** PROMISES, PROMISES OFFICIAL REVIEW THREAD **- Page 2

[Elphaba3]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 8:02pm

Ashland? Oy.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 8:03pm

This debacle is bad summer stock on steroids, with one of the worst pieces of Broadway casting in decades -- the nearly 42 year old Chenoweth as the 21-ish Fran. Oh, the irony -- Chenoweth finally abandons her child-woman demeanor and affectations... for a role she might've played effectively 12-15 years ago ... as a child-woman. Now we get a tough, Douglas Sirk-like Fran, in her Lana Turner worthy gowns (how the hell would a restaurant hostess pay for those togs?), behaving as a world-weary sophisticate when a naive ingenue is called for.

It's a parallel universe version of this material, with a Cougar Fran in act 2 and the root for couple -- who knew? -- Chuck and the charming, multi-dimensional Marge, as played by Finneran. No navel-gazer, our Marge: unlike the long-suffering Fran, she has a sense of the ridiculous about herself, Chuck, and the insane world of men and women. And gee, she has no desire to self-destruct. When survivor Marge exits the stage and Chuck's story, to leave the comotose Fran, she takes the last traces of musical comedy with her.

Miss Chenoweth: if you want to start playing grown-ups, don't take on a victimy, girlish lamb lost in the big jungle, and try to turn her into Gloria Graham. And Mr. Ashford: shame on you for not knowing a damned thing about story structure, character, and how to weight an evening. Ending act one with the ludicrously inappropriate -- by any standards, even juke box musicals -- "House Is Not a Home" is one of the most amateurish decisions ever made.

And all of it framed in a proscenium that would better befit a musical version of The Flintstones.

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 8:12pm

CurtainUp is VERY POSITIVE:
The good news is that the collaborators of this new production have made good on the promises and delivered the goods we've been waiting for. After 13 years, a slick and polished revival has finally made it to Broadway with a personable, attractive, talented and hard-working cast in the hands of director-choreographer Rob Ashford. How exactly do you capture the finer qualities of a show that was once deemed timely and titillating, but would in a changed world be viewed as irretrievably dated and also possibly disingenuously quaint? The answer is to play it straight, but playfully and most of all, play it for all its worth. . . and that's worth plenty.
Review

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 8:14pm

New Jersey Newsroom is MIXED:
Opening on Sunday night at the Broadway Theatre, a new revival of "Promises, Promises" is capitalizing on the "Mad Men" trend for everything 1960s.
It's an appropriate musical for just such a treatment: With its sinuous, propulsive rhythms and brassy highlights, Burt Bacharach's catchy score captures the cool surface and hot undertones of the Swinging ‘60s. Based on a cynical Billy Wilder flick, Neil Simon's story is an often funny look at sex and the single girl and boy amid the moral darkness of the era's corporate jungle.
Director-choreographer Rob Ashford's production, unfortunately, proves to be too much of a (mostly) good thing.
Review

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 8:28pm

So is it fair to say Chenoweth might not get a Tony nomination again?

[boardwalker2]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 8:38pm

Toronto Star is negative

"When some promises aren’t kept, they’re more heartbreaking than others and the revival of Promises, Promises that opened at the Broadway Theater on Sunday night is certainly one of those...

...But it all went wrong. Not hold-your-head-in-your-hands-and-moan wrong, but — even worse — deep into that melancholy Neverland of what might have been."

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/theatre/article/800519--unfulfilled-promises

[wendilin622]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 8:41pm

Not like it means anything...but Word of Mouth is extremely positive. Shocking.

http://www.broadway.com/videos/show/promises-promises/word-of-mouth-review-promises-promises/

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 8:44pm

ray, it's looking more and more likely that Montego Glover will nab the Best Actress nomination spot many have reserved for Chenoweth in their predictions.

Updated On: 4/25/10 at 08:44 PM

[Marquise]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 8:45pm

I don't see Chenoweth getting a Tony nom for this. As much as I love her she was woefully miscast in this.

[macbeth]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 8:47pm

"Word of Mouth is extremely positive"

Doesn't Broadway.com now have the same corporate owner as Broadway Across America, the lead producers of PROMISES, PROMISES? (Key Brand Entertainment)

[Luckydave14]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 8:55pm

I feel like most of these reviewers find the problem with Chenoweth to stem from the addition of the two songs that really stop the flow of the show. I really wonder what they would have been had they kept the show as it was.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 9:02pm

If she'd played the role with any warmth and energy, I doubt anyone would be bothered by the lack of songs. As it is she turns every scene into a self-pity party, and it gets real old real fast.

