Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
#0Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 6:43pm
I wasn't too excited to see this show (as you can see I've waited quite some time,) because I heard some pretty terrible things about it. However, I was relieved to find that I was actually really enjoying myself.
The book is pretty shaky, and the overall execution of all the events are questionable. The score is soaring at times (Days of Plenty,) and quite amateur and obnoxious at others (The Most Amazing Thing.) Generally, the overall score lies somewhere in between the two. Very gentle on the ears, always pleasant, but sometimes the lyrics just don't quite do it.
Sutton Foster is absolutely fantastic, with a perfect mix of comedy and sincerity - never going overboard with each. She's just extraordinary, and I'm certain that she would shine in any show, no matter how mediocre the material.
Amy McAlexander (as Amy) is definitely the single most irritating person I have ever seen on stage, and she can't act to save her life. Once she grows up, her voice is quite good and her acting tolerable even, but for all of act one I wanted to put a bullet through her head.
Jenny Powers and Megan McGinnis (as Meg and Beth) are both great - neither really shine, but their material just doesn't allow for it. They're charming, for sure.
Maureen McGovern is great, as well. Her acting borders on extreme, fake, and exaggerated, but her maternal sweetness and soothing voice make up for it. She's not phenomenal, but she's pretty damn good.
The rest of the supporting cast is quite good as well, with no weak links. The only weak link in the cast is Amy - but I think every review prior to mine already stated that.
Overall, this really is a gorgeous, heartfelt show. The sets are beautiful all around, and the lighting is also fantastic, as are the lavish costumes. The orchestrations are generally fine, but at times a little underwhelming and "tinny." The choreography (where there is any,) is pedestrian at best, but does it's purpose. And finally, I feel that this show was very well directed - it has much of the same sweet feel and honest heart that two of her other Broadway shows (THE SOUND OF MUSIC and THE SECRET GARDEN) had. I don't know what's in store for this show - it doesn't seem to be selling all that well, but hopefully the running costs are low enough to atleast make it through the summer. As far as Tony awards, Sutton and Maureen for sure, with some possible nominations for set design, lighting design, and costume design. So although this show isn't the best (it's problems are evident,) it certainly has more heart than any other show on Broadway right now and truly has only the best intentions. So for that, I can only wish LITTLE WOMEN the best.
#1re: Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 6:45pm
Nice review. Glad you liked it. 
Ruth Sherwood
Leading Actor Joined: 10/4/04
#2re: Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 6:47pmGreat review! I felt exactly the same!
#3re: Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 6:49pmGood review. I've been putting off seeing the show because there are others I wanted to see more. However, I really want to see Sutton Foster in this show; I have not heard one negative thing about her as Jo.
PJ
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/03
#5re: Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 6:56pm
Munk,
We are in total show agreement today... first, "Spam", and now "LW". I thought that I would LIKE Sutton, but HATE the show. Absolutely ended up loving Sutton (and Maureen) and loving the show as well. It was just a lot of fun, and really liked the score. Going back on the 25th. Cant wait !
wickedrentq
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/6/04
#6re: Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 6:59pmMunk, there's one thing I don't understand. You waited a while to see Little Women because you were worried it was bad, but you saw Brooklyn and Good Vibrations before?
MargoChanning
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/5/04
#7re: Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 6:59pm
Oooooooooh, you're gonna get it from Rath for what you wrote about McGovern. Brace yourself. 
#8re: Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 7:29pmI was there at today's matinee. I fully agree with your review. I did love Maureen McGovern though.
Ellie3
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/20/04
#10re: Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 7:31pm
I went to see BROOKLYN and GOOD VIBRATIONS earlier on because I was afraid they would close without much notice and I wouldn't get to see them. I kind of had more faith in LITTLE WOMEN that it would hang around a bit longer. Plus, it just didn't interest me at first.
Margo: I didn't say anything bad about her! I was just being honest...
maybethistime
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/3/04
#11re: Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 7:31pmBravo! Great revivew. You are right on about Sutton, though I must disagree about Maureen...
BSoBW2
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/8/04
#12re: Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 7:33pm
Maybe I'll have to see it now...
Calls up producer of LW...
#13re: Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 7:41pmYou should go, BSO. If I liked it, you'll love it. Barely mediocre shows are your calling.
BSoBW2
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/8/04
#15re: Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 7:46pmYou've stated that already, and that has nothign to do with what I said.
BSoBW2
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/8/04
#16re: Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 7:49pmno, it means I can go whever...an I was ignoring your comment
#18re: Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 8:31pm
Munk,
Exactly what kind of mind-altering drugs were/are you on? Are you kidding about Maureen?
A shocked and stunned Rath
BSoBW2
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/8/04
#20re: Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 8:38pm
I didn't say she was bad at all, I said she was great. What more do you want? I said sometimes her acting seemed forced and fake - it's my true opinion. It's not a reflection on her, it's a reflection on the material - I thought that was clear.
BSO: I'm not the only one that thinks Beach is terribly miscast and doing a horrific Nathan Lane impression the entire show. Read most of the reviews, they all say somethign to that effect. You're just an easy audience member.
#21re: Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 8:42pmWasn't clear at all. And I am still allowed to disagree. Even though the material is subpar, Ms. McGovern gives one of the most natural performances I've seen on a stage in a long time.
#22re: Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 8:45pmExcellent review, Munk. I agree with everything except Maureen, who I thought was brilliant.
#23re: Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 8:48pmI don't know what it was about her...maybe she was having an off day? She sounded beyond amazing, but her acting left something to be desired. It was very rigid and forced...but if you guys say she's good, and Rath says she's really natural (the complete opposite of what I thought,) it must have just been today's performance. I'll probably go back at some point...
#24re: Munk's LITTLE WOMEN review
Posted: 3/5/05 at 9:08pmI think that's best, Munk. When I saw it, she really blew me away. I thought, "This woman needs a show on Broadway every season."
Videos