#26
Posted: 10/22/05 at 1:45am
I can't believe that Barefoot In The Park is coming next. This should be very interesting indeed.
THE ODD COUPLE - REVIEW — Page 2
#27
Posted: 10/22/05 at 3:18am
Yes, well I guess that me and those people who spent 21 million dollars in advance ticket sales to see this dated play will agree to disagree with you.
"Smart! And into all those exotic mystiques -- The Kama Sutra and Chinese techniques. I hear she knows more than seventy-five. Call me tomorrow if you're still alive!"
#28
Posted: 10/22/05 at 4:27am
is Entertainment Weekly last week they had a list of ticket prices and they had the Odd Couple on there for like $1,190 - can that be right?! Who would pay that much for this show? (Not that I think that this show is bad, but who would pay that for any show?)
#29
Posted: 10/22/05 at 9:56am
I'm all a tingle in anticipation of "Your" review when you finally get to see this play yourself. Then we can have a real discussion.
I don't care if they have twenty billion in advanced sales. If I can keep ten people from wasting their money ... then so be it.
I don't care if they have twenty billion in advanced sales. If I can keep ten people from wasting their money ... then so be it.
#30
Posted: 10/22/05 at 11:14am
Hey there ... RentBoy86
I think it's a publicity stunt. No one on the face of the earth would be that stupid.
I think it's a publicity stunt. No one on the face of the earth would be that stupid.
#31
Posted: 10/22/05 at 11:50am
Are you saying that people who actually enjoyed this show are wrong? Saying that you'll be "spared" if you don't get to see it sure sounds like that to me. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but when you get elitist and start telling people what to think - frankly that just pisses me off. If you weren't, then I apologize, but that is how I read your messages.
I spent a good deal of money to see it and it was worth every penny to me. I thought it was a fantastic performace - does that mean I should be shot on site? Well then load the guns now...
I spent a good deal of money to see it and it was worth every penny to me. I thought it was a fantastic performace - does that mean I should be shot on site? Well then load the guns now...
"If you start from a place of joy and charm, you can get away with a lot in the second act. It may be that that's my life. I'm not sure."
~Roger Bart
#32
Posted: 10/22/05 at 12:55pm
Hi. I'm sorry, but I kind of have to agree with the original poster on many points. The show is not awful, but it certainly doesn't, in my opinion, measure up to the hype.
I tried to get tix when they went on sale but because I no longer use my AmEx card, I was shut out. Fortunately for me, a friend could not use his tix for last nights show so myself and my 71 year old mother went. I know that my friend paid over $250 per seat from a broker for these tix, and I heard the people behind me state that their tix were $300 each.
Had I been one of those who paid $300 for a ticket to this show, I'd really be disappointed.
Nathan Lane was great. I do think Broderick was awful. I don't know if he was just trying too hard but he came off as whiny and annoying. Brad Garrett was excellent and I also thought Rob Bartlett did a great job. The other 2 poker players were unmemorable. The 2 girls were ok but their roles really didn't go anywhere.
I'm the kind of person that wants to be impressed when she spends $100 on a show ticket. I admit it's hard to do that. Had I paid $300 a piece for these tix, I would have felt VERY ripped off. I also felt that the audience, although they did applaud and give a standing O, was not overly enthralled either. Usually, as you leave a theatre, you'll hear everyone around you commenting about the show..."that was fantastic" or "that was so great". I heard NONE of that last night. Nor did I hear any favorable comments during intermission. (Not that there weren't any; I just didn't hear them.) I think the standing O was more out of respect for the actors. I just didn't feel that rush of excitement as you do when the curtain goes down on a truly fabulous performance.
Maybe the flaw is the play itself. I honestly don't know. But both my Mom and I left, glad that we had seen it, but glad that it was over in a sense as well.
I wondered why I didn't see too much buzz on these forums in the past week or two. I still wonder why.
Just my 2 cents. Thanks for listening. I love reading the boards here.
~L
I tried to get tix when they went on sale but because I no longer use my AmEx card, I was shut out. Fortunately for me, a friend could not use his tix for last nights show so myself and my 71 year old mother went. I know that my friend paid over $250 per seat from a broker for these tix, and I heard the people behind me state that their tix were $300 each.
Had I been one of those who paid $300 for a ticket to this show, I'd really be disappointed.
Nathan Lane was great. I do think Broderick was awful. I don't know if he was just trying too hard but he came off as whiny and annoying. Brad Garrett was excellent and I also thought Rob Bartlett did a great job. The other 2 poker players were unmemorable. The 2 girls were ok but their roles really didn't go anywhere.
