Can't wait to read some HUGH JACKMAN reviews!- Page 4

[After Eight]

Posted: 10/30/11 at 5:23am

^

Totally uninteresting. An orchestra behind him, projections on a screen in the course of the evening.

[nealb1]

Posted: 10/30/11 at 11:38am

AfterEight, that's too bad you didn't like the show. What would you recommend he do it order to get "it?"

[hushpuppy]

Posted: 10/30/11 at 1:05pm

Before I get started, I loved THE BOY FROM OZ, and moderately enjoyed A STEADY RAIN. I've never seen any of his action movies so I'm a casual fan of Hugh Jackman's at best.

My partner and I went last night and sat in the third row, stage right, under the boxes, a bad place to be at the top of the second act when he (apparently) shows up in one of the boxes and, as Peter Allen, flirts with a male member of the audience (something I never saw the real Peter Allen do, BTW). But other than that, we got to see a lot of Mr J up close and personal.

I enjoyed myself but I was not overwhelmed by his show or his performance. Slogging through the snow on the way to dinner after the show, I kept pondering why I wasn't bowled over and I came to this conclusion:

Hugh Jackman is a very capable singer/dancer but he doesn't have a signature style or indelible personality. Think back to the tiny number of personalities who are instantly identifiable: Garland, Sinatra, Jolson, Merman, Astaire, Carol Channing, Julio Iglesias, Nat King Cole (or Peter Allen for that matter). Like them or not, as soon as you heard them sing, or, in the case of Kelly and Astaire, saw them sing and dance, you knew it was them. They were unique, one of a kind performers. Hugh Jackman's show consists mostly of him aping other performers' styles (here's a Gene Kelly number, here's me doing Fred Astaire, here's a Frank Sinatra song, here's my Peter Allen schtick) but when it's just Jackman as Jackman ('Soliloquy', 'Once Before I Go'), it seems like paint-by-the-numbers, competent yet lacking in anything truly special.

And pulling some pour soul out of the audience and having him wiggle around with your 'girls' while you sit in the front row with your arm around his wife (yeah, yeah, we know you're straight Hugh, we get it) grew really old really fast.

At the end of show, he doesn't reach out and touch the audience, (as Garland did after her concerts, and Pearl Bailey used to do after her shows), but rather slaps their hands as he sprints across the stage in what looks more like a victory lap than a reciprocation of affection.

Not a bad evening, but for roughly $200 a ticket, not the evening I was hoping for.

[nealb1]

Posted: 10/30/11 at 3:02pm

I am so looking forward to seeing this show again in a few weeks!

The day I saw it in San Fran, the guy he sat next to in the audience was his partner. He planted a big kiss on him and told everyone in the audience it was ok to take a pic. Hysterical! Never once in those few minutes did it get old.

Slapping hands, handshakes, hugs, etc.........are all different ways to express affection.

Too bad you didn't really enjoy it last night. I'm wondering if you had all ready made up your mind that you weren't going to like it before you even got to the theatre. Not being mean spirited, or stirring the pot - far from it. Just seems as if, perhaps, you weren't having the best of days. And, that happens.

Did you buy Premium Tickets for $200? My upcoming Orch Seat was $145. Where were you sitting?

[After Eight]

Posted: 10/30/11 at 4:51pm

"What would you recommend he do it order to get "it?""

Neal,

There's nothing I can recommend, because there's really nothing he can do about it.

You know the line in Gypsy, "You either got it or you ain't."

Unfortunately, that's just the way it is.

[Q]

Posted: 10/30/11 at 6:13pm

Well, there you have it.

I suppose that explains the lukewarm response he's been getting . . .

[nealb1]

Posted: 10/30/11 at 6:26pm

That's too bad. I was blown away when I saw him in May in San Fran. Do you think I won't like it when I see it next month?

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/30/11 at 6:57pm

I saw the show this afternoon and had a blast. If you go in liking Hugh Jackman and expecting to see him sing and dance, that's what you get. I really wasn't expecting anything other than what he gave the audience, so I was more than fine with it. Would I have been upset if I paid $300 to see it? Probably. But I don't think ANYTHING could live up to that price tag so nothing would ever please me had I paid that.

I'll give you that it's not the perfect show and it seemed a bit at times like he really didn't know where he was going with it, but that's something you can easily forgive since (I'd imagine) pretty much every single person there is there just to see him do, well, whatever he wants.

