RAGTIME Reviews- Page 5

[bjh2114]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 12:57am

The bottom line is, he LIKED it. He really LIKED it.

Keep dreaming.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 1:10am

Pennywise I think you're spot on.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 1:14am

I should have bookmarked the site but didn't.

Does anyone here know what site does a full tally of all the reviews giving a letter grade (from A+ to D-) based on how positive or negative the review is?

I looked up reviews of BIRDIE and FINIAN'S on there a few weeks ago but now I can't find it.

[LearnToBounce]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 1:16am

frontrowcentre2, it's Critic-O-Meter: http://criticometer.blogspot.com/

[A Director]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 1:35am

The original production of Ragtime tried to be an American Les Miz. There are too many belt numbers in the score. The libretto is too preachy and self-important. The novel isn't and its outstanding.

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 1:44am

I was surprised by Brantley's review because he hated the show so much the first time around...I feel like what he wrote is the most positive anyone could have expected from him in terms of this show.

As for the Legally Blonde vs. Ragtime discussion I'm not even going to go there...two completely different animals. Pretty much like comparing apples and oranges as the shows and scores are so drastically different and set out to accomplish very different things.

[ljay889]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 2:14am

Washington Post review

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/15/AR2009111502741.html

[MiracleElixir]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 2:46am

I'm sorry, but why does the fact that he criticizes the show itself more than this specific production invalidate his review?

A good, faithful production still won't be satisfying someone who thinks the show itself is weak.

[blaxx]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 2:49am

Reviews are like Playbills. They don't belong to anyone.

[trombonist]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 5:35am

"There are too many belt numbers in the score. The libretto is too preachy and self-important. The novel isn't and its outstanding."

And none of that changed in this production.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 6:37am

When I saw the original Ragtime I never thought once of Les Mis... (ok maybe during the Act I finale...)

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 6:42am

"There are too many belt numbers in the score. The libretto is too preachy and self-important. The novel isn't and its outstanding."

And none of that changed in this production.

And there is NO NEED to change it. It works. Not everyone is going to like it, but it does work. So does LES MISERABLES. I never hear anyone complaining about too many "belt" numbers in GYPSY!

Updated On: 11/16/09 at 06:42 AM

[adamgreer]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 6:54am

4 stars from the Daily News:
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/2009/11/16/2009-11-16_this_musical_quilt_still_weaves_its_magic_in_ragtime.html

A rave from the Bergen Record:
http://www.northjersey.com/arts_entertainment/70167262.html

The Washington Post liked it, but misses Shallow and Feliciano:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/15/AR2009111502741.html

A rave from the Toronto Star:
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/theatre/article/726256--ragtime-roars-on-broadway-at-last

[ljay889]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 7:28am

No one posted word of mouth.
they loved it!!!

http://www.broadway.com/videos/show/ragtime/word-of-mouth-review-ragtime/
Updated On: 11/16/09 at 07:28 AM

[Smaxie]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 7:58am

New York Post and Newsday are mixed. Some positive things to say about the ambitions of the show, but not as much about the results.

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/theater/essence_of_nation_reduced_to_huddled_RTOksv6oOem4okctld4NNK

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/review-ragtime-ambitious-but-bland-1.1590311

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 8:03am

I don't get why everyone's acting like Brantley panned the hell out of the show. He gave it a nice review; about as nice as I think anyone expected since he despised the original production.

Other than Brantley, the show got positive-rave reviews all around if I'm not mistaken (I'm on my BlackBerry so its hard to reread every page of the thread...takes forever.) I'd hardly call the reviews "decent enough"...they were very strong. (Save for the two mixed reviews Smaxie just posted.)

[adamgreer]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 8:06am

The thing with Brantley's review is, he may have liked it well enough (he certainly didn't dislike it), but he gave them absolutely no pull quotes. It was like he sat down and consciously made an effort to give them NOTHING to pull.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 8:06am

How many stars did the Post give it? Its not showing up on my BBerry.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 8:09am

Two and a half.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 8:17am

I'd say that the problem is not so much that they didn't get some rave reviews. Certainly Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Bergen Record, USA Today, Backstage, Entertainment Weekly are great reviews. It's more that the raves - save for USA Today and maybe EW - aren't in the right places. Having tempered to mixed reviews from three out of the four NY metro area dailies (Times, Post, Newsday), a very downbeat notice from The New Yorker and some very good reviews with quotes, but that come down on the casting or some elements of the production or writing, like AP, Bloomberg News etc., is also a problem. It's still a large show with a big cast and orchestra and I'm not certain that they got what they needed today.

[Oldschool]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 8:49am

"A good, faithful production still won't be satisfying someone who thinks the show itself is weak."

MiracleElixer, I guess that's my point. Part of the job of a critic is to provide some context, some hedging if you will. Many of these reviews don't even address this production so much as they take an inordinate amount of column inches devoting themselves to bashing the book and the score and not really delving into what is right or wrong with this production. I guess I'm looking for a better balance between some of the sanctimonious criticism and providing the theatre going public some information about the production. I personally hate practically all ALW's work, but if I write a review from that standpoint only, I'm only serving my own ego rather than serving the public.

[James885]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 10:40am

I"m not really surprised by Brantley's review. I'd consider it a mixed-to-positive review; it's not as if he panned the show.

The criticism that the score has received is interesting. I love the score to Ragtime, but I've always felt that it was a little heavy with the anthems. One example is "Make Them Hear You". It's a wonderful song, but I feel like at that point in the story it just grinds the show to a halt.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 10:45am

Poor Stephanie Umoh. She got whipped again by The Post. Not the way you want to make your Broadway debut...

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 10:48am

I think a lot of people are holding her up to the standard set by Audra which she doesn't even come near. But if that standard wasn't set, I don't think she would've gotten the disappointing reviews that she did. She was certainly very good I thought...just not Audra. But who is?

[bjh2114]

Posted: 11/16/09 at 10:53am

I don't know about that Rocks. She had some really really sour notes when we saw her the first time.