the story that causes all the trouble. A concert might have worked better.

...

Isn't it amazing how Shakespeare can make this kind of farrago fascinating? Unfortunately, DiPietro is no Shakespeare.

The guy tries and tries. He adapts Shakespeare's heroines Viola and Rosalind by having Natalie dress up as a boy to get her man. It doesn't work — it just seems silly.

Even sillier is the use of Elvis' music — from "Hound Dog" and "Heartbreak Hotel" to "Jailhouse Rock" and "Blue Suede Shoes," too many hits miss the mark by their abrupt and fragmentary use.

...

As the leads, Gambatese and Jackson have charm and charisma to spare, and he in particular has something of the voice and all of the pelvis to do his numbers justice. Veterans Hadary and Korey are just fine, and Wilkins sings up a small tornado.

But for all the frenzy, the show seems dead on arrival.

Elvis has left the building. He's even put out the lights.


NY POST

Updated On: 3/25/05 at 04:53 AM

and Liz Smith mentions the show:

AT THE OPENING of the high-energy, Elvis-inspired Broadway musical "All Shook Up," a star was born. He's Cheyenne Jackson - young, strapping, 6-foot-3, a looker and the sexiest man to hit the boards since Hugh Jackman.

The audience went mad for this crazy, silly, enjoyable show with its multitalented cast. Like "Mamma Mia!" it's definitely another manufactured musical doozy, short on unique or creative original theater appeal but crammed full of audience-pleasing nostalgia. So "C'mon Everybody" and "Don't Be Cruel!" Put on your "Blue Suede Shoes" and "Let Yourself Go" because you "Can't Help Falling in Love" with that fine old Presley-inspired music and the adorable cast. (They even let middle-aged people have sexual desires and romantic couplings onstage, as if they were actual human beings!)

It was fun to sit across the aisle from the charming Priscilla Presley. She was as friendly as all get-out, just like the show onstage.


At The Bottom of the Sandra Bullock Article

Updated On: 3/25/05 at 05:05 AM

So altogether it's mixed.

Some positive, some negative, some mixed.

I am glad someone mentioned the racial aspect, but I'm stunned only one reviewer did. I'd guess people want to downplay that dark era, but really, it illustrates a major flaw in the book of this show: If you are going to show a repressed, uptight town, then show it. Footloose is a horrible movie (and from what I hear, an even worse musical) but at least they showed the conflict and what happens when morals and attitudes change.

I'm frankly surprised the reviews were as positive as they were. I guess now we jsut wait and see what the audiences think. I can't see these reviews selling $2m in ticket sales- anyone know what the advance is like?

Damn that Brantley and his agenda. And his positive review for Mamma Mia. Oops.

Maybe theater critics, who have to see and think hard about tons of shows a year, don't have so much patience for something derivative. Brantley has his problems, but they're not that visible in this review.

And Chlydomnestra, I still have no idea why jukebox musicals should be counted as a genre of their own when they don't appear to be attempting anything different than musical comedies. Lennon may end up as a musical play rather than comedy, but that's still not a unique genre.

Updated On: 3/25/05 at 09:55 AM

There are some harsh ones but it seems like there are def. more positive to mix reviews.. very few shows get 100% good reviews. And there ticked advance is strong.. And on top of that audiences go and have a good time.. so word of mouth is going to help the show greatly as well!

---

Well, most of the reviews are very harsh. My friend went last night and said it was terrible but a little better than Good Vibrations. I can't believe this trashy musical took over the unforgetable AIDA.

Who coined the term "jukebox musical" anyway? Was it the Times? I agree with you Plum, theres no real difference between a "jukebox musical" and a musical comedy, except for the fact that they aren't creating an original score. Therefore, I see it as an attempt to lump together and give a negative impact to a certain group of shows that the reviewer perceives as some kind of threat to broadway, just as the dreaded "pop" or "British megamusical" was.

Mamma Mia! did get a favorable review in the Times (actually an argument could be made that it was a RAVE review), which I did point out in my earlier comments. I've noticed though that since Brantley reviewed the show, he's seemingly pulled away a couple of the gold starts he initially bestowed upon it. Btw, I HATED Mamma Mia!

Anyways, my earlier comments weren't only about Brantley's review of ASU, or really whether the show is good or not, but his writing in general. Instead of giving us reasons for disliking something in particular and backing up his claims, he gives us generalizations and uses terms like "jukebox musical". For example, in his review of ASU, he says:

"But it's easier to take license-stretching liberties with the easy-listening melodies of Abba than it is with the intricate harmonies of the Beach Boys or, getting back to the point, the snarling song stylings of Presley."

Huh? Does he really mean that this type of "jukebox musical" needs "easy-listening melodies" to work? Perhaps there's hope...maybe the next jukebox musical should be of Lawrence Welk.

Brantley's writing style has irked me for some time now. He either writes like a tired old queen making barbs at a cocktail party or you don't have a clue as to why he likes or dislikes a show. When he actually does like something..or an actor in particular, he writes elaborate, exaggerated love letters which seemingly indicate a performer is turning in some kind of legendary performance, whereas it's usually not the case (ex. Kristin in Wicked). If he favors someone and they turn in less than a stellar project, (ex. Sondheim in Bounce), he dances around anything negative he says.

"When a song has less inherent meaning, you can stamp more of your own meaning onto it."

But isn't that my point? Brantley is saying in his ludicrous statement that easy listening melodies, not too associated with a particular singer or group are how this "jukebox musical" works. Who cares that the songs have no meaning or harmony or style as long as they fit into whats happening in the show? Therefore, I say someone should be writing a Lawrence Welk musical. Brantley would love it! Can you imagine all the possibilities of the closer to Welk's show "Good night, sleep tight and pleasant dreams to you..."(Or maybe noone would touch the Champagne Lady)