Posted: 8/5/18 at 2:31pm
Brantley loved it -- Critic's Pick.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/05/theater/moulin-rouge-the-musical-review.html
Posted: 8/5/18 at 2:42pm
Posted: 8/5/18 at 2:50pm
Wow, quite the love letter!
Posted: 8/5/18 at 3:46pm
This is the first time in a looong time that I've agreed with a Brantley review in its entirety. Including that Act 2 runs a little long. I'm glad to see Karen and Aaron getting the recognition they deserve in this rave too!
Posted: 8/5/18 at 5:48pm
Posted: 8/5/18 at 6:03pm
I am delighted that he loved it...even more than I did, because I had reservations that he did not. Amazed that he felt that Aaron Tveit is great in the role he was 'born to play'. Makes me think that I must have a little prejudice towards him, since I tend to think he is a little wooden on stage, although I did think he was great in Grease, which was semi-live.
Posted: 8/5/18 at 6:14pm
Here's another rave: Mark Shenton of The Stage U.K. He calls it ''vivacious and utterly exhilariting''; predicts it'll be ''a massive hit.''
https://www.thestage.co.uk/reviews/2018/moulin-rouge-review-emerson-colonial-theatre-boston-knock/
Updated On: 8/5/18 at 06:14 PM
Posted: 8/5/18 at 6:38pm
the only thing that rings TRUE about Brantley's review is the BADLY WRITTEN book by John Logan (I can't believe the check cleared after the producers saw what his book read like).
It smells to me like he's trying to reel it in after his misstep with the review for Head Over Heels.
1)there is no adaptation here. What story are they telling? I couldn't decipher.
2) the cutting of the music from the movie (the show must go??!!) and the addition of double the amount of newer pop songs is laughably bad....unintentional camp. It also dilutes the story throughout the entire show. Nothing seems musically important. Not to mention the orchestrations and arrangements of the new music are NOT especially rousing. There isn't a musical moment in the show that lands like it should/could.
3) the sets aren't magical in the slightest. Just big shoe boxes of color that slide on and off. there is no magic or whimsy or THEATER here. BIG MISTAKE in the stage adaptation.
4) the direction is plain bad. Alex knows comedy well, but can't switch tones for the life of him. The serious moments play as unintentional camp again. The blocking is as uninspiring as Ive seen. There is NO vision here.
5) Aaron is plain terrible in the role. no life, mindless melodrama. He has no relevancy as an adult musical theater performer. Brantley calls it the roll he was born to play (who paid him to say that)
6) Aaron and Karen have 0 chemistry. Never seen a couple with less on a professional stage. And shockingly, the creative team hires smolderingly sexy Tam Mutu to play the duke....karen and tam are dripping with chemistry....the story doesn't work if you want to watch the duke have his way with satine (sorry, not sorry)
7) the costumes look cheap. Satines looks are slutty not glamorous....that goes for most of the female cast.
the show right now plays like a revue on a cruise line or a vegas show at one of the less popular casinos. Either people have lost the ability to know what good theater is, or Brantley is not reporting the truth here for whatever reason. DO NOT WASTE MONEY ON THIS IN BOSTON. I wish i hadn't.
Posted: 8/5/18 at 6:47pm
Posted: 8/5/18 at 7:57pm
Posted: 8/5/18 at 8:03pm
Posted: 8/5/18 at 8:07pm
I think standingovation went a bit over the top, but I generally agree with most of his analysis. Brantley must have been in a Isherwood Rock of Ages mood.
Posted: 8/5/18 at 9:21pm
Posted: 8/5/18 at 10:33pm
REN598...nothing gives. I'm a HUGE fan of this movie. I, like i'm sure lots of musical fans, have thought this was a no brainer bway adaption for years. But there is such a thing a bad show, and this is it. This is, in my opinion about as bad of an adaptation as they could have created. Sorry, not sorry. And i've read Brantley's reviews and seen his interviews for years, this does not seem like his taste at all to me. Who knows, maybe he really did just like it. I have to say, and I've thought this for a while now, taste is dead. Most people don't even know what a good show looks like anymore. this show has no book, is not focusing on good storytelling, is sloppily directed with no focus on tone, is unimaginatively desgined in a way that is theatrical, and has an abysmal leading male performance....if you like it, ok great...but this is not what i was hoping for with this show at all, and lots of people commenting are saying the same thing.
Posted: 8/5/18 at 11:01pm
After the reviews for Strictly Ballroom were less than positive (such that I decided to not see it when I was in London), Luhrman must be ecstatic.
