dangeresque49 said: "Love it or hate it just like the movie."
Yes. The film was a love it or hate it spectacle with its visual feast. There is no question that it was polarizing. Good. I have a feeling that I will love this one.
Lot666 said: "It's certainly shaping up to be a polarizing show."
I've read most of the reviews - good, bad, and in-between, and I'm starting to wonder if the critics are reviewing the same show! For example, The most favorable ones praise the choreography while the worse say it's horrible (you can insert almost any aspect of the show here for choreography). I get reviews are subjective but to see some that are saying the complete opposite of the other really makes me wonder.
Overall, I think the reviews have been generally positive. Happy to see they the NYT, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, and Entertainment Weekly have all been favorable. IMO, the people who have this on their 'to see' list aren't going to be swayed by the less than favorable reviews. I saw it in previews a few weeks ago and more than a few of the people I was sitting near have plans to see it again. I know I do.
Big Apple2 said: "dangeresque49 said: "Love it or hate it just like the movie."
Yes. The film was a love it or hate it spectacle with its visual feast. There is no questionthat itwas polarizing. Good. Ihave a feeling that I will lovethis one."
Anyone who hated the movie but loved the show please speak up and tell us why. I'm desperate for some assurance that I didn't make a horrible mistake buying tickets.
Philly Theater Girl said: "I'm starting to wonder if the critics are reviewing the same show! For example, The most favorable ones praise the choreography while the worse say it's horrible (you can insert almost any aspect of the show here for choreography). I get reviews are subjective but to see some that are saying the complete opposite of the other really makes me wonder."
My thoughts exactly, which is why I always take the opinions of "critics" with a grain of salt. Some of the reviews are so completely contradictory that one wonders how they could both be talking about the same show.
==> this board is a nest of vipers <==
"Michael Riedel...The Perez Hilton of the New York Theatre scene" - Craig Hepworth, What's On Stage
If the movie was polarizing and some people have a preconceived, negative attitude about the property, that could be reflected in reviews. Also, jukebox musicals are polarizing as well. There's such a wide range of reviews and what one reviews loves the next one hates. There are several raves/almost raves, though, and with business booming it seems like this could be around for a while.
SisterGeorge said: "Anyone who hated the movie but loved the show please speak up and tell us why. I'm desperate for some assurance that I didn't make a horrible mistake buying tickets.
I left the movie theater probably half-way through (could not get into it for the life of me). But the stage show is easily the most fun I've had on Broadway in a LONG LONG time. Have seen it twice now, and will be back. There's just nothing else like it. (Oh, and Bad Romance alone is the worth the price of admission). Enjoy!!!
OneNJen said: "AmNY says Tveit "has the depth of a stick figure."
Ouch.
"
The Guardian is not a fan of Tveit either, eek! 3 stars review.
“About that duke: Mutu is a charismatic actor and his scenes with Olivo are taut and charged. Tveit, a handsome face attached to a rich lyric tenor, has by contrast all the sexual charisma of a baked potato. His scenes with Olivo seem friendly, nothing more. He wants them to run off together – and what? Have a picnic?”
SisterGeorge said: "Big Apple2 said: "dangeresque49 said: "Love it or hate it just like the movie."
Yes. The film was a love it or hate it spectacle with its visual feast. There is no questionthat itwas polarizing. Good. Ihave a feeling that I will lovethis one."
Anyone who hated the movie but loved the show please speak up and tell us why. I'm desperate forsome assurance that I didn't make a horrible mistake buying tickets.
"
I hated the film, but intend to see the show.
Why I hated it?
The terrible editing.
The fact that no one in the film could sing.
The over the top silly moments and over acting.
Those were my 3 major problems I had with it, apart from that I liked the concept, story and visuals, so am looking forward to seeing the show.
WestEndGal said: "OneNJen said: "AmNY says Tveit "has the depth of a stick figure."
Ouch.
"
The Guardian is not a fan of Tveit either, eek! 3 stars review.
“About that duke: Mutu is a charismatic actor and his scenes with Olivo are taut and charged. Tveit, a handsome face attached to a rich lyric tenor, has by contrast all the sexual charisma of a baked potato. His scenes with Olivo seem friendly, nothing more. He wants them to run off together – and what? Have a picnic?”
And if you look at the recently posted NPR review, I believe they say 'Christian (played by the excellent Tveit'. The NYT review from Boston said it was a 'part he was born to play'. Yet another example of why I asked earlier if these reviewers were watching the same show.
