BONNIE & CLYDE Reviews - Page 2

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 5:59pm

Now we're gonna dismiss or badmouth any critic that doesn't like this show? We will be up all night.

Maybe if the show was better, people wouldn't be so focused on Wildhorn's record on Broadway, or the movie (which I predicted is going to be present in the reviews).
It's only one, they might get better.

[NovaNurse7]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 6:08pm

Every one has a right to their opinion, of course. I just think there's a difference between not liking the show and writing a review that offers legitimate reasons and explanations for why you feel that way about THE SHOW and not liking a show simply based on the track record of its creators or some preconceived notion you have that the show is automatically based on the movie.

My problem with the WSJ review is that it's not really about the show at all; it's about Frank Wildhorn and his history, and the Bonnie & Clyde movie. The treatment of the musical itself and the actors in it is superficial at best.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 6:11pm

This production can say they aren't basing their musical on the film till they're blue in the face, but they need to realize that if Americans have any reference point for Bonnie and Clyde, the movie is it. Therefore I think it's only natural the reviews mention/compare the musical to the film.

[GatorNY]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 6:14pm

I haven't seen the film, so my only point of reference was wikipedia.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 6:20pm

NovaNurse- Whether one disagrees with the WSJ review or not, he did give legit reasons he didn't like the show, plus he praised the set, so that was something.

Gator- Did you read the Wikipedia article before or after seeing the show? What I mean is, if the general public has any preconceived notions about Bonnie & Clyde they have originated from the film, not reading biographies or Blanche's prison diary, etc. The cultural reference point, and I'm sure what most took as fact at the time, is the film.

Updated On: 12/1/11 at 06:20 PM

[NovaNurse7]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 6:30pm

To be completely honest, once I read the first couple paragraphs of the WSJ review, I was so aggravated with it that his praise of the set went right over my head. As for the reasons he didn't like the show - I can appreciate them, but when you preface those criticisms with a diatribe on how the show was an awful idea in the first place and isn't like the movie, I tend to put less stock in them.

And as for the movie, I have never seen it. My prior knowledge of Bonnie and Clyde consists solely of what I learned about them in my American History classes - that they were criminals who were in love and gave the authorities a run for their money when it came to being caught. Maybe it's because I'm too young (early 20s) for the movie to have been prevalent in my pop culture exposure, but it has no bearing on my conception of the show.

[GatorNY]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 6:33pm

I read it before the show, but being curious about the show was the reason why I read it. I wonder what I would have thought if I had seen the movie.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 6:33pm

amNY is negative (2.5 stars):

"To say that "Bonnie & Clyde" is the best musical to date composed by Frank Wildhorn, whose previous works include the cult hit "Jekyll & Hyde" and countless flops like "Wonderland" and "Dracula," is still not saying very much - it's only barely a compliment.

...

This really had the potential to be an entertaining, action-packed musical. Yet in spite of a mostly pleasant country-and-blues score and strong, sexy performances from the doll-faced Laura Osnes and heartthrob Jeremy Jordan, this remains a problematic show that lacks focus and tends to pause and meander too often.

Bonnie and Clyde are depicted as innocent dreamers scarred by poverty and an oppressive social climate. But by trying to justify their crimes, the play simplifies the psychological elements that made the film so gripping and reduces its two main characters to cardboard cutouts."

http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/theater-review-bonnie-clyde-2-5-stars-1.3360411

[GatorNY]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 6:36pm

I swear, the reviews I write for our hospital newsletter are more thoughtful and informative than these two are, and I'm a doctor.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 6:37pm

This is not a good start... I really want this show to do well

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 6:38pm

It's a shame that critics apparently have never picked up an American History book, never suspected anybody else of doing the same, and only get their history from past Broadway box office spreadsheets.

It's also a shame that the only "notorious criminal" these early-bird reviewers want to discuss is Frank Wildhorn.

While I don't think he's very good (I really enjoyed Scarlet Pimpernel, though), I think these reviews smell worse than anything he's ever written. And that's saying quite a lot.

