#101
Posted: 2/18/06 at 9:53am
I really think that although Chicago has been on broadway for a while, it deserves to stay on broadway.
It's time for Chicago to go — Page 5
#102
Posted: 2/18/06 at 3:28pm
Oh I love Clarke as Billy. He gives SUCH an amazing performance
"You're every gay man's wet dream!" ~ MA
If in Heaven you don't excel, you can always party down in hell...
#103
Posted: 2/18/06 at 4:10pm
I saw Chicago in October. I will be honest and say that imo I was not at all impressed. Granted, my body doesn't dance like that, but... Brooke Shields was weak. Thin voice, awkward dancing, and treated the character of Roxie Hart a little too much like an I Love Lucy episode, too hammy.
I do like the ensemble members who do a good job. But they could really be shining stars in another show. Another better, newer, more vibrant show.
Weisslers - give up already. Chicago had it's day. Don't make the day into a year. Kind of like the Sweet Charity/Britney Spears thing.
I do like the ensemble members who do a good job. But they could really be shining stars in another show. Another better, newer, more vibrant show.
Weisslers - give up already. Chicago had it's day. Don't make the day into a year. Kind of like the Sweet Charity/Britney Spears thing.
#104
Posted: 2/18/06 at 4:13pm
Give an example of how Chicago has had its day?
Now I'm sure if I ask you if RENT has had its day, the answer would surely be no.
Now I'm sure if I ask you if RENT has had its day, the answer would surely be no.
#105
Posted: 2/18/06 at 5:59pm
Well, I'd say yes to Rent closing. In fact, I'd probably run around the block five times screaming with joy.
#106
Posted: 2/18/06 at 7:21pm
If I had to pick ANYTHING on Broadway to close (which I really wouldn't), it would be RENT. I have seen it probably once every 2-3 years since it opened (including the original opening night on April 29th, 1996). It is just not as affecting anymore due to several factors I won't go into.
#107
Posted: 2/18/06 at 11:06pm
I agree, I saw Rent back in 1996 with the original cast and it was probably one of the most amazing experiences I've had in the theater, it was such an event at the time. The two times I've seen it after that, I'm more and more convinced that the show is way past its prime, they get the most horrible second-class actors and they all look tired and annoyed.
Back on the Chicago issue, the themes that Chicago explores are as valid today as they were in 1975 and in 1996. The ensemble is top-notch, and sometimes they do get some bad performers in the lead, but none of them ever look tired or annoyed of being in the show, like you owe them something.
Back on the Chicago issue, the themes that Chicago explores are as valid today as they were in 1975 and in 1996. The ensemble is top-notch, and sometimes they do get some bad performers in the lead, but none of them ever look tired or annoyed of being in the show, like you owe them something.
#108
Posted: 2/21/06 at 1:21am
Saw it last night. That ensemble was on fire and the leads were just more than I thought they would be.
I saw it my first time in august of 2003. I despised it. Possibly the themes I caught were over my head the first time, I was barely 15. and it was with Melanie....
Well lets say that this time I appreciated that (correct me if I am wrong) Fosse choreography during the Hot Honey Rag that I saw Gwen and Chita do on the Lost Treasures, complete satire of the justice system and journalism, as well as the nation, and not seeing it just for the musical numbers that captivated me. I understood much more so maybe I enjoyed it because I could appreciate more of the themes. Or maybe Melanie
Either way, I was fully taken in by the great and very lively company and the gifted leads. Amra was great, totally in charge of how to play Velma. I didn't catch Michelle DeJean as Roxie, we saw Bryn, her understudy who was pretty good. And John o'Hurley I expected to be typical one note stunt casting. He surpassed my expectations and I just loved the feel of this production.
I guess the show fluctuates depending on the cast that brings it to life. I thought the show was fantastic and still has life
I saw it my first time in august of 2003. I despised it. Possibly the themes I caught were over my head the first time, I was barely 15. and it was with Melanie....
Well lets say that this time I appreciated that (correct me if I am wrong) Fosse choreography during the Hot Honey Rag that I saw Gwen and Chita do on the Lost Treasures, complete satire of the justice system and journalism, as well as the nation, and not seeing it just for the musical numbers that captivated me. I understood much more so maybe I enjoyed it because I could appreciate more of the themes. Or maybe Melanie
Either way, I was fully taken in by the great and very lively company and the gifted leads. Amra was great, totally in charge of how to play Velma. I didn't catch Michelle DeJean as Roxie, we saw Bryn, her understudy who was pretty good. And John o'Hurley I expected to be typical one note stunt casting. He surpassed my expectations and I just loved the feel of this production.
