Lord of The Rings- Feb. 17 review

[ally_kay_on_broadway]

Posted: 2/25/06 at 8:31pm

please bare with me, i have never written a review before...so the last thing i need are people slamming my first one.

Also, i haven't read any other reviews- i know there were a few on here but i wanted to review the show for myself.

I walked in to the theatre with my mind WIDE open. I had a feeling this show was either going to be amazing with its music, cast script etc.. or amazing with its effects.


The pre-set was beautiful. Twigs with lights beneath them crawled from the stage onto the ceiling to give the illusion of being in a forest. Most of the audience sat under it. Before the show started, little hobbits were running around the theatre catching fireflys- which i thought added a great touch. They even scattered about the first balcony- which i thought was great because the cast usually sticks on the main floor when interacting with the audience.

The show started about 30 minutes late. I'm not sure why.

The 'prologue' was pretty cool. It went over bilbo's adventure and discovery of the ring and the way they did it (using lights and shadows, excuse me for not remembering the proper term) was neat.

I'm going to say this straight out. The script did not impress me at all. At least in the first act. The first scene did not do anything for me. The first scene introduces frodo, the twins, sam and gandolf. It felt like they (not the cast, the writers) were rushing through the dialogue. The script put very little emphasis on the ring and I felt such little emotion for the journey that these little hobbits were about to embark on. I was also surprised on the small emphasis they put on gandolf. It was like he just kind 'showed up' in the shire. I understand they were pressed for time, and couldn't let it run any longer- so thats probably why there are not many songs and not many scenes with just dialogue. Therefore many of my opinions can be argued that there 'wasn't enough time'.

The effects they used were completely mesmerizing. The puppets as well. The dark riders were just eerie. Everything seemed to go off fine, except for at the end of the first act, when gandolf is trying to defeat the monster. At this point, there came all this wind and such (not just on the stage, the audience could feel it too!! They installed fans in the ceiling) and gandolf kind of ran offstage. No one really knew what happened but apparently he died killing a raging monster. Then the curtain closed. I found out later, there is supposed to be a dragon emerging from the back but it never happened for this show. damn. I suspect it would been pretty cool.

The second and third acts seemed to flow alot more evenly. No choppy scene endings (which the first act seemed to have) and the fighting and gollum kept people on the edge of their seats.

The stage is just incredble. It is a circling turntable that rises and lowers in pieces. The actors jump and run across it with ease. This alone just made me think of what a nightmare it must have been to stage the running/fighting scenes without the platforms and then having to run it WITH them. Quite a feat.

The orcs are great. They have those pogo-stick-stilts (check out my amazing theatre vocabulary) and they put on a great acrobatic sequence for the audience.

The songs. Here is where I was a bit dissapointed. I liked the songs they had (very celtic) but none were used for character development. There were only 3 i can remember. A bar song, a travelling song and galadriel's. The rest were just background music.

The end wrapped up quickly. In fact, i was almost thinking 'what?! Thats it?!' Maybe i got really into the story but i wish it was more extravagant. Aw, i'm just being picky- it was a good ending.

james loye as frodo worked okay. I think they picked him because he looks very..well..not hobbitish but very mysterious middle-earthish. His vocals weren't as strong as i thought they were going to be. In fact, sam seemed to be drowning him out alot. Perhaps maybe sam was singing too loudly or something..
He also seemed to rush through his lines. I didn't feel any emotion for him at all. Some people said he acted his part 'too seriously' but i personally think it was the script that didn't give him a chance to develop his character. They touched very little base on him, which was surprising because he has such a big role in the show.

philip nero, who was understudying for peter van gestel, who was understudying for peter howe- was great. He was the most believable character and had so much energy on the stage. I loved him. And his voice too.

The twins was fantastic as well. Good comedic timing.

Okay well, obviously Michael Therriault (gollum) stole the show. How could someone playing gollum NOT get a roaring applause. His movements were so creepy! He goes into this poem/song kind of thing and the audience just loved it. I just wanted to know out of curiousity to anyone who has seen this, if this role is supposed to be a comedic role or not. The audience (myself included) seemed kind of uncomfortable as to whether it was alright to laugh out loud or not.

Kristin Galer (rosie) is as cute as a button.

Brent Carver as Gandolf was alright. He was good in some scenes (his singing voice is so soothing!) but in scenes with important dialogue i completely missed. Maybe i wasn't paying attention but it seemed like he was rushing through his lines.

Rebbeca Jackson Mendoza was absolutely incredible. Her song is so beautiful and had everyone glued to their seats. She also got a huge applause.

Richard Mcmillan is just awesome as saruman. This is the second time i've seen him play a villian (scar in the lion king in the same venue) He was good.

The girl who played arwen (dont remember her name, carly-something) had a beautiful voice. I wish they put more emphasis on the relationship between her and whats-his-name. They had a song but i really didn't think they touched base on it too much.

The rest of the cast..legolas and the group that goes on the adventure didn't really jump out at me. They should have more stage time so the audience gets a good sense of who these people are but then the who would have ran on for another 3 hours.

The ensemble was great! I love the enthusiasm i get from these guys. They had so much to bring to the show. i just had to mention this. Absolutely wonderful.