Just review the damn show, and quit showing your ignorance while trying to be clever. It ain't workin'.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 6:39pm

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that everyone's idea of the show will be based on the movie, but rather that if people do walk into the theater with preconceived ideas about the duo it will be the movie that created the reference point.

You walked in with essentially a blank slate then. Maybe many will walk in with the same blank slate. I'm in my late twenties and love the movie. I didn't walk in expecting the movie at all, but it certainly was the reference point in my mind for what these characters were generally like; what the story generally was.

The film was a huge hit, and remains a fun time, so it's not unsurprising to expect many people to be familiar with it.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 6:42pm

"Jeff Calhoun's intimate production...is handsome but takes the violence to an unnecessary extreme: Blood is seen gushing out of victims, and the gunshots tend to be extraordinarily loud."

While the rest of the review has very competent criticisms, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 6:44pm

So far what I was expecting after all the changes they made, but these reviews aren't the important ones. (If there even is such a thing anymore.)

[massofmen]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 7:04pm

oh really? why isnt' the WSj important?

Newspaper circulation numbers are reported to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. Best-selling papers as of March 31, 2010 in the U.S.A., according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, are the Wall Street Journal at number one with 2,092,523 copies sold daily (up 0.5% from the previous year, making it the only newspaper in the country that is actually growing in terms or readership); USA Today at number two with 1,826,622 copies sold daily (down 13.8% from the previous year), and The New York Times is third with a circulation of 951,063 (down 8.47% from the previous year. Overall, newspaper circulation is down 8.7% nationally compared to the previous year.

the WSJ has twice as many readers as the NYTIMES. think before you speak.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 7:06pm

Part of the problem is Wildhorn who is too passive

He never fights back at his critics. He has to realize by now he will never get good reviews so him taking on the critics will not hurt him & could help

The WSJ review says it all. The reviewer hates Wildhorn so he will never give a good review no matter what Wildhorn does. This is why Wildhorn should fight back. What will the critics do - give his next show a bad review?

[bjh2114]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 7:09pm

"Part of the problem is Wildhorn who is too passive"

The other part of the problem is that his shows are generally terrible...

[Markecib]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 7:09pm

Word of mouth is Very Positive, for what it's worth

http://www.broadway.com/shows/bonnie-clyde/video/153809/word-of-mouth-review-bonnie-clyde/

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 7:10pm

I have never liked a Wildhorn show but i think hes done a really decent job with the score on this, the book works and the show moves very well. It's such a shame to see critics bash it, i really thought this would be his hit. He needs to stick to fingers up to Broadway and its critics and just produce elsewhere

[broadway7117]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 7:10pm

Totally agree with Mr Roxy

Updated On: 12/1/11 at 07:10 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 7:14pm

Your opinion BJH - nothing more & nothing less

[bjh2114]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 7:14pm

Word of mouth is Very Positive, for what it's worth

Haha, unfortunately it's not worth much. When was the last time they didn't like something?

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 7:15pm

the WSJ has twice as many readers as the NYTIMES. think before you speak.

That doesn't change the fact that theatre critics don't have the same power to close shows that they once had, and that the only review anyone really makes a fuss about is the New York Times review.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 7:16pm

Backstage is negative:

"The one thing that a show about infamous killers Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow should not be is safe. Unfortunately, book writer Ivan Menchell, lyricist Don Black, composer Frank Wildhorn, and director-choreographer Jeff Calhoun have settled for a paint-by-numbers primer that presents the murderous pair as a couple of misunderstood kids trapped by the Depression.

But there were many people in the 1930s who didn't respond to poverty and oppression by robbing banks and machine-gunning those in their way. Whatever made Bonnie and Clyde special is missing from this sentimental musical, as are sufficient character development, adequate dramatic thrust, and any kind of subtext. If this is what passes for serious musical theater on Broadway today, heaven help us."

http://www.backstage.com/bso/reviews-ny-theatre-broadway/ny-review-bonnie-clyde-1005598552.story

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 7:18pm

Wildhorn will get good reviews when Obama joins the GOP