NY Trip Day 3 - THREE DAYS OF RAIN Review

[QMAN03]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 12:50am

Hello ladies and gentlemen, QMAN here reporting from my third day in the big city. And this time I'm reviewing the "broadway event of the season!!!" Even if you have been living under a rock for the past month you'd still know Julia Roberts was in a show on Broadway. But the question is, "Is it good?" And I'm here to tell you the answer to that question can be summed up in two words that appeared in another bad show on Broadway this season: HELL NO!

The real problem with this play is the actual play itself. It just has no rhyme or reason. The first act is a mess where I had no clue why the character's were doing the things they were doing. But when Bradley Cooper came on, he saved the first act from being a complete and utter mess. But then the last line of the first act just made no sense at all and the question as to why she says it is never answered. But the thing about the first act was that it leaves the audience with a sour feeling in their mouth but most of the people who I talked to said that it had some possibility to be good. Which I agreed with. But the decision to have the second act back in time was a very foolish decision. They had built up these three characters then they threw them away. I mean sure, some things were made clear by the second act, but because the second act had very little to do with act one, it didn't feel like a show. Now, if greenberg had put in a third act and played upon what was revealed in act two, then maybe he would have redeemed himself. But alas, he did not and I was left with a sour taste in my mouth.

Now onto the acting. Paul Rudd and Bradley Cooper were both great...when they weren't working off of Miss Roberts. But when they were, the scenes felt forced. For instance, when Julia would cut off Paul, it felt like Paul was trained to stop at a certain word and she was trained to cut him off. It didn't feel natural. And this all has to do with Miss Roberts lackluster performance. In the first act, she was stiff and unlikable. And I imagine for this act to work you need her character to ground both of the other characters because she was between their two extremes. Instead, I felt no connection between any of them. They were just there. And on top of that, I could barely hear her. I'd prefer a screaming actress (Amanda Peet) than one who I can't hear. And in act two she was somewhat better because it was more natural for her, but she still wasn't great by any means.

I know this wasn't a good review because I'm tired, but I hope it gives you a good sense of what I thought. So bottom line: this HUGE event is just that; an event. NOT a play, an event. If Julia was not in this, nobody would care and it would close within weeks. It's just not that good.

[Harmondo21]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 12:58am

Interesting. Was there anything good about it? The rain effects? The set?

Did you stay after for autographs and pictures?

Anything good?? At all?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 1:09am

It's interesting to read the comments on the play itself, because yes, of course it may not be to everyone's tastes, and you don't have to like it, but it's neither new or unproven and is in fact largely considered one of the best plays of the last ten years.

I still applaud Roberts for taking a chance by chosing this as her Broadway debut.

[vivs678]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 1:13am

I agree, Michael.

Wastn't this show shortlisted for the Pulitzer? I heard from a lot of people that it's a phenomenal play.

I'm excited to see it tomorrow either way; I'm a huge Julia fan.

[Harmondo21]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 1:24am

I see it in April. Can't wait!

[ken8631]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 7:29am

Saw it last night with wife (2nd night of previews). It was OK, not great. First act was slow, second act was better, Julia was more animated with her southern accent and more of her trademark smiles - she seemed very stiff in the first act. The rain was great in the second act, people WERE getting very wet (including some in the first row who put their coats over their heads). Since it's already sold out, ticket sales won't suffer no matter how the play is. The ending was very weird, I didn't even realize that was the end. I'm not really sure how everything from the first and second act tie together, I feel like I need a Cliff Notes version afterwrads so I could piece it together. All theree actors were graet, but the story wasn't. At one point in the second act (while about to make a salad), I KNOW I heard one of them call her Julia - was kinda strange.

I wouldn't go see again, and for all the money I spent, not sure if it was really worth it.

[ken8631]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 7:36am

Oh - I expected a full standing ovation at the end (LOTS of applause on her entrance), but I'd say maybe 1/3 of the orchestra stood at the end......

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 7:56am

I agree with comments about the play being a proven commodity. I think a problem may be the relative subtlety of the material. It's not a star vehicle in the usual sense, and people expecting to see Roberts carry a bravura evening in a Brockovitch turn will be disappointed. But don't lay that at the feet of Greenberg. His play is an exquisite smaller canvas, without melodrama or scenery chewing opportunites. Perhaps the Roberts' participation makes people come in expecting, say, HEDDA. It's just not that kiind of piece.