I'm the kind of person that wants to be impressed when she spends $100 on a show ticket. I admit it's hard to do that. Had I paid $300 a piece for these tix, I would have felt VERY ripped off. I also felt that the audience, although they did applaud and give a standing O, was not overly enthralled either. Usually, as you leave a theatre, you'll hear everyone around you commenting about the show..."that was fantastic" or "that was so great". I heard NONE of that last night. Nor did I hear any favorable comments during intermission. (Not that there weren't any; I just didn't hear them.) I think the standing O was more out of respect for the actors. I just didn't feel that rush of excitement as you do when the curtain goes down on a truly fabulous performance.
Maybe the flaw is the play itself. I honestly don't know. But both my Mom and I left, glad that we had seen it, but glad that it was over in a sense as well.
I wondered why I didn't see too much buzz on these forums in the past week or two. I still wonder why.
Just my 2 cents. Thanks for listening. I love reading the boards here.
~L
#33
Posted: 10/22/05 at 1:01pm
It doesn't "measure up to the hype" because it never belonged back on Broadway! There's no way it could measure up to any hype. There is NO PURPOSE in producing the show for the stage again.
That simple. It's near impossible to disagree with that fact.
It has always been, and will always be, an average show. It takes no risks and delivers no new messages.
That simple. It's near impossible to disagree with that fact.
It has always been, and will always be, an average show. It takes no risks and delivers no new messages.
Updated On: 10/22/05 at 01:01 PM
#34
Posted: 10/22/05 at 1:27pm
You are kidding right? You actually saw THE ODD COUPLE in NY? In the last week?
#35
Posted: 10/22/05 at 1:34pm
No. I haven't seen the Odd Couple on Broadway yet and I never claimed to have seen it.....
Updated On: 10/22/05 at 01:34 PM
#36
Posted: 10/22/05 at 1:39pm
Thanks ... lh8990
I have watched Theatre all over the world for the last thirty years. Is the Odd Couple the worst play I've ever seen. Of course not. Believe me when I say I have seen different versions of this play at least five times. I think the upsetting part is how this play was packaged and why it was packaged. Apparently, from what I am reading on this site, Barefoot in the Park is coming to NY soon. I truly hope the producers and the writer think long and hard about updating certain information in that play. Although I personally think Barefoot In The Park will hold up a bit better, again, it's not old enough to be a true period piece.
I have watched Theatre all over the world for the last thirty years. Is the Odd Couple the worst play I've ever seen. Of course not. Believe me when I say I have seen different versions of this play at least five times. I think the upsetting part is how this play was packaged and why it was packaged. Apparently, from what I am reading on this site, Barefoot in the Park is coming to NY soon. I truly hope the producers and the writer think long and hard about updating certain information in that play. Although I personally think Barefoot In The Park will hold up a bit better, again, it's not old enough to be a true period piece.
#37
Posted: 10/22/05 at 1:44pm
Sorry 442namffug ... you and I are on the same page.
the reference to "Did you Actually See..."
was made to PRODUCERS FAN message.
Since I am new to this site I just thought that when you responded to a message it would naturally drop in right after the message you were responding too.
the reference to "Did you Actually See..."
was made to PRODUCERS FAN message.
Since I am new to this site I just thought that when you responded to a message it would naturally drop in right after the message you were responding too.
#38
Posted: 10/22/05 at 2:46pm
"I'm all a tingle in anticipation of "Your" review when you finally get to see this play yourself. Then we can have a real discussion."
Well, you are new to this board but it seems that you have quickly developed some of the bad habits of a number of people who have been posting here for quite a while, like not bothering to properly read the posts of the people to whom you are responding. Or, maybe you did read mine and just don't have a proper compression of the english language.
I said in my original post that "I have not seen this production and I WILL NOT SEE IT because it's sold out so I have no problem with you opinion on what you saw in this production ....."
Therefore, we will never have a REAL discussion about this production and having acted in "The Odd Couple" twice and directed it three times (including the female version) there is really nothing about the play that you would be able to shed any light on.
Well, you are new to this board but it seems that you have quickly developed some of the bad habits of a number of people who have been posting here for quite a while, like not bothering to properly read the posts of the people to whom you are responding. Or, maybe you did read mine and just don't have a proper compression of the english language.
I said in my original post that "I have not seen this production and I WILL NOT SEE IT because it's sold out so I have no problem with you opinion on what you saw in this production ....."
