BONNIE & CLYDE Reviews - Page 10

[StageManager2]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 12:58pm

For the love of God, someone please sh!t in CurtainPullDowner's mouth!

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 1:03pm

I'm disheartened by these reviews because I was really rooting for this show. I love what I've heard of the score. And although I haven't seen the show, I do think these critics were biased against Wildhorn. I see some of their points, but the tones of the reviews also make it sound like they went in there wanting to hate it and the confirmation bias took over from there.

Also, I can see Jeremy and Laura's chemistry just from video clips, so I don't know how Brantley could say they didn't have any. Granted, chemistry is subjective.

[dexter3]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 1:25pm

Maybe Wildhorn needs to try a DIFFERENT way of writing his musicals from now on?!

Perhaps script and story FIRST, and THEN songs?

That way, one could tell if the script itself is a) good, and b) worthy of turning into a musical.

There'd be a better chance of the songs actually moving the show forward, as opposed to the scenes being contrived AROUND the pop songs that Frank is trying to pass off as theater songs.

This is the final nail in the Wildhorn coffin...the man does not for the LIFE of him know anything about how to make a book musical work. He is, at best, a pop song writer with an interest in theater.

Oh, and the luckiest darn composer with rich producer friends in history.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 1:26pm

stage manager2, the critics have said much worse about this show than I.

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 2:44pm

Sorry if this was posted already. Roma Torre from NY1:

She liked the music and the performances...

http://www.ny1.com/content/ny1_living/theater_reviews/151776/ny1-theater-review---bonnie-and-clyde-

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 3:06pm

Well if you go by Broadwayworld's scoring system of reviews Bonnie and Clyde has a 5.83/10 which is higher than Wicked and Adams Family and just below Memphis, Priscilla, and Mamma Mia...

I also found the write up on Playbill.com rather funny calling "Ben Brantley in the New York Times, gave what has to be considered a sort of a rave when he called the show "a modest, mildly tuneful musical."

and

"If I were Wildhorn, I'd be buying a round of drinks at Sardi's."

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/157171-PLAYBILLCOMS-THEATRE-WEEK-IN-REVIEW-Nov-26-Dec-2-Harvey-Will-Hop-Mormon-Recoups-Bonnie-Clyde-Opens

Updated On: 12/2/11 at 03:06 PM

[blaxx]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 4:14pm

Not true. 'Memphis' survived a NYT pan, won the Tony for Best Musical, and is on its way to reaching 1,000 performances.

And 'Spider-Man' is not only surviving, but thriving, in the wake of a NYT pan, grossing about $2 million a week.

Neither Memphis nor Spider-Man have recouped, and both could still close as flops. It is ok if you don't know what a pan is. To clarify, I'll give out a few examples.

A pan would not include praise for the show's lead performers.

From Brantley's review of Wicked:

What Ms. Chenoweth manages to do with the lyrics of a song of self-admiration called 'Popular' is a master class in musical phrasing.

I was so blissed out whenever Glinda was onstage that I never felt I was wasting time at 'Wicked.' I just kept smiling in anticipation of her return when she wasn't around.

The talented Ms. Menzel will no doubt dazzle audience members whose musical tastes run to soft-rock stations.

Or from Isherwood's review of Memphis:

Mr. Kimball is a quirky, boyish presence, with a thick, honeyed drawl that slides away when he breaks into song. His voice is strong, with just enough real ache in it to supply the feeling that the songs sometimes do not.

Ms. Glover, beautiful and poised, brings a spark of toughness to her role as Felicia. She acts with a focused clarity and sings with intensity

Throughout “Memphis” both the singing and the dancing are accomplished — something not to be taken for granted this season, it appears, in musicals set during the early days of rock.

Those reviews are mixed. If you dislike Brantley with a passion, mixed to negative. These are far far away from a pan. Again, no musical in recent memory has survived a NYT pan. I didn't mention, mixed to negative.

A real pan from Brantley starts like this:

Loved the shoes. Loathed the show. O.K., I exaggerate. I didn’t like the shoes all that much.

