BACK TO THE FUTURE Reviews — Page 3

Huckster2 said: "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."

No love, most mega flops could claim audiences "loved it". What groupies don't get is that people may like some shows, but at very different points on how much they are willing to invest on it.

And for the nth time, even if Wicked did get all negative reviews (which it didn't), it would be a very unique exception.

Yes but the difference is- Wicked had the most potent advertising trick up its sleeve- a multi million selling cast recording and songs that people became obsessed with.
This has… a flying car.

it’s honestly heartening to see the show get the critical response it deserves. I was horrified when this won Best Musical at the Oliviers. Jeez even Moulin Rouge deserved that award more than this dross.

The one positive thing that almost every one of these reviews agrees on is Roger Bart and that pleases me because I know how much this show means to him. He wasn't the reason I originally went to see the show in London - I wasn't familiar with his work at the time - but he is the main reason why I have booked a holiday to NY to see him in this Broadway production.

blaxx said: "LuckyDipster said: "The onepositive thing that almost every one of these reviews agrees on isRoger Bartand that pleases me because I know how much this show means to him. He wasn't the reason I originally went to see the show in London - I wasn't familiar with his work at the time - but he is the main reason why I have booked a holiday to NY to see him in this Broadway production."

And yet, this is probably Bart's worst role of them all. All the credibility he had in the past goes down the drain with his over-the-top, one-note performance.

C+ for his commitment to his paycheque, though."

All the credibility he had in the past has gone down the drain, on what planet?

You are so OTT. The man has a body of work on stage and screen that has kept him working for decades, and you think one role (that he's had positive reviews for on both sides of the Atlantic) has blown his credibility? Ridiculous.

Bart was fine when I saw the show. I don't think he was too over the top at all. I enjoyed his performance.

Jesse Green's reviews really have me missing Brantley's acerbic writing. Green's reviews (even the ones I agree with) are just so... boring.

Whoever does the "Thumbs Up, Thumbs down or Thumbs horizontal" icons next to the various reviews apparently no idea how to distinguish a bad review from a mixed review.. I read so many of the posted reviews ID'd with the thumbs down icon and when I finished, thought, "that wasn't such a bad review at all." Case in point is Green's review in the NYT. He even refers to the score (clearly not a strong point of the show) as "tuneful and in a few cases rousing".

The primary distinction between a bad review and a mixed review is that while the bottom line message of a bad review is "Don't waste your time or your money", the message in a mixed review is "In spite of its shortcomings, this show might well be (as Green actually says), worth a ticket."

RaisedOnMusicals said: "Whoever does the "Thumbs Up, Thumbs down or Thumbs horizontal" icons next to the various reviews apparently no idea how to distinguish a bad review from a mixed review.. I read so many of the posted reviews ID'd with the thumbs down icon and when I finished, thought, "that wasn't such a bad review at all." Case in point is Green's review in the NYT. He even refers to the score (clearly not a strong point of the show) as "tuneful and in a few cases rousing".

The primary distinction between a bad review and a mixed review is that while the bottom line message of a bad review is "Don't waste your time or your money", the message in a mixed review is "In spite of its shortcomings, this show might well be (as Green actually says), worth a ticket.""



To be fair, it's very subjective. I also read that review as mixed and called it so on page one of the thread. On page two someone responded, "Was that a mixed review? Read bad to me.", a comment that currently has two likes. People see different things in reviews, as with shows.

QueenAlice said: "I'm just fascinated by these plays and musicals that WIN Olivier awards for Best Play or Musical, and then transfer to Broadway to piddling reviews. Is this just about different tastes, or are the productions on Broadway inferior to their West End counterparts?"

Back to the Future was nominated with The Drifters Girl, Frozen, Get Up!StandUp! and Moulin Rouge. There might have been some bias to voting for an original UK musical over the US imports. Polling results on Theatreboard are:

⭐️ 2 votes (1.90%)

⭐️⭐️ 13 votes (12.38%)

⭐️⭐️⭐️14 votes (13.33%)

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ 49 votes (46.67%)

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ 27 votes (25.71%)

There have been 105 votes by 105 voters.

blaxx said: "LuckyDipster said: "The onepositive thing that almost every one of these reviews agrees on isRoger Bartand that pleases me because I know how much this show means to him. He wasn't the reason I originally went to see the show in London - I wasn't familiar with his work at the time - but he is the main reason why I have booked a holiday to NY to see him in this Broadway production."

And yet, this is probably Bart's worst role of them all. All the credibility he had in the past goes down the drain with his over-the-top, one-note performance.

C+ for his commitment to his paycheque, though."



Haters gonna hate -- especially the ones who haven't seen the show.

QueenAlice said: "I'm just fascinated by these plays and musicals that WIN Olivier awards for Best Play or Musical, and then transfer to Broadway to piddling reviews. Is this just about different tastes, or are the productions on Broadway inferior to their West End counterparts?"

As someone who sees a lot of shows annually in both NYC and London, my sweeping generalization is that NYC does better (with) musicals and London does better (with) plays. Exceptions to both abound, of course.

The reviews are kind. The material represents a nadir of a form that, at least in projects that can reach the mainstream, has been in a freefall of quality for the better part of a decade. "It's just supposed to be fun!" What about something so dishwater bland and so badly written is supposed to be enjoyable? Why do I owe something conceived in such abject cynicism the benefit of the doubt every time?

bwayphreak234 said: "Bart was fine when I saw the show. I don't think he was too over the top at all. I enjoyed his performance.

Jesse Green's reviews really have me missing Brantley's acerbic writing. Green's reviews (even the ones I agree with) are just so... boring."

I agree with the assessment of Jesse Green's writing being boring. Ben Brantley's writing in the NY Times was an enjoyable. I'm sure Green is a good writer but it's hard to discern that from his reviews.

allofmylife said: "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."

Really? I don't see people going back again and again. First of all, it's expensive and the people who go back are usually New Yorkers. These show doesn't really appeal to the NY crowd. I'm reminded of Rocky when it first opened. The company did a lot of marketing for advanced tickets because they knew what they had, a flying car and mediocre adaptation of the movie. Why see the show when you can watch the movie again and again?

I can't see this doing repeat business.