Therefore, we will never have a REAL discussion about this production and having acted in "The Odd Couple" twice and directed it three times (including the female version) there is really nothing about the play that you would be able to shed any light on.
"Smart! And into all those exotic mystiques -- The Kama Sutra and Chinese techniques. I hear she knows more than seventy-five. Call me tomorrow if you're still alive!"
#40
Posted: 10/22/05 at 2:57pm
Great comeback.
"Smart! And into all those exotic mystiques -- The Kama Sutra and Chinese techniques. I hear she knows more than seventy-five. Call me tomorrow if you're still alive!"
#41
Posted: 10/22/05 at 4:09pm
You know, OneEros, we do agree on one thing: message boards are a place to post opinions. Having said that, the problem I have with your post is that you joined BWW, and immediately got everyone ticked off by posting a superior, scathing, character assassination that is completly devoid of any objective criticism and is not going to make you any friends. We agree to disagree here sometimes, but some people on the boards at least attempt to be objective and professional in their criticism.
You may think the play is dated or bad, and you may think that there are actors on the stage who don't belong there (so do I but I would include Garrett in that group so there we have to disagree) and that is fine. But, to nastily state that if someone else has a differing opinion they should go back to acting school is really just inflammatory. I have acted and directed for a very long time and I have many industry contacts and friends as well. I don't say this to impress you or to get any props...just to let you know that I'm not some 15 year old Wicked fan looking to pretend I know something. Most of the people I've talked to about this show agree that there is still work to be done and that some audiences will find the play dated (but that's not the fault of the actors) but they enjoyed the performance overall. And most have found Rob Bartlett and Lee Wilkoff to be enjoyable, though you did not. Still you are entitled to your opinion and I won't insult you by saying you should go back to acting school.
I will grant you that Broderick needs to settle into the character. He is not there yet. But I don't think he was hideously bad, nor do I think his performance was as 'adequate' as Garrett's (adequate being an insult in the acting community). I think it will be better than it is now.
The glaring omission in your post is the fact that this play is still in previews and that they are still working out kinks. If you don't want to see a work in progress, as an industry 'in the know' person you should know better than to go to a preview. Save your money and go after the show opens and THEN grouse about the show not being ready.
And just as a closing note...Lane is never seen at Sardis. Joe Allen's perhaps, but Sardi's?
I hope you are able to see a show that tickles your fancy and come back and post about that so that we can better understand your standards. When you tell me that the show and Broderick suck and then counter it using Garrett as an example of excellence, I am completely at a loss as to how your standards developed. For TV sit com, OK...for stage work...he still NEEDS work!
You may think the play is dated or bad, and you may think that there are actors on the stage who don't belong there (so do I but I would include Garrett in that group so there we have to disagree) and that is fine. But, to nastily state that if someone else has a differing opinion they should go back to acting school is really just inflammatory. I have acted and directed for a very long time and I have many industry contacts and friends as well. I don't say this to impress you or to get any props...just to let you know that I'm not some 15 year old Wicked fan looking to pretend I know something. Most of the people I've talked to about this show agree that there is still work to be done and that some audiences will find the play dated (but that's not the fault of the actors) but they enjoyed the performance overall. And most have found Rob Bartlett and Lee Wilkoff to be enjoyable, though you did not. Still you are entitled to your opinion and I won't insult you by saying you should go back to acting school.
I will grant you that Broderick needs to settle into the character. He is not there yet. But I don't think he was hideously bad, nor do I think his performance was as 'adequate' as Garrett's (adequate being an insult in the acting community). I think it will be better than it is now.
The glaring omission in your post is the fact that this play is still in previews and that they are still working out kinks. If you don't want to see a work in progress, as an industry 'in the know' person you should know better than to go to a preview. Save your money and go after the show opens and THEN grouse about the show not being ready.
And just as a closing note...Lane is never seen at Sardis. Joe Allen's perhaps, but Sardi's?
I hope you are able to see a show that tickles your fancy and come back and post about that so that we can better understand your standards. When you tell me that the show and Broderick suck and then counter it using Garrett as an example of excellence, I am completely at a loss as to how your standards developed. For TV sit com, OK...for stage work...he still NEEDS work!
"Life is a lesson in humility"
#42
Posted: 10/22/05 at 4:21pm
Ok first and foremost.....all I have to say is SHILL FOR DOUBT!!!! Second, opinions are opinions, but Ignorance isn't forgivable and that review just stunk of ingnorance.
