Munk's opening night HOT FEET review

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 12:14am

I had the unfortunate option of attending tonight's opening performance of HOT FEET. And that's, in a word, exactly what this show is. Unfortunate.

Think DAMN YANKEES meets 42ND STREET meets SHOWTIME AT THE APOLLO meets death. That pretty much sums up this two and-a-half hour trainwreck.

I always give credit where due, so I will first off, like everyone else, give credit to the group of talented and energetic dancers that make up the ensemble of this show - their very energy and wanting to be there is what's missing from so many Broadway shows right now, especially the longer running shows.

A paper-thin plot (not to mention predictable), with even thinner subplots, this show is a low point in the history of musical theatre. It's worse than RING OF FIRE, it's worse than GOOD VIBRATIONS, and it even rivals TARZAN as far as sheer badness in concerned.

I was sure that, regardless of the material, the dancing and choreography might make the evening somewhat salvagable. That's not the case. Maurice Hines' choreography is repetitive, mind-numbing, and just plain awful. It does nothing to showcase the dancers - in fact, along with the atrocious costumes, it exploits them in every way possible.

Heru Ptah's book is, as you've heard, abyssmal. It doesn't deserve elaboration on my part, but whoever wrote this book should never work in theatre again.

Aside from the energetic ensemble, the cast is rounded out by a bunch of half-talented leading and supporting actors. Of course, given their material, they're already at an extreme disadvantage - but everyone here ends up looking bad. Keith David, who is a strong and talented film actor, seems at just as much of a loss as his fellow cast members here. Ann Duquesnay delivers an almost sophomoric performance, and is in poor vocal shape during her big second act solo. This solo is apparantly supposed to be serious, but the song and the events immediately before and after are the must unintentionally hysterical currently on Broadway. Allen Hidalgo is obnoxious and pretty awful, and Vivian Nixon is suitable.

James Noone's scenic design is laughably horrendous, and Pul Tazewell's costumes are laughable, unnecessary, and deplorable from top to bottom. The lighting by Clifton Taylor is equally perplexing, as are the hysterically unnecessary lasers throughout the show.

I'm just really at a complete loss after seeing this show - not even inspired enough to write a long, scathing review - just confused and annoyed that such a giant piece of trash was produced on Broadway. Maurice Hines has apparantly gone blind and deaf - it's the only logical explanation.

This show is like an overlong, overly dramatic, awful version of AMATEUR NIGHT AT THE APOLLO. Minus the humour, minus the talent, and minus the sheer joy, of course. Keith David, early on in the show, says "My mother told me there are only two things I have to do: Be black and die." Well, as far as the producers and creators of HOT FEET are concerned, perhaps they should forget the former and really just zoom in on the latter. It would do us all an wonderful favor.

[liotte]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 12:19am

Very nice, telling the producers they should die, saying they are deaf and blind.
It saddens me that you have so much hate and anger and complete loathing towards so much of Broadway.
Updated On: 5/1/06 at 12:19 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 12:23am

Not just the producers, don't forget the creators.

I don't have hate and anger towards much of Broadway. Something is either good, or it's bad. Artistic, or not. Worthy, or unworthy. It's not my problem that trash is continually producer on Broadway. It's alarming at the amount of crap that is put before us - and it seems to get more and more frequent as the seasons progress.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 12:23am

munk; Define sophmoric.
nice new pic.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 12:24am

Sophomoric, in the sense of amateur, childish, not belonging on Broadway, etc.

[gustof777]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 12:24am

I on the other hand enjoyed your review...i can't and won't see it but it does look pretty terrible

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 12:31am

The horrible book is comparable to Good Vibrations, however, the choreography is much better in Hot Feet, IMO. It is definitely a flop, but one I found entertaining due to the amazing dancers on stage. The book, costumes, lighting and sets were all awful.

