THE HONEYMOONERS at Paper Mill- Page 3

[Cfried]

Posted: 10/10/17 at 9:00pm

Very nice review from The New York Times...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/theater/the-honeymooners-review-papermill-playhouse.html?referer=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com

[ACL2006]

Posted: 10/10/17 at 9:17pm

Somehow got roped into seeing this tomorrow. I'll report back, but I'm going in with low expectations.

[bk]

Posted: 10/11/17 at 1:46am

Well, c'mon, the Times review is by a third-stringer.

[macnyc]

Posted: 10/11/17 at 8:48am

bk said: "Well, c'mon, the Times review is by a third-stringer."

I would hardly call Neil Genzlinger a third-stringer. He has quite an extensive background and is certainly a qualified critic. 

 

[perfectliar]

Posted: 10/11/17 at 12:52pm

macnyc said: "bk said: I would hardly call Neil Genzlinger a third-stringer. Hehas quite an extensive background and is certainly a qualified critic."

But he's not Brantley or Green, so he is.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 10/11/17 at 11:58pm

Just got home from seeing this. It'll basically repeat what everyone has already said. It needs work. Too many big production numbers thrown in to stretch the show out.  McGrath & Kritzer carry the show and make it worth going for. Mastro is also just as good as Norton. Laura Bell Bundy was the only weak point among the leads. Maybe it's due to Trixie's story being overwritten, but I found myself not caring and wanting more of McGrath, Mastro & Krizter. Numbers that need to go: the tap number(YIKES!), Infine La Felicita(possibly the tap number?), The Racoons Hymn, Keepin It Warm. It's been stated before, but it just doesn't seem possible to turn a 22 minute sitcom into a 2 hour musical. This will flop on Broadway without some serious work.

 

Two interesting things happened tonight. 1.) They started with an announcement that one of the vans bringing the actors in from New York was running late and the show would start in 15 minutes. Odd, but it later led me to believe it was due to the second announcement. 2.) McGrath ends up stopping the show midway during a scene he's in in Act 2 to announce he's battling something and says we can probably tell due to his voice and apologized to the audience and he'll try his best to get through the rest of the show. Maybe they were trying to get his understudy ready(Michael Walters) and the 15 minutes was being used to cover the rehearsal time they used on Walters but realised he wouldn't be ready. It would be an interesting scenario if Walters would need to go on tomorrow(two show day), but moreso who would cover Walters' part(won't spoil it, but I can't see a swing covering his part). If anyone is going tomorrow, or at all this week, please report on whether McGrath or Walters on as Ralph.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 10/12/17 at 12:01am

They really do bring the actors from NYC in vans, so if there was a wreck, etc, it would delay them getting to the theater. So I think that's a believable excuse. 

But if this was 90 minutes would people pay $!50 for it? 

[gleek4114]

Posted: 10/12/17 at 12:06am

If anyone is going soon and would be willing to grab an extra program for me, I'd be more than happy to pay the shipping. 

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

Posted: 10/12/17 at 9:29am

I'm following this rather closely, as one of the musicals I have in development is also based on a sitcom. So what I'm gleaning from the reviews is this: keep it simple/shorter, hire kick-butt actors, and for heaven's sake, make sure that score is memorable.

As an aside, didn't McGrath end up leaving She Loves Me because of health reasons? I really hope the guy is okay. I just adore him as an actor.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/12/17 at 9:58am

^Shorter is only better if that's what the plot need.  But these are things needed for ANY good musical.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 10/13/17 at 12:32pm

Anyone know if McGrath did both shows yesterday?

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 10/13/17 at 5:26pm

He was out both shows and tonight. Seeing it tonight. Can’t wait

Updated On: 10/13/17 at 05:26 PM

[ACL2006]

Posted: 10/13/17 at 7:25pm

Curious how Walters is in the role. He's a pro Jackie Gleason impersonator. And as I've mentioned earlier, I'm curious who fills in his track considering I doubt any of the swings or even any ensemble members could do what Walters does at the end of the show.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 10/15/17 at 6:36pm

Curious if anyone saw the show this weekend and if McGrath was back?

[Cfried]

Posted: 10/15/17 at 7:28pm

Saw the show last night...McGrath was back in (and was great)! 

I thoroughly enjoyed this production and thought Leslie Kritzer was incredible. It was a nice night out, but I just don’t see this on Broadway. It would be a wonderful show regionally and perhaps a tour would be a good idea...but Broadway? Hmm. 

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 10/17/17 at 2:47pm

I saw the show last Friday and loved every second of it. Michael Walters was perfection in the role,  I also thoroughly enjoyed the show. I just saw that performance was reviewed if anyone wants to read a full account of Mr. Walters performance

Review

[Skip23]

Posted: 10/19/17 at 4:51pm

McGrath should never let Walters share the stage with him. The comparison is not kind. 

 

All in all - it’s a pretty forgettable show. Don’t see anyone shelling out $129 for such a tepid, forced diversion 

 

 

[Skip23]

Posted: 10/19/17 at 4:52pm

SEMI SPOILER

McGrath should never let Walters share the stage with him. The comparison is not kind. 

 

All in all - it’s a pretty forgettable show. Don’t see anyone shelling out $129 for such a tepid, forced diversion 

 

 

Updated On: 10/19/17 at 04:52 PM

[DontbeaBroadwaybitch]

Posted: 10/19/17 at 9:08pm

I've been somewhat of a lurker on these boards for years. I've never felt compelled or interested in commenting, because the armchair critics and "professionals" always seem more interested in tearing something down than they are in fostering it or even giving something the possibility of growth. It's an out of town tryout for a reason.