I got rid of my teeth at a young age because... I'm straight. Teeth are for gay people. That's why fairies come and get them
#43
Posted: 10/22/05 at 4:26pm
It wasn't a publicity stunt - anyone read this article in EW? It has Chris Rock on the cover, did ppl actually pay that much per ticket? Or what? I'm confused - that's a big chunk of change.
#44
Posted: 10/22/05 at 7:43pm
I don't understand your response to me. Am I not allowed to like this show? Why? Who are you to tell me what to like or dislike? Who gave you this power? Last I heard it was a free country where people were free to form their own opinions.
Yes dear, I did see The Odd Couple in NY, on 10/9. Why would I kid about this? I happened to enjoy the show immensely. So sue me.
Yes dear, I did see The Odd Couple in NY, on 10/9. Why would I kid about this? I happened to enjoy the show immensely. So sue me.
"If you start from a place of joy and charm, you can get away with a lot in the second act. It may be that that's my life. I'm not sure."
~Roger Bart
#45
Posted: 10/22/05 at 7:58pm
"that review just stunk of ingnorance. "
Who are you to say that? Obviously, Eros can intelligently compose a review that happens to raise very valid points. These points demonstrate knowledge about the "theatre world". No ignorance there.
Who are you to say that? Obviously, Eros can intelligently compose a review that happens to raise very valid points. These points demonstrate knowledge about the "theatre world". No ignorance there.
Updated On: 10/22/05 at 07:58 PM
#46
Posted: 10/22/05 at 8:18pm
Dear PAB ...
If you have actually been in this play, and directed this play... then you may know me. I can't help but wonder why someone that has had such a LONG standing relationship with this play... wasn't gifted tickets... as they were to me.
And since you have not seen this version of the play, and will not be seeing this version of the play, our banter back and forth is a moot point.
Correct me if I am wrong but these message boards exist for us to share our view points? There is not a right way or wrong way for us to express ourselves, PAB. But, sadly, you seem to think that there is only one way... YOUR WAY.
Now PAB, since you are such an expert on this site, you should know that you have broken one of the main rules many times. You have chosen to attack me on a personal level, which I find extremely fascinating since you have such a superior grasp of the English Language. "Me Thinks Thou Doth Protest Too Much."
Either stick to the subject at hand which is the review of this 2005 Production of the "The Odd Couple" or move on to someone else that actually believes your story of having acted and directed this play SO many times that the powers of BE wouldn't gift you a ticket to this dog of a show.
If you have actually been in this play, and directed this play... then you may know me. I can't help but wonder why someone that has had such a LONG standing relationship with this play... wasn't gifted tickets... as they were to me.
And since you have not seen this version of the play, and will not be seeing this version of the play, our banter back and forth is a moot point.
Correct me if I am wrong but these message boards exist for us to share our view points? There is not a right way or wrong way for us to express ourselves, PAB. But, sadly, you seem to think that there is only one way... YOUR WAY.
Now PAB, since you are such an expert on this site, you should know that you have broken one of the main rules many times. You have chosen to attack me on a personal level, which I find extremely fascinating since you have such a superior grasp of the English Language. "Me Thinks Thou Doth Protest Too Much."
Either stick to the subject at hand which is the review of this 2005 Production of the "The Odd Couple" or move on to someone else that actually believes your story of having acted and directed this play SO many times that the powers of BE wouldn't gift you a ticket to this dog of a show.
Updated On: 10/22/05 at 08:18 PM
#47
Posted: 10/22/05 at 8:37pm
Dear SAM I AM ...
Well, I guess you told me. I will not be giving my "Credits" nor a rebuttal. Apparently those two poker players that you have referred to on two different occasions are your friends. I can certainly understand wanting to stick up for a friend.
I suggest you take the time to write your own review so that we can then debate your point of view. However, I am sticking to the fact that this is a lemon. A big lemon. Broderick's performance will not change in the next week. That I will guarantee you.
Most of the great acting teachers in the world have been quoted saying that "Many of our greatest actors would have been ruined by acting class." I've watched Everyone Loves Raymond twice in all the years it's been on television. I don't know anything about Brad Garretts training or background. But maybe you didn't notice that the audience responded to him. They didn't respond to your friends by the way. I responded to Lane and Garrett, hence my review.
And just a footnote ... I saw the play after you did. There was no standing ovation. At all.
And apparently you didn't read my whole review or you would have noticed that I told everyone to Run not walk to "DOUBT"
Would you like to now debate a Pulitzer Prize winner?
Well, I guess you told me. I will not be giving my "Credits" nor a rebuttal. Apparently those two poker players that you have referred to on two different occasions are your friends. I can certainly understand wanting to stick up for a friend.
