"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
