Brooklyn NY Times Review (Link inside)- Page 2

[Corine2]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 10:21am

No. Not Ouch.
Garbage. Trash. Recycle.
Please Recycle this show into something better.
Ramona Keller deserves better. Updated On: 10/22/04 at 10:21 AM

[Kris2]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 11:26am

Brantley's review was disappointing imo. I expect better out of him. I wanted more details on the individual performances especially, and the show itself. It felt like he was just bored writing it. Even if he was bored watching the show, I wanted a better review - pan or rave, whatever. Maybe that says the most about how he feels towards the show though - he probably doesn't even feel it's worth his time to viciously tear it apart. It seems he took a very lax attitude with it almost. It was definitely not a mixed review though, Rathnait.

I still think I'm gonna end up seeing this show though. Probably twice too. I would like to form my own opinion and honestly, I really want to see Eden's standby as well - Caren Lyn Manuel. I shall see though.

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 11:32am

I know it's not nice to say I told you so, but...
Oh what the hell. That's what all the shills get for shilling me into seeing this piece of crap. So...
I TOLLLD YOU SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Where's Tiny Toon now? I haven't heard that shill chime in to this thread. Oh that's right. He's probably haning in a tree outside the New York Times building with a big elephant gun, waiting to pop Ben Brantley in the noggin.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 11:52am

Compared to the other reviews, Brantley was downright cuddly.

[MargoChanning]

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

Brantley has seemed bored and going through the motions in his reviews for a few seasons now. Often his reviews don't even make sense and you can't tell whether or not he even liked the show he's reviewing. He's struck me for some time as being burned out and I really think it's time for him to step down.

[Kris2]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 12:19pm

I feel that Brantley has lost his love of theater. He seems far too disengaged. If he did choose to step down, I wonder who would take his place as #1 theater critic for the Times. I wonder if they would promote one of the second stringers or bring in someone else.

Just disappointing. Updated On: 10/22/04 at 12:19 PM

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 12:24pm

Miss Margo, I agree that Brantley seems jaded and needs to step down. He's just tired, tired, tired.

[MargoChanning]

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

Bringing in Isherwood as the #2 might have been an omen. He'd been the very well-respected lead critic for Variety for a number of years and would be a natural to take over the top spot at the Times (when they announced he'd been brought on board by the Times, my first thought was that Brantley's days must be numbered -- I guess we'll see).

[Matt_G]

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

I say they let me review theatre for them. I need a job and they need to have an opening so I think it's a perfect solution.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 12:32pm

"Hi Mr. Editor! My name is Matt_G and I'm here to fill your opening....."

[Matt_G]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 12:36pm

Words I've muttered so often to get work...

Updated On: 10/22/04 at 12:36 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 4:12pm

Matt_G, have you ever turned down a position?

[Matt_G]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 4:14pm

Once, but you'll have to ask KMF about that. Some things just aren't worth it.

[andyf]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 4:18pm

Well set up Margo. Well done.

[mominator]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 4:23pm

May be Ben has used up all the adjectives for horrid?

[Speed]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 5:17pm

Why should Ben Brantley write an inspired review when the show left him uninspired?

I believe the reason that he didn't write much about the performances is because he felt there simply wasn't much there.

Ben knows how to say something but not saying anything. Less is more. Sometimes the biggest snub an actor can get is not being mentioned at all. It tends to happen when the actor doesn't really take any risks, so their performance doesn't succeed or fail on any interesting level.

Posted: 10/22/04 at 5:51pm

Speed, From what I have read everyone says the performers are great and are what save the show from being mush. Even most of the people who did not like the show said the cast was great!

[Speed]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 1:31am

Broadway child, it is not Ben Brantley's job to mirror the opinion of everyone else. And if you read between the lines, actually most of the reviews do not like the performers much. Ben Brantley's failure to talk about Eden spoke volumes. And did you read Variety?

Me personally? I love her rendition of Once Upon A Time. It's fun.

[Kris2]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 1:56am

Speed, an uninspired review is different than a crappy review though. I wanted more details on the performances and found the review severely general and lacking. I did think omitting Eden was a very interesting choice, but come on. Give me something to work with here. There was no meat in the review, all bare bones imo.

[Speed]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 2:26am

His job is to review the SHOW. He did that. It is not his job to detail the performances of each actor in the show. By his failure to say much about them, he said quite a lot, he was saying that they didn't give a performance that was worth detailing in his review. Less is more, something that I think he wished the actors knew more about.

You said his review was "no meat, all bare bones." Isn't that perhaps what he was saying about the show?

[Kris2]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 2:50am

That was my point in one of my earlier posts, but Brantley's review does not come off as such. The attitude towards his review wasn't meant to reflect his attitude towards the show imo. His job is to review and I feel he did an inadequate job here. He could've found better ways to get his message across than by writing very little of substance.

[Speed]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 4:12pm

But, in his opinion, there was very little of substance to write about.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 4:25pm

Oy. Speed, the point is, he could have at least bothered to say he found Espinosa's performance to be less than memorable. You have to comment on the stars of a show, especially in this one, where there's a cast of only 5. This isn't one of those papers that considers 4 paragraphs to be a complete review. It's the New York Times, and people expect more thoughtful analysis from their chief theater critic.