CINDERELLA Reviews — Page 3

The book is a problem but it doesn't ruin the show. Several of the musical numbers are enchanting and Osnes, Fontana and Clark are all wonderful.

As far as this not really being Cinderella, it basically is: Cinderella gets her Prince and that's why people will watch this show.

Hollywood Reporter is positive, despite problems with the revised book.
Hollywood Reporter review

Very positive.


Showbiz 411 blog cinderella review

Lots of great reviews here! Brantley's review is not going to help or hurt this one way or the other considering he never states his opinion or writes in detail about the show itself. SOOOO thrilled to see some great reviews for this one though! They definitely won't have a hard time finding pull quotes.

---

I think I got more out of the New York Times review than any of the others, how does one hum a frock change?

---

I thought Brantley's opinion was clear. He thinks this "Cinderella" is a product of its time, which isn't so much a good thing. He doesn't overstate his opinion, but rather backs it up by citing many examples of why he feels this way in the review (the OMG! Red Carpet approach to the "makeover" story and characters, the "designer label" title, the tiaras sold in the lobby, the political and PC renovations, the costume colors and costume changes, etc.)

I haven't seen it, so I can't agree or disagree with him.

But his opinion of this production was clear.

---

The issue with Brantley's book is that it takes way too long to get going. The first Act is mostly a bore/wash with setting up plot lines for the supporting character's whom unfortunately do not have songs to help explain/make their stereotypical stories more entertaining. Since most critics make up their minds at intermission and start planning their review, when his book takes off in Act II the critics don't care.

Honestly the first Act would barely get a C in my book, but the second Act easily gets an A+ averaging to B for the production as a whole.


I also now thing Osnes is the frontrunner for Best Leading Actress, considering the fact that she is Broadway's current Cinderella story (Going from winning a reality show to star in Grease, which everyone hated, to becoming a well respected Broadway leading lady), who is actually playing Cinderella.

"Topher"? You have a problem with "Topher"? It's just a nickname of "Christopher" which was in the original production and is still in "The Prince Is Giving a Ball" presumably.

My favorite part of the "Times" review:

Such uncertainty may not bother the little girls in tiaras (you can buy your own in the lobby) who are the show’s target audience.

Hmm.

---

GROWL this is even better from NY Magazine (VULTURE):

preadolescent girls - still the worlds top consumers of $15 lobby-sold plastic tiaras, barely edging out middle-aged theater critics...

LMAO

---

okay Regis Philbin out of nowhere on The View just 10 minutes ago started high praise and loving the show. Does he own a piece of it?

suestorm - Unless most of the reviews are like a Wildhorn show (lol), I think a show can survive on word of mouth for awhile. A few years ago, I went back and looked at NY Times reviews of big time hits like "Wicked", "Phantom" and "Rent" and they were not that positive.