all the reviews are important for any show(i should know i work in them) as people will read them whether or not they are the times or a smaller paper, all im saying is the show did not come of bad it had some good reviews.
Its interesting that people are looking at the NY times review in different ways(i think we should grab him and ask him for a simple answer hehe)
good luck to the show anyway , not the best show in the world but a lot of fun.
Namo i love u but we get it already....you don't like Madonna
i agree that she was "attached" but so is velcro. If they found someone else that was "better" she would have been let go as easy as those hook and loops on the velcro itself.
I don't think Loyalty from the reading, workshop stages is a big virtue in the land of broadway producers owning a 15 million dollar show. If there was someone better in that month of auditioning, they would have signed her instead.
I think it goes to show maybe, that there are fewer and fewer "stars" out there. Sad to say I don't think Ms. Bundy is one of them.
Just got home from an amazing weekend! We actually got tickets for opening night about an hour before the show, so I didn't expect that. We sat all the way in the back of the orchestra, but we saw everyone entering. The show itself impressed me more than I thought it would. I found all of the performers entertaining in their roles. I didn't see any weak links in the cast. The songs are catchy, the sets are beautiful, and kudos to Jerry Mitchell for excellent choreography. He should be proud of his work... everyone should! Definitely an enjoyable show... not the best, but I enjoyed myself! (I enjoyed the after party too... nothing like dancing away in with a crowd that included Laura Bell, Christian Borle, and Sutton Foster!)
Re-reading the Daily News review I think it is wrong to call it a negative review, although the headline (Legally Bland) is very negative. The critic has some good things to say about some of the actors, including LBB in the second act. It certainly was not a pan. I would call it a mixed to negative review.
Despite the Times review, I'm still really excited for the show, and hope to see it really soon.
The Times review didn't seem totally negative. I saw it as Brantley not being too keen on frequenting sugar coated, think pink, ultra camp spectacles. Brantley seems to rant on the fact that LBB isn't Reese, and apparently Reese was a huge factor in Legally Blonde, the movie.
Kudos on the Wicked reference. "...“Legally Blonde” is infused on every level with the message that it’s O.K. to be a princess. This is a show aimed at the girls who flocked to the fairy-tale blockbuster “Wicked,” but left feeling secretly disappointed that it was the dour, green-skinned Elphaba who got the guy, not the glittery, popular Glinda." I know I have totally felt that way when going to see Wicked with not so fabulous Elphabas.
OMG! Think positive, you guys!
Off to read more reviews... the think the cover of the Arts section made my day... top fold: Legally Blonde, bottom fold: Spring Awakening auditions.
After reading the Washington Post, they mentioned Brantley's review and by the sounds of it, I would say his review was not supposed to be negative at all....they said that he was "overwhelmed"
John Simon's review is, I think, mixed. This often difficult to please critic likes LBB and the rest of the cast, the production values, and Jerry Mitchell's direction and choreography. Like nearly all of the critics he finds fault with the score.
I get to make my own mind up when I see LEGALLY BLONDE this Thursday night.My only fear is, will it be too loud?
Product placement is an important part of life. Obv, Elle has to use a Mac. Too bad they aren't using one of those old school ibook clamshell models...
I'm convinced all that’s lacking is the square chin factor! Brantley's on to something...
I can't formulate real opinions until I see the show, and I'm positively biased because pink is my favorite color; and if I were blonde, Elle Woods = total role model.
Is the whole idea that she is being put down because she is defying the dumb Californian blonde factor still in the musical? Or has it really become a "Let's celebrate our blonde and beautiful-ness...and make everyone who matters pretty while we’re at it!" set to upbeat choreography and an extravagantly pink set that would make Barbie jealous? That is the beauty of the movie... you're like, eww, blonde rich girl, shut up! Then it's like awww... she's misunderstood and smart. <33 That was totally sold to me in middle school...
