Frogs or Dracula?

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/5/04 at 8:14pm

Ok this wasn't gettin many responses in the other thread so I shall ask again. On Saturday should I see Dracula or The Frogs?

Updated On: 9/5/04 at 08:14 PM

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/5/04 at 8:15pm

see dracula...the frogs is so boring...also nathan lane isnt in it b/c he got injured

Nathan only missed the second act of the Wednesday matinee and the Wednesday evening performance. Seriously njured and sore as he is, he was back in the show Thursday evening and hasn't missed a performance since. And might I add, I hear he's not missed a beat in the show. You definitely should reconsider the Dracula suggestion.

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/5/04 at 8:27pm

DRACULAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA IT ROCKS!

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/5/04 at 8:29pm

See The Frogs. Dracula has bad reviews across the board (maybe one or two okay reviews), but at least The Frogs has had mixed/positive reviews.

Nathan Lane is incredible in whatever show he's in. Even with his injured leg, he's still performing.

I cannot stress this enough - SEE THE FROGS.

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/5/04 at 10:14pm

This is a "no brainer", Possum, - Sondheim over Wildhorn any day of my life.....

"I don't really get the ending,all i can go with is when after several months,Judith saw Pat sang,and later she kissed him on the toilet,after that the story back to where Pat went down from the stage after he'd sung,and he went to the italian lady.I just don't get it,what Judith exatcly meant when he kissed Pat that she had seen,and did Pat end up together with The Italian Lady?Please help me,thank u very much!" Quote from someone on IMDB in reference to a movie he/she didn't understand. Such grammar!

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/5/04 at 10:47pm

i would see dracula..the show seems more interesting to me.

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/5/04 at 10:54pm

The Frogs.

Just because of Roger.

"And now for something completely different..."

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/5/04 at 11:05pm

As youll see, I loved the Frogs. But even if you won't like the plot/music, etc, see it for Nathan and Roger!!!

Rosencrantz: "Be happy - if you're not even HAPPY what's so good about surviving? We'll be all right. I suppose we just go on." - from Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

#10

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/5/04 at 11:09pm

Oh God I thought this was gonna be comparing Dracula and Frogs haha.

"I really liked the show--Wish I saw Boy's Night...Am I allowed as I am not a boy anymore:)"-duffyny1

#11

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/5/04 at 11:23pm

Definitely go see THE FROGS. It is much more enjoyable.

If you haven't had good sleeping patterns lately, go see DRACULA. I have never been so bored by a show in a very long time. There is absolutely nothing to keep you interested. Even the cast is bored and has said so in interviews.

#12

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/5/04 at 11:31pm

Dracula was great and it has been getting great reviews lately from the board members! The Frogs is just a really bad show, it has nothing to entertain you other than the brilliant Roger Bart, but Nathan Lane just seemed like he was trying too hard to steal the show. Even though I LOVE Sondheim, Dracula is so much more entertaining than Frogs is.

If you are looking for a entertaining night on Broadway then I wold see Dracula.

If you want to see Nathan Lane make a fool of himslef and totally upstage the great performance from Roger Bart than see the 'Frogs'

#13

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/6/04 at 12:21am

Uh oh, I hear the ominous sound of a falling out.

"it has been getting great reviews lately from the board members!"

Uh, if I remember correctly, it got some really bad reviews from members here.

And how is Nathan Lane making a fool of himself and upstaging Roger Bart? It's Nathan's show - he adapted the book and is starring in the biggest role. I think he has the right to upstage anyone he wants (not that he does).

Onstage, Nathan and Roger compliment each other perfectly. The only reason Roger may seem downstaged is because he's the slave. In the original play by Aristophanes, Xanthias actually complains (sort of) because he doesn't get any lines during the scene with Herakles.

Updated On: 9/6/04 at 12:21 AM

#14

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/6/04 at 12:53am

Saw them both last week on Sat. The Frogs was far superior. Nathan & Bart were fantatsic... Dracula was just boring! Very unimpressed with it... It was not as awful as jek/hyde but really dull... See the Frogs. It is not perfect but it is slick theatrical and a lot of fun!

#15

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/6/04 at 12:54am

ONE WORD:: D-R-A-C-U-L-A

http://www.BrooklynTheMusical.info

#16

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/6/04 at 12:57am

I saw both and I'd say Frogs. It's not perfect but it's a better night at the theatre than Dracula. And it's Sondheim.

#17

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/6/04 at 1:58am

I saw both and Frogs was fun. I loved Frogs even though most people hate it.
I LOVE IT. If you love Nathan Lane (Good ol reliable Nathan schtick is worth seeing the show for)
It is very funny. Nathan is at his best. I saw it in previews and was amused by Nathan. Also the butler from the nanny is amazing.
Dracula is not even worth seeing for free. I saw Dracula for free and even though the special effects, singing and talent was incredible it did not work.
Frogs is the better of the two BY FAR!
(I paid for Frogs and was entertained)

Updated On: 9/6/04 at 01:58 AM

#18

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/6/04 at 2:09am

If you like Nathan Lane, go see the Frogs.

If you don't really care about him, see Dracula - which has been a show that has gotten lousy reviews from a lot of us here.

"We like to snark around here. Sometimes we actually talk about theater...but we try not to let that get in our way." - dramamama611

#19

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/6/04 at 9:34am

Beg to differ. Lane was out for the 2nd act of the matinee in which he was injured and then for the evening performance and then was back on Thursday...he has been back ever since.

I think you will hear bad reviews of both shows on this board. I would go see Frogs if you want something different, political, burlesque and SONDHEIM. Lane and Bart are wonderful together.

"Life is a lesson in humility"

#20

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/6/04 at 9:38am

Saying that Lane is upstaginig other actors is really unfair especially when the ACTORS THEMSELVES have called Lane gracious in giving them the stage.

Bartlett can't say enough good things about Lane's generously giving him the stage during his scenes and Bart has been the first one to say that Lane gives him room and did so in the Producers. As for his taking up a lot of the stage...he is the main character in the play.

"Life is a lesson in humility"

#21

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/6/04 at 9:40am

Also, Corine...just a side...the 'butler from the Nanny' is named Daniel Davis and has a lot of stage credits and is a well respected Broadway talent who is next doing La Cage...

I just want people to know he has a name and a career outside of being Fran Drescher's foil

"Life is a lesson in humility"

#22

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/6/04 at 10:21am

Add me to the list of people that gave "Dracula" a bad review. Did not see "Frogs", but no way it can be worse than "Dracula" !!!

#23

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/6/04 at 10:23am

DRACULAAAAAAA

#24

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/6/04 at 12:31pm

Cool! I didn't know Daniel Davis was going to be in La Cage.

"We like to snark around here. Sometimes we actually talk about theater...but we try not to let that get in our way." - dramamama611

#25

re: Frogs or Dracula?

Posted: 9/6/04 at 12:39pm

Yep, Davis is playing Georges...

"Life is a lesson in humility"

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71

Tickets From $95