I fully admit that I am a Honeymooners fan, and I was dreading this show, but I became a fan, because the people that wrote it had a great deal of respect for the Original and it shows. I've now seen Honeymooners twice: Once with the complete original cast and once with understudy Walters in for McGrath. Both were wonderful performances. While I agree that the show isn't perfect, it isn't the utter abortion some posters on here seem to be either posting about, or perhaps,wishing for. This is NOT The Addams Family. The writers here knew the source material, and the actors  and creatives evidently , have a deep and abiding respect for it.

To make the assertion that McGrath, a brilliant actor and Tony Award winner, would be intimidated by Walters in the role is insulting to both performers. Walters was placed in the show as they needed someone to nail the real Gleason in their Meta finale. He accomplishes that in spades. McGrath doesn't need to do a direct impersonation of Gleason. He delivers Ralph Kramden as if Ralph were indeed a real person, and not a carbon copy of Gleason's incarnation. As an understudy, Walters did what he professes in his bio to do best, and the audience didn't seem to object in the slightest.

The most salient point to make here is this: if this show isn't for you, you're probably right. In both performances I've seen, the audience surrounding me was grinning from ear to ear from Overture to the final curtain. This show will indeed find an audience on Broadway. No, it may not run long, and that might be OK. It's a brand, and people that love the TV show will come out to see it. 

Not everything on Broadway is going to be The Great Comet. You have to make room for a Honeymooners and a Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, because, whether any of you care to admit it or not, it's these fluffy tourist shows that you so readily turn your noses up at that keep these artistically loftier shows viable in this economy.

Just my Two Cents, but before you decide to wield your poison pen, remember, a healthy Broadway is a diverse one.

[DontbeaBroadwaybitch]

Posted: 10/19/17 at 9:08pm

I've been somewhat of a lurker on these boards for years. I've never felt compelled or interested in commenting, because the armchair critics and "professionals" always seem more interested in tearing something down than they are in fostering it or even giving something the possibility of growth. It's an out of town tryout for a reason.

I fully admit that I am a Honeymooners fan, and I was dreading this show, but I became a fan, because the people that wrote it had a great deal of respect for the Original and it shows. I've now seen Honeymooners twice: Once with the complete original cast and once with understudy Walters in for McGrath. Both were wonderful performances. While I agree that the show isn't perfect, it isn't the utter abortion some posters on here seem to be either posting about, or perhaps,wishing for. This is NOT The Addams Family. The writers here knew the source material, and the actors  and creatives evidently , have a deep and abiding respect for it.

To make the assertion that McGrath, a brilliant actor and Tony Award winner, would be intimidated by Walters in the role is insulting to both performers. Walters was placed in the show as they needed someone to nail the real Gleason in their Meta finale. He accomplishes that in spades. McGrath doesn't need to do a direct impersonation of Gleason. He delivers Ralph Kramden as if Ralph were indeed a real person, and not a carbon copy of Gleason's incarnation. As an understudy, Walters did what he professes in his bio to do best, and the audience didn't seem to object in the slightest.

The most salient point to make here is this: if this show isn't for you, you're probably right. In both performances I've seen, the audience surrounding me was grinning from ear to ear from Overture to the final curtain. This show will indeed find an audience on Broadway. No, it may not run long, and that might be OK. It's a brand, and people that love the TV show will come out to see it. 

Not everything on Broadway is going to be The Great Comet. You have to make room for a Honeymooners and a Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, because, whether any of you care to admit it or not, it's these fluffy tourist shows that you so readily turn your noses up at that keep these artistically loftier shows viable in this economy. When patrons buy a ticket to a fluff show, they also are more likely to see something more critically or artistically deeper.

Just my Two Cents, but before you decide to wield your poison pen, remember, a healthy Broadway is a diverse one.

Updated On: 10/19/17 at 09:08 PM

[Skip23]

Posted: 10/19/17 at 9:50pm

Diversity is one thing.  Blandness is quite another.

But don't mind me.  I HATED Waitress.  Depressed me for days.  THIS is what Broadway is coming to?  Musicalized mashed potatoes.

And I didn't say McGrath would be intimidated by Walters.  I said it's not a fair comparison.  Walters IS Ralph Kramden/Jackie Gleason.  McGrath always feels like he's trying to imitate him.

As for audience reaction, and admittedly I was at a major blue hair matinee, but there was barely enough applause for a curtain call.  Simply polite applause at most songs.  No grinning from ear to ear from where I sat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 10/19/17 at 9:58pm

WAITRESS depressed you for days?!?!?!?  WAITRESS?!?!?

[Skip23]

Posted: 10/19/17 at 10:11pm

YES!!!! WAAAAAAAIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTRRRRRRREEEEEEEESSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!

 

 

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 10/19/17 at 10:13pm

I love a mature, well thought out explanation.

[broadwayboy223]

Posted: 10/19/17 at 10:22pm

Out of all the contemporary musicals to hate, you hate Waitress? I don't think its perfect necessarily, but the score is great and the message of the show is beautiful. If anything Dear Evan Hansen is what you should be screaming "THIS IS WHAT BROADWAY IS COMING TO?!?!" it tries so hard to emphasize "its 2017 here's a contemporary musical" and the plot seems to be written by the community of tumblr. Waitress is SO much better.