Little Women is Dreadful- Page 2
Little Women is Dreadful
GOOD VIBRATIONS was Dreadful!#25
Posted: 5/7/05 at 3:00pmI disagree with this thread. I loved the show, and have seen it twice, once in previews in North Carolina. I think the music is gorgous, and the cast is great. It's my favorite show that's playing right now.
GOOD VIBRATIONS was Dreadful!#26
Posted: 5/7/05 at 3:05pm
Favorite show playing now?
Have you not seen every show playing now?
I mean, hell, I loved Dracula - but it was never my favorite show playing.
GOOD VIBRATIONS was Dreadful!#27
Posted: 5/7/05 at 3:36pmIm also totally disgreeing with this thread! Little Women is amazing! sutton does a fab job and it has a great score!
Broadway Star Joined: 6/11/04
GOOD VIBRATIONS was Dreadful!#28
Posted: 5/7/05 at 3:38pmGlad to see that there is at least some disagreement about whether the show is "dreadful" or not... My wife and I will be in New York for a week this summer and it's one of the shows we have tickets to...so I want there to be at least SOME hope that we'll enjoy it!
GOOD VIBRATIONS was Dreadful!#29
Posted: 5/7/05 at 3:47pmI think the music is great. Certainly not as good as the music from say Dracula or Jane Eyre, but still very enjoyable.
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/13/04
GOOD VIBRATIONS was Dreadful!#30
Posted: 5/7/05 at 3:53pmHey hey hey! Remember what I changed this thread to? Good Vibrations was dreadful. Theres a BWWthread-worthy topic! :) We all know that Little Women is far from dreadful. It may not be phenomenal, but its not dreadful.
Swing Joined: 3/23/05
GOOD VIBRATIONS was Dreadful!#31
Posted: 5/7/05 at 4:02pmThat was the first genuinely entertaining post on this thread. For my part, I thought Sutton kept the whole thing afloat until they could retreive their surfboards.
little Women was Excelent!#32
Posted: 5/7/05 at 4:40pmI didn't like the Operatic scenes but I thought Sutton was fantastic!
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/16/03
Little Women....just okay#33
Posted: 5/7/05 at 5:36pm
The second act was much better than the first. Sutton Foster was the reason I wanted to see the show and she does not disappoint.
Updated On: 5/7/05 at 05:36 PM
little Women was Excelent!#34
Posted: 5/7/05 at 5:37pmI didn't hate it nearly as much as I thought I would. Actually, I didn't hate it at all. A lot of it is musical theatre 101, but I wouldn't say bad. The performances are pretty solid, and I thought some of the music fit the plot points quite well. I thought the use of flashbacks was the most economical way to tell the story, and generally had a good time. I thought they handled one major plot point poorly, but besides that I enjoyed myself. A great book, that lends itself well to the stage. McGovern was fabulous, as was Foster, in a role she was born to play. It also holds up very well on the cast recording.
little Women was Excelent!#35
Posted: 5/7/05 at 9:01pmI really enjoyed this show. It had heart. I hate that someone would call it dreadful! It's no West Side Story or Sweeny Todd, but it was good.
little Women was Excelent!#36
Posted: 5/7/05 at 9:42pmYou're right on many accounts, but I wouldn't call the show dreadful. It's weak, but not that bad. And I disagree with what you said abotu Sutton Foster. I think that Sutton was great in the role.
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/26/03
little Women was Excelent!#37
Posted: 5/7/05 at 11:18pm
I also would call this show far from dreaful. You pointed out plenty of valid flaws, but I think the show still has lots of charm and heart, and it has moved me to tears each time I saw it. Strange, I know...its faulty, but there's something there that pulls the show together and makes it a enjoyable and sometimes moving theatrical experience.
And I think Foster and McGovern were fantastic. McGinnis and Powers were also charming in their roles.
little Women was Excelent!#38
Posted: 5/8/05 at 2:58am
I agree that this show is DREADFUL!!! I almost left at intermission, but since I paid $100 I felt as if I should sit it out. Sutton was great, but one amazing performance cannot save a show. (I did not get to see Maureen McGovern). everytime I hear something else about this show being praised, I cant belive it. The loose ends, the way it moved so fast, and then dragged on. If you had not read little women, or caught the Winona Rider fiasco on video you would have been lost. That does not say much.
The music is catchy though, I might have to give in and get the CD.
little Women was Excelent!#39
Posted: 5/8/05 at 3:35am
sutton was the ONLY person who made me feel ANYTHING throughout the entire show... except the actress who played Amy who annoyed the crap out of me.
the book was horrible, and the music just seems a little uninspired. glad i saw sutton tho. shes adorable.
Broadway Star Joined: 4/12/04
little Women was Excelent!#40
Posted: 5/8/05 at 1:35pm
Everyone keeps mentioning the music in this show. Well, duh, it's a musical. But I really think that for the first time in a long time this is a show whose songs are not showstoppers and will not live on forever, but simply enhance and forward the plot, which is exactly what the music in a MUSICal is supposed to do for a show.
It was charming. Not astonishing. But deffinatly something worth seeing. And I did not read the book, or see any film version, and I was not lost at all.
little Women was Excelent!#42
Posted: 5/8/05 at 4:13pm
if you're going to change the name of this thread, at least spell it right.
It's ExcelLent, not excelent
little Women was Excelent!#43
Posted: 5/8/05 at 4:32pmall I know is I LOVE the music!
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/27/04
little Women was Excelent!#44
Posted: 5/8/05 at 5:12pmI adore this show. I agree that it does have its faults, but I really like the music a lot, all of the performances are great (especially Sutton's, Maureen's, and Megan's), and I think it has great sets and costumes and a lot of heart. I do admit, however, that I would probably not see it if I did student rush and found out that Sutton wasn't there. She is what made me fall in love with the show in the first place, and is what makes it so special to me.
Wishes come true, not free.
Videos
