Frogs Reviews

[Missy37]

Posted: 7/22/04 at 7:26pm

Has anyone seen any of the reviews yet?

[thebigkrakowski]

Posted: 7/22/04 at 7:37pm

Only Broadway.com.

It's kind.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 7/22/04 at 8:04pm

Better than kind, I think, it's quite positive.
http://www.broadway.com/template_1.asp?CI=40455&CT=39

[SamIAm]

Posted: 7/22/04 at 8:13pm

talking broadway was (expectedly) NOT favorable. BRANTLEY didn't like it but unlike another reader/poster here I did not find this Brantley's best written review. It was meandering and it wasn't clear exactly what he wanted done or didn't want done with the piece. I would guess that many critics just won't know what to do with this but since Brantley is one of the brighter bulbs in this group, I was hoping he would have had something meatier to say...negative OR positive. Here's the link, if you haven't seen it.
http://theater2.nytimes.com/2004/07/23/theater/reviews/23FROG.html

[Mike3]

Posted: 7/22/04 at 8:15pm

Brantley weighs in. Ouch.


http://theater2.nytimes.com/2004/07/23/theater/reviews/23FROG.html

[SamIAm]

Posted: 7/22/04 at 8:27pm

Brantley says at one point: 'Mr. Sondheim had originally intended to use a song like "Invocation" — a blithe series of admonitions to the audience on how to behave in the theater — for "Funny Thing" (1962). And along with a new, throwaway piece called "Dress Big," about what to wear in Hades, it is one of the few numbers in this "Frogs" that has the old-fashioned Broadway bounciness of "Funny Thing." '

This isn't supposed to be a bouncy Broadway musical...sigh...

[MusicMan]

Posted: 7/22/04 at 9:00pm

The fact is all but one of the new songs IS a bouncy show tune---and second-rate ones at that. And the script is nothing but stale borscht-belt gags. It's a musical comedy that's neither musical nor comedic. I'm not a fan of Brantley's by any means, but he hit this one right on the head. Updated On: 7/22/04 at 09:00 PM

[SamIAm]

Posted: 7/22/04 at 9:08pm

that they mean to me...I'm thinking: Dionysos...nope...It's only a Play...nope...Ariadne...nope...Fear no more...nope...shall I go on?

[MusicMan]

Posted: 7/22/04 at 9:21pm

As I said, SamIAm, all but one of the new songs (Ariadne) is a bouncy show tune (I'm not counting All Aboard whose function is transitional). The rest you blithely reel off are from the original production.


Yup. Updated On: 7/23/04 at 09:21 PM

[DJ Tifa]

Posted: 7/22/04 at 11:29pm

Just got back from opening night--Amazing, really. Roger Bart was perfect in his part. A decent amount of changes from the last time I saw it (two weeks ago), made it even better...

[bythesword84]

Posted: 7/22/04 at 11:41pm

I also was at Opening Night and just got home.

I thought it was okay. I felt like the book to it was decent but it fell flat at certain points and some of the jokes were cute but not laugh out loud funny. I did however enjoy the tossing around of references to various playwrights although I can see many an average viewer not finding those things to be funny at all because they may not be familiar with a lot of the things which are mentioned.

I felt Burke Moses was horrendously underused. I thought Roger Bart's part was smaller than it should have been but he did an excellent job in it overall. Now, I'm not a fan of Nathan Lane, but he didn't bother me either way in this. I really loved the song "Ariande" and thats a lot for me to say considering he was singing it and I don't usually like his singing. I also loved the three graces, but the woman who played the Amazon was horrible. Ugh.

Overall, I found it to be an enjoyable show but it didn't blow me away at all. I had read somewhere that people thought that during previews the second act was tedious and boring but I didn't find that to be the case. I thought it was interesting and entertaining but it didn't make me think "wow."

[Corine2]

Posted: 7/23/04 at 1:30am

I love Nathan Lane he did it for me.

