FUNNY GIRL on Broadway - Reviews & News Thread- Page 64

[Lorna Joe]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 2:16am

Dolly80 said: "This revival is toast.

Unless the understudy goes on to be amazing and becomes the real story here- which is still highly likely.

Either way , this is a major blow for Beanie F. She should have known her limitations and never have done this show."

Blow? She received some rave reviews. 

[Dolly80]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 2:25am

Your devotion to this is so cute Beanie, I mean Lorna.

Now time for you to leave quietly- drive around.. and maybe actually see the show you have been trumpeting so loudly, and embarrassingly ,yet have never seen.

[MadsonMelo]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 3:10am

I think people that really disliked the revival are making the reviews seems worst than they actually are. The reviews are not disastrous or anything, there negative reviews, but the consensus is mixed, and there are plenty that like both Beanie and the revival. And its ok.

[Theatrelover1975]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 3:14am

MadsonMelo said: "I think people that really disliked the revival are making the reviews seems worst than they actually are. The reviews are not disastrous or anything, there negative reviews, but the consensus is mixed, and there are plenty that like both Beanie and the revival. And its ok."

They’re pretty much bad across the board. I’ve read two positive reviews and those didn’t mention her singing. I’m guessing on purpose…? So they were either paid off or just being nice. It’s a musical. A Jule Styne musical at that. 

[Rudy2]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 3:15am

I’m rather surprised Rex Reed loved Beanie.

[MadsonMelo]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 3:20am

Theatrelover1975 said: "MadsonMelo said: "I think people that really disliked the revival are making the reviews seems worst than they actually are. The reviews are not disastrous or anything, there negative reviews, but the consensus is mixed, and there are plenty that like both Beanie and the revival. And its ok."

They’re pretty much bad across the board. I’ve read two positive reviews and those didn’t mention her singing. I’m guessing on purpose…? So they were either paid off or just being nice. It’s a musical. A Jule Styne musical at that."

They are not. I Mean, NYT itself is a mixed one saying that while Beanie is not great, she still is good. Its not the all bad at all.

[latitudex1]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 3:23am

Theatrelover1975 said: "MadsonMelo said: "I think people that really disliked the revival are making the reviews seems worst than they actually are. The reviews are not disastrous or anything, there negative reviews, but the consensus is mixed, and there are plenty that like both Beanie and the revival. And its ok."

They’re pretty much bad across the board. I’ve read two positive reviews and those didn’t mention her singing. I’m guessing on purpose…? So they were either paid off or just being nice. It’s a musical. A Jule Styne musical at that."

Pretty much bad is ... Still not disastrous. Most reviews called her charming or funny, even when mentioning that she had 3 or 4 great numbers (tops). 

That's certainly not enough to be devastating to the cast, crew, or production. 

[Dolly80]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 3:38am

Oh come on.

What’s the point in doing Funny Girl unless your lead absolutely wows critics and audiences. Ok is not good enough. Adequate is not good enough.

[Lorna Joe]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 3:41am

Dolly80 said: "Your devotion to this is so cute Beanie, I mean Lorna.

Now time for you to leave quietly- drive around.. and maybe actually see the show you have been trumpeting so loudly, and embarrassingly ,yet have never seen."

I never said I liked it... I said I predicted it would get some good reviews. And I was right.

I did drive around today.... to Cipollini in Manhasset. I had the Pan Seared Salmon Broccoli Rabe, with Cannellini Beans... then back to Chelsea in Manhattan where I live. 

 

 

[sng]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 4:16am

I fully gasped and howled at the Vulture review 

https://www.vulture.com/2022/04/theater-review-funny-girl-beanie-feldstein.html

This is a straight-up assassination. 

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 5:19am

To many posters here, these reviews do not seem “mixed” in any promotable way, the majors across the board larded with serious reservations. To put it kindly. The show itself has been given a collective dismissal without a star making performance, which a preponderance agree is lacking. And though there will be useable pull quotes, no widely read set of critics are saying “you must go!” Does it matter? Maybe not. But even among those notices with faint or polite praise, these are probably not industry accepted definitions of money reviews. In 2022, will a lot of ticket buyers really say, “Well, Rex Reed loved it, and I trust The Observer.” This is the best summation, in WaPo:
 

Peter Marks:

“Given the pedigree of the brassy “Don’t Rain on My Parade” — one of those killer damn-the-torpedoes anthems that reliably raise heart rates — Feldstein has the immense task of sending the audience into intermission on a literal high note. She sings her heart out, and if it were just heart that was called for, she’d be a Fanny Brice for the ages.”

Updated On: 4/25/22 at 05:19 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 5:35am

Those that liked it are making the reviews better than they are.  Truth be told, I thought they'd be worse. 

 

No, they are mediocre at best....but Wicked is still running with mediocre reviews. Reviews only matter if they effect the box office. 

The cast likely already knew Beanie was lacking, even Ramin...but they'd be foolish to mention it publicly. Their job is to PROMOTE the show. 