I suggest you take the time to write your own review so that we can then debate your point of view. However, I am sticking to the fact that this is a lemon. A big lemon. Broderick's performance will not change in the next week. That I will guarantee you.
Most of the great acting teachers in the world have been quoted saying that "Many of our greatest actors would have been ruined by acting class." I've watched Everyone Loves Raymond twice in all the years it's been on television. I don't know anything about Brad Garretts training or background. But maybe you didn't notice that the audience responded to him. They didn't respond to your friends by the way. I responded to Lane and Garrett, hence my review.
And just a footnote ... I saw the play after you did. There was no standing ovation. At all.
And apparently you didn't read my whole review or you would have noticed that I told everyone to Run not walk to "DOUBT"
Would you like to now debate a Pulitzer Prize winner?
Updated On: 10/22/05 at 08:37 PM
#48
Posted: 10/22/05 at 8:40pm
Carl Magnum
Now Carl if you could spell Ignorance ... we might take you seriously.
Now Carl if you could spell Ignorance ... we might take you seriously.
#49
Posted: 10/22/05 at 8:53pm
ProducersFan
I do apologize. In my zest to get my point across, I did not mean to belittle your enjoyment of the show.
I guess my frustration with this show and a lot of the commercial comedy and musical comedy on Broadway is the lack of taking risks.
There is nothing more exciting then going to the theatre and witnessing "a moment" with a performer and an audience, that sends goosebumps up your arms and neck. If we pay $100 we deserve to have one such moment. I don't think that's asking too much.
There are people that will never be able to see a Broadway show because the tickets have gotten to be too expensive. If we aren't careful with the age of technology and the price of real estate, Theatre will be a lost art. We need to take risks and remind the public what Theatre is all about. Not just play it safe.
Again, please accept my apology.
I do apologize. In my zest to get my point across, I did not mean to belittle your enjoyment of the show.
I guess my frustration with this show and a lot of the commercial comedy and musical comedy on Broadway is the lack of taking risks.
There is nothing more exciting then going to the theatre and witnessing "a moment" with a performer and an audience, that sends goosebumps up your arms and neck. If we pay $100 we deserve to have one such moment. I don't think that's asking too much.
There are people that will never be able to see a Broadway show because the tickets have gotten to be too expensive. If we aren't careful with the age of technology and the price of real estate, Theatre will be a lost art. We need to take risks and remind the public what Theatre is all about. Not just play it safe.
Again, please accept my apology.
Updated On: 10/22/05 at 08:53 PM
#50
Posted: 10/22/05 at 9:34pm
OneEros, I posted about THE ODD COUPLE at about the same time Sam did, and while I also thought it was not as fresh as I expected it would be (a neatnik, sensitive straight man who cries and is a whiz in the kitchen and housework may have seemed bizarre in 1965 but is much less of a novelty now), I also thought it was still an enjoyable play with warm characterizations by Lane & Broderick. I was much less impressed with Brad Garret than you were. I also thought that Broderick was still recalling Leo Bloom, but I have reason to believe that he's worked though the kinks and has found his Felix by now.
And I agree with you that Broadway should take risks - you won't find a more divided audience than at the recent ASASSINS, PILLOWMAN, DOUBT or SWEENEY TODD - or THE FROGS, a politically charged musical that Nathan Lane undertook because he wanted to stretch and do something a bit different. Lane also got the ball rolling on TRUMBO.
But Broadway also needs the crowd-pleasers, the "Big Events" that people can brag about over the water cooler. It's been that way for generations. Ticket stubs for the Martin-Pinza SOUTH PACIFIC were kept on many a mantel as proud souvenirs to be displayed to company. It's no great tragedy for THE ODD COUPLE to be the latest manifestation of this.
And I agree with you that Broadway should take risks - you won't find a more divided audience than at the recent ASASSINS, PILLOWMAN, DOUBT or SWEENEY TODD - or THE FROGS, a politically charged musical that Nathan Lane undertook because he wanted to stretch and do something a bit different. Lane also got the ball rolling on TRUMBO.
But Broadway also needs the crowd-pleasers, the "Big Events" that people can brag about over the water cooler. It's been that way for generations. Ticket stubs for the Martin-Pinza SOUTH PACIFIC were kept on many a mantel as proud souvenirs to be displayed to company. It's no great tragedy for THE ODD COUPLE to be the latest manifestation of this.
"Christ, Bette Davis?!?!"
Updated On: 10/22/05 at 09:34 PM
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95