[Elphaba3]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 9:09pm

I saw a huge amount of warmth in her performance. Even though I'm a big fans of hers, I was skeptical going in and was pleasantly surprised by how much humanity she brought to the role. What was lacking in depth and age-appropriateness was made up for in heart and charisma.

[James2]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 9:19pm

With the reviews we've seen so far, I think "Ragtime" may get the Revival nomination instead of "Promises."

[once a month]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 9:32pm

...pathetic

[alightinthedark23]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 9:33pm

USA today

[broadwayman17]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 9:53pm

EW: Positive (B+)
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20363877,00.htm

Updated On: 4/25/10 at 09:53 PM

[Marquise]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 9:57pm

Well I'm glad someone agrees with my feelings about this whole misguided effort:

Part of the difficulty stems from the decision to move the action from 1968 to 1962. On the one hand, without the current Mad Men craze for early-'60s drinking, smoking, and sexism, it's unlikely that this mid-century time capsule musical would have been revived at all. (Just to be sure we get the point, female dancers are shaped and draped in homage to the lush bod of Christina Hendricks' Mad character, Joan Holloway, in vintage inspired costumes by Bruce Pask, while Scott Pask's sleek sets gleam with a touch of Mad Men's Sterling Cooper aesthetic.) On the other hand,1962 was so very not a Burt Bacharach kind of era — extracurricular office sex meant something very different then than it did in more liberated 1968.
Updated On: 4/25/10 at 09:57 PM

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 9:58pm

I agree 100%, Roscoe.

[Piper3500]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 10:03pm

"worst pieces of Broadway casting in decades -- the nearly 42 year old Chenoweth as the 21-ish Fran. Oh, the irony -- Chenoweth finally abandons her child-woman demeanor and affectations... for a role she might've played effectively 12-15 years ago ... as a child-woman. Now we get a tough, Douglas Sirk-like Fran, in her Lana Turner worthy gowns (how the hell would a restaurant hostess pay for those togs?), behaving as a world-weary sophisticate when a naive ingenue is called for. "

the age thing doesn't bother me so much. a lot of leads are older than what their characters are supposed to be. maybe not by 20 years (cheno looks younger than 42 ) - i mean one sherrie in ROA was 39 playing 18 and no Sheila in HAIR that I saw was anywhere near 17, until now. there are more examples.

i sort of agree with the one review on the capitalizing on Mad Men but I do think it is a good show regardless and think Sean and Tony are the best thing in it. people have to let go of "Jack McFarland" and what he did in that show.

he has done a lot before Will and Grace and will do way more after it. i think he is refreshing and great. i think they chose someone like kristen to play opposite him (or chose them together) because they look appropriate together.

i am surprised at all the fully negative reviews. i expected a lot of mixed but not full negatives

[alightinthedark23]

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

TheaterMania

[Roscoe]

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

"people have to let go of "Jack McFarland" and what he did in that show."

The problem is that Sean Hayes isn't going to let go of Jack McFarland, basically trotting out the same old shtick (butched up a bit, admittedly) for DAMN YANKEES and now PROMISES PROMISES. He's a skilled light comedian, but more is expected of C.C. Baxter in PROMISES PROMISES than was ever expected of Jack McFarland, and Hayes never delivers, content to skip lightly through the show pimping his comic timing as aggressively as Baxter pimps his apartment.

[somethingwicked]

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

The New York Times is Negative, with a love letter for Katie Finneran:

"For a bunch of desk jockeys, the boys from Consolidated Life are surprisingly athletic. In Rob Ashford’s revival of the 1968 musical 'Promises, Promises,' which opened on Sunday night at the Broadway Theater, the male members of the chorus demonstrate that wearing skinny suits needn’t keep corporate executives from playing leap frog, turning cart wheels, bouncing off desks or frugging like, well, mad men.

Yet for all their gymnastic exertions, there’s no escaping the feeling that these guys are one set of really tired businessmen. No matter how high they jump or how much body heat they expend, they never manage to push the evening’s temperature much above lukewarm.

Even that singing sparkplug Kristin Chenoweth, who stars opposite a charming Sean Hayes in his Broadway debut, seems to feel the prevailing lassitude. 'Promises, Promises,' which features a book by Neil Simon and songs by Burt Bacharach and Hal David, comes fully to life only briefly, at the beginning of its second act, when a comic volcano named Katie Finneran erupts into molten hilarity. Otherwise the white-hot charms this musical is said to have once possessed are left sleeping..."

http://theater.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/theater/reviews/26promises.html

Updated On: 4/25/10 at 10:16 PM

[jagfkb]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 10:21pm

^For once, thank you for getting it right, Times...

[ljay889]

Posted: 4/25/10 at 10:26pm

OUCH!!!