BROOKLYN - 1st reviews are in ... and they ain't good.- Page 2

[Corine2]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 10:08am

I kept looking at my watch in AGONY.
But Ramona kept me in my seat. Oh and Jodi likes it so we stayed.
I wanted a GARBAGE BAG to vomit when the mother comes back as an angel.

[Al Dente]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 11:12am

That's true about BKLYN's age, she'd be 35 if it was set in the present, no?

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 11:34am

What was the general audience reaction to the show last night?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 11:38am

Two of the harshest reviews so far are from Peter Marks (now of the Washington Post, formerly the #2 at The Times) and Clives Barnes (now of the New York Post, formerly the #1 at The Times). There's also a favorable one from someone I've never heard of, Peter Santilli of the AP (where's Michael Kuchwara?).

Marks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53028-2004Oct21.html):

"Second-worst, fifth-worst, eighth-worst? When a musical is this awful, you pore over your personal Book of the Lame: Was "Taboo" this bad? Surely the jaw dropped further during Robert Cuccioli's famous hair-flinging aria in "Jekyll and Hyde." Then again, there was that once-in-a-lifetime musical salute to garlic in "Dance of the Vampires." But wait: What about the galling dullness of "Urban Cowboy," the chafing dryness of "Dracula," the decrepitude of "Dream"?

So many painful memories to relive and prioritize! The theater's ability to induce something akin to post-traumatic stress disorder is fully realized with a show like "Brooklyn, the Musical," which opened last night at the Plymouth Theatre. Not to be confused with the gritty borough it's named for, "Brooklyn, the Musical" is a plastic bit of amateurishness. The feelings it expresses are about as authentic as a holiday dreamed up by a greeting card company.

The show is presented without a break, a shrewd move on the producers' part. It's far more difficult to leave at intermission if there isn't one.

"Brooklyn, the Musical" is introduced to us by the characters as an urban "fairy tale," a tactic that prepares an audience for the possibility that what it is about to see will not make any sense at all....."
----------------------------------------------------------------


Barnes (http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/30824.htm) gave the show One-and-a-half Stars and said:

" WHEN you walk out of a musical hum ming the costumes, you know that show's in trouble.

For though "Brooklyn the Musical" is a modest little show, it has, as Winston Churchill remarked about something else, an awful lot to be modest about.

Admittedly, the show, which opened last night at the Plymouth Theatre, has its heart in the right place. The correct placement of its other organs is more disputable.

The story is a story within a story — which here becomes a folly surrounded by a falsehood, wrapped up in a bad idea.

The falsehood suggests that the entertainment is provided by a band of homeless street performers, the City Weeds, on its hopeful way to the top.

The folly is simply the unbelievable and uninvolving narrative — here termed 'a sidewalk fairy-tale'....

The bad idea here was trying to combine the mood, look and feel of "Rent" with that of "The Fantasticks" to make a hit.

But "Rent" and "The Fantasticks" had great stories, great music and great lyrics. Here, the book, music and lyrics by Mark Schoenfeld and Barri McPherson are not great — though the music, which uneasily straggles between soul and Andrew Lloyd Webberesque anthem — is better than the banal lyrics.......

Valiant performers, parading the cutest costumes, in a soon-to-be-forgotten show."
----------------------------------------------------------------

And for a little good news for the Brooklyn fans, here's a nice review from Santilli (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=821&e=2&u=/ap/20041022/ap_en_re/theater_brooklyn):

"With its only new musical of the fall season, Broadway is giving an affectionate nod to Manhattan's slightly less glamorous but storied neighbor across the East River.

"Brooklyn The Musical," which opened Thursday at the Plymouth Theatre, should charm audiences with a strong collection of original songs and an outstanding cast.............

The superlative voices of Espinosa, Keller and Cleavant Derricks, who plays the likable narrator, power a diverse score packed with raw funk, hard rock and sizzling gospel numbers. Mark Schoenfeld and Barri McPherson teamed to write the book, music and lyrics.

"Brooklyn" plays out in a sort of urban wonderland created by designer Ray Klausen's dreamlike set and Tobin Ost's futuristic costumes woven from street-junk accessories much in the spirit of "The Wiz" and "Cats." The book isn't quite developed to the point of eliciting much emotional attachment to its characters or reflection on its themes.

But the quality of the music and the skillful, unobtrusive direction of Jeff Calhoun (whose Broadway credits include "The Will Rogers Follies" and revivals of "Annie Get Your Gun," "Big River" and "Grease") are more than enough to make the show entertaining."

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 11:40am

I want to know where all these insane people are who were defending this horrible show to the death when it was in previews. I haven't heard them chiming in to any of these threads now that it is an across the boards slam.

Just read Variety review, and it agrees with Post, Newsday, Times, Daily News, and various web reviews that this show just absolutely sucks.

[Mr. Tuttle]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 11:45am

Of course Matt...you'll not hear from the idiot twinks again.

Well..not untill they get out of 5th period Earth Science.

Actually they've probably moved onto to pimp the latest Hillary Duf movie.

