Curtains Reviews- Page 5

[DAME]

Posted: 3/23/07 at 1:08pm

I also called the mediocre reviews. But I was blasted by a few shills. Remember?

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/23/07 at 1:15pm

I blasted you on mediocre reviews (and I'm a shill now?)? Hmm. I expected mediocre reviews. However, I expect it to do good business and I think the performances are great...perhaps that's what we disagreed on?

Updated On: 3/23/07 at 01:15 PM

[bschneid76]

Posted: 3/23/07 at 1:23pm

Curtains is a fine entertaining show. It's not "great" but it's still highly entertaining. I wish some of the major critics would give Karen Ziemba better notices as I thought she was one of the best in the show!

As for the score not being the "Typical" Kander and Ebb, I say great! It shows they can do different styles and still have a good score. Not in the case of Pirate Queen where the Composer's Score sounds exactly the same from the previous two scores.

I say Curtains will have a nice run (at least I hope so) my biggest problem with the show was the length, I felt it went on and on and on. But still I was happy when I left the theatre, and what a wonderful theatre too.

[TomMonster]

Posted: 3/23/07 at 1:41pm

I saw it the other night and was disappointed.

It's hard to move a mystery plot forward when everything screeches to a halt for the musical numbers. Songs in musicals tend to express internal emotions; that is fatal to any murder mystery where each point must drive the action forward. The numbers were entertaining, as was the mystery—they just didn't quite mesh together... It makes the plot points in the mystery seem arbitrary.

That said, great performances. Not a terrible show; it just left me ultimately unsatisfied.

[DAME]

Posted: 3/23/07 at 3:38pm

Rath.. you were not the one that blasted me. When the show played in LA I wrote about how disappointing it was and how much fixing it needed. That is when I was attacked by some shill saying how everyone was raving about it and so forth.. and how it was going to be a huge hit. This weekend when I have time I will search and pull up the thread.

But regardless.. hey.. I hope it is a big hit and that other people love it. Why wouldn't I? It was just.. not for me.

Updated On: 3/23/07 at 03:38 PM

[DAME]

Posted: 3/23/07 at 3:40pm

Here it is.
But there is one more thread that was meaner... I will find it.
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=907143&boardname=bway&dt=71

Updated On: 3/23/07 at 03:40 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/23/07 at 3:48pm

Oh good! I didn't remember ever blasting you.

And NO show is for everybody.

[DAME]

Posted: 3/23/07 at 3:50pm

Correct. What I did like about the show has all to do with Ms monk. She ( as always) was worth the price of admission.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/23/07 at 3:53pm

She really has incredible energy.

[DAME]

Posted: 3/23/07 at 3:54pm

Her "It's a Business" should be the Tony number.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/23/07 at 3:55pm

It probably will be. Thataway! is too big.

[DAME]

Posted: 3/23/07 at 4:00pm

Will you be seeing it again?

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/23/07 at 4:01pm

I hope to, many many times!

[TomMonster]

Posted: 3/23/07 at 5:00pm

Gotta love Ms. Monk!! Her spirit and energy makes the show.

[Danielm]

Posted: 3/23/07 at 5:21pm

If it has changed since LA it sounds like it hasn't changed quite enough. I enjoyed it but thought it was a lesser effort by most of the creative people. The cast was good, but mostly underused. It came off like one of those Comden & Green vehicles that were great in the 50s after a couple of drinks but at today's prices it just seemed middlin'.

Also, I saw both Drowsy and Curtains in LA before they went to Broadway. Even then Drowsy was in much better shape and just a far more satisfying evening.

[courtnyj]

Posted: 3/24/07 at 4:00pm

They've got some pretty good pull quotes!



This is what the tourists will read. Updated On: 3/24/07 at 04:00 PM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 3/24/07 at 4:05pm

They took some pretty interesting liberties with Brantley's review.

[courtnyj]

Posted: 3/24/07 at 4:08pm

I know! They made it sound like a rave.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/24/07 at 4:40pm

*edited to soothe the savagely intense college students*

Updated On: 3/24/07 at 04:40 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/24/07 at 4:56pm

"Verbatim" would be making absolutely no changes.

The website says:

"David Hyde Pierce steps into full-fledged Broadway stardom! A talent-packed production -- a top of the line cast. CURTAINS is a worthy tribute to the long and rich partnership of Kander and Ebb, one of the toughest acts to follow on Broadway."

They added an exclamation point after stardom to end a sentence that continues on, which isn't really a big deal; it's done all the time and only tweaks the tone a tiny bit. But the last part is changed quite a bit:

"As befits a musical about a musical, “Curtains” — the talent-packed, thrill-starved production that opened last night at the Al Hirschfeld Theater — features an assortment of upbeat anthems to this business we call show," opens the review.

And then a few paragraphs later: "Perhaps this switching of creative horses accounts for the enervation that seems to underlie the lavish expenditure of energy by a top-of-the line cast that includes Debra Monk, Karen Ziemba and Jason Danieley."

Those are liberties. That may be showbiz and common practice, by all means, but it is certainly not "verbatim."

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/24/07 at 5:15pm

*...because it's just too exhausting on a freakin' Saturday afternoon*

Updated On: 3/24/07 at 05:15 PM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 3/24/07 at 5:19pm

"Verbatim" would mean that they included the full quotes, not just pick and choose at the positive pieces. Leaving "thrill-starved" out does drastically change the intentions of the original sentence.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/24/07 at 5:21pm

Nor did they keep the review intact. You said they took verbatim quotes, which would indicate that the words were copied exactly as they were. And honestly, if the change is done in favor of a show you really like, therefore making it look like it got more of a rave than it did, saying that the quotes were taking verbatim isn't really really something you can say in its defense. Sure, verbatim would be honesty, but in Brantley's case, verbatim's not a great thing. Changing the words themselves and including ones other than what was written in the first place is (a) not done when pulling quotes -- you work with what you have and (b) not the only way to deviate from being verbatim.

ETA -- oh, how terribly kind, Rath edited her post to "soothe" my fellow college students and I. Sure, sure, best to make it out to be our fault than to ever admit the plain simpliclity that you were just. wrong. You're only doing it as a kindness to our over angsty dispositions and not because oh, heaven forbid someone saw that you said something incorrect. Right! Also, very clever to edit your post when this had already sunken down thinking that nobody would see it. Tsk, tsk...

Updated On: 3/24/07 at 05:21 PM

Posted: 3/24/07 at 6:51pm

It was DRECK!

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/24/07 at 6:55pm

Emcee, you can't read my mind. Or anyone else's.

And I refuse to argue with you or take your bait - it's theater - to me, it's not worth the extreme energy you give to arguments over it.