** PROMISES, PROMISES OFFICIAL REVIEW THREAD **

[Marquise]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 12:29am

In anticipation of the first ever Broadway Revival of PROMISES, PROMISES please post all reviews in this thread.

Updated On: 4/25/10 at 12:29 AM

[ljay889]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 12:31am

oh my.

[taylorPHENOMENON2]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 12:37am

Whatshisname will not be happy!

[IdinaBellFoster]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 12:47am

You forgot the half-page of unneeded facts!!

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 1:07am

Unneeded facts to one might be considered interesting information to another, IdinaLauraBellSuttonWickedLegallyShrek.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 9:44am

I like when Mike starts this off. It's become a BWW tradition.

[tazber]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 9:48am

As long as we only have one.
In the post-Margo/pre-Mike days there were like seven threads for every opening b/c everyone wanted to be the first.

[aasjb4ever]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 11:20am

What's all this talk about Vomit, Vomit?

[Marquise]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 3:16pm

Dear Pal Joey,

Got here first! You'll live.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 3:19pm

Mike felt that way for a second, but he caved. I think he's gone into seclusion.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 4:16pm

I don't really understand what you're trying to do here, Marquise. Clearly, being the one to post this thread first was some kind of point of pride for you, given the ridiculous asterisks and capitals and "Official" [?] in the title. Do you think this is going to give you some kind of cred on the board or make people respect you? Because it's just a really annoying way to post a thread.

Obviously, there is no dictum that Mike is the one to start these threads. But it's sort of become a tradition, and he does a good job of it, complete with spelling, grammar, and relevant information. Don't really know why you'd be so eager to make sure you started one unless you wanted to stir something up or were totally unaware of this.

[musicalman2]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 4:23pm

Scarywarhol, I second what you say. I did, however, find your pointing out that Mike's posts include spelling and grammer very chuckle inducing. Let me say for the recordthat I think you are a pretty darned good spelling and grammer user too!

Long Limelight Mike's REALLY OFFICIAL OPENING NIGHT THREADS!!

[Marquise]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 4:40pm

I don't really understand what you're trying to do here, Marquise. Clearly, being the one to post this thread first was some kind of point of pride for you, given the ridiculous asterisks and capitals and "Official" [?] in the title. Do you think this is going to give you some kind of cred on the board or make people respect you? Because it's just a really annoying way to post a thread.

Are you serious?!!!

Obviously I've touched a nerve, no make that several. First I don't seek approval or get pride out of a simple thread on an internet message board. The asteriks were used to draw attention to the thread, not myself so there wouldn't be 1,000 different threads and all the official reviews could be kept in one single thread for readers to refer to.

The pride and respect I get in my life comes from the work I do, the life I lead and from the wonderful, caring people who surround me everyday. Not from a Broadway message board/thread.

I'm sorry you find it annoying as that wasn't my intention but I can't control how you perceive things can I? So ultimately that is your problem and your issue to figure out, not mine.

Obviously, there is no dictum that Mike is the one to start these threads. But it's sort of become a tradition, and he does a good job of it, complete with spelling, grammar, and relevant information. Don't really know why you'd be so eager to make sure you started one unless you wanted to stir something up or were totally unaware of this.

I didn't "make sure" to start a thread before Mike. I remembered that PROMISES opens today and I decided to start one. It's as simple as that. It had nothing to do with "one upping" anyone on this board or "getting there first".

You are stirring up drama when there really is none to begin with.






Updated On: 4/25/10 at 04:40 PM

[BwayTday]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 5:09pm

Marquise you just raining on Mike's parade, blah blah blah /sarcasm

It's a thread on a message board, it ain't a competition.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 5:30pm

Wow, now we're ruling over who can and cannot start new threads about official reviews? That's kind of absurd/funny.

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 5:34pm

Let's begin by remembering what Clive Barnes said of the original:

Neil Simon has produced one of the wittiest books a musical has possessed in years, the Burt Bacharach music excitingly reflects today rather than the day before yesterday, and the performances, especially from Jerry Orbach as the put-upon and morally diffident hero, contrive, and it's no easy feat, to combine zip with charm.

http://theater.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?html_title=&tols_title=PROMISES,%20PROMISES%20%28PLAY%29&pdate=19681202&byline=By%20CLIVE%20BARNES&id=1077011431182

[GatorNY]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 5:35pm

I've never started a review thread, and I wouldn't start one now because I like the tradition of having Mike start them.

