Dirty Rotten Scoundrels Reviews

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 6:34pm

Talkin Broadway is first -- pretty mixed:

"We all know the famous saying: You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Why, then, are so many musical theatre writers today insistent on trying? Different authors succeed to different degrees, but most attempts are usually better camouflaged than they are in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.

The new musical at the Imperial doesn't want for gloss, color, or slick Broadway know-how. What's missing - and all too noticeably - is a set of core principles. Okay, principles are funny things to demand from a show about con artists, but a show of any sort without a guiding set of rules has an uphill struggle in front of it, and "entertain the audience at any cost" is the kind of philosophy that only works these days for Mel Brooks.

That's what the creators of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels are attempting, and while they succeed roughly half the time, it's the other, unanchored half that makes it hard to fall for this show's particular spiel. You become keenly aware at every juncture that this musical has little original framework of its own, that it's been cobbled together from (superior) parts of other recent shows, most notably The Producers, Sweet Smell of Success, and Hairspray.
------------------------------------------------------------

Despite these problems, the show manages to entertain, even frequently, and it's never a chore to sit through. But the final effect is one of gears grinding rather than of effortless musical comedy beguilement, which is what a show like this really needs. The Producers demonstrates how a show can steal your heart while its central figures steal other characters' dollars, but how can Dirty Rotten Scoundrels effectively steal our hearts when it doesn't have one of its own? "
http://www.talkinbroadway.com/world/DirtyRotten.html

Updated On: 3/3/05 at 06:34 PM

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 6:39pm

Hmm. Well, I can't say I agree with him on many of his points, but I have to say that I can see where he's coming from.

[TheGaIsSilent]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 6:58pm

Hmm... I'm not a fan of Murray's at all.

Moving on...

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 7:02pm

I strongly disagree with him, which is funny, because I generally agree with his reviews. I can see where he's coming from, but I really don't agree at all.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 7:03pm

Yeah. With Murray, you never know what he is gonna say.
Sometimes I'm on the same page as him. Sometimes I completely disagree. As is the case with DRS.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 7:05pm

Hmph.

Next, please.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 8:13pm

Next up: Theatremania -- A Rave:

"No need for tuner fans to pinch themselves; the unbelievable is actually occurring. This season, the word "comedy" is being emphatically and joyfully reinserted into the phrase "musical comedy." First, there was The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee, followed quickly by Altar Boyz. Now we have Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, spoof-positive that the formula refined in the 1940s and '50s for a certain brand of musical still works -- if the right people are working it.

Well, jumping Jehosaphat, the right people have linked arms to walk into the remunerative sunset under the supervision of executive producers Marty Bell and Aldo Scrofani. (The long list of the show's co-producers fancifully includes the names David Belasco, Florenz Ziegfeld, and "The Entire Prussian Army." Such tomfoolery is in keeping with the musical's flim-flam theme, which is cutely extended into the shrewd promotional campaign.) There's so much clicking into gear as Dirty Rotten Scoundrels revs its motors that a reviewer's dilemma is knowing where to start flinging the highly positive adjectives.

Do you start with John Lithgow doing a suave, 180-degree shift from his Sweet Smell of Success role of J.J. Hunsecker? Or with Norbert Leo Butz more than living up to the star-in-ascendent publicity that he's been accumulating? Or with Sherie Rene Scott, who suggests that -- in musicals, at least -- blondes really do have more fun? Do you begin with a salute to tunesmith-wordsmith David Yazbek, who comes into his own as a theater writer with this melodic, laugh-out-loud collection of adorably dopey ditties? Do you bow first to librettist Jeffrey Lane, who has adapted the Michael Caine-Steve Martin film and its antecedents into a stage piece in which sophistication and vulgarity climb into bed with each other and then mess around? Do you initially nod toward Jerry Mitchell in acknowledgment of his devil-may-care choreography, or toward the design team -- David Rockwell for his witty sets, Kenneth Posner for his bright lights, Acme Sound Partners for their discreet amplifying and mixing, Gregg Barnes for his stunning costumes? Should you commence by singling out director Jack O'Brien for again demonstrating that any show with which he's involved is going to be scintillating?"
http://www.theatermania.com/content/news.cfm/story/5722

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 8:17pm

*nods in approval*



Okay, you get the point. Keep 'em comin'!

[Mattio98]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 8:18pm

His first paragraph sums up exactly what I was trying to say in my review a couple of weeks ago. This show is a teriffic throwback to old-fashioned musical comedy.

[TheGaIsSilent]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 8:32pm

Yep, that's more like it

[Mattio98]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 8:34pm

I'm thinking/hoping that most of the reviews will lean in this direction.

[LaCageAuxFollesFan2]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 8:39pm

Lets hope so, the show most certainly deserves it. Not quite sure why BWAY.com or NEWSDAY havent posted yet, they are usually right in there time wise with TalkinBway.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 8:42pm

Yeah. Broadway.com is posting their review really late. For them, anyway.

Updated On: 3/3/05 at 08:42 PM

[Mattio98]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 8:44pm

I'm interested to see if Brantley can manage to hate this one. Come on Ben! You can do it! Ugh...

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 8:44pm

*waits and doesn't study*

Oh, the anticipation.

Pft, Mattio, I'm sure he can.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 8:46pm

Brantley will probably be mixed-to-positive -- his typical thing.

[Testing1232]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 8:46pm

Knew I liked Theatermania !!!

[Mattio98]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 8:47pm

"Brantley will probably be mixed-to-positive -- his typical thing."

For once Margo, I disagree with you. Brantley's typical thing it mixed-to-negative with absolutely no specifics.

[LaCageAuxFollesFan2]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 8:48pm

Would it be too much to ask for him to give the most deserving NEW musical in the last 3 seasons a RAVE?? Come-on Brantley - THIS IS IT! Please give us a little more than your usual drivel and let us know how much you love it (or hate it)! Make it a REAL REVIEW for a change.

PS - you all must think Im crazy, but somebody has to know what I mean!

[TGIF]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 9:06pm

Excellent!

[TheGaIsSilent]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 9:07pm

Re-loading ATC and BWW, watching the Apprentice. God, I need to get out of the house.

[mominator]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 9:09pm

Did the Times sen Mr B?

[Mattio98]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 9:10pm

I would assume so...

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 9:16pm

how did Brantley treat Lithgow during SWEET SMELL? one thing with BB is that he looooooooooooves a star, no matter what they do. the question would then be, is Lithgow a star in BrantleyLand?

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 3/3/05 at 9:19pm

He savaged Lithgow and the show.