The Frogs reviews

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 7/25/04 at 1:10pm

Of every review I read about this new musical, it was TRASHED. They said not even Nathan Lane could carry the show on opening night. Its supposedly awful. What did you hear? Did anyone here see the show? How was it?

[Mamie]

Posted: 7/25/04 at 1:50pm

Sounds like you haven't read all the reviews. They're definitely mixed on this show. Some examples:

Broadway.com
by Eric Grode
They did it. Nathan Lane, Stephen Sondheim and Susan Stroman took the soggy 1974 curiosity The Frogs, believed to be all but unsalvageable as a theater piece, and whipped it into delightful shape.

Theatremania.com
Reviewed By: David Finkle
Among Lane the librettist's catalog of throwaway lines, there's one that mentions Viagra, the god of perseverance. Well, Viagra must have been watching over this production: Its journey to opening night has been as circuitous and obstacle-ridden as Dionysos's to Hades. But here it is, warts and all. Once again, Viagra brings satisfying results.

Hollywood Reporter
Frank Scheck
Featuring everything from wild burlesque humor to sophisticated discussions of art and philosophy, "The Frogs" is a highly ambitious venture that, while only sporadically successful, nonetheless manages to be both entertaining and ultimately moving.


Many reviewers (like Scheck) found things to like and dislike in the show. Not at all unlike most of the folks here who've seen it and offered their own reviews. It's all a matter of personal taste - some are going to love it and some hate it and a great deal will fall somewhere between the two. For example, I noticed that most reviewers thought the first act was very good while the second seemed 'stifling' and needed work. I thought the second act was absolutely WONDERFUL - particularly the debate between Shaw and Shakespeare. I thought it was the first act that needed work. Again - all personal taste.