ROCK OF AGES Reviews- Page 4

[massofmen]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 1:12am

ahhhh it feeels SOOOOOOOOO GOOOOOOOOOD to be right.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 6:28am

I have no interest in seeing this show when im over in NY (and i was an 80s kid so i don't know why)but congrats to the cast and crew and some very positive reviews.

[jaystarr]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 10:06am

Me too! I was an 80s kid to but I was not into Heavy Metal/ Big Hair bands or whatever you call it? I was into POP MUSIC..like Culture Club, Duran Duran, Spandau Ballet, Cyndi Lauper, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston ( you know the pre-crack Whitney! Greatest love of All) Debbie Gibson, New Kids on the Block, Tommy Page (god, embarassed to admit it!) Taylor Dayne, Kylie Minogue, Jody Watley and ofcourse my special devotion to Madonna (Holy mother of pop music) I am just soo Pop (up to now!) Those kids in High-School who are into these kinds of music made fun of kids like me (into pop) they say were soo preppy and they are "the bomb". LOL!

I'm glad that they have great reviews!!!

J*
Updated On: 4/8/09 at 10:06 AM

[jaystarr]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 10:09am

The only songs I liked in that genre was "Invincible" by Pat Benatar and Bonnie Tyler (but she's kinda pop too!) I like Bon Jovi's You Give Love a Bad Name" that about how far I can go.... that's why I am not interested in seeing the show.. I looked at the band's name featured in the show..I am glad that the show found its audience! To a long run to the show!! and CONGRATS to all the great reviews!

J*

Updated On: 4/8/09 at 10:09 AM

[Jane2]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 10:55am

How funny-now that the NY Times raved about ROA, the haters have their made up reasons why there's something wrong with Isherwood, and that rather than love the show, he's trying to prove something. ANYTHING to try and discredit the show.

Of course, if it were a show THEY LIKED, Isherwood would be called a genius.

So transparent, the haters.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 11:03am

While I do think Isherwood was wrong about his review of ROCK OF AGES, I don't hate him because of that - I despise him for panning the brilliance of IRENA'S VOW.

I'm still not convinced that ROA will recoup though. PASSING STRANGE, another show i loathed, got across the board rave reviews, and closed in a few months. XANADU got rave reviews too, and while it ran over a year, it still closed in the red. Anything can happen.
Updated On: 4/8/09 at 11:03 AM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 11:13am

Trace, how can you think someone's opinion is wrong? I just don't get that.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 11:20am

I just do. I'm sorry, YankeeFan...I'm being completely honest.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 11:22am

I thought PASSING STRANGE was one of the most brilliant pieces of theater in years, yet you loathed it. I don't think you're wrong for hating it.

It just boggles me. And I mean that with no disrespect whatsoever, just the spirit of a friendly conversation.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 11:28am

Thanks, YankeeFan. I guess I should be a little more open minded (and I always am before I see shows), but after seeing this show live and having the worst time I've ever had in any theater, I just can't be when it comes to ROA.

[Jane2]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 11:29am

A person's opinion CANNOT be criticized as being wrong. You can disagree with it, but you cannot deem it as WRONG.

There are no wrongs or rights when an organic thing such as an opinion is stated. That's like saying "you're wrong for liking that dress." HUH?????

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 11:32am

Thank you, Jane2. I agree with you.

[Hest882]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 11:32am

Congratulations ROA! This 80s girl, who was pleasantly surprised by the off-Broadway show, is delighted.

NY Post - meh at 2.5 stars
"When it comes to recycling, "Rock of Ages" pales compared to "Xanadu," which actually improved on its source material with plenty of winks and one-liners. But "Xanadu" was a huge camp fest, while "Rock of Ages" is safe for skittish straight guys."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04082009/entertainment/theater/hit_parades_not_rock_solid_163452.htm"

NY Daily News - positive
"The unapologetically silly show opened Tuesday night at the Brooks Atkinson Theatre, slightly revised from its fall Off-Broadway run but with the same don't-take-it-serious, winking attitude that made it so easy to like."
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/arts/2009/04/08/2009-04-08_rock_of_ages_delivers_80s_sprinkled_with.html

Village Voice - positive
"Now, unleashed in all its defiant glory on the Great Whitesnake Way, the grandiosity, the absurdity, the audacity of it all is just too overwhelming, lethal in its charm even for those cloaked in full ironic-detachment body armor."
http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-04-08/music/rock-of-ages-start-believin/



Updated On: 4/8/09 at 11:32 AM

[Jane2]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 11:35am

"Thank you, Jane2. I agree with you."

You do? OK!

