Some comments on STARRY MESSENGER

Just wondering: how could a performer who is "bored" and "disinterested" give a performance that is "decently charismatic?"

I agree with you that he is just the shell of what he once was.

And I thought the play was terrible.

While I'm an admitted Broderick fan (something that is very unpopular on this board), I will concede that he is not always right for some parts he chooses (The Philanthropist, especially). However, I don't think that's the case for The Starry Messenger. I think he gives a great performance in this play. It is a very difficult role with lengthy dialogue and long drawn out scenes. The play itself needs work (at least when I saw it in the first week of previews). The last two roles that I have seen Broderick in are Starry Messenger and a film that will be released shortly called Wonderful World. In both cases, I feel he gives outstanding performances. Careers, as well as life in general, have peaks and valleys. If you evaluate an overall career, his peaks have outweighed the valleys. How many can say the same thing?

---

Updated On: 11/22/09 at 09:49 AM

That awful awful actress is an Academy Award nominated actress. I can't say I agree with your assessment of her performance in this play. I thought the entire cast was outstanding. It's the play itself that needs work.

---

I don't care what awards she has won or been nominated for. Maybe she was good in that movie, but she's awful in this. I found her boring and all of her line readings were very "on the surface." She could have made the part a little more honest and interesting. Nicholas Cage won an Oscar, but that doesnt make him a good actor.