Little Women Who has seen it?

I went to see Little Women and I enjoyed the music and sets, do you think it will find an audience on Broadway?

I've seen it 3 times.

---

Saw Little Women last week with my teenage daughter. I knew nothing of the story going in. I have to say I was pleasantly suprised. There were flashes of brilliance, followed by periods of boredom. Overall I think i liked it.
I got the seats on TDF, so it was certainly worth the ticket price. Sutton Foster and Maureen McGovern are worth the price of admission. The music was so-so with the exception of Days of Plenty in Act 2 which had most of the audience in a dead silence broken only by the sounds of sniffling. kudos to McGovern for giving me the chills. (it's been a while).
The sets are very good,especially the Cape Cod scene.
My daughter said it is now one of her favorite shows. I would also recommend taking a look, although I agree with previous posters that without Sutton Foster as Jo the show will have limited staying power.

here's my review from about two weeks ago, when sutton was still there.

"Well, I saw it on Saturday night, and haven't been able to post about it since, but here it goes. I was excited about this show, and having seen it, I am still happy, but my expectations were not met. Sutton was amazing, that was lived up to, her "Astonishing" and "Operatic Tragedies" were wonderful. Maureen McGovern was out, but the part was so small, it really didn't matter, although her understudy was terriffic! All of the sisters were great, especially Beth. The men were fine. The sets were incredible, and the costumes were very nice. The lighting was also really good. The first act should be shortened by at least fifteen minutes, because it lagged on waaaay too much. The second act was fine in terms of time. The running time was 2 hours and 40 minutes including intermission. I would recommend this show to a fan of the book, as it stays true to its original source. The book was very strong and could definitely take the Tony, the score I found enjoyable, but repetitive, and asides from "Astonishing" and "Take a Chance on Me", the score was fairly forgettable. Well, thats my take. I do hope this show does well, and I will definitely see it again once it opens to see if they have made appropriate changes. Three Cheers for Professor Bhaer! Hip Hip Hooray!

I give "Little Women" three out of four stars."

---

Updated On: 1/10/05 at 03:29 PM

To date, all I've seen is the press sneak peek (no, not the video of it, the actual 'performance') and while I'll admit that I'm not at all a fan of Little Women, I was strangely drawn to it. I'll be seeing the show on the 21st... I'll post some thoughts after I see it.

---

I had the opposite experience, Nightlaughs. I expected this show to be amazing and was really looking forward to it, but I was incredibly disappointed after seeing it. Part of my diappointment stemmed from the fact that Sutton was out; her standby was good, but just couldn't hold the show together as Sutton may be able to do. The pace was too slow and I felt that some plot elements were too developed at the expense of others. I don't think the show will last after Sutton leaves.

Maureen was the one who made the show bearable to me. Her "Days of Plenty" was so heartfelt and beautiful.

I saw it shortly before Christmas. I don't think the audience was into it. I have never been part of such a noisy audience. Maureen was out and there was a lot of griping about that around me, mostly from the older crowd. A few people in front of me did not come back after intermission (which was fine with me- they were blocking my view and were more interested in their cellphones than the show).

I personally loved it, but I am a huge fan of the book. There were sound issues at times, but that is to be expected in previews. The show did not lack even though Maureen was not in. I thought her understudy was excellent. Sutton brings a lot to the show as she did with TMM and while some of the songs are not the best in the world (trite), it is much better than most of the dreck that is currently playing on Broadway. I was especially impresesed with Megan McGinnis. I don't think it will quite find the audience that another hit *that shall remain nameless* has, but I think people need to realize it is entirely different type of show and brings a quality and heart to Broadway not seen in many of today's shows.

I give it a year.

---

I saw it in the middle of december and I wasn't too crazy about it. I though it was a solid production with a strong cast and really interesting sets, but the music (with the exception of a few songs) didn't really appeal to me. So, I suppose it was good... depending on your taste.

---

I saw it on 1/7 without Sutton. The understudy was talented but from the minute she appeared I thought that she might be better suited fot Marmee. She is probably much younger but from where I was sitting (7th row center) she looked 40ish. I don't know if it was the makeup or what but I couldn't get comfortable with her in the part. I also didn't enjoy the way that Laurie was portrayed. Having read the book several times as a child I think of his character as handsome and charming but the characterization was rather silly. The understudy had some voice cracking issues also-felt bad for him.
I would like to see it again with Sutton. I echo the opinion that Maureen's voice was impressive.

I thought it had beautiful moments and some very strong performances. It just didn't excite me the way Pacific Overtures, Le Cage and Fiddler did.

---

A few of us saw it late Dec. Our concensus was that It would be a 'cute show' (some nice songs, sets good performances in general) HOWEVER: TOO LONG! It was 3 hours with the intermission when we saw it. Didn't like some of the changes they made from the original story. And the one sister looks too much like a dwarf... not a young girl -even the voice was odd. She was very annoying and think that could have been better cast. Sutton Foster is always good and consistant at what she does- many of us feel she's a bit over-rated. A chorus girl who got lucky and has been glorified. Many actresses are just as talented and just didn't get the breaks and can play her role. Maureen McGovern has a lovely voice but she can't act. She's not an actress. However I can understand bringing her in for a small role to boost ticket sales. If they CUT the show by about 45 mins I think it could have a future no matter who the cast. That's the major flaw with this show and if that's fixed it can work.

No, you didn't say it, but a few people on this thread did. I just don't understand why - if it's a good show, it will last with a decent cast. Sutton Foster is not the only person in the universe who can play Jo.

---