EQUUS Reviews

Daily News jumped the gun with Joe's 3-star review:

"Let's get right to it - Daniel Radcliffe, the marquee man-boy and the reason "Equus" has trotted back to Broadway.

Yes, he's terrific and gives a passionate performance as Alan Strang, the 17-year-old stable hand who worships - and blinds - six horses. Yes, he's nude in a scene, but not gratuitously. And yes, he's (at least partially) in good company in the revival of Peter Shaffer's play, which intrigues but shows its age.

Both actors reprise roles they played last year in London, and their scenes together are engaging, unlike the doc's lengthy monologues. They anchor Thea Sharrock's otherwise uneven and gimmicky production. There's more dry-ice mist than in a monster movie, and as rectangular blocks are forever being shoved around the stage, it's as if the set was inspired by a sectional sofa.

As in the 1974 original, the horses are men in brown wearing masks and high-rise steel boots created by John Napier. While wonderfully theatrical, they're distracting. The buff boys pose mechanically, hitting marks like runway models. It doesn't help that their eyes glow, sci-fi-style."

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/arts/2008/09/25/2008-09-25_daniel_radcliffe_delivers_but_equus_show.html

Indeed.

Is there any good music in this show?

---

Variety - http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117938501.html?categoryid=33&cs=1

Updated On: 9/25/08 at 04:32 PM

The International Herald Tribune review is from the Associated Press, which is Positive.

Variety is Mixed-to-Positive:

'Stunt casting in theater can do a disservice to playwrights, with famous faces often monopolizing attention while devaluing the merits of the work itself. But in his impressive debut in a major stage role, as the disturbed adolescent in "Equus," Daniel Radcliffe significantly helps overcome the fact that Peter Shaffer's 1975 Tony winner doesn't entirely hold up. The play is an astute career move for the "Harry Potter" frontman as he confidently navigates the transition from child stardom to adult roles -- and Radcliffe's performance provides "Equus" with a raw emotional nerve center that renders secondary any concerns about its wonky and over-explanatory psychology...'

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117938501.html?categoryid=33&cs=1

---

It mind sound odd but im surprised the reviews are not raves

---

Word of Mouth is Very Positive:

MARY: "I liked the play. I don't think it's for everyone, but I certainly liked it... it's probably too smart for my dumb friends."

DEBBI: "The first act, I did look at my watch. The second act, I didn't remember I had a watch."

MARK: "If you've got the stomach for something dark and disturbing... it really makes you think."

http://www.broadway.com/gen/general.aspx?ci=571657

(and those clips did not really show Daniel to his best advantage.)

---

Updated On: 9/25/08 at 07:52 PM

Of course, Matthew Murray's review goes against the grain so far.

Talkin' Broadway is Mixed, with praise more for Griffiths than Radcliffe:

'...Make no mistake, the 19-year-old actor acquits himself admirably, never once looking or sounding like the Harry Potter he's been portraying on screen for seven years. From his first appearance, he's much like Alan: brash and abrasive, an untested quantity waiting to be tamed. And in the earliest scenes, when Alan battles Martin for control of his own mind, Radcliffe more than holds his own, showing you Alan's darker crippling without demanding your pity or encouraging your disgust.

But Radcliffe never progresses beyond that point, even as Alan does. You must believe in Alan's complete possession in each of the flashbacks Martin inspires, that this withdrawn boy would derive spiritual solace from riding nude on a horse, and that that same worship would lead him to gouge out its eyes with a metal spike after proving unable to fulfill his own destiny as a sexual being. Radcliffe is superb throughout at evoking the hazy frustration that defines Alan's everyday existence. But even when his clothes come off, he never reveals the extraordinary - and terrifying - creature you should see beneath.

Radcliffe's deficit is even more noticeable opposite Griffiths, who never falters in supporting his half of the brutal comparisons Shaffer establishes between the two. The imbalance between the two hurts this Equus. But it doesn't diminish Radcliffe as an actor of enormous promise, if one in need of more seasoning to stand shoulder to shoulder with the stage's great stars, such as Griffiths. After all, how often in the real world do the tricks of an up-and-coming wizard match those of expert sorcerer?'

http://www.talkinbroadway.com/world/Equus2008.html

---

I think Brantley hits the nail pretty much on the head

New York 1 (with video) is a Rave:

'When my mother took me to see the original production of “Equus,” it stayed with me for years. I was much too young to judge its merits, but I see now why the play had such an impact. It really is a mesmerizing work that reaches deep into the psyche.

Designed as a suspense yarn, it makes the most of theatrical conventions to question some of our most basic beliefs about sanity, religion and childhood influences.

The 35-year-old play certainly holds up today and thanks to a fine British revival, Peter Schaffer's remarkable drama remains essential Broadway viewing. Staged by Thea Sharrock, “Equus” remains a riveting synthesis of stage craft and theatrical vision...'

http://www.ny1.com/content/ny1_living/theater_reviews/Default.aspx

---

At least Brantley was Mixed-Favorable. I think he very much liked the production, but he saw an opportunity to bring it to a higher level.

---

Brantley's review is totally spot-on.