[ken8631]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 8:35am

I thought "Doubt" and "The Pillowman" were MUCH better plays. Plays I'd see again. This one, no.

[babygirl722]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 9:14am

I agree with QMAN03 completely. Saw the play yesterday and have to say that Roberts was absolutely awful...in both acts. I had hoped that in Act 2 she would be markedly improved but no luck...still couldn't hear her, she swallowed her words and her Southern Belle accent faded in and out mid sentence. I think that Ruddy and Cooper were great and almost saved the show. The problem for me was that I couldn't connect with the characters because of how bad Roberts was. The synergy between them didn't work and therefore the story didn't work...hope this makes sense. As I said on another thread, if you have tickets, I suggest putting them up for sale on Ebay and not wasting you time and money.

[ken8631]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 10:06am

I thought it was just me about the sound, but I did have to strain to hear many of the lines. I'm sure I missed quite a few. I was in 6th row center orch.

[QMAN03]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 12:44pm

See, maybe with a better lead actress the play would have been much better. But with Roberts, the whole point of the play was lost. So please, go with baby girls suggestion and sell your tickets. Whatever you paid is not worth it. And use that money to go see The Lieutenant of Inishmore. Now with that show, you get your money's worth in spaids (sp?)

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 12:46pm

Sure, because people are going to sell their tickets in DROVES due to this review.

I mean, there'll be PLENTY more opportunities to see one of the most famous actresses of our time live.

:slaps forehead:

[BroadwayBaby6]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 4:13pm

While I don't think Julia will give a tour-de-force performance, I'm sure she will become more comfortable during the previews and should give a better performance on opening night.

[babygirl722]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 5:27pm

Not sure I get your point, FOAnatic. Why would you be interested in seeing "one of the most famous actresses of our time" live if she is awful?

Kathleen Turner in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is my opinion of a one of the most famous actresses of our time doing one of the most outstanding performances on Broadway. Julia Roberts in this awful mess is not. Just my opinion, though.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 5:32pm

Well babygirl, you make indirectly an interesting point. Kathleen Turner was by most accounts NOT very good as Maggie in CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF. Most thought her turn vaguely amateurish and the epitomy of movie-star-come-to-Broadway. Thankfully, Turner didn't take the negativity to heart and has returned to Broadway several times and with VIRGINIA WOOLF has cemented herself as a very fine stage actress.

If Roberts, with her ability to sell tickets, has a true interest in furthering her craft and becoming a frequent guest of the Broadway theatre scene, I think we should all rejoice.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 5:32pm

As I said when I bought my tickets to see Turner in WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?:

"I'd pay to see this woman read from the phonebook."

[QMAN03]

Posted: 3/31/06 at 10:37am

There is a difference. Turner was amazing. Julia is most certainly not.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 3/31/06 at 10:39am

You have to realize that NO ONE is going to cancel their tickets because of your review.

If they want to see Julia. They'll see her.

This is basically a "once in a lifetime" opportunity.

Plus, it's MAJORLY early in previews to write her off so quickly.

[QMAN03]

Posted: 3/31/06 at 10:45am

I'm not saying they are going to. But if they do, they should see Lieutenant of Inishmore (this was pretty much a shameful way to promote LOI. I love that show)

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/31/06 at 11:07am

Trying to cross sale THREE DAYS OF RAIN with INISHMORE is like handing out flyers for OH CALCUTTA at MY FAIR LADY.

[LaCageAuxFollesFan2]

Posted: 3/31/06 at 11:11am

Q - Im eagerly awaiting your thoughts on RH.

[QMAN03]

Posted: 3/31/06 at 11:26am

Yeah, I'm just so far behind on writing them.

Here's one line: "It's one of the best scripts to a play I have ever witnessed."

[Lamc16]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 2:29pm

Sorry, Michael Bennett, but I have to disagree with you. Turner got very favorable reviews for "Cat", particularly from Frank Rich. She went on to be nominated for a Tony.