Guys and Dolls Review Posts go here! — Page 3

It's up.
http://theater2.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/theater/reviews/02guys.html

The New York Times (with Ben Brantley) is VERY NEGATIVE:

"Certain words, in certain contexts, are best left unspoken. In Des McAnuff’s uninspired new revival of “Guys and Dolls” at the Nederlander Theater that word happens to be “chemistry.” It is dropped — with a thud and a shatter — and hovers for the rest of the evening like a neon-lighted reproach.

“Chemistry?” says Sarah Brown (Kate Jennings Grant), the rigid Salvation Army officer, with a dropped jaw and you’ve-gotta-be-kidding italics. She has just been told, by the handsome gambler Sky Masterson (Craig Bierko), that love is something that can’t be planned or anticipated. Miss Brown is having none of this radical concept.

Oh, Sarah, Sarah, I do so know where you’re coming from. Chemistry is something you don’t understand until you experience it, with all the attendant happy chills and dizziness. And, honey, there ain’t no chemistry in your show: not between the two pairs of leading lovers, or between the singers and their songs, or the actors and their parts."

http://theater2.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/theater/reviews/02guys.html

---

Oh, Broadway. What on earth are you doing??

Maybe they'll get it right next time.

Brantley's review wasn't half as bad as I was expecting.

---

Wow, we can't even put on a decent production of Guys and Dolls.

---

I'm sad to read these reviews.
The production sounds like a bomb from top to bottom.

---

I didn't see it, but apparently the guy from WNBC loved it. He said it was the best thing he's seen since South Pacific. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

haha - that was funny, paljoey.

IMO, the reason this show has gone so haywire is because it was so rushed.

From the way the reviews read as far as performances and staging are concerned, it just seems like everyone is self-conscious and hasn't quite found their "groove" yet.

it's underrehearsed. they didn't have an out-of-town tryout, they didn't really get much of a chance for anything - they had barely finished casting four months ago - rushed rushed rushed.

It's really a major accomplishment to screw up this badly.

This is on par with Rockaby Hamlet, except that was a crapsicle (I worked on the original in Charlottetown and it was poo poo there) and this is GUYS AND DOLLS for G sake. You don't mess with Guys and Dolls, you don't change the concept, tinker with the setting or period. You put it up, put it up well and people will come. Hell, it ran with an all black cast and a hip jazz orchestration and got better reviews and 239 performances, which I daresay will far outlast this one..

---

I didn't like it when I saw it. I couldn't tell if I hated the show or this production. Maybe it's both? But this production is def. lacking.

I saw this last week. It didn't do anything for me. I went into this without knowing anything of Guys & Dolls. I enjoyed score immensely. The first act I think was saved by Kate Jennings Grant. She had this stage presence that the other 3 leads lacked. She kept my attention. I enjoyed the dancing in both acts. Mary Testa stole the show and had me laughing so hard I was crying (not Tony-worthy, but funny as hell).

Despite the above, I felt the rest of the show plodded along. I didn't know if this was just because of the show or not. It kept my attention only because the story was new to me.

Maybe he had a good dinner.


or a handy in the back row?