FOLLIES Reviews- Page 2

[Dollypop]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 8:47pm

I'm also perplexed by the way "omnivorous" is used in the review.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 8:48pm

I hope PalJoey reviews all the reviews!

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 8:50pm

Well I'll be sure to review them if he does!

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 8:58pm

Definition of OMNIVOROUS
1
: feeding on both animal and vegetable substances
2
: avidly taking in everything as if devouring or consuming
— om·niv·o·rous·ly adverb

Examples of OMNIVOROUS

She is an omnivorous reader.
a child with omnivorous curiosity


Nope, still can't figure it out, unless he's talking about her all-consuming obsession (?) with Ben. But that's the character, not the song. Not well written a review.

Merriam-Webster

Updated On: 9/12/11 at 08:58 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 9:05pm

lol

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 9:05pm

4 stars from Matt Windman

http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/theater-review-follies-4-stars-1.3165718

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 9:08pm

The Hollywood Reporter

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/follies-theater-review-234184

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 9:11pm

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/kennedy-centers-follies-steps-onto-broadway-with-fleet-feet/2011/09/12/gIQAIX34NK_story.html

[binau]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 9:13pm

"Peters initially seems a little cool and poised to convince as the Phoenix housewife pining away for 30 years"

????? Does this guy have Alexithymia?

[SondheimFan5]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 9:22pm

"OMNIVOROUS...unless he's talking about her all-consuming obsession (?) with Ben."

Actually it means she eats people (aka Ben) and all them flowers on the Loveland set. Therefore teh show shall be re-named Folly Todd.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 9:31pm

I like the Hollywood Reporter review--and this shout-out to us:

Mention that the original 1971 production of Follies was passed over in the Tony Awards race for best musical and theater chat sites tend to explode into fresh howls of outrage, provoking the kind of breast-beating anguish rarely witnessed outside of Sicilian funerals.

"Breast-beating anguish"...I like that.

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 9:35pm

The Associated Press is a Rave!

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=14505099

[tazber]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 9:38pm

One thing I know right now is that whatever Treachout from the Journal says I will inevitably disagree with completely.

Any clues on what to expect from the Times?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 9:42pm

I like that the Associate Press wasn't 100% on board with Carlyle's inept handling of the ghosts:

One odd note is struck when these Vegas-looking creatures with huge headdresses sometimes stop, stand and face the back wall, as if they were mimicking those little robot vacuums that get confused and bury themselves in an alcove for hours.

They did look like that. THEY DID!

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 9:46pm

Would have been better if they just kept hitting their heads against the wall.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 10:00pm

That Chicago Tribune review was hard to get through. Wow.

Trying to make sense of a review of a show when all you're interested in is reading a review of a show is one chore too many for this theatre fan. And I tend to be a wordy mutha myself, but that was just laborious.

Still better than his ridiculous review of the new Les Mis, where he trash talks the original production, passing himself off as someone who knows the original well, while knowing absolutely nothing about what he's talking about.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 10:00pm

"Would have been better if they just kept hitting their heads against the wall."



How very "Aunt Clara."

Updated On: 9/12/11 at 10:00 PM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 10:03pm

Getting home from the opening and I'm so happy for all involved. Whatever faults this revival has, tonight was absolutely thrilling and the actors received much well-earned love. Congrats and my heart is hoping for a rave in The Times!

[Simon4]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 10:07pm

Brantley: http://theater.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/theater/reviews/follies-on-broadway-review.html

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 10:08pm

I called it! Brantley changed his mind about the production like with LuPone's Gypsy.

Yay!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 10:10pm

Newsday...

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/theater/follies-a-sondheim-revival-for-the-ages-1.3164605

[SondheimFan5]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 10:11pm

Thrilled to have 5 very strong reviews which some would consider raves (Associated Press, Washington Post, Hollywood Reporter, Matt Windman, TheaterMirror), one case of verbal diarrhea (Chicago Tribune), and plenty more to come...

Surprised there aren't more raves for Terri White, and for Barnes's costumes. But I ain't complaining...thrilled for Houdyshell's raves!

UPDATE: Yeah! Brantly's as much as a rave as anyone could hope for.

IT'S A HIT! Updated On: 9/12/11 at 10:11 PM

[morosco]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 10:14pm

Surprised that Brantley didn't mention the 28 member orchestra. A pretty significant achievement on Broadway these days.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 10:15pm

I wouldn't say he 'changed his mind' - he said the production had improved and said performances had grown stronger, but he didn't throw the glass and deliver an all out rave; he still has some of the same reservations about aspects of the production that he had in Washington.

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/12/11 at 10:17pm

The only reservation I see him still having is..

, the spectral showgirls don’t really seem to know why they’re there. And Mr. Carlyle’s period choreography, though often charming, lacks the grandeur and precision of Bennett’s.

He even likes Paige and Raines now! It's definitely a much more positive review.
Updated On: 9/12/11 at 10:17 PM