[Insider2]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 11:50am

It is truly incredible how vile some of you people are - Actually sitting here, HOPING that this show gets rotten reviews and fails. And yes, now that Isherwood has given it a rave, there is something wrong with him too. And all the other people who raved about the show.

And then, when you (and you know who you are) have no other reasonable argument to make, you start arguments over semantics (what is a "pan", what is a "rave", what is "very positive".). I've got one: WHAT IS A MORON? (Free answer: Look in a mirror.)

Is ROCK OF AGES the second coming of Christ in a basket? Of course not. Is it going to alter the course of musical theatre throughout the world? No. Is it going to entertain, and put smiles on a lot of people's faces and give them a really, really fun time in the theatre? Absolutely. That is all it set out to do, and there, it succeeds perfectly.

And by the way, these producers are some of the only ones in town who "get it" about this economy, keeping their ticket prices fairly reasonable instead of charging nearly a hundred and fifty bucks per ticket and then crying about the fact that their houses are playing at 50% capacity. So give them a break, and if you don't like ROCK OF AGES, go see something else instead instead of hoping for the show to fail.

[MiracleElixir]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 12:01pm

"While I do think Isherwood was wrong about his review of ROCK OF AGES, I don't hate him because of that - I despise him for panning the brilliance of IRENA'S VOW."

Like others have echoed, SOMEONE'S OPINION CANNOT BE "WRONG." And let me re-iterate how petty and stupid and infantile it is to "despise" someone for disagreeing with you. And I'm sorry, you can totally love IRENA'S VOW as much as you want -- that is your right -- but "brilliance"?! Come on. Please, please explain what was "brilliant" or even intelligent, about this play. Not what you liked/loved, or what you thought was good/great, but what was actually "brilliant"?


"I'm still not convinced that ROA will recoup though. PASSING STRANGE, another show i loathed, got across the board rave reviews, and closed in a few months. XANADU got rave reviews too, and while it ran over a year, it still closed in the red. Anything can happen."

No one has ever tried to make the argument that good reviews always translate into box office gold. The shows that are tailor-made to please audiences are going to make money whether the reviews are good or bad -- reviews usually only matter for shows where the audience demographic is people who make their opinions carefully and factor in what critics have to say.

Something wildly uncommercial and challenging will usually fail regardless of reviews, but reviews can sometimes serve to help a show that could go either way with audiences, or one that may be a tougher sell.

While I'm mildly happy ROCK OF AGES received the positive reviews I predicted (seemingly all alone) that it would, I would argue this may be the only show of the season whose rave reviews might not make a lick of difference. I seriously doubt literate theatre types (i.e.: review readers) are going to run out and see ROCK OF AGES, and I doubt those inclined from the beginning to go see it will care what the New York Times had to say.
Updated On: 4/8/09 at 12:01 PM

[1183]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 12:01pm

The reviews are great. The show is great. People love it. It's a hit. Everyone should be happy about having a hit on Broadway. Good for Times Square, good for New York, good for theater, good for America. Be happy.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 12:05pm

No one's pissed about it...
I hated the show, but honestly said I'm glad for it. I would never wish a show to fail, no matter how much I liked or disliked it.

And a show (for the bajillionth time) is not a hit until it recoups its investment.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 12:12pm

It's a hit!!

[1183]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 12:14pm

Thanks for clarifying "hit" --- but really my friend - it is a hit. I deem it so. So it be done.

[MiracleElixir]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 12:15pm

Jeez, you both are embarrassing.

You hate the show, we get it, but a show can be declared a hit once it starts selling extremely well, making money each week and has positive word-of-mouth. It's not as if we can't use the nomenclature until the second it recoups.

However, starlight, NONE of those things have happened yet, except (arguably) the word of mouth. So let's keep your verbal ejaculation under control for at least a few weeks...

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 12:19pm

I'm glad you're embarrassed by my comments...'cause I'm not.

I don't understand what I said that's so wrong. It's not even worth arguing: a show is only a hit if it recoups and starts making money, no matter what.

I wish the show the best of luck. Period. How is any of that embarrassing...?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 12:22pm

How about you don't tell me what I can say and, I don't tell you (which I never, ever have) the same?

It's a hit!

[1183]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 12:23pm

I would argue that "hit" is subjective.

[MiracleElixir]

Posted: 4/8/09 at 12:25pm

The fact that one would even attempt (let alone insist, as you're doing) to place a specific, detailed definition on a word as subjective as "hit" is what I found embarrassing. I highly doubt you'd use such extremities were someone to apply the word "hit" to a BILLY ELLIOT, even though that has yet to recoup either. All I was saying was that your bias wuz showin' and resulting in silliness.