All in all, this show was good. It definitely needs some work. The script is mediocre. I hope they decide to add more songs, and find a way to put some emotion into the show and its characters. I like how they didn't follow the movie as much. Instead of making a musical/movie they followed the book (i especially noticed this in gollum)
If you have never seen the movie and are going to this show, WATCH THE MOVIES. Or else you will be confused through the entire thing. I'm so glad my boyfriend made me watch the movies because although i was still confused as towho was who and such, i had SOME understanding.

Does anyone know when the cast recording is coming out?

[Kevinoes]

Posted: 2/25/06 at 9:07pm

Couple of questions:

- How was the audience?
- How full was it?
- How long did it run?
- Did it get an ovation?

[ally_kay_on_broadway]

Posted: 2/25/06 at 9:17pm

1.) the audience seemed to enjoy the show. They clapped and laughed when neccessary though there were a few times when a joke didn't get a laugh as big as there should have been. Also, there were many kids. Not such a bad thing but they should be reminded of theatre etiquette. There were alot of 'loud whispers' to parents which got kind of annoying. Oh, and the candy wrappers got annoying too :P oh well.

2.)full house. packed solid.

3.)it was good. The first show ran about 5 hours i heard. This time, it ran for about 2 1/2- 3 hrs. as expected. As i said before though, it did start 30 min. late.

4.) No. One person stood up and that caused maybe 5 others. I was in the first balcony and didn't see anyone on the main floor standing. There may have been people in the back that i couldn't see

[Rentaholic2]

Posted: 2/25/06 at 9:28pm

I just don't understand it--
Everything I read about this show makes it sound like a phenomenal theatrical event with outstanding effects and dazzling scenery. A yet, every review I read sounds more like, "yeah, it was really really good," but not "wow, this is just amazing, you have to see it!" From its description, I can't imagine it not getting a standing ovation.

Maybe this will help put it into perspective for me: would you mind comparing it a little to other shows you've seen, particularly if you've seen some of the other blockbusters like Wicked, Spamalot, Lion King, Phantom, etc. Is it going to be a hit like these, or is it just not the same?

[rowers unite]

Posted: 2/25/06 at 9:31pm

I saw the show last Saturday, however it was the matinee show, but to answer Kevinoes questions:

1. the audience really bought into it. As said in the review above it still needs some work, but the audience was really inviting and seemed to enjoy it (I sure did)
2. Full house, even on a Saturday afternoon, packed
3. The show I went to ran about 4 hours, however there was a technical delay during the Helms Depp sequence so that toke a little long to fix, it should be about 3hr - 3.30hrs.
4. Unfortunatly it did not get a standing ovation

[ally_kay_on_broadway]

Posted: 2/26/06 at 10:10am

isn't that interesting. Others i have talked to who have seen it said that there was technical problems with the 'helms depp' part as well- but the date i was at never had any issues. I guess it was just a good 'tech' night...well...minus the dragon i didn't get to see


I could not even try to compare this to huge shows like wicked and phantom. The effects are great, as they are in wicked- but in wicked we feel for the characters at the end of the show-and unfortunetly that was not the case with LOTR

I think it just boils down to the fact that the script really dissapointed me. Everything and everyone else involved in the show is going to be affected through that.

[erinrebecca]

Posted: 2/26/06 at 12:44pm

One thing to keep in mind, people, is that standing ovations are not that common in Toronto theatre, unlike NYC.

[ally_kay_on_broadway]

Posted: 2/26/06 at 6:35pm

not true, i attended lion king, mamma mia and beauty and the beast in TO and all recieved standing ovations

[erinrebecca]

Posted: 2/26/06 at 6:41pm

It is true! I've seen probably a hundred productions in Toronto over the past 10 years and the number of standing ovations I've seen has been less than 15. Have also seen a similar number in NYC over the same period of time, probably more actually, and standing ovations happen at probably 80% of shows.

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 2/26/06 at 6:59pm

okay, question for someone who has seen the show:

do you think this show would've worked better if the whole trilogy was not one big show, but if they had just done one of the books as a show? for example, just make "the fellowship of the ring" into a 2 1/2 hour show. i dunno, it seems like having all three books in the same thing would really rush the whole story, but if it was just one book, they could really deepen the characters, and the story.
just my opinion!

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 2/26/06 at 9:11pm

Didn't get a standing ovation? Seems everything gets a standing ovation nowadays.

[MissElphie]

Posted: 2/26/06 at 9:14pm

Ok, question. I saw the first show, and the battle towards the end of act two did not happen (there was a tech problem, so they just told us what happened). Can you tell me what happened on stage there?

[JRTO]

Posted: 2/27/06 at 7:38am

yes, it should have been one book per show.

[firescape]

Posted: 2/27/06 at 7:50pm

Yes i saw the show on Sat night the 25th. Everything seemed to go well with that scene. What was it that you wanted to know?
Updated On: 2/27/06 at 07:50 PM

[ally_kay_on_broadway]

Posted: 2/28/06 at 12:28pm

i'm not sure if one book alone would have made a good show...would that mean that they would have to make 2 other shows to complete the trilogy? It just seems like a weird idea..although when i think about it, it might work.

misselphie, i wish i could help you, but i can't seem to remember!