I loved the match between Shakespeare and Shaw. It was my favorite part.
OOPS. Had Albee on my mind.
Updated On: 7/23/04 at 01:30 AM

[bythesword84]

Posted: 7/23/04 at 1:33am

Um, it was Shakespeare and Shaw. And yes, that was really great, I thought it was one of the best parts of the show.

[~FloweryFriend~]

Posted: 7/23/04 at 2:00am

Worth seeing?

Or, rather, worth the ticket price?

[bythesword84]

Posted: 7/23/04 at 2:35am

Oh its worth seeing, I thought it was worth ticket price but rest assured there's not a bad seat in the house really.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 7/23/04 at 10:20am

My point is that Brantley was looking for bouncy show tunes which you say predominate. There are some like 'Dress Big' and 'I Love to Travel' but for the most part I do not consider this show a bouncy show tune show. There we disagree. But, you can't discount the old music because it is part of the score that Brantley was criticizing.

[Corine2]

Posted: 7/23/04 at 10:43am

Flowery-
It is worth seeing. But if you are only in NYC for a short time I would see other shows. I don't think your mother would like it if she has issues with Q.
It is wonderful but so is Wonderful Town and she would probably like that show better.
It has great music from Comden and Green.
Donna Murphy is incredible as is the talented Gregg Edelman.
Wonderful Town will appeal to people who love a beautiful score and great dancing.
I think it is perfect for your Mother and Grandmother. You leave them and see Q. Updated On: 7/23/04 at 10:43 AM

[MusicMan]

Posted: 7/23/04 at 11:02am

You miss my point, SamIam, but no matter. Ultimately, the problem just isn't with the songs themselves but with the tone and intention of the entire proceedings. The original was a compact spin-off of Aristophanes with a neo-classic score and a feeling of antique ritual. But then Lane and Stroman entered the picture and it became more musical comedy in its feel (bouncy songs in a show-tune feel completely different in tone from the original handful of songs). And second-rate musical comedy at that. As a result, the show is now neither fish nor fowl but THE FROGS.

[HeartinNYC]

Posted: 7/23/04 at 11:38am

Here's the link:

http://www.ctnow.com/entertainment/stage/hc-frogsrev.artjul23,1,6792006.story?coll=hc-headlines-theaterreviews

Glad to see my hometown enjoyed the show (almost) as much as I did!

Updated On: 7/23/04 at 11:38 AM

[leomaxfrank]

Posted: 7/23/04 at 1:48pm

hey everyone! it's been ages since I've posted and thought I would say hello...and be able to interject at a sloppy mistake by the ever-positive corine2 - "great music from comden and green" - wow, that is impressive. i almost forgot that betty comden and adolph green write great music...

shudder.

i miss you all.

[~FloweryFriend~]

Posted: 7/23/04 at 2:39pm

leomaxfrank, if you're alluding to the name Berstein being left off of the list, you're only half right. If my memory serves me correctly, Comden & Green did indeed write some of the music. Therefore, the lovely Corine is not wrong.

[leomaxfrank]

Posted: 7/23/04 at 3:01pm

floweryfriend, i guess that could be somewhat possible...but it's conventionally known that Bernstein composed the music for Wonderful Town

[MusicMan]

Posted: 7/23/04 at 3:07pm

Floweryfriend, you and Corine2 should rent a bungalow by the sea together.

Comden and Green were lyricists and script writers. Their many musical collaborators include Jule Styne, Andre Previn, Cy Coleman, Roger Edens, Moose Charlap and Leonard BERNSTEIN. Updated On: 7/23/04 at 03:07 PM

[leomaxfrank]

Posted: 7/23/04 at 3:23pm

thanks Music Man..i didn't think i was going insane at such a ripe age! nor, did i wish to look it up!

[SamIAm]

Posted: 7/23/04 at 3:24pm

I believe that your point is clearer to me now. You are saying that entire concept of the show is cast in a sort of bouncy broadway musical light.

Not sure I agree with you. I think it's more of a broadway 'review' feel but so be it.