guess I am too new to all of this to understand, and saying that alone will probably get me blasted off just for posting. but, why should Laura be like Reese? I mean one is a movie one is a musical. one was performed many times just to get one scene just right from all angles. the other performed nite after nite having to live each moment that we see in one dimension(so to speak)no back shots,side shots etc, no retakes, the sound can vary the lighting etc(it shouldn;t but it does) as for Laura, I have seen her good and great and real damn good because life is life and everyday is different(it is live each time duh!) but I have never ever seen her wrong or terrible. she has done this a thousand times and they(the powers that be) have not waivered that they had to wrong person (guessing since Laura is still there) I love her inflections and humor throughout this performance. I can think of 100 things to say about performers etc. One of my favorites was always Marsha Mason, loving they way she acted and deivered her lines etc. then I met her and found she was being herself. that is her and I like her. I have seen Laura play a lot of parts and I like the charm she brings to them all...including LEGALLY BLONDE> no not rocket science but it was not supposed to be. I smiled throughout, I laughed I applauded. I loved it.(but my opinion) I just happen to think that my opinion is a good one.
Because Reese took a character that could easily be played very two dimensional and turned her into a real person. By the sound of reviews of both members of this board and critics, LBB doesn't quite have that quality in her performance.
I am a firm believer in serendipity- all the random pieces coming together in one wonderful moment, when suddenly you see what their purpose was all along.
I have faith in LBB in that she'll just keep progressing and making the role better and better. With these reviews coming out, she could easily take them in stride and continue to build upon what she needs to work on.
I saw BLONDE a week and a day before it opened. The audience I saw it with loved every moment from the first window opening to Chico's entrance at the end. It kept us laughing, entertained and smiling. I had a blast, It did remind of HAIRSPRAY in that you left feeling good and humming a tune.
"Anybody that goes to the theater, I think we’re all misfits, so we ended up on stage or in the audience.” --- Patti LuPone.
LB2 wasn't a good movie to begin with, Witherspoon's performance or not.
I am a firm believer in serendipity- all the random pieces coming together in one wonderful moment, when suddenly you see what their purpose was all along.
I bet when the contracts come up for renewal you will never see a cast flee faster. They know the show's a puff, and to keep up that pace every night will be draining on all of them. The material isn't satisfying enough to perform for the long haul and they know it. But yes, a job's a job. And i guarantee you that the replacement for Bundy, when she leaves, will be stellar.
To the poster who asked about balcony seating...What you can't see you will most definetely hear.
i'm glad that Leslie Kritzer got so many mentions, that makes me very happy. i was suprised that Matthew Risch didnt get any mentions; he's the foxiest guy ive seen on stage (& very funny!).
again (USA TODAY REVIEW) this is why the show will fail. Its not good, not bad, just there. When the orginal cast begins to leave, the show will die. The reason? cause its not good enough to stand on its own. NOt that I think the original cast is anything to gawk at and maybe the new elle will make a better showing than LBB.
Shows that can live on and on do so for 3 reasons in my estimation:
1) its so fool proof that anyone can do it. (Les Mis, Phantom, Cats, Mamma Mia, Wicked, Lion King). These machines all just need serviceable parts to run. You can stick my brother in there and no one in the general public would know the difference.
2) The show is soooo good that you can stick anyone in there and it will run. Ragtime, Full Monty, Producers, Urinetown, Hairspray. All these shows closed, save Hairspray, because of unfortunate circumstances (Bankruptcy, Theater closing, producers garnering ALL the tony's against Full Monty. But these shows will almost always make money.
3) it reaches all demographics. Not just "tweeners" or "mamma mia crowd". These shows reach out to men, women, children, older people, younger, black, white, red, blue, purple. How many ethnic people are in Legally BLONDE? Like 2? 3? Thanks. Legally blonde knows its demographic and thats great. The problem is that its the same as Spring Awakening, Mary Poppins, Little Mermaid, and Wicked. THey all can't be winners, cause those girls are only gonna pay 50 bucks for a seat. Good luck with the competition for the Hello Kitty Crowd. Lets see who is at the finish line come december of this year.
Legally Blond is neither foolproof nor good, nor has a boad audience base. It just is. And once the energy of all that red bull dies down, so will the show's life expectancy.
