Shrek...the musical that goes nowhere- Page 2

[Smaxie]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 7:35am

For that matter...

>It was the same thing with Jersey Boys. Mixed reviews and was always on TKTS, but good work of mouth plus it won the Tony and it's been nearly sold-out every week since.<

I don't think that's an accurate assessment of the Jersey Boys reviews. I think Brantley liked John Lloyd Young more than the show itself, but I recall that everyone else raved.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 8:36am

I would also like to state for the record that even if it was a financial flop, Legally Blonde lasted a helluva lot longer on Broadway than A Tale of Two Cities.

[BroadwayBoy2]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 8:41am

What happened to all the positive things mentioned about Shrek the Musical from when it tried out-of-town? I thought people enjoyed it?

[cat4]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 9:30am

"No, it is not as much fun as the movie, also called 'Shrek,' on which it is based. No, it does not provide $301 worth of pleasure (the price for “premier seating”). Even by the blaring standards of Broadway, it stands out ...for its eye-splitting visual effects and would-be side-splitting jokes. It... certainly has a high density of talent. It also surely has the hardest-working supersize ensemble.......If I haven’t said much about the musical numbers, it’s because they mostly blend together. ...."

OK, these are not my own words. They're actually Ben Brantley's. And NO, he hasn't reviewed Shrek yet. These words are lifted from his review on Young Frankenstein. And if Shrek doesn't improve much by opening night, Ben Brantley will not have to write a new review, he can simply use the old one and replace every "Young Frankenstein" with "Shrek". Afterall, they both are really big shows. And they both have Sutton Foster!!

Well, Shrek isn't really as bad as Young Frankenstein. And I love Sutton Foster. But the show simply is not as funny as the movie. And the movie happened to be on TV 2 days ago, which I saw again. Shrek and Donkey in the movie have way better chemistry. And way funnier.

That being said, the show does have potential. Unfulfilled potential at this moment. But potential still, and they have one month to work on it. There were funny moments, esp every time when Christopher Seiber was on stage. (Did anyone smell Tony? ) And it's a big production with fancy stage setting. Kids will enjoy it.

Sutton Foster is pleasant in the show. She did a tap number. I just wish that she had better roles. She was so good in "The Drowsy Chaperone" add "Thoroughly Modern Millie" as the leading lady. Nowadays she plays Inga and Fiona, yodeling around. A waste of her talent. Just not the right role for her.

Overall, underwhelmed. Updated On: 11/17/08 at 09:30 AM

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 9:48am

Of course it isn't the right role for her.

It isn't set in the 20s.
She isn't doing high kicks.
SHe doesn't sport a brown bob haircut.
And most importantly, it isn't playing at the Marquis!!!

[tommigyrl5]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 11:25am

B3TA07 I've heard that from more than a few people...and no one has said that on the board to I asked.

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Posted: 11/18/08 at 1:24am

I agree about most of what is being said about Shrek. Also saw it Saturday evening. I went because I was curious and it was on TKTS. I had never seen the movie, so didn't realize that most of the lines/some scenes are taken directly from it. Funnily, when I had the TV on at the hotel one of the stations was showing the movie. It was the magic mirror scene, and it was eerily similar - line by line. I turned the channel after 10 minutes.
I enjoyed Chris Sieber and Daniel Breaker. I expected more from Sutton Foster, but at least they worked in a dance number for her. I also wondered why John Tartaglia decided to do this show until I realized that he is doing 3 roles: Pinocchio, The Magic Mirror and Dragon Puppeteer. The later I think being the bigger role.
Glad I saw it, but once was quite enough.