Tarzan Reviews — Page 5

The thing is that the Disney marketing machine is more powerful than any slate of reviews. As I recall, Aida got mostly mixed-to-negative reviews, yet still ran for four-and-a-half years. Tarzan's currently a sellout and probably will continue to be for a little while. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it ended up running for a few years.

---

Newark Star-Ledger is Negative:

"That skinny dude with the nasty dreadlocks is supposed to be Tarzan?

This big green box bordered in plastic fringe is meant to be the African jungle?

Worse than anything, this dumbed-down Disney package of vapid Phil Collins songs with a numbing script is being touted as a new Broadway musical?

The 2005-06 season shudders to a close with "Tarzan," a forgettable extravaganza that opened yesterday at the Richard Rodgers Theatre as the final event to qualify for this year's Tony Awards.

Not that "Tarzan" is likely to win anything except the Straight to Vegas prize.
______________________________________________________________

So lots of grown-ups are destined to bring the kiddies for many months to come, buying tons of souvenirs and trying to convince themselves they got their money's worth. (Can anyone spell "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang"?)

Etch-a-sketched from Edgar Rice Burroughs' old yarn about an aristocratic ape-man, David Henry Hwang's simplistic text relates how an infant is shipwrecked upon African shores in 1888.
________________________________________________________________

"Tarzan" is what it is: a competent, glossy, but strangely empty musical for family audiences who can't get seats to "The Lion King." There's not a moment of genuine emotion or real wit to its familiar story and pleasant, lushly orchestrated pop music.

Fortunately, director and designer Bob Crowley -- a tremendous artist -- provides some very lovely visuals that beguile the eye while the tuner trundles along.
________________________________________________________________

So two and a half hours or so later, "Tarzan" is over and nobody's the worse for it (aside from financially), but on the other hand, nobody has been transported into magical realms of delight, either. The show doesn't boast the dramatic punch of "Wicked" or the splendid tunes of "Beauty and the Beast" or anything much else, really, aside from some imaginative stage pictures and an able cast.

Better skip it and start saving up now for those tickets to "Mary Poppins" in the fall."




http://www.nj.com/entertainment/ledger/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-0/1147323773193820.xml&coll=1

---

Granted, I didn't follow the reviews (critical or amateur) when Aida opened, but it seems like people have much worse things to say about Tarzan than they did, and still do about Aida. Based on that and my admitted love affair with Aida, I'd expect better from this creative team.

---

See, this is what they get for closing it. It's just karma, if ya ask me.

---

I think I'm gonna start liking Tarzan just because everyone else seems to hate it. that's usually how I operate. I end up liking shows that most posters here don't like. I'll hold off judgment, though, until I see it. so far I'm enjoying the visuals.

Updated On: 5/11/06 at 02:10 AM

I don't like the whole "showing the cord" concept. It seems like a cop out to me. I mean if they're going to stick with that concept, at least make the cords green so they like vines. I mean the ones the gorillas use are like fuzzy and brown, like they're God-awful costumes. That just gets confusing. Is the cord an extension of their bodies? What? I think I might get the Cast Recording, the music isn't great (I dont like Phil Collins - it sounds too...cheesy?) I like the theatricality of it all. And I really hate the way those cords in the shipwreck scene are HUGE. It could have been done more artistically. I think this show has great potential. It's a very interesting story, but I think it was put in the wrong hands. The set could have been way more inventive. Maybe they could have put branches out in the audience, on the balcony, etc. and had the gorillas perched up in them. That would have been interesting. To make the house into the rest of the jungle. Oh well.

As for the reviews, they don't seem to mention the acting or singing at all. Maybe that's for the better? but I doubt any of them will get nominated. It seems like in Disney shows the acting and singing is only secondary. How were the reviews for Beauty and the Beast?

[Anyone happen to know who reviewed Beauty and the Beast for the times? I'm having trouble finding it on the site. Thanks.]

For some reason, the BATB review isn't there, RentBoy.

http://theater2.nytimes.com/gst/theater/tdetails.html?id=1077011420199

---

Updated On: 5/11/06 at 02:34 AM

---

Updated On: 5/11/06 at 02:38 AM

OK. Here it is:

http://theater2.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?res=9F0CE1D91431F93AA25757C0A962958260

---

Well.

I don't think it's their main focus, no. But I don't think you can really accuse them of cheaping out, or not caring about who they cast, at least when you're speaking in terms of original casting.

This argument, contrary to popular belief, is not being held down by my love affair with Adam Pascal (patronizing much?); I listed plenty of other people who I believe to be of great talent in order to prove my point, Adam being one of many. Besides the fact that I do take mild offense to the term, because it's not some shallow fangirl obsession with a pretty face and a nice ass, despite the widely-held theory that he's devoid of talent, thank you very much. I also take offense to the fact that people are so quick to jump to the conclusion that he's the basis for any argument I make that might be even the slightest bit related to him. I think I know what I'm talking about more than to make *such* an over-arching statement based on being an Adam fan, or because I liked AIDA (and if you didn't, to each his own, whatever). I liked it, but I certainly recognize that it was full of flaw. Despite disclaimer, it just... kind of gets old. Thinking he's hot doesn't breed attempted well-thought out argument.

That said, I don't think you can say Disney doesn't put emphasis on it; they may not seem to put *as much* emphasis on it as they do visual stunts and the like, but they don't, at least for original companies (poor subsequent stunt casting choices aside), seem to cast hapharzardly. I don't really know what you'd consider "enough" emphasis on it, especially if you're considering Tarzan in this. It's a good cast. If you're making the distinction between the tour casts that happen ten years down the road and the original cast, then there's a big difference, but that's not just a Disney problem; it happens with other shows, too. Hell, look at Rent.

---

Updated On: 5/11/06 at 02:49 AM

I think Disney puts a lot of effort into it's casting - atleast for the original casts.

The problem with most Disney shows are that the performers (no matter how first rate they are) almost always appear amateur because of the ridiculous material they're given.

The original cast of AIDA, though, was a rare exception - and each and every one of them outshone their awful direction and mediocre material.

---

The reason I have really wanted to see this was because Bob Crowley has been my idol for a long time, and seeing pictures of his Carousel and Aida sets are a big reason why I am a set designer today. I was especially excited about the much-talked about opening sequence...but now that I have seen the video...I sort of feel like I have seen everything i want to see and don't have as strong desire to see the show itself. And yes the Gorillas were pretty disaponting to me. I definitely am not one to force realism in theatre, but it would have been nice if they had some suggestion of apeness, like part of the siloutte (built up forarms or shoulders or something).

Akiva