Good Vibrations Reviews

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 6:16pm

Broadway.com is first as usual -- VERY BAD:

" Incorporating 32 Beach Boys tunes, Good Vibrations is the latest Broadway musical based on the songs of a pop group or solo act. It aspires to be Mamma Mia meets Movin' Out. Unfortunately, it's more like Footloose meets Dance of the Vampires."

"For this ill-conceived show, Carrafa is the director as well as the choreographer. It's not an auspicious Broadway directing debut, and the choreography is even worse. In fact, Good Vibrations features some of the cheesiest dancing in recent Broadway history.

It also has perhaps the ugliest set (designed by Heidi Ettinger) of any current Broadway show; the Act I set--with its exposed brick walls and radiators mixed with beach umbrellas and rafts--is even more hideous than the set in Brooklyn, which I believe was intentionally ugly."

"As it stands, the first half is embarrassingly bad. The dialogue is so lame that it's a wonder Richard Dresser (whose plays include Rounding Third) left his name on the credits as the book-writer. Setting the scene at the beginning, one character says: "The girls were beautiful. The guys were cool. Everybody surfed." And the clichés just keep on coming for over two hours. Combined with Carrafa's tacky choreography and the terrible set (in which four chairs are used to simulate a car), the show seems more like a high school production than a big-budget Broadway musical."

"As for the show's commercial prospects, the producers aren't likely to rake in Mamma Mia-like millions. The audience for this waterlogged musical should be limited to Beach Boys diehards, unsuspecting tourists and the actors' family and friends. Casting agents might want to go too, because there are talented singers here who in all likelihood will need another, better gig very soon."
http://www.broadway.com/gen/Buzz_Story.aspx?ci=506546&pn=1

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 6:19pm

wow. rough. i didnt think the BW.com video looked all that bad.

[Albin]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 6:22pm

It's not all bad:

"Whenever the actors are allowed to stop their frenetic dancing and just sing, there are actually some good numbers. That's because there are talented singers in the cast." Updated On: 2/2/05 at 06:22 PM

[LaCageAuxFollesFan2]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 6:22pm

To judge any show by their video is unfair, (yes I know, Im not that impressed with the Sweet Charity one, but will give it a fair and honest chance and hope for the best) - But if the rest of these reviews are THIS BAD...ugh Look out!

[Iris Chacon]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 6:28pm

Now I want to do a little searching on this board and bring out all the shills that were singing its praises the first week of previews.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 6:54pm

Brantly's is up...no surprise that he hates it

http://theater2.nytimes.com/2005/02/03/theater/reviews/03good.html?oref=login Updated On: 2/2/05 at 06:54 PM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 6:56pm

It's no surprise that anyone hates it...

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 6:58pm

Brantley:

"But audience members strong enough to sit through this rickety jukebox of a show, which manages to purge all catchiness from the surpassingly catchy hits of the Beach Boys, will discover that the production does have a reason to be, and a noble one: "Good Vibrations" sacrifices itself, night after night and with considerable anguish, to make all other musicals on Broadway look good.

Such virtuous behavior could not come at a more propitious moment. Just think of the roster of dim, dispiriting shows that have opened this season: "Brooklyn," "Little Women," the deceased "Dracula." Each of these clunkers now feels like a high point of professionalism thanks to "Good Vibrations," which features a lot of washboard-stomached performers who give the impression of having spent far more time in the gym than in the rehearsal studio. As they smile, wriggle and squeak with the desperation of wet young things hung out to dry, you feel their pain. It is unlikely, however, to be more acute than yours. "

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 7:06pm

That is perfect.

[Albin]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 7:10pm

Brantley calls it a "singing headache." LMAO!!!

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 7:11pm

I might have to make a trip to this show sooner than I thought - maybe even this weekend it might not make it another week.

[timote316]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 7:15pm

"Footloose meets Dance of the Vampires"

That sums it up

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 7:17pm

I thought DANCE OF THE VAMPIRES was great, so I don't know about that...

[kudzu]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 7:25pm

Munkustrap178,
Why waste the time and money to see something you already hate????

[kudzu]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 7:31pm

Yankeefan007,
Didn't the show start at 8:00PM how can he write a review about seeing a show before it happens? I thought the press opening was tonight, at 8:00 pm. I think this must be why I judge for myself rather than going by what a reviewer says. Sometimes I agree, but most of the time I don't

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 7:31pm

What do you mean something I already hate? Do you know something about myself that I don't yet know?

[SJ13]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 7:32pm

Updated On: 2/3/05 at 07:32 PM

[Marlothom]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 7:33pm

The Reviewers get to see it the night b4...they usually publish them the morning after, but I guess they couldn't wait.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 7:39pm

No, they're always published beforehand or usually around when the curtain goes down. The reviews are always available opening night.

And you don't make a very good point when you bring up MAMMA MIA - MAMMA MIA did not get bad reviews at all.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 7:41pm

SJ13, there is an unwritten rule that, out of good faith, critics refrain from publishing their reviews until the opening night curtain. Usually the critic catches the Press Night performance a few days before opening night (by that time the show should be more or less frozen), which gives them some time to write the review.

Brantley's review is dated for February 3rd because it will be published in tomorrow's paper. Like most NYT articles, however, it is available online as soon as it can be released.

Updated On: 2/2/05 at 07:41 PM

[SJ13]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 7:42pm

Updated On: 2/3/05 at 07:42 PM

[joniray]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 7:42pm

"when was the show that these reviewers saw.a week ago?two?since it has been reworked?
totally unprofessional.it may truely suck.but that being the case i would remember something that my mother taught me.
if you do not have anything nice to say.say nothing at all.
you know,that carries alot of weight."

Are you actually suggesting that critics only say good things? Or that they only write reviews if they can say something nice? Then what is the point of having critics?

It seems to me that Margo is just as free with her praise as with her criticism on this board. It just may be that her taste is different then yours. And she has just as much a right to have her opinion as you do. So chill.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 7:49pm

SJ13, I think it is unfair that you are attacking Margo -- all Margo did was provide us with an abstract of Brantley's review. I don't think the line about Mamma Mia added anything more to our opinion of the review -- the majority of us already know Brantley's tastes.

For your part, you also forgot to cut and paste the following:

The idea of showing a generation dance from adolescence to adulthood, to an era-defining background of period music, has been shaped to perfection in "Movin' Out," the improbable, inspired collaboration between the singer and composer Billy Joel and the choreographer Twyla Tharp.

These lines show that Brantley has nothing against jukebox musicals per se, because he enjoyed MOVIN' OUT. He just seems to have a problem with ill-conceived works like MAMMA MIA.

Updated On: 2/2/05 at 07:49 PM

[SJ13]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 7:49pm

Updated On: 2/3/05 at 07:49 PM

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 7:51pm

I don't recall Margo ever condemning GOOD VIBRATIONS, at least not in this thread.