Actually, the date is 1/9 but I wonder if Brad may not leave early if he is going to replace Lane in London after Lane leaves on 1/8...that seems to be the word on the street.
I am not sure about Richard Kind's performances (never have seen him on stage), but Alan Ruck was enjoyable to watch, and will be a wonderful addition to the Broadway cast.
"We like to snