#4
Posted: 3/8/16 at 3:15pm
#5
Posted: 3/8/16 at 3:24pm
Limelight Mike is the one who usually does these, so let's use this one.
#6
Posted: 3/8/16 at 7:11pm
A pan by Talkinbroadway except Jennifer Simard:
#7
Posted: 3/8/16 at 7:12pm
I did not realize the writers are the director and star. Now this madness makes more sense.
#8
Posted: 3/8/16 at 8:14pm
Deadline is a pretty brutal pan:
http://deadline.com/2016/03/broadway-disaster-review-1201716536/
#9
Posted: 3/8/16 at 8:16pm
Luvinbroadway said: "A pan by Talkinbroadway except Jennifer Simard:
http://www.talkinbroadway.com/page/world/Disaster2016.html
He never seems to like anything.
Just give the world Love. - S. Wonder
#10
Posted: 3/8/16 at 10:06pm
...Isherwood has named it a Critic's Pick.
Does the Times even care anymore?
#11
Posted: 3/8/16 at 10:08pm
Isherwood loves this kind of thing. Anything with music from his youth and camp.
Hates serious new musicals. Go figure.
#12
Posted: 3/8/16 at 10:11pm
I KNEW it was going to get a rave from SOMEONE. Well, good for them. That is basically the only review they need.
They/them.
"Get up the nerve to be all you deserve to be."
#13
Posted: 3/8/16 at 10:11pm
I think Isherwood has to save face since it's basically his generally favorable review Off Broadway that got us all involved with this mess at the Nederlander theatre. And maybe he had a fun time. Or maybe they gave the critics shots before the show.
But the real question remains: will audiences pay Broadway prices for this. A Critics Pick in the Times doesn't mean much anymore (Hughie anyone?)
#14
Posted: 3/8/16 at 10:14pm
His review of this has as much credibility as the praise lavished on such other wretched fare as The Humans, The Flick, John, The Realistic Joneses, Hand to God, Act of God....
#15
Posted: 3/8/16 at 10:14pm
QueenAlice said: "But the real question remains: will audiences pay Broadway prices for this"
After Hughie, Honeymoon in Vegas, On the Town, and a litany more of shows... the answer to that question is an unequivocal no. It gives producers the ability to put a pretty little stamp on their marquees, but it implicates nothing sales-wises these days (unfortunately).
#16
Posted: 3/8/16 at 10:20pm
After Eight said: "His review of this has as much credibility as the praise lavished on such other wretched fare as The Humans, The Flick, John, The Realistic Joneses, Hand to God, Act of God...."
Oh, you.
I don't even know what the Times critics are on about anymore, apart from Brantley's Hamilton review a lot of the recent ones have had me scratching my head in confusion.
#17
Posted: 3/8/16 at 10:24pm
She wouldn't have a chance of winning, but I'm wondering if Jennifer Simard might land a Tony nomination for this. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a great performer has been nominated for making the best out of a questionable show.
I am a firm believer in serendipity- all the random pieces coming together in one wonderful moment, when suddenly you see what their purpose was all along.
#18
Posted: 3/8/16 at 10:28pm
The Times needs to clean house and has needed to for some time.
Isherwood's and Brantley - as reviewers - just are not relevant anymore, and they feel tired in their perspectives. The same thing happened with Frank Rich and Clive Barnes in their respective times.
I agree with the fabulous Jesse Green article this week in New York Magazine declaring this a new Golden Age for Broadway. And The Times would really be really, really wise to get some new blood observing it. Maybe then their opinion would actually matter again.
Updated On: 3/8/16 at 10:28 PM
#19
Posted: 3/8/16 at 10:29pm
This review severely damages the Times credibility in the world of theatre. I will never take another review he writes seriously. One can debate the merits of The Humans or John.... but neither of those shows are in the same category as Disaster.
Disaster is one of the most horrible shows ever seen on Broadway. This review is a disgrace. It's an insult to everyone who goes to Broadway and every show that strives to get the NYT Critics Pick stamp of approval but didn't.
Updated On: 3/8/16 at 10:29 PM
#20
Posted: 3/8/16 at 10:33pm
I didn't like it, but the NY Times isn't alone in their review. I'm happy for the cast.
#21
Posted: 3/8/16 at 10:34pm
Re Jennifer Simard's Tony prospects, I have six words for you: Patricia Routledge, Darling of the Day!
https://newplayexchange.org/users/99643/amanda-delalla
#22
Posted: 3/8/16 at 10:36pm
"One can debate the merits of The Humans or John.... but neither of those shows are in the same category as Disaster."
Disaster was a disaster, to be sure: a monument to ineptitude. But as disastrous as it was, it was more palatable than the horrors I mentioned, as it wasn't as pretentious and self-satisfied as some of them, nor as dull or repellent either.
#23
Posted: 3/8/16 at 10:38pm
The Times is completely out of touch with both what is good and what people want to see. It is unjust that so much weight is given to Brantley and Isherwood, especially by Google. If they worked anywhere else, they would be ignored. My personal feeling is that the only critic worth reading is David Rooney at the Hollywood Reporter. Everyone has different tastes, but I have found him to be insightful and incredibly accurate with his reviews. When I go to NY, I read Rooney's reviews to choose my shows, and I have never been disappointed.
#25
Posted: 3/8/16 at 10:45pm
To Ado
I do not know if you even saw it but Darling Of The Day was a very entertaining show in its day. She deserved the nod but the show got a very good review when it was re reviewed by the main Times critic but by than it was to late to save the show.
Poster Emeritus
Updated On: 3/8/16 at 10:45 PM
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95