Munk's opening night ODD COUPLE review — Page 2

Dear Mr. Rosscoe(au):

The double standards here are quite amazing. When you look at threads that appeared before me that stated "The Odd Couple" was incredible, the performances where funny, outstanding and everyone was laughing, standing ovation at the curtain call, you have to ask yourself who wrote those reviews? I heard no whispering, sniveling, nor snickering about IP Addresses. No question from anyone regarding those reviews? You don't find those "Early Preview" reviews interesting?

I have been extremely misquoted on all of these threads. I was attacked for saying that I found Nathan Lane surprisingly good. Then I detailed why I thought he was good. Apparently 3/4 of the critics agree with that assessment. I then went on to blast Broderick. I didn't sugar coat it and try to be "nice" because I expect an actor to turn in a professional performance. Making a bad choice is one thing. Being off the mark is one thing. Being catatonic is another. My tickets as I have stated were gifts. I reviewed Broderick as if I had paid for those tickets. That would only be fair. Apparently 3/4 of the critics again agreed with my review. Now on to Mr. Simon. We all know he is Genius. This play does not hold up. That is my opinion. Interestingly enough 3/4 of the critics also agreed with that observation.

Now I was attacked for liking Brad Garrett and saying he should take over the Felix Unger part because it would be against type. Ever heard of that statement? Against Type? It works. Try it sometime. There is no reason to get rid of Nathan Lane; he is the main heartbeat of the show. Get rid of the guy who has been taken over by the pod people. Now interestingly enough ... Unanimously the critics have agreed with my take on Brad Garrett.

I would at this time like to thank the hundreds of people that have appreciated the review and have been kind enough to send me your messages, and I can certainly understand after being welcomed so well to BroadwayWorld.com why you would choose to do that in private. I wrote the review in earnest and that it was appreciated is icing on the cake. But it really pisses me off when I am misquoted. For those of you who think the whole review was negative ... I suggest that you go back and re-read what 4300 people have agreed with.

Again Mr. Rosscoe(au) thank you for pointing out the hipocracy here on Broadwayworld.com, however, I do believe your words will fall on catatonic loving ears.

Warmest Regards...

OneEros69

PS I'm sure you all won't mind that I will cut and paste this to my own thread.

Updated On: 10/29/05 at 12:44 AM

Hey ... Muskratlove ... you are boring.

Hey Muskrat ...

Scroll on up and see who actually responds to your thread. You will get your answer as to who "he is." A new person has to explain this to you? Hmmm ...

Carl ...

You can't be serious?

I wish many of you had seen Nathan Lane in TRUMBO. I gained new respect for him as a dramatic actor. He gave an outstanding performance in that play.

---

Munk, we would have to disagree on critics then (not that I pay much attention to most of them anyway when I decide to see a show). Barnes is one of the few remaining critics with any background or knowledge of the theater. Brantley and his ilk are one step above gossip columnists who review people more so than reviewing shows.

As for the 2 or 3 act question...it was written in 3 acts, but is performed in 2 in this revival

---

Carl and Sam ...

I'll respond to both of you at the same time. Munk certainly doesn't need my help in telling people off, but ...

Can you two actually be original? Carl, Dude? You haven't even seen the play. And Sam since you saw the play and know this revival was played in two acts ... you should know why. In Act 2 people came back drunk and praying to see why this play had been revived. Had it been played out in three acts, the only people left in the theatre would have been relatives, insomniacs, and blind deaf hit men.

Updated On: 10/29/05 at 09:52 PM