Cry Baby Reviews - YIKES!- Page 7

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 4:32am

I'd call the Post review Mixed.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 4:33am

EVERY show *deserves* a shot

It's thinking like that that got us BRING BACK BIRDIE, and ANNIE TWO.

It's a noble thought, but wrong! Not when people are being asked to shell out $100 or more for tickets.

The scenario with CRY BABY is a perfect example. One John Waters film was adapted for the stage and turned out to be a huge success. To be fair, it had some talented people and a director who fused the best elements together into an enjoyable package. So, they decide to Xerox the master plan, only this time the creative team is a little less seasoned. Given its pedigree, it seems to be in for either a long lingering money-losing run (like WEDDING SINGER) or the producers will pull the plug fast (like HIGH FIDELITY.)

[Maurice]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 6:33am

2 out of 5 stars.
NY Daily News

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 6:35am

Check out Spencer Liff in that uniform!

HOTTIE!

[adamgreer]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 6:37am

"Yeah, I'm sure the reviews will kill this show. They did it for Wicked for too. They also saved Grey Gardens. Thank goodness. Reviews make or break every show."

That's a bad comparison. Wicked was going to be a huge hit regardless of its reviews- by that point everyone knew the show was settling in for a long run. With Grey Gardens, everyone knew it was going to get good reviews, particularly for Ebersole, but that it would still struggle to find its audience.

Posted: 4/25/08 at 6:58am

Brantley was much more gentle than i thought he'd be.

this is what ive been saying:

if audiences like LENORA more than ALLISON, you're in trouble.

& if audiences want the male lead to get out of the way so they can see more of the chorus boys, you're in trouble.

Posted: 4/25/08 at 7:04am

honestly, they should just plaster the city with Spencer Liff posters.
that would do more to promote the show than anything else.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 7:05am

Norn, I LOVE YOU.

[MenzelManiac]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 9:26am

The reviews are unfortunate, but Brantley's review (while negative) is pretty mild. I really thought he'd just destroy the show.

However, I don't see Crybaby being a strong enough show to bridge the gap between bad reviews and a lengthy run. That's always sad, because you know that a large percentage of the cast is working hard. Poor Laura Jordan at the end of that show, standing in a pie pan for 20 minutes. This show could have been something really interesting, if done well. Sorry to see it wasn't.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 9:32am

Well, Brantley basically said that the show is too bland for him to write any kind of fun, scathing, bitchy review.

[MenzelManiac]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 9:37am

I feel like the show fell into the awkward category of "not bad enough to be good" and "not good enough to be good". And then they froze it. Give it another month of re-writes, maybe you'd have something. But where it stands now, I can't possibly see a healthy run coming.

The only hope that they'll have is that so many revivals opened this year and not that many new musicals, meaning they could be defaulted into a Best Musical nomination, which just might trick people into buying tickets for awhile.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 9:47am

Speaking of flops, Wickedfan, 1964's BEN FRANKLIN IN PARIS received 3 favorable, 2 mixed, and 1 unfavorable review and lasted 215 performances at the Lunt-Fontanne. It starred the incredible Robert Preston who had spectacular stage presence in the title role. The score was very good. I thorougly enjoyed the show.

Did you see it or were you in it? It does not deserve to be grouped with the other outright flops that you mentioned several posts ago. Seeing Preston act was a good enough reason to go.

[Dolly_Levi]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 10:05am

"Given its pedigree, it seems to be in for either a long lingering money-losing run (like WEDDING SINGER) or the producers will pull the plug fast (like HIGH FIDELITY.)"

a very astute assessment, frontrowcentre

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 10:25am

Maybe if they retitled the show "BLAND-BABY" it would find its audience.

Posted: 4/25/08 at 10:29am

i feel bruised for them all, but i gotta say *some* kind of quid pro quo is goin on with that WSJ review!

[jeffrey1dog]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 10:30am

I guess I'm in the minority but I really enjoyed the show & would see it again in a heartbeat. I hope it lasts a while.

Question/Comment... Is Spencer Liff understudy for Snyder? If not he should be

[MenzelManiac]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 10:31am

I don't know if he understudies Snyder, but he should have been cast as Snyder. Snoopy the Dog would be a better Cry Baby.

[tazber]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 10:32am

What about Snoop Doggy Dog?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 10:42am

Snipe if you like about Mermaid. The numbers tell the story of success.

You're forgetting this is BroadwayWorld. Any show that becomes financially successful must be deemed as "crap" regardless its quality or anyone's former opinions of the show. If you do not hate all hit shows and verbally rip them to shreds, then you are obviously not a supporter of musical theatre. Get with the program!

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 10:44am

Ha, Matt. So true.

[MenzelManiac]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 10:57am

Oh, I know full well about falling in love with a show that's not the best. Hello, I started this BWW account years ago and look at my screen name, lol.

I don't follow critics reviews or financial success as a way to judge my own appreciation of the show. At least, I try as hard as I can not to.

People like Michael Reidel, though, can do some serious harm to the community because they're often hard to ignore. Being a gossip columnist is one thing, but having an ax to grind with a show for some reason is unhealthy. Purposely trying to take a show down? Unprofessional. (Sorry, that's my Reidel gripe, lol)

Cry Baby has some good advance sales, and increasingly strong word of mouth (at least, in comparison to the abominable word of mouth they were getting in the first month of previews before extensive re-writes). I think it might run through the Tony's, but I can't imagine it going any further.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 11:02am

A production on Broadway is on Broadway for a reason, as are the actors themselves.

A production on Broadway is on Broadway because producers have enough money to put it there. Period. It has nothing to do with the final product, which could be good or bad or even go from one end of the spectrum to the other during the preview period. The actors are on Broadway because they were cast in the roles based on someone's opinion...or other reasons anywhere from nepotism to a major financial interest in the production to simply having the right friends. You cannot assume that if an actor is in a Broadway show that he or she must be a great actor and perfect for the role. That is incredibly naive.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 11:08am

People like Michael Reidel, though, can do some serious harm to the community because they're often hard to ignore. Being a gossip columnist is one thing, but having an ax to grind with a show for some reason is unhealthy. Purposely trying to take a show down? Unprofessional. (Sorry, that's my Reidel gripe, lol)

I'm not fond of Riedel either, but this is nothing new to Broadway. Shows have been surviving sensationalists like him for decades. He says good things and bad things and he may be somewhat influential, but I don't think he can control the mob mentality of the tourist masses (who have no idea who Riedel is), so he pretty much has to target the shows that will be most attended by local theatregoers. The man's job is to sell papers by getting people to talk about theatre. At least someone is talking about theatre, which is more than you can say about 99% of the country.

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 11:53am

LimelightMike - disagree on so many levels, with that comment.

not every show deserves to have a shot. especially if there are (potentially) better musicals out there that could take its spot.

with the 08/09 season getting crowded, it'd be smart for CRY-BABY to just get out of the damn way!! Let a more worthy show use the Marquis.

October? yikes. that's real wishful thinking.

many of the C-B supporters are trying to turn this around and make it positive but just put all of the reviews together and check it out.

two positives (from two critics who don't have the biggest reputations), one mixed-to-positive, one mixed-to-negative, and a ton of negatives!!

not sure if you can really manipulate that and find a perspective angle on it?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 12:03pm

not every show deserves to have a shot. especially if there are (potentially) better musicals out there that could take its spot.

And based on the tryout, Cry-Baby was considered one those better musicals. One that could distract us from the disappointments of Little Mermaid and Young Frankenstein. It's all about perspective.