[After Eight]

Posted: 10/30/11 at 7:03pm

Neal,

I'm glad you think he has "it."

If you were blown away the first time, there's no reason why you shouldn't be blown away again.

I think you're going to have a fantastic time, and I hope you do.

[lovinlovett]

Posted: 10/30/11 at 7:23pm

I know *I* certainly think he has "it"! Absolutely!

[My Oh My]

Posted: 10/30/11 at 9:25pm

I see what y'all mean. Those who weren't as impressed as they had hoped were likely there to witness his talents and those who loved it or liked it were there to witness a talented person having fun. The former probably read the fun aspect of it as a sort of apology for lack of talent, while the latter knew going in he isn't a Garland, Sinatra, or Bennett and expected him not to take himself too seriously.

Had he taken himself too seriously, he'd have come across as mediocre and overrated. His singing is good, don't get me wrong, but I see what is meant by those who weren't bowled over by it alone. When I think of Hugh, I don't imagine royalty, icon, or DIVO...I just see that BIG toothy grin of his, lol. His singing isn't on a level where it sells itself, but sounds like the show is about him and not just his voice and he certainly has the likability factor to carry one alone.

Updated On: 10/30/11 at 09:25 PM

[justoldbill]

Posted: 10/30/11 at 10:59pm

After "Oh, What A Beautiful Mornin'", "Soliloquy" and too much of "The Boy From Oz", I feared an evening of retrospective (I did this, then I did this, then I did this...). A good act takes years to develop. He needs to come out from behind his familiar material; he's still too young. And Carlyle's staging is as bland and servicable as his work on FOLLIES. He doesn't seem to have spent enough time on either project, and it shows in both of them.

Mr. Jackman mentioned three of his dancers were making their Broadway debuts. Either very brave or very frugal. The production values appeared to be done somewhat on the cheap. I mean, couldn't the gentlemen in the orchestra at least be wearing ties to lend a little Broadway-level class to the proceedings? Couldn't Mr. Jackman? The show isn't bad, it just isn't Broadway.

(Somewhere inbetween Judy Garland and Danny Gans.)

Updated On: 10/31/11 at 10:59 PM

[jo]

Posted: 10/31/11 at 3:01am

Hugh talks about his one-man show --

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/156039-THE-LEADING-MEN-Broadway-Is-a-Dream-Come-True-Again-for-Hugh-Jackman

[Tom-497]

Posted: 11/2/11 at 1:52am

I saw this evening's performance. I thought the whole thing was pleasant and well-paced, but Soliloquy and Sing Sing Sing were the only two numbers that I really loved.

Hugh engaged in a fair amount of banter with Angela Lansbury, asking her (as Peter Allen) if she'd ever won an Oscar (NO! Angela shouted back, Not Yet!), and also asking whether she was the one who threw her panties on the stage (Yes, Angela apparently answered, though I couldn't hear her).

Anyway, for me, the show was pretty good in a slightly bland, '70s variety show way. But, certainly, a lot of people were much more enthusiastic.

Incidentally, Michael Riedel was there, as well.

[vf]

Posted: 11/2/11 at 4:04am

I don't know anything about this, but for a show that's only going to run 2 months, is it odd to have more than 2 weeks of previews? Especially since he's already done it elsewhere.
Updated On: 11/2/11 at 04:04 AM

[sskeats2]

Posted: 11/2/11 at 4:26am

I was there this past Sunday. Barbara Walters was there and Hugh's wife and son. He seems to have an affability and adaptability that plays on the spot with whomever is there at the time.

I enjoyed the show a helluva lot. And I think it's his energy, his looks, his warmth and his reaching out to his audience in a very human and empathetic way that ultimately grabs us. Certainly there are numbers I could have done without and his voice is nothing I would want to take home to listen to again...unlike Garland, Streisand, Coward or Dietrich. And I could have done without Soliloquy. And I loved the Boy from Oz segment. So different strokes etc.

And unlike some of the names mentioned above, Hugh's an iconic movie star in the prime of his movie career showing us in the flesh a different side of himself that his movies have never done. His movie fans love it, most of us theater addicts love it, and in the end, his show wins the day (despite the ungodly pricing. But if you sit up close, you feel there's more for your money. At least, I did.)