DUFF ROCKS!!

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 11:50am

Ha ha - very true - very true.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 11:53am

Here's what I'm finding hilarious- right now we're using the critics as affirmation of what we knew all along- that BKLYN is a mess. But if (heaven forbid) the critics disagree with most of the posters here, as in (dare I say it?) Wicked, they automatically become incompetent boobs. Make up your minds, folks.

Or, you know, you can take critics the way they're supposed to be taken- not too personally. Updated On: 10/22/04 at 11:53 AM

[TheGaIsSilent]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 11:56am

Matt Rogers, I'll still defend the show. I had a good time, and for me, entertainment is a big part of the Broadway experience.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 11:58am

Who's against entertainment? It's just that some people find that beyond-banal lyrics and a book that wouldn't make sense in Bizarro World take away from the entertainment value of a show.

[TheGaIsSilent]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 12:05pm

Plum, that's fine. I just meant that *I* had a good time.

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 12:06pm

Well I enjoyed the show. (In Denver) And I don't see myself as being insane. (Except for some days at work) After seeing this show in Denver and finding out that it was going to B'way, my 1st thought was that the critics are going to rip this show to shreds. And they pretty much have with the exception of the Associated Press which gave it a good review. (At least it looked to be good from the excerpt I read). For me, reviews don't matter. If I have an interest in a show, I am going to see it and judge for myself. I will say that after seeing Brooklyn twice, I don't know that I would pay $100.00 to see it again. But I don't think any show is worth that much. Thank God for discounts! It's entertainment. I came out humming the songs (Not the costumes!) and feeling good. I went in knowing I wasn't seeing a Le Miz, Sweeney, Caroline or even RENT. And so I enjoyed it for what it was. This show, like a few others, have been discussed to death here and I say that for all the people who may have had an interest in seeing it but are now not going because of what they have read here, have heard or because of the reviews, go see it and judge the show for yourself. For those who have seen it and didn't like it, at least you went to check it out and nobody can tell you that you are wrong about the show, because you were there and saw it and judged it for yourself. I am now rambling....back to work!

[Plum]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 12:09pm

I'm glad you guys had a good time. Honestly. I wouldn't wish a miserable night in the theater on (almost) anyone. :)

[TheGaIsSilent]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 12:28pm

See, uncageg, I thought of "Caroline" what the reviewers are thinking about BKLYN. Trite.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 12:30pm

Trite as in worn out by overuse? Hackneyed? I heard Caroline called a lot of things, but unoriginal wasn't one of them.

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 12:37pm

Well TheGaIsSilent, you are entitled to your opinion. I thought it was one of the best shows I have seen in the past several years. What I wrote was just my opinion.

[TheGaIsSilent]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 12:48pm

Trite as in I thought the lyrics were completely uninspired.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 12:54pm

Thanks for the explanation. :)

IMHO, Caroline was an incredibly original show in everything except maybe the physical production, which didn't need to be. But to each their own. I find BKLYN's lyrics about sunshine and happiness and believing in yourself to incredibly hackneyed.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 3:25pm

The lyrics to Caroline were uninspired? How so?

[NStar21]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 4:35pm

Plum, I don't think that's what's happening at all. I think the big difference between the Wicked and Brooklyn reviews from critics was that even when Wicked was getting negative reviews, some were a bit mixed at times and there were enough positive reviews of this show, so that this came down to personal opinions and taste. Either you like Kristen Chenoweth's acting and singing or you think she's annoying and should never sing again. Either the story was good enough for you, meaning you didn't expect it to fill in the blanks for every single little concept or you thought there could have been more to it. Either the talent and the songs really impressed you, or you liked it but was like whatever to the music or you hated it. The same points one critic saw as negative, another one saw as positive, matter of opinion. Whether you think Popular is a good song and Kristen was funny with it was a matter of personal preference. Brooklyn, on the other hand, is coming down to fact. Facts that many people were pointing out BEFORE critics came to see this show. Eden's character Brooklyn is underdeveloped like most of the show. Fact, not opinion. The plot is rather weak, again fact, not opinion. Points about the story do not make sense, fact, not opinion and etc. So yes, Wicked's reviews came down to opinion, Brooklyn's are being torn apart based on facts.

[chinkie azn jai]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 5:15pm

I guess i won't be seeing this show in 2-4 years (because it will probably be closed) Oh well, the OBCR should be awesome since there's no plot involved while listening to it.

[Testing1232]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 5:47pm

We did the same thing... I dont EVER remember looking at my watch 10 minutes into a show ! It was torture !

[FOCI]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 6:21pm

Interesting little dig about dazzling the "Rent" and "Wicked" audiences-was this an allusion to idina menzel fans?

[Testing1232]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 6:23pm

Chinkie.... have you heard the CD sampler??? OY !!! Just imagine more of that for the OBCR !

[Plum]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 7:07pm

NStar, it's also a fact that the book of Wicked has a few wholes, though they aren't as gaping as the ones in BLKYN's, apparently. Opinions are opinions. When they're close to universal, they're still opinions. :)