[Pit Mole]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 5:12pm

Bottom line here: If you truly feel (as I do) that this show has been excessively trashed by reviewers that went in with a strong anti-Wildhorn bias AND that it deserves to be seen, then, use YOUR power to counter the critics with email, Facebook, smoke-signals ...whatever. If you love the show, then use YOUR power to spread the word.

Oddly, some of the folks that did not like the show ( and in some cases didn't seem to like it even before they'd seen it) seem to use a lot of their time & energy trying to drag it down, yet they'll say "I Hope it does well"..... yeah, right.


I'm not saying that people should share my opinion as to whether the show is good or bad, what I AM saying is that few people on this forum as well as some critics have such blatant & obvious contempt for Frank Wildhorn that it would be damn near impossible for them to review any of his work in a truly objective manner.

Look at it another way... If I told you that there was a new book coming out for the holiday season of recently discovered, long lost, love poems written by Adolf Hitler in 1944 .... what would your first reaction be? Right. It would be impossible to not have a bias. This is, of course, a really extreme stretch, but it illustrates an important point: If you have decided that you hate someone for whatever reason (certainly warranted in Hitler's case) then there is no way in Hell that you could remain unbiased in the way you perceived something that they created.

There is a good reason that prospective jurors are subjected to the Voire Dire process (that is the session where prospective jurors are asked what, if anything, they know about the case, what biases they might have etc.) with the intent that a fair trial may be conducted and just verdict may be rendered. Unfortunately, critics (and cyber-snipers") have no such standard, so shots my be (and frequently are) taken at the target of their choice with relative impunity.

Again, If you love the show- Great! If you hate it, that's fine too, but to pretend to be giving an unbiased objective critique after you've been espousing what a lousy actor, writer, composer etc. someone is... then you probably have to take look in the mirror and ask yourself what your REAL agenda is.

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 5:22pm

I didn't bring up 'Wicked,' so I'll leave that to others. And since you didn't cherry-pick quotes from the Times' review of 'Spider-Man,' I'll assume you agree that was a pan. Time will tell if it recoups, but for now, it's running, so it's 'surviving.' Your quote was: 'No musical has survived a NYT pan.' Though I see you've modified it in this latest post to say: 'No musical IN RECENT MEMORY has survived a NYT pan.'

The dictionary defines a 'pan' as 'harsh criticism.' It doesn't say that a pan ONLY has negative comments. A pan CAN have some nice (or backhanded) remarks. Isherwood's review called 'Memphis' 'a slick but formulaic entertainment that barely generates enough heat to warp a vinyl record' and sneers that it's 'the Michael Bolton of Broadway musicals ... it's not a comedy, but it's still a cartoon.' Even if Isherwood has some nice things to say about the leads, the condescending tone of the entire review reads as a pan. I'd also argue it is far more negative than positive; to me, mixed is more half and half.

My basic point: Some shows run even after they've gotten negative reviews from the Times, and some shows close sooner than anyone expected, even when they get terrific NYT reviews. The converse of your 'pan' theory would be: Every show survives with a NYT rave. But, of course, that's not true either.

[blaxx]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 5:37pm

The converse of your 'pan' theory would be: Every show survives with a NYT rave. But, of course, that's not true either.

Absolutely not. My point is that a professional critic's review will always have an impact on a show's revenue, and that is especially true when it comes to the extremely negative reviews (for example: The Little Mermaid. A true pan, as it had really nothing remotely positive to the say about any aspect of the show).

Sure Isherwood's review of Memphis was far more negative. But consider that Memphis could still close a flop. In 11 years, only one Best Musical Tony winner has closed a flop.

What I'm trying to dismiss are the comments that critics are obsolete. I think it is a fact that they have a lot of impact on a show. If it didn't, no one would be worried about them. Sure, there are exceptions, but these exceptions cannot be taken as a new rule. Even a show like The Addams Family, which tried to give critics the middle finger, is likely to close a flop in a few weeks.

