"What Back to the Future does deliver instead of commentary on the original is a beat-by-beat translation of its set pieces. The DeLorean arrives onstage at the same time as Bart’s Doc, and actor and car split the entrance applause. When Marty gets inside and guns for 88 miles per hour, the screens around the stage blur behind him. (I felt right back in that Universal Studios amusement-park ride.) You’ll perhaps notice a V-shaped set of slats in the stage, ready to ignite behind the wheels of the car, and later on, the DeLorean soars into the air for its own “Defying Gravity” moment — turns out the flying cars are here. The stagecraft is well managed (Chris Fisher, of The Cursed Child, is credited with the illusions, while Finn Ross did the video design and Hugh Vanstone the lighting), but watching the climax, where Doc and Marty race to get everything set in time for lightning to strike, I kept noticing how much the musical nearly turned into a movie. The screens, which so dominate the set, provide for cuts between Doc and Marty, the score’s basically the one you know, and the actors are really there only to sit in a car and on a ledge and shout lines you know. When the ledge under Doc crumbles, that’s a screen too. If this is the future arriving on Broadway, it looks way too much like another medium’s past."
"Beyond Doc’s gray fright wig, Bart doesn’t replicate Christopher Lloyd’s memorable performance in the movie. Instead, he brings to mind a manic but weary Jack Lemmon sometime around that legendary actor’s comic nadir of “Luv” and “Good Neighbor Sam.” Bart played Doc on the West End, and he hasn’t so much grown in the role as switched it to autopilot. Who can blame him? The songs and jokes are dreary, and some of the sight gags that director John Rando has provided — Doc’s pants rip at one point when the character bends over to stick his butt up in the air — are lame. When Rando’s work isn’t vulgar, it is often incomprehensible. Big and purposefully tacky production numbers pop up out of nowhere only to evaporate just as quickly."
Like a broken-down DeLorean, the show sputters to a halt almost any time the characters start singing – an unenviable hurdle for any musical, let alone one that carries a hefty price tag of more than $20 million. With music and lyrics by Alan Silvestri and Glen Ballard, the score is riddled with ham-fisted clichés about having no future and feeling misunderstood. Only occasionally do the songs mine the story’s inherent comedic potential: “Cake,” an ironic ode to progressive 1950s society; and “Pretty Baby,” a doo wop-style come-hither between Lorraine and Marty, performed with droll conviction by Hunt.
“Back to the Future” is a technical marvel that hits all the right nostalgia buttons, and in the immortal words of Marty McFly, your kids are gonna love it. But with soulless songs that are more obligatory than earned, you can’t escape the feeling that they’re just running down the clock."
"All that dazzle might satisfy film fans looking to relive signature moments, but for others seeking re-imaginings more than repeats, “Back to the Future” will seem more fitting for a theme park than Broadway. Touring venues, however, may be more welcoming, with less demanding audiences looking for the comfort of familiar titles and the promise of spectacle. With “Back to the Future” already selling great in Gotham, only time — and the box office — will reveal the musical’s Broadway future."
" Thanks to a lovingly faithful recreation of the four-wheeled time machine (complete with OUTATIME license plate) and some clever screen effects, this production brings a highly intricate movie to the stage without a hitch. What really makes it work, though, is the book by Bob Gale, whose original screenplay (written with director Robert Zemeckis) is as durable as that DeLorean."
"But the musical as a whole never achieves liftoff, or even the stage equivalent of 88 miles an hour. It cruises along in a low gear for almost three hours. Unfathomable as it may seem, the show won the prestigious Olivier Award for best new musical in London. I fancifully imagine Sir Laurence was doing a bit of grave-spinning when that trophy was bestowed."
The idea is to work and to experiment. Some things will be creatively successful, some things will succeed at the box office, and some things will only - which is the biggest only - teach you things that see the future. And they're probably as valuable as any of your successes. -Harold Prince
lapinitsa said: "Does any of this matter with this show?"
I think it could, come awards season. Very different take from London.
Will it affect the box office in the long run? Who knows, but it's very expensive to run. For it to make a profit it needs to soar to Lion King levels, at least for a while.
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
Their reviews don’t matter but yikes. I won’t see it because of them - we see most everything and these as to the overall very weak fall schedule unfortunately . At least it saved me money I guess.
The production itself has tried to make the reviews perfunctory at best by having its star-studded red carpet and big party a week before the reviews were published. And I think other productions will start copying it.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
I doubt that reviews will matter. This is a party, like "Barbie" is a party. It will get an audience for a run, screaming at every turn and coming back again and again. And tourists. It's a title everyone knows. It's got nostalgia and a bit with a car.
I think the bad reviews will have some effect. Maybe not by the hundreds of thousands per week, but a few bucks I’m sure. There will be plenty of tourists talking to one another, and plenty of people saying “I heard it got really bad reviews” which, when you’ve only got a couple of days and four or five large shows to pick from, will sway them to Wicked and LK instead.
I was at the show tonight and loved it. But I’m a BTTF fan. I admit the songs fall flat but I was entertained and the car scenes were outstanding, albeit only mere minutes of the show. My theater partner is team thumbs down and says a prop isn’t enough to make a show. So I suppose between the two of us, we form a mixed review as well.
I feel like the reviews are mixed enough that they won't matter. If there were straight up embarassing pans across the board, that could have affected a "review-proof" show but with more of a mixed-negative reaction, I think it'll be just fine.
I don't think the bad reviews will have any immediate detriment. I'm not sure of thier advance,if it's healthy so much the better. There sounds like there was a large amount of positive word of mouth from preview audience, if that continues to spread and current audiences enjoy it and spread positive WOM thats a positive. The bad reviews haven't said the team behind this have created any kind of sacrilege and some potential audiences may take comfort in that . Word of mouth ,of negative, could be of some future consequences. In may be right in the wheel house of audiences looking for a big splashy loud and special effects laden good time. I don't think the creators are counting on serious minded theater goers to support it. If they market it properly to thier targeted audiences they should be fine. In the meantime,only time will tell.
Am I missing something about this being a sure fire Broadway hit? It had a fantastic first weekend and hasn’t done all that great since then. $1.1 million in the middle of the summer tourist season for an adaptation of one of the most beloved pop movies ever? I know it’s been in previews, but still…
I’m not arguing that it will be a complete disaster, and I gather that the big special effect is cool. This seems like the sort of show that should tour well, but I do wonder how well it will actually do on Broadway. The hope is that it will bring in people who don’t usually set foot in a theater.
I doubt the reviews will make much of a difference, but they will hurt on the margins. It seems like the consensus is that this is a film that didn’t need to be musicalized. As a big fan of the Back To The Future film, I just can’t get excited about seeing this.
Just saw the show on opening night. Loved it. It seems that everyone in the audience that I could see from my seat, loved it. So in these reviews, I wonder if these “critics” went into this not-wanting to even like it. I don’t get the critics complaining about the “book” from the guy who wrote the movie. What were they expecting? Him to rewrite whole movie or give us what we know? As for the music, it does take multiplie listeners (via the soundtrack) to really appreciate the lyrics. Having heard the soundtrack first, i think I enjoyed the music even more. So hopefully the overall positive posts by fans who have actually seen the musical, can over come some those critics reviews. Remember Wicked had bad reviews as well. And that turned out nicely.