Legally Blonde Reviews — Page 6

Its reviews have so far been pretty good

I do find it funny that critics of 174 years old have to review these types of shows hehehe

---

From talking to many people who have seen it this show isnt just appealing to teen girls , thats what has surprised me.

Im a 28 year old guy and i loved it and really expected to hate(i was looking forward to pirate queen but that turned out to be a damp squid)

---

Songanddanceman2- How did you see it? You live in England...

Hahaha, neddy!


Brantly's review reminded me a lot of his review for ALL SHOOK UP, though probably a little less apathetic.

Anyone who thinks that Brantley's review was mixed to positive needs to go change your contacts and brush up on reading comprehension.

Not a pan, but certainly negative. The compliments were all backhanded, and the review ends on a terribly un-positive point.

---

Moving On Zzzzzzzz

---

shesamarshmallow, Margo made a point in an early LEGALLY BLONDE thread that he would not be spending his hard earned money on this, so I don't think we will be expecting any criticism on the reviews coming from Margo.

---

ouch

---

I was just about to make that point, Thesbijean.

Also, we are all entitled to our opinions. The Times article could have been a lot worse. I think Brantley was trying to be vague because he knew it wasn't his type of show. He did like things about it and said that it was a movie musical that got it right. But he was negative also. It's not wholly negative. It's mixed.

Although, kudos for the oh so clever State of Delusion quip. :-P It made me laugh.

---

"True, Heather Hatch’s book scales up, sometimes to the point of vulgarity, the cartoonishness of a work that was hardly subtle to begin with."

Did Brantley intentionally misspell Heather Hach's name as part of his point about the added vulgarity to the book?

While the Tony Commitee is a *tad* commercial oriented. (understatement) I am sure that they could manage to market a more worthy contender. (Spring Awakening)

I just want to clarify something. There is not one "Tony Committee." There is the Administration Committee, a group of approximately 25 that sorts out which shows and performers are eligible for which categories; The Nominating Committee -- a different group of approximately 25, all of whom are based in New York and could care less about giving extra notice to commercial shows -- who decide on the nominees; and of course the voters (750 people, a fraction of whom are the folks who run the touring houses across the U.S.). Those voters are the ones who care about commercial touring potential, as it impacts their wallets. The voters cannot select MARY POPPINS or LEGALLY BLONDE as Best Musical if the 25 people on the Nominating Committee do not select it as one of the four nominees.

I would be very surprised to see MARY POPPINS or LEGALLY BLONDE take any of the four nomination slots put out by the Nominating Committee this year.

---

Is it safe to say that it will not be nominated for Best Musical?

As Shira pointed out, the only out-and-out "rave" Ben Brantley offered was about the DOGS. I would say that's "negative."

(I am pleaseed by his shout-out to Leslie Kritzer...who should be good since she played the same basic role in THE GREAT AMERICAN TRAILER PARK MUSICAL, but with hilarious results.)

---

Well, the shows that I would say are up for grabs for the four slots are:

CURTAINS
SPRING AWAKENING
MARTIN SHORT: FAME BECOMES ME
LOVEMUSIK
GREY GARDENS

At least two of these need to be knocked out to include LEGALLY BLONDE or MARY POPPINS. The Nominating Committee knows that if they nominate LEGALLY BLONDE or MARY POPPINS that they will win. They also know that there are shows this season that deserve the title of Best Musical over either of those commercial dreams. I don't see them making room for either LB or MP over what are essentially better shows.

---

Updated On: 4/29/07 at 11:29 PM