I loved If/Then, even when it was still a bit rough around the edges during the previews in DC. I loved the Australian version of Love Never Dies (which I saw in the movie theater), which the critics mostly panned, although some did have kind words for the music itself. And, of course, there is the gem of a review by a VERY well-known reviewer (about a VERY well-known show) that grudgingly admitted that the audience is likely to have fun. The review (in a VERY well-known publication) includes the following excerpts:
"What one finds ... is a characteristic [composer] project -- long on pop professionalism and melody, impoverished of artistic personality and passion -- that the director..., the designer... and the mesmerizing actor ... have elevated quite literally to the roof. [The show] is as much a victory of dynamic stagecraft over musical kitsch as it is a triumph of merchandising uber alles."
Is the reviewer decrying "Spiderman?" How about "Mary Poppins?" Hint: The review date is January 27, 1988. The reviewer is the eminent Frank Rich, writing in the NYT about none other than the multiple Tony winner "The Phantom of the Opera." Unsurprisingly, I don't agree with his assessment even though I envy his ability to skewer a show with such clever turns of phrase. How on earth did Frank Rich not manage to get goosebumps during "Music of the Night?"
I guess ALW sobbed all the way to the bank.
Audrey, the Phantom Phanatic, who nonetheless would rather be Jean Valjean, who knew how to make lemonade out of lemons.