It won't matter if Benko is outstanding, most ticket buyers (not us here) won't know or care.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 5:58am

It always cracks me up when people cite Wicked when a show they love doesn't get the reviews they had hoped for. Wicked surviving its less that stellar reviews is not a norm or rule. It is an exception, and a huge one at that.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 6:08am

Except, I didn't love FG, so, I'm not fighting for it to overcome the reviews. I thought, like many here, it was very HS theater.

Reviews just don't carry the same impact they once did. 

 

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 6:16am

dramamama611 said: "Except, I didn't love FG, so, I'm not fighting for it to overcome the reviews. I thought, like many here, it was very HS theater.

Reviews just don't carry the same impact they once did."

Dramamama, my apologies, I was not referring to your post in any way - I was referring to people in general who use the Wicked reviews to defend shows they love that receive bad reviews (I know some many people who cited Wicked's reviews when Diana was panned). 

[ACL2006]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 6:19am

A Director said: "Is it too soon to ask, What's next for the August Wilson Theatre?"

For now, yes. It was nearly soldout during its entire preview period. I think it does okay now through the Summer. Let's see if it's still going come the Fall.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 7:27am

Not the same impact, no; but the reality of critics’ influence on the marketplace is not 180 from the old days. Ask producers of Diana or more recently Paradise Square. A consensus creates a decided vibe around a production, whether or not the verdicts in dailies are determinative for consumers.

Scanning excerpts here, decent pull quotes exist. An ad campaign can be launched and it is possible to see the sprinkled kudos highlighted. But also unlike the old days, (other) reviews are forever in cyberspace. And if we’re to reach back to Wicked, remember the buzz around the twin performances. Formidable, with two rising stars rising to the occasion, and an immediate following developing. I joined this site that season. Not everyone adored the show but the stars were event casting. That isn’t the story here, not this Monday after opening.

Updated On: 4/25/22 at 07:27 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 7:33am

And I don't disagree with anything you stated, Auggie, at all.    Successful revivals, with the very rare exception, only run about 12 - 18 months anyway.  I agree with a previous poster that the real test will be what happens after the summer, which I'm guessing will sell relatively well.   

 

[Impeach2017]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 7:37am

"If I wanted Tracy Turnblad, I’d stream Hairspray, but I expected a funny girl."

ouch

[Georgeanddot2]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 7:39am

Yeah these reviews are not good at all.  Definitely mixed to negative and it's largely because of the star which is especially bad.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 8:35am

The reviews will send a message to producers that the jig is up. They will all be reading them. The emperor has no clothes. The leading lady is woefully miscast. Not her fault but it hurts the entire show. Also, it seems like Lynch, Grimes and Karimloo were overshadowed by the overall mediocrity of the productive. Most reviews barely give them a mention. Maybe a sentence, if that. 

Kind reviews are akin to poor. "Bless your heart" reviews I call them. No one pays top dollar for a "good" performance. 

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 8:47am

It's sad how gleeful people are about the negative response to the leading lady, yet seem to be missing the fact that critics really didn't like the SHOW. This is a bad musical with a bad book, and critics rightfully called it out. So yes, the leading lady may not be perfect, but the show itself is a naff dated show. 

I hope shows like this don't clutter up Broadway again. 

[Duckie4]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 8:57am

songanddanceman2 said: "It's sad how gleeful people are about the negative response to the leading lady, yet seem to be missing the fact that critics really didn't like the SHOW. This is a bad musical with a bad book, and critics rightfully called it out. So yes, the leading lady may not be perfect, but the show itself is a naff dated show. 

I hope shows like this don't clutter up Broadway again."

"Gleeful"? Really?

Yes, it's a bad musical with a bad book that can ONLY work if the leading lady is phenomenal. She's not, so it doesn't. 

 

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 8:59am

songanddanceman2 said: "It's sad how gleeful people are about the negative response to the leading lady, yet seem to be missing the fact that critics really didn't like the SHOW. This is a bad musical with a bad book, and critics rightfully called it out. So yes, the leading lady may not be perfect, but the show itself is a naff dated show.

I hope shows like this don't clutter up Broadway again."

I don't think people are gleeful. What  some people are is validated. You are dealing with theatre fans who want and demand appropriate talent on the stage. She was miscast and the production was called out on it. And the reason the show itself is standing out like a sore thumb is because the lead was miscast. 

[ljay889]

Posted: 4/25/22 at 9:01am

Bettyboy72 said: "songanddanceman2 said: "It's sad how gleeful people are about the negative response to the leading lady, yet seem to be missing the fact that critics really didn't like the SHOW. This is a bad musical with a bad book, and critics rightfully called it out. So yes, the leading lady may not be perfect, but the show itself is a naff dated show.

I hope shows like this don't clutter up Broadway again."

I don't think people are gleeful. What some people are is validated. You are dealing with theatre fans who want and demand appropriate talent on the stage. She was miscast and the production was called out on it. And the reason the show itself is standing out like a sore thumb is because the lead was miscast."

Exactly! This sums it up perfectly.