Posted: 8/5/18 at 11:11pm
Posted: 8/6/18 at 12:48am
def not saying right or wrong when it comes to art....but that is connected to individualism. There is however bad theater, and it pains me to say it, because I was excited for this one, but this is bad theater. And we're seeing a lot of it on bway in the last couple years
Posted: 8/6/18 at 2:02am
standingovation79 said: "the only thing that rings TRUE about Brantley's review is the BADLY WRITTEN book by John Logan (I can't believe the check cleared after the producers saw what his book read like)."
That is not what he said - the NYT review calls the book "baldly written", not "badly", and then goes on to say that it is "still trimmable". In other words, Brantley is saying that as sparely (i.e., baldly) as the book is already written, it could be trimmed even further. I understand that you hated the show, but that is a misquotation of the NYT review.
Posted: 8/6/18 at 2:56am
Jilani said: "standingovation79 said: "the only thing that rings TRUE about Brantley's review is the BADLY WRITTEN book by John Logan (I can't believe the check cleared after the producers saw what his book read like)."
That is not what he said - the NYT review calls the book "baldlywritten", not "badly", and then goes on to say that it is "still trimmable". In other words, Brantley is saying that as sparely (i.e., baldly) as the book is already written, it could be trimmed even further. I understand that you hated the show, but that is a misquotation of the NYTreview.
"
As someone who does in fact love the show and thinks it deserved the raves it's getting, I think Brantley was right here about there being places to trim a bit. The second act in particular still needs a bit of trimming before Broadway, though I noticed a lot of improvements made between when I saw it the first time (2nd preview) and when I saw it again ten days later. I'm curious if there were any more changes before the opening last Friday; hopefully I'll get a chance to find out for myself!
Posted: 8/6/18 at 10:08am
barcelona20 said: "I think standingovation went a bit over the top, but I generally agree with most of his analysis. Brantley must have been in a Isherwood Rock of Ages mood."
right? i mean 6 years later and it being one of the longest running broadway shows in history shows that isherwood had no idea what he was talking about...right?
snob
Posted: 8/6/18 at 10:19am
trimming? it needs a plot first
Posted: 8/6/18 at 10:21am
it's not about being a snob. Rock of Ages delivered everything it promised.
Posted: 8/6/18 at 10:58am
ren598 said: "standingovation79, what gives? Why are you going out of your way on two separate Moulin Rouge threads to bash the show? I tend to agree with all the glowing reviews that have come in so far. Just because you don’t agree with Brantley doesn’t mean he has any ulterior motive. Maybe he really likes the show like many of us do. You going on endlessly about how much you dislike the show makes me think there’s something else going on here."
I think that standingovation79 is an alias for After Eight. I can just imagine what he would think of the show...about the same as standingovation79 I suspect.
Posted: 8/6/18 at 11:44am
ladypresent said: "barcelona20 said: "I think standingovation went a bit over the top, but I generally agree with most of his analysis. Brantley must have been in a Isherwood Rock of Ages mood."
right? i mean 6 years later and it being one of the longest running broadway shows in history shows that isherwood had no idea what he was talking about...right?
snob"
Ooh, name calling! I love it. Sure, I won't hide the fact that I prefer shows by Sondheim, Jason Robert Brown, and Adam Guettel. And if it makes you feel better, I think Moulin Rouge has the potential to run just as long as Rock of Ages, which I've said previously. Rock of Ages was fine for what it was. However, in the case of artistic merit, I agree with the BWW reviewer and standingovation more than Brantley.
Posted: 8/6/18 at 1:49pm
Bob Verini of Variety gives ''Moulin Rouge!'' a rave review:
''Yes, they can-can — they can transform Baz Luhrmann’s 2001 absinthe-tinged fantasia “Moulin Rouge!” into a socko stage spectacular. The story’s been strengthened in this splashy production, while expectations of cinema-inspired visual splendor are met and even exceeded. … With 70-odd pop smashes — from Piaf to Perry, from “Lady Marmalade” to Lady Gaga — baked into its dialogue and DNA, “Moulin Rouge!” has a battery that never runs down. Future prospects on Broadway and beyond, following this brief premiere engagement resuscitating Boston’s venerable Emerson Colonial Theater, seem as rosy-red as the luscious crimson wash poured over the whole business.
https://variety.com/2018/music/reviews/moulin-rouge-review-broadway-musical-1202895995/
Updated On: 8/6/18 at 01:49 PM
