KING KONG Reviews — Page 3

Charley Kringas Inc said: "I have no doubt that King Kong is a hot mess, but that dual review is incredibly smarmy."

First of all, please do us a favor and repair to your dictionary and look up "smarmy."

Whatever the accurate descriptor, what is it about the dual review that makes it any worse (is that what you were going for?) than most of the others. Is there something about a dual review that you find objectionable ipso facto?

Please go to Jordan Roth's instagram and watch King Kong's final bow. That is just laughable and inane. If the director or anyone thought that was the way to end the show, then they deserve all the bad reviews they get. To fly in this massive, life-less puppet is just silly and totally takes away all the magic. And then to post it on social media...

RippedMan said: "Please go to Jordan Roth's instagram and watch King Kong's final bow. That is just laughable and inane. If the director or anyone thought that was the way to end the show, then they deserve all the bad reviews they get. To fly in this massive, life-less puppet is just silly and totally takes away all the magic. And then to post it on social media..."

The show has several problems, but the curtain call isn't one of them. If you had actually seen it in person, you would know that.

Updated On: 11/9/18 at 01:14 AM

I'm well aware of who Jordan Roth is, and, I don't need to see the whole show - I will see it, I love a hot mess express - but I think having a limp puppet lowered in just underserves the entire preceding 2 hours. There's a far smarter, more theatrical way to stage that. That's all.

"To sit there and troll it is sophomoric and demeaning." Am I really reading this comment on THIS board? That's comedy, baby.

As to the review - it was fun and different, and probably a lot more fun than the show.

An interesting pan from Sara Holdren of Vulture: "I mean, the monkey's amazing. And we came for the monkey, right?"

https://www.vulture.com/2018/11/theater-review-king-kong-whos-there.html

A straightforward pan from Peter Marks of the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/poor-king-kong-first-taken-prisoner-now-trapped-in-a-bad-musical/2018/11/08/34e71ce4-e2b1-11e8-8f5f-a55347f48762_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3d371fdfc195

Updated On: 11/9/18 at 02:53 AM

HogansHero said: "Charley Kringas Inc said: "I have no doubt that King Kong is a hot mess, but that dual review is incredibly smarmy."

First of all, please do us a favor and repair to your dictionary and look up "smarmy."

Whatever the accurate descriptor, what is it about the dual review that makes it any worse (is that what you were going for?) than most of the others. Is there something about a dual review that you find objectionable ipso facto?"

Good catch, I meant “smug”. I get what they were going for with the format, the AV Club does/has done it many times for a similar purpose, but as written, their dialogue is really stilted. The repartee is kind of lame, so it’s hard to buy it as banter, and it makes the skewering feel unfocused, which is a shame - it doesn’t have the laser focus of a good traditional pan.

This quote : GREEN The adapters of this “King Kong” seem to have two stories they wanted to tell. One is a morality tale about the evil of trapping a living being in a cheap entertainment scheme. To judge from my own misery in the audience, I’d say this is a theme they mastered. OUCH.

WldKingdomHM said: "Is anyone going to start the, “Whats next in the Broadway Theatre?” thread"

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=1113200

LOVED the NYTimes review quote! “The adapters of this “King Kong” seem to have two stories they wanted to tell. One is a morality tale about the evil of trapping a living being in a cheap entertainment scheme. To judge from my own misery in the audience, I’d say this is a theme they mastered.”

BUT we completely anticipated that much of the show was unfortunately weak. I really did enjoy the show but again for the exact same reasons others are also agreeing. LOVED the gigantic King Kong puppet. I would not only recommend King Kong to family and friends (with some caveats that the show on a whole isn't entirely amazing - the ape is the reason to go) but I think I would actually pay to see King Kong a second time again (only because the puppet is that freaking amazing).

bear88 said: "An interesting pan from Sara Holdren of Vulture: "I mean, the monkey's amazing. And we came for the monkey, right?"

https://www.vulture.com/2018/11/theater-review-king-kong-whos-there.html

A straightforward pan from Peter Marks of the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/poor-king-kong-first-taken-prisoner-now-trapped-in-a-bad-musical/2018/11/08/34e71ce4-e2b1-11e8-8f5f-a55347f48762_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3d371fdfc195

"

Marks was spot on, sadly. I never celebrate the failure of theater, and the loss of jobs, juice and joy on a stage. Kong's ship scenes, when the backstage tilted up, with video water walls, made me move with it. I thought that was stunning. Never seen anything like that on stage. The puppet was incredible in darkness. The wires and puppet wranglers were always present that belief was only momentarily suspended until reality intruded with the lights up again. Total loss I think. Will lose all its dough. Sold less than 700K last week. Has a cast of about 25, and another 15 or so puppet people - total run cost I imagine of 1.1M a week. Won't last there at the Broadway long.

What's wrong with the curtain call? It seems from the reviews that King Kong is the main attraction of the show and got the best reviews out of anybody and anything else, so it's probably wise to bring the puppet back and treat it like a cast member. Also, I think it was a way to celebrate the puppeters and I guess having Kong there is to make sure the audience knew who those people were, especially the ones off-stage.