[Marquise]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 5:44pm

Let's stop this unnecessary drama and revert this thread back to it's original intention: REVIEWS FOR THE REVIVAL OF PROMISES, PROMISES.

I urge those who have a "problem" with my staring this thread to seek counseling. You may have more deep rooted issues than you think.

Thank you blaxx for posting Clive Barnes' review of the original 1968 production.
Updated On: 4/25/10 at 05:44 PM

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 7:07pm

Backstage is negative (here begins the "blame it on the miscast"):

While “Promises, Promises” may have been a perfectly timed commercial confection for 1968, it’s never been an A-list musical. Neil Simon’s anything-for-a-laugh book coarsens its basis, Billy Wilder’s classic 1960 film “The Apartment,” while Hal David’s trite pop lyrics strain mightily when asked to convey character or advance plot. Only Burt Bacharach’s fizzy score is the real deal, with its original and period-defining sound. So it’s no surprise that it has taken 42 years for the show to come back to Broadway. A confluence of events is behind its reappearance, the first being the success of the ’60s-set TV show “Mad Men” and the second the interest of two stars who might sell tickets. Unfortunately, Sean Hayes and Kristin Chenoweth aren’t suited to their roles. It may not matter commercially, given the predilection of today’s Broadway audiences for seeing their idols in the flesh and hearing songs they already know, but it definitely prevents the pot from boiling.

http://www.backstage.com/bso/reviews-ny-theatre-broadway/ny-review-promises-promises-1004086258.story

Updated On: 4/25/10 at 07:07 PM

[dwb0102]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 7:09pm

maybe you should reconsider using such a derogatory word in your post.

[bway boy]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 7:11pm

^ i agree 100%

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 7:14pm

Talkin' Broadway is Negative:

"When the shiny sheen of 1960s suits (for the men), hair (for the women), and capitalistic optimism (for everyone) isn't enough to dazzle, let alone blind, who's at fault? Regarding the paint-by-numbers revival of Promises, Promises that just opened at the Broadway, one may be tempted to blame the making-his-debut leading man, his miscast costar, or the ghosts of vanished great that haunt the show as if it were Follies. Though all these play a role in the production's less-than-total success, they also ultimately highlight a director who exemplifies all of these problems in his own way.

That would be Rob Ashford. Like Sean Hayes, who's tasked with occupying a role created by Jack Lemmon (on screen, in The Apartment) and Jerry Orbach (onstage, in this musical adaptation), he's making his Broadway bow as a director, and isn't quite equipped for the task. Like leading lady Kristin Chenoweth, he's proved himself capable (or more) in various other works, but isn't operating within his comfort zone this time out..."

http://www.talkinbroadway.com/world/Promisesx2.html

[bway boy]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 7:16pm

The Hollywood Report is very positive. Issues with Chenoweth, a rave for Hayes.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/promises-promises-theater-review-1004086272.story

[Mike3]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 7:40pm

The New York Times is currently posting the AP review on its website.

Hayes Sparks 'Promises, Promises' Broadway Revival: an agreeable if not altogether transporting revival
Associated Press

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 7:59pm

The Chicago Tribune is Negative:

"On TV’s “Will & Grace,” Sean Hayes played mercurial third wheel Jack McFarland, who flitted happily from one quip to the next. Now Hayes finds himself atop a major Broadway revival of the 1968 romantic comedy “Promises, Promises.” McFarland and Chuck Baxter may seem like similar roles — they’re both scheming-yet-appealing urbanites. But while Chuck, an ambitious office fellow, may spout Neil Simon’s signature one-liners, he’s driven by an all-consuming love for the waitress in the office dining room, here played by Kristin Chenoweth, who doesn’t look for a moment like she’s ever going to bus anyone’s table.

And therein lies the problem with Hayes’ key performance in Rob Ashland’s intermittently amusing but emotionally unsatisfying revival. This invulnerable Chuck feels pre-packaged and self-contained. He doesn’t seem to want or need anything, including that troubled waitress. And although Hayes’ Chuck talks to us all night, you never really feel that anything has been revealed..."

http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/the_theater_loop/2010/04/promises-broadway-review-sean-hayes-promises-promises-no-love-connection.html