I guess the show fluctuates depending on the cast that brings it to life. I thought the show was fantastic and still has life
#109
Posted: 2/21/06 at 11:00am
I agree. It was my first time seeing it and I loved it.
"You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view - until you climb into his skin and walk around in it."
To Kill A Mockingbird
To Kill A Mockingbird
#110
Posted: 2/21/06 at 11:07am
I think it's unfair to make a Rent/Chicago comparison because, Joey Fatone/Scary Spice/Drew Lachey aside, Rent isn't nearly as stunt cast as Chicago is. They also usually use people that would in some way be suitable to the show. They even occasionally stunt with big Broadway stars, as they did with Will Chase just a month or two ago.
The minimalist interpretation of this Chicago revival requires dynamic performers that fit the material. When I saw this show, no one seemed right for the project. Not Roxie, Velma, Mama, Billy, or anyone else. It's past its prime.
The minimalist interpretation of this Chicago revival requires dynamic performers that fit the material. When I saw this show, no one seemed right for the project. Not Roxie, Velma, Mama, Billy, or anyone else. It's past its prime.
#111
Posted: 2/21/06 at 12:02pm
I saw the show Monday night (C is for Company, I'm assuming you saw it on Sunday), and I thought it was in good shape. John O'Hurley really fits the role of Billy well, and he can sing it, too. Michelle DeJean is an excellent Roxie with one of the best voices I've heard in that role. I thought Amra-Faye was fine, terrific pipes, but I thought she paled a little in comparison to DeJean. Lillias..certainly makes the role of Mama Morton her own, I'll say that! And the crowd loved Ray Bokhour's Amos. It wasn't my favorite cast, but it certainly wouldn't disappoint anyone who hadn't seen the show numerous times, and I thought it was much better than some of the other combinations I've seen since the show moved to the Ambassador.
"I cried during the Frug." - MC
#112
Posted: 2/21/06 at 12:07pm
Yeah, but atleast the Weisslers get stars with ACTING experience.
Those RENT stars had no acting experience, and they aren't the best singers. The roles in CHICAGO don't call for the best singers. Though Velma & Mama need the pipes.
I think it would be agreed that the only stunt casted star that almost ruined the show would be Mel Griffith. Come on, when they change all of Roxie's choreography to clapping on beat, shuffling, and a kick here & there - that is a problem.
I am glad to hear everyone is loving Michelle DeJean. She has come along way. She is a stunning star, and I expect a lot from her in the future. She is a sexy and fabulous Roxie.
Those RENT stars had no acting experience, and they aren't the best singers. The roles in CHICAGO don't call for the best singers. Though Velma & Mama need the pipes.
I think it would be agreed that the only stunt casted star that almost ruined the show would be Mel Griffith. Come on, when they change all of Roxie's choreography to clapping on beat, shuffling, and a kick here & there - that is a problem.
I am glad to hear everyone is loving Michelle DeJean. She has come along way. She is a stunning star, and I expect a lot from her in the future. She is a sexy and fabulous Roxie.
#113
Posted: 2/21/06 at 10:45pm
I am glad to hear everyone is loving Michelle DeJean. She has come along way. She is a stunning star, and I expect a lot from her in the future.
MdJ was playing Roxie on tour years ago... it's not the first time she's had a stint as Roxie.
MdJ was playing Roxie on tour years ago... it's not the first time she's had a stint as Roxie.
"You're every gay man's wet dream!" ~ MA
If in Heaven you don't excel, you can always party down in hell...
#114
Posted: 2/22/06 at 11:21am
She was the understudy on tour, though, I don't think she ever headlined. And didn't she only actually go on once or twice?
"I cried during the Frug." - MC
#115
Posted: 2/22/06 at 11:24am
We are all supposed to be supporting the Broadway and touring communities. I would not wish for anything to porpously close. Bless them that they have managed to keep it open for so long and here's to years more of All That Jazz.......
"All I want is the truth, just give me some truth!"- J. Lennon
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95