[sskeats2]

Posted: 11/2/11 at 4:26am

I was there this past Sunday. Barbara Walters was there and Hugh's wife and son. He seems to have an affability and adaptability that plays on the spot with whomever is there at the time.

I enjoyed the show a helluva lot. And I think it's his energy, his looks, his warmth and his reaching out to his audience in a very human and empathetic way that ultimately grabs us. Certainly there are numbers I could have done without and his voice is nothing I would want to take home to listen to again...unlike Garland, Streisand, Coward or Dietrich. And I could have done without Soliloquy. And I loved the Boy from Oz segment. So different strokes etc.

And unlike some of the names mentioned above, Hugh's an iconic movie star in the prime of his movie career showing us in the flesh a different side of himself that his movies have never done. His movie fans love it, most of us theater addicts love it, and in the end, his show wins the day (despite the ungodly pricing. But if you sit up close, you feel there's more for your money. At least, I did.)

[vf]

Posted: 11/2/11 at 5:20am

Um, I don't think you can really say Hugh Jackman is "an iconic movie star in the prime of his movie career" http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=hughjackman.htm
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/hugh_jackman/ In fact all of the stars you name had much bigger movie successes (except Coward wasn't really a movie star)

I just watched the video at the bottom of the Playbill page http://www.playbill.com/news/article/155832-Hugh-Jackman-Is-Back-on-Broadway-Beginning-Oct-25 and I just don't get it. Maybe he's charming but his voice is nasal and the performance just looks corny. And how can somebody really enjoy an expensive show while admitting "Certainly there are numbers I could have done without and his voice is nothing I would want to take home to listen to again..." ?????

(Edited from "sure he's charming" because it's not working for me)






Updated On: 11/2/11 at 05:20 AM

[broadfan327]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 12:35am

I agree with hughpuppy's review. I saw tonight, and while he has the personality to pull off a one man show, he is not a unique enough singer in my opinion to justify having his own show. It certainly is not worth premium prices, I am happy I only paid $68.50. I guess I am unfairly comparing it to Liza's At the Palace, where she was justified in having her own show.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 3:31am

I don't get the "justified" part: isn't someone justified just because thee ae enough folks that that WANT to see him? Isn't it justified that he doesn't seem to have any poblem selling tickets at (what I conside) outrageous prices?

I'm not saying the show is great, I haven't seen it -- but to say he doesn't have the right to do is kind of silly.


And to JustOldBill -- wearing a TIE would have made a difference in your enjoyment? I don't get that at all, it wouldn't make him a better perfomer or the musicians. Just how expensive should a one man show that's a very limited run actually be? That's just wasteful.

[April Saul]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 12:51pm

Okay, I caught the show last night with a $99 ticket purchased on eBay, first half from the front mezz, second half from a 6th row seat...and the man made me smile for two solid hours, which is something! The ticket prices are insane, it's better of course if you're closer, and every perf is different. At mine, a woman close up handed him her wig and he had tons of fun with that...and a really strange character crashed the stage near the end and Hugh had to chat with him until a guard took him away.

QUESTION: If the box seats are just for students--and if, as I've read on the boards, there were enough lottery players yesterday--why did I see so many older folks sitting up there?

[broadfan327]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 12:52pm

I didn't mean to imply that he can't have his own show. If Pee-Wee Herman can have his own show on Broadway, anyone can. You are right, as long as there is an audience and Hugh wants to do one, there will be a show. And the audience loved what they saw.
I should have phrased it as, I did not find the material, his performance, or his life story interesting enough to warrant a show.


Updated On: 11/3/11 at 12:52 PM

[rorschach37]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 12:58pm

So....anyone have a songlist?

[justoldbill]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 8:23pm

dramamama - Look at the poster, look at the playbill cover. See the jacket? See the tie? Looks good, doesn't it? Presentation counts. If you're selling an image, deliver the image. I don't think any of the performers Mr. Jackman attempts to emulate ever paced the stage in shirt sleeves constantly tucking his shirt into his pants. Not classy. Not Broadway. Besides, how much could a few ties set the production back (at THOSE prices)?

Updated On: 11/4/11 at 08:23 PM

[Fan2]

Posted: 11/4/11 at 6:37am

Read on Twitter that Cameron Mackintosh was in the audience last night.