With the exception of possibly Satine (Karen Olivo), there isn't much dimension to these characters. I think Aaron does a great job as Christian as does Danny with Ziedler. In this case, I think the individual characters come in second to the overall spectacle of the show and the music.
I hate the film as well, and I am just shy of having loved the stage version. I saw it in Boston last year, and have tickets to see it next week.
Is that a guarantee that you will like it too? Nope. But also: I usually do not like jukebox musicals or spectacle. In all truth, I should be amongst the haters - but, I'm not.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
I'm very interested in your take on it Mama. I know your aversion to jukebox musicals. Let's see how this resonates with you since Boston. I'm going early August.
Philly Theater Girl said: "WestEndGal said: "OneNJen said: "AmNY says Tveit "has the depth of a stick figure."
Ouch.
"
The Guardian is not a fan of Tveit either, eek! 3 stars review.
“About that duke: Mutu is a charismatic actor and his scenes with Olivo are taut and charged. Tveit, a handsome face attached to a rich lyric tenor, has by contrast all the sexual charisma of a baked potato. His scenes with Olivo seem friendly, nothing more. He wants them to run off together – and what? Have a picnic?”
And if you look at the recently posted NPR review, I believe they say 'Christian (played by the excellent Tveit'. The NYT review from Boston said it was a 'part he was born to play'. Yet another example of why I asked earlier if these reviewers were watching the same show.
With the exception of possibly Satine (Karen Olivo), there isn't much dimension to these characters. I think Aaron does a great job as Christian as does Danny with Ziedler. In this case, I think the individual characters come in second to the overall spectacle of the show and the music."
"Anything you do, let it it come from you--then it will be new."
Sunday in the Park with George
wow, some of the people on this site would really be described as "dear ****s" by Lerner and Loewe. You get a rave review from The New York Times and somebody who's only been a member here for 3 months says "will it close?" I don't think so. I could pull 50 quotes for Marquee out of the good reviews for this show and I've seen shows last 4 years with 1/100 of the quotes that are available to the Press Department of Moulin Rouge.
At this point, I think it's fair to say that most people who hated the movie like the show much more, and many who loved the film like the show less, with the lackluster ending being a major bone of contention. As a reminder, here's the end of the film, which, in my opinion, achieves emotional heights that the stage version only wishes it could:
I completely agree with Sarah Holdren's review. This was the dumbest show I've ever seen, the leads do the best with what they have but the material is pitiful.
bisous3 said: "I completely agree with Sarah Holdren's review. This was the dumbest show I've ever seen, the leads do the best with what they have but the material is pitiful."
CT2NYC said: "At this point, I think it's fair to say that most people who hated the movielike the show much more, and many who loved the film like the show less, with the lackluster ending being a major bone of contention. As a reminder, here's the endof the film, which, in my opinion, achievesemotional heights that the stage version only wishes it could:
Have to disagree here. Thought the movie was harmless fluff, but basically "huh, don't need to see that again", but thought the musical (in Boston) was a waste of Danny Burstein, bad chemistry between the leads, and a shame they invested so much in sets and costumes but nothing in a script.
If I gave the film a 4 I gave the musical a 2. One of my least favorite stage performances in many years
I saw this again this past weekend, and I while I really enjoyed it the first time, I came out absolutely LOVING it after seeing it a second time. I was last row mezzanine when I saw the first preview, but this past weekend I was orchestra row G center, and being closer to the action enhanced my enjoyment of the show so much more. There is absolutely no denying that this show is spectacle over substance, but it's not TRYING to be anything groundbreaking or substantial. I think that this show is trying to provide spectacular, fun, and thrilling escapism, and in that realm, it is wildly successful. Also, Karen Olivo has really grown on me.
"There’s nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music. "
Wee Thomas2 said: "CT2NYC said: "At this point, I think it's fair to say that most people who hated the movielike the show much more, and many who loved the film like the show less, with the lackluster ending being a major bone of contention. As a reminder, here's the endof the film, which, in my opinion, achievesemotional heights that the stage version only wishes it could:
Have to disagree here. Thought the movie was harmless fluff, but basically "huh, don't need to see that again", but thought the musical (in Boston) was a waste of Danny Burstein, bad chemistry between the leads, and a shame they invested so much in sets and costumes but nothing in a script.
If I gave the film a 4 I gave the musical a 2. One of my least favorite stage performances in many years"
Not sure what you disagree with, since I was specifically referring to people who either loved or hated the film. You fall into neither one of those categories.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.