[rickydrummer]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 12:31am

Why do people defend shows like "Hot Feet"? I haven't seen it, so I can't comment as to how it is as a piece, but we as audience simply don't need to be spoon-fed recycled songs like this time after time after time. When will producers learn?

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 12:34am

I agree that jukebox musicals do not belong on Broadway...Hot Feet, Good Vibrations, Mamma Mia, Lennon, All Shook Up, Ring of Fire and Jersey Boys included!
Updated On: 5/1/06 at 12:34 AM

[rickydrummer]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 12:36am

Basically all of these shows seem more suited to somewhere like Vegas or Atlantic City, where they'd fit in perfectly. I actually liked "Lennon" and find "Mamma Mia!" at least mildly entertaining, but they're not shows that we need in New York, where the original musical is something that we're proud of.

[gustof777]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 12:41am

lennon was in a whole different category than these shows...

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 12:42am

i agree. lennon was the worst.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 12:51am

i agree with WOT these shows simply don't belong to broadway, and disney's dont belong to broadway either.

[Drew7810]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 9:45am

Thank you Munk! I wasn't going to see it anyway, but I appreciate someone having the courage to brave it for the rest of us!

[Brodybaby03]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 10:17am

Munk, Did you scrub the bathroom floor today? DID YOU!???

nice review

[lildogs]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 10:54am

Is that YOU in your avatar Munk? Why did I think you were a red-headed girl? As for the review, I'm sure it's spot-on, if the commercials are any indication.

[Calvin]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 11:00am

lildogs, I believe that is the gorgeous Dominic Cooper.

[lildogs]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 11:05am

Well, I don't know about gorgeous...but that's good to know--now I can still imagine Munk with Pre-Raphaelite curls leaning over her balcony whilst her swain....

[HeyJayNYC]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 11:06am

The last paragraph in your review is so childish and sophomoric that it negates anything said before it as believable. Why end what appeared to be a thoughtful, honest review with a statement like that?

[lildogs]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 11:32am

Hey--Munk's just going for the Brantley tag line, give her a break...

[Brodybaby03]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 11:46am

Munk is not a girl. and not a red-head for that matter. But he is a BRILLIANT writer. That is all.

[lildogs]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 11:51am

Calling munk "she" has nothing to do with genitalia--just let me have my little fantasy, ok?

[Hawker]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 2:03pm

Why not add the wonderfully conceived "Crazy For You" to your list of prohibited "Juke Box Musicals". After all, it took songs from differant Gershwin scores and plugged them into a new book."

And then there was "Jerome Robbins Broadway" which while featuring his choreography borrowed the music from a bunch of differant composers and shows.

Are we to assume that all shows that do not feature original music AND original books simultaneously fall into the despised category of "Juke Box musical."

I'll take "Jersey Boys" any day over the novacaine of some original work that is miscarried from the opening curtain to the final bows.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 2:20pm

I never said anything about those shows, but keep in mind that the songs featured in CRAZY FOR YOU, JEROME ROBBINS' BROADWAY, and FOSSE were all written for the theatre. They were written with dramatic intents behind them. Sure, JEROME ROBBINS' BROADWAY and FOSSE did not attempt to tell stories, but it still worked.

CRAZY FOR YOU worked, too. I don't care what they're called. If they can be called the earliest jukebox musicals, then so be it - but they were GOOD. When I say jukebox musicals, I think of a catalogue of songs from one specific popular group, band, singer, etc.

I agree with you about JERSEY BOYS, by the way. If it's a great show and well written, then I don't care where the songs came from.

[lildogs]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 3:03pm

That's a distinction that is very important and often overlooked in this ongoing debate. JR's Bway and Fosse are revues of two particular artists of the theatre. I mean Jelly's Last Jam used some of Morton's material, but the show was constructed with the music, not around it.

A jukebox musical is just that--one with songs you can find on a jukebox. You'd be hard pressed to hear "Comedy Tonight" blaring in your local pool hall.