Amelie at the Ahmanson — Page 4

I saw this last night, and the show left much to be desired unfortunately. I was really looking forward to this too....oh well. I'll start by saying by what's been said by many on this board and that's the music. The score is actually very pretty but literally every song sounds exactly the same, at least to me. The show is almost entirely sung through, and could have really used some more book scenes to help clarify the plot and better develop the characters. There isn't a single showstopping song in the entire show. None. Zero. Not by Amelie, not by anyone. And because there isn't an intermission (why wasn't there an intermission??) this show felt much longer than it's 1 hour and 50 minute running time. The last 30 minutes of the show dragged on and on and seemed like it would never end. The mother and daughter seated next to me were so restless they thankfully left about 15 minutes befofre the show ended.

The show just never seemed to take off...it needed a giant burst of adrenaline. The whole thing just felt very low evergy. The cast was fine, with TonySheldon being the stand out! Phillipa Soo was fine, but nothing out of this world...you can literally imagine many many other actresses in the role who would do just as well if not better. Maybe that's because the material is just average.

The highlight of the evening for me was the set and lighting design which I thought was very well done. Having said that, if the thing I enjoy most at my evening at the theater are the sets and lights, then I don't consider that a very successful night of theater. Oh well, I'm fairly easy to please and wish I had enjoyed this more. I wish them success, but I can't imagine them having a long run on Broadway!

Because staying in a show for years - no matter how big of a hit it is - means your career can't progress.

My family is flying in to see this show tomorrow. We are not familiar with the theater and the area. I got an email saying that there will be performances at the Mark Taper Forum and Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, as well. I'm looking for recommendations on what time to get there, a restaurant to grab a quick dinner and where to park. Any suggestions would be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

I use the parking garage on site, should be about ten dollars. I also love the french bistro thats out the front on Grand.

Plus this about a ten minute walk from the theatre in downtown on grand as well

https://www.bottegalouie.com

Thanks to all the recommendations.

Finally saw this last night. The film this show was adapted from was one of the best released in 2001. It excelled because of Jeanne-Pierre Jeunet's very captivating and unique camera work and visual style along with its compelling cinematography despite its very simple story. Sadly, the show's creative team is unable to replicate that same success to this stage version.

Bland. That's the word that has been thrown around here by a lot of people and I would agree. With its one act format, the show does not reach a crescendo nor any highs or lows. The score and musical numbers are easily forgettable. Not a single one stands out. It is as if the one act idea is to prevent people from walking out during an intermission if it had one. Set design is supposed to evoke being in Paris but looks utterly American. Little things such as the timing of actors writing something in the air and the words or symbols appearing in the background needs to be perfected for the effect to be magical. In a few instances, either the graphic was ahead or it was slow and trying to catch up with the actor on stage. I had no problems at all with Phillipa, Adam and Savvy (young Amelie).

The film was magical. This stage adaptation is anything but that. Between here and Broadway, the show needs a lot of work for it to have a successful run. At its present state, its run will be muted.

ChiTheaterFan....they had the fish on the stick, yes. And the magical component that I'm sure could be amped up a lot with the technology we have available now, is not overwhelming. That's to be sure.

But maybe that's why I liked it. I get sick of technology sometimes. In fact, to digress for a moment, when I heard the Met was changing their curtain-raising capabilities to become more modern, I was oddly saddened to hear that. Sometimes I think there is a lot to be said for simplicity. Where a sense of provinciality is still maintained. I like the idea of a curtain being raised in the old-fashioned way. Crazy as that sounds.

Musicals are the same for me. I don't have to be wowed by technology. Even in those shows that could maybe use it.

Personally I thought Soo was lovely in the role. And while she might be getting mixed reviews from some, I applaud her for taking a risk on new material such as this.

Maybe it comes down to an artistic choice, for better or worse. It sounds like I'm the only one who liked it on these boards, but I'm wondering why someone like Soo would involve herself with something that is such a "bore." I mean, with her credentials, wouldn't she see that?

If it really is such a bore.

Some people just see things differently. Personally I can like the simplicity of a story just as much as I can enjoy the over the top grandeur of some of these other musicals that make the tech as much the star of the show as the performers themselves.

I know some will say simplicity is fine, but if a show isn't good, it isn't good. Simple or not.

But again, that's personal opinion. Who's to say what is good and what isn't. It's all a personal journey. I have loved shows that "flopped" on Broadway, or were at least played down by the critics. Conversely I've disliked musicals that were hugely embraced by both audiences and critics.

Furthermore, if the music doesn't match some of the better shows I've seen that's okay too. I can appreciate artistic effort at whatever level it's at. It's just different.

Maybe Soo's the same. Getting in on the ground floor of something different. Something personal for her. Who knows? Maybe she also sees something in it that others don't too.

At any rate, good for her for taking this on.

It's recommended for 10 and up, pup. But as always, it depends on the kiddo.

It is a little story heavy and might be confusing/uninteresting for younger kids. Might not engage them enough as there are no chandeliers falling, helicopters landing on the stage, or fish flying without the assist of a stick.

And as you can see a lot of adults weren't particularly engaged by it either, so it's your call.

I enjoyed it just fine, but specifically to your question, while a ten year old might not totally connect with it, it's not inappropriate in the R-rating sense.

I didn't see many kids at the performance I saw either. If any.

Totally understood.

The way people seem to dislike it though, would the magic of technology even help it (for those who needed more from it)?

It seems like the audience review would then be, "A lot of cool stuff happening on stage, but nothing else."

Who knows? Hard call.

Hope they do what they need to do to make it a go. I really like Soo.

Telling from reviews here, I don't know why this is coming to Broadway. I can see a short run on Broadway

I don't know if you've seen the movie, but they included the moment where Amelie tries to guess how many couples are having an orgasm (and like the movie, it shows them, although it's just the noises and it's not graphic). I just wanted to include that information if you're deciding on whether or not it's age appropriate. I know that moment in the film made me very uncomfortable when I was watching it with my mom, haha.