Moulin Rouge Colonial Theatre Previews — Page 24

dramamama611 said: "Actual age has nothing to do with it. Kidman was 37 when she filmed Moulin Rouge. Tveit is 35 currently.

Chemistry has nothing to do with age. Actual or perceived age.

I dont think Karen is the best person for the role, but her age (nor his) has nothing to do with it."

Dramamama, I agree so much with this. I had major issues with the chemistry between Olivo and Tveit, but their age wasn’t the issue. They just lacked any kind of urgent passion or feelings between them. I never really felt like he was fighting for her and I never felt like she wanted him to.

Regarding Tam Mutu’s age, which was mentioned in another post, he’s 39 or 40, not in his late 40’s.

According to Playbill the show officially opened yesterday, 8/3. Where are the darned reviews???!!!???

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that people’s first reaction is to assume that Olivo “needs to go” because apparently it’s her fault that she was cast opposite an actor who’s struggled to come across as anything but a boy (and not a particularly interesting one at that) in every major role he’s had. Why any creatives or producers thought to cast one of the most beautiful women to grace the stage opposite a not-that-talented kid (he’s older than me but still a kid in my eyes) is beyond me? I wish people went back to the film and realized who Christian is supposed to be. Ewan McGregor’s is one of the great underrated performances, he made it look too easy but remains one of the few leading men to have chemistry with Kidman (who has notoriously struggled to find actors to match her talent and star power on screen for most of her movie career).

---

Sho-Tunes-R-Us said: "According to Playbill the show officially opened yesterday, 8/3. Where are the darned reviews???!!!???"

Boston Globe review:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2018/08/04/puttin-glitz-moulin-rouge/z3CQdR759BGRiXC0L7jy9J/story.html

That Boston Globe review was not done by the regular Boston Globe theatre critic, which is extremely disappointing and frankly odd considering how high profile this show is. The NY critics reviews will be more coherent and insightful.

She writes "Alex Timbers’s direction is spot-on in the first act, but the attempt to turn the second act into a tragedy rather than a feel-good musical sucks the energy out of the show."

Yeah... Moulin Rouge should be a feel good musical... It's a good thing this critic is not a director.

Updated On: 8/4/18 at 06:29 PM

No matter their talent or age, both should go because they are the wrong choices for their roles.
They work as names that attract money and buzz that's all.

pdjennings said: "Drove up from DC to see this today.

Worth every second on the road and every cent of the ticket price.

Once again, the negativity on this board leaves me flabbergasted and extremely confused.

Moulin Rouge! was absolutely fantastic. My husband and I are gigantic fans of the film, and the show far exceeded our every expectation."

It somehow always stuns me (the negativity). :/

Isn’t it just so annoying and frustrating when people’s opinions on art don’t match your own?

Sooo...

I absolutely HATED the film...and I mean HATED...LOATHED...DESPISED every single second of it.

I hated the fact none of them could sing. I hated the performances. I hated the unfunny 'comedy'.

It actually made me ANGRY I loathed it so much.

In fact I think it is one of the worst films ever made.

BUT...I did really like the story and the characters and I did like the music and the way it was used, just not the unlistenable God awful singing.

So with that said would I enjoy the musical, or are the terrible attempts at comedy still there. Obviously the singing is better and the staging and choreography will be more enjoyable without the horrendous editing techniques in the film.

So should I see the musical yes or no?

Updated On: 8/4/18 at 08:51 PM

Has anyone here seen this from the BALCONY? I'm considering going back again, but don't want to spend too much $. Thoughts appreciated!



AND Impossible 2: I'm not a fan of the film, either. And I really enjoyed it. It does seem like the less you are attached to the film, the more you like the stage version.

---

dramamama611 said: "Has anyone here seen this from the BALCONY? I'm considering going back again, but don't want to spend too much $. Thoughts appreciated!
"

Saw this from the side balcony row C but near center aisle. Actually liked the view better than from when I first saw it from side orchestra. It was surprisingly not as far from the stage as I thought they would be so that you could still see the actors' facial expressions. If you can, get seats closer to the middle so you can enjoy the view of the whole theater.

I saw the show yesterday. I'd been looking forward to it for a long time even though a lot of the reviews and criticism I've been reading dampened some of my enthusiasm.

I should say that I was a teenager when the movie came out, I saw it twice in theaters, LOVED it, bought the soundtrack right away, etc. After I bought my ticket to the show I rewatched the movie after not having seen it for many years... and I thought it was almost unwatchable, especially the first half. I don't know if it's my age or if my taste has changed that much or if the movie just hasn't aged well but I really disliked it. I still admire how ambitious it is and its originality, and I think the acting is mostly great across the board. But I didn't remember it being that cheesy, or the cringeworthy 'comedy', or the plot holes you could drive a truck through. I also found Christian as a character really annoying - and I remember swooning over him as a kid.

As for the show, overall I thought it was fantastic, and fixed just about every issue I have with the movie: the Duke is a genuinely menacing character; the love triangle actually has tension; Christian's jealousy/frustration/breakdown actually make sense because Satine chooses to go with the Duke to save her friends rather than because Zidler tells her to or because she wants to be a legitimate actress; the tone deaf Bollywood play is gone; the vocal performances are mind-blowingly good as opposed to in the movie where everyone just pretended they were.

I do think Firework should be replaced (the silliness of the song itself took me out of the story, even though the vocals were awesome), and while I ended up liking the Shake It Off number (mostly because of Danny Burstein) I think it could be replaced with something better. And I could do without Christian's narration completely. I think the dialogue could be tweaked a little bit so that they could eliminate those monologues and it wouldn't affect the story.

As for the chemistry between Satine and Christian - maybe because my expectations were so low after reading the reviews here but I thought they had good chemistry, and I especially loved the Elephant Love Medley and Come What May numbers. I was expecting a Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley situation so I was pleasantly surprised and their voices sounded wonderful together. I think some people also mentioned the lack of chemistry between Christian and the Bohemians but their scenes were some of my favorites and I thought Saur Ngaujah and Ricky Rojas were scene stealers. Just my two cents... of course this kind of thing is subjective.

And for what it's worth I didn't notice the age difference (from the third row in the Dress Circle). Satine is obviously more world weary and less naive than Christian in both the movie and the show but I still assumed she and Christian were around the same age. And before finding out their real ages I would've guessed both actors were in their mid 30s.

Question about the transfer: if it doesn't move to Broadway until next summer how likely is it that it would even have the same cast anyway? I would think that given the talent assembled a fair number of them won't be available a year from now.