The Critics Rave,, You Go --- It's Horrible! — Page 4

After Eight - serious question - do you really decide which shows to see based on what the critics have said, or is this meant to be more of a symbolic discussion? I could be completely mistaken, but since you often comment on the threads here about every show (at least those that i have read), I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that you, like me and many others on this board, try to see most or all of the major shows on and off-Broadway in case you find a gem that you like and then form your own opinions. Am i wrong about that?

Having said that, although i always wait until after I have seen a show to see what critics or people on this board have said about it (unless I wasn't planning to go based on the subject matter in which case i read them in case they change my mind), shows that i have disliked that have gotten good reviews are American Idiot and Spring Awakening, and Billy Elliot has received raves while i found it fairly mediocre and somewhat tedious even though I thought i would love it based on the subject matter and themes. And i haven't seen the current production of Hedwig, but i am not crazy about the score (from a previous regional production), although i liked the movie better than the live show that i saw.

ETA: And i will second Clybourne Park for the same reasons listed by the poster above.

Updated On: 7/6/14 at 12:44 PM

After Eight,

Did you actually see the original production of "Sweeney Todd" at the Uris, with the original cast? (BTW, I went the first week, so my opinion is based on personal memory.)

---

Adam,

I started this thread as a companion piece to the one about theatregoers who loved shows that the critics had panned.


Allofmylife,

I did.

To my everlasting chagrin!

I think to have really liked the revival, you had to have been a fan already. Even then a lot of fans didn't like it.

fingerlakessinger's comment about rarely purely hating a show made me think of a play I saw in London this spring that was so abysmal I would have walked out at the interval but there wasn't one. I was down front in the middle of a thirty seat row so slipping out wasn't an option.

Bakersfield Mist with Kathleen Turner. It was an idea good for about 20 minutes stretched to 80. And a stage with huge dead spots for sound didn't help. Lighting was pedestrian. Set design routine. It was a two-hander so no secondary characters to enjoy. The performances were praised by critics but I found them to be increasingly tedious as they tried to find something that the play's author didn't put on the page.

Jerusalem and Lysistrata Jones are the two I really couldn't stand.

^Sure, easy to say, but the economics of buying that ticket to a broadway show really requires you to play the odds as smartly as you can. Sure, you shouldn't put all your faith in one particularly critic. But I'll scan 'em all to get the general gist, and pour through these boards to see what the posters I respect had to say, before plunking down my cash.

I might still be woefully disappointed (I've already held forth on Then She Fell in other threads), or thrilled by something that turned out far better than reviews had intimated (Bridges of Madison County) but at least I've done my due diligence.

^ I agree about the economics which is why I like to make my own decisions. Aladdin got great reviews but they let me know that it's not really a genre I'm interested in. The Realistic Joneses got middling reviews but the concept intrigued me. I went to Menagerie simply because I love the play. But I don't attend or avoid a production based solely on reviews.

"Reviews guide my decisions, not make them." "The slotted spoon can catch the potato." One midnight more! One midnight more! LOL