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 5:46pm

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 05:46 PM

[Pit Mole]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 6:10pm

Your comment " But honestly, when you have the odds and history against you (as Wildhorn does) then you have to basically write God's gift to musical theatre..."does an excellent job of illustrating my point, Bobby. A really objective review would be to critique the show on it's own merits (or lack thereof) alone. But it sounds to me like you're saying "Well, if someone else had written this show it might or might not be OK, but since Frank wrote it, we have to subtract 6 Brownie points.

If someone has a axe to grind with Wildhorn in a broader sense, fine...then write about that as it's own piece, but to marry that to a review of a single play is simply bad journalism.


Updated On: 12/2/11 at 06:10 PM

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 6:18pm

Yes, Wildhorn has written a lot of bad shows. And then the producers take them to Europe and Asia, and they make a *ton* of money. Broadway? It's the out of town tryout.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 6:24pm

Roma Torre of NY 1 gave it a positive review. Not a rave but the best A Wildhorn show can ever hope for.

[philly03]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 6:24pm

^Exactly... Not to mention they usually have legions of devoted fans that follow the shows along the way and everywhere. He sells a ton of records from his shows, it's no surprise they keep getting recorded.

Broadway isn't "the end".. I don't know why it's been decided that the best theatre is Broadway. DRACULA was reworked in Europe and not only was a big hit, but is overall a better musical.

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 6:26pm

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 06:26 PM

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 6:35pm

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 06:35 PM

[SamIAm2]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 6:47pm

I'm interested in reading everyone's thoughts about how this show will impact the careers of the two leads, Laura Osnes and Jeremy Jordan, IF the show does not do well. Many here have predicted that, based upon their performances in B&C, that they will become major B'way stars. What happens if their performances were well reviewed (which they were) but the show tanks? Of course, I certainly hope that the show does well as do its stars.

[dented146]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 7:07pm

bobby, I understand what you are saying but the critics are professionals as well. They have a responsibility to judge a play or musical on it's own merit.

So Wildhorn has had some losers. Does that mean he has to have two or three good ones before he's entitled to a decent review? If Sondheim produces something below par does he automatically deserve unanimous praise because he's Sondheim?

You are correct that this is the way of the world. There are perfect examples of what you are saying in every area where judging is subjective from publishing to Olympic figure skating.

But in this particular case we are not just seeing misjudgement or a difference of opinion by some critics. I believe we are seeing a lack of professionalism born out of deep seeded hostility toward a particular individual.

Because the critics have so much power, it is not, in my opinion, much of a reach to call this a restaint of trade. Brantley and some of his colleagues have let it be known that Wildhorn and the people with whom he associates will not be doing business in NYC.
Updated On: 12/2/11 at 07:07 PM

[broadway7117]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 7:36pm

I agree with Sean that broadway is Wildhorn's "out of town tryout"

[broadwayfever]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 9:24pm

Don't listen to the critics. There's a reason why over 240 messages have been posted on this thread and why this thread has been viewed over 31,000 times in less than 2 days...because people like me can't understand why this show got such bad reviews when it's actually a great show. With the exception of Lysistrata, I have seen every musical that's currently on Broadway...and if I had a choice to see two of them again it would be Book of Mormon and Bonnie & Clyde. By the way, I've seen both of them 3 times. I really hope they release a cast album for Bonnie & Clyde...the score is amazing!

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 9:27pm

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 09:27 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 9:31pm

The show, unlike Wonderland, has 2 charismatic leads . It is has gotten at least a few reviews it can quote from. Maybe word of mouth can carry it thru Jan/Feb & March

I wish it the best as it is absolutely amazing.

[blaxx]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 9:36pm

There's a reason why over 240 messages have been posted on this thread and why this thread has been viewed over 31,000 times in less than 2 days...because people like me can't understand why this show got such bad reviews when it's actually a great show.

That's so cute!

[broadwayfever]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 10:44pm

The show is great, the acting is terrific, and the score is amazing! Don't listen to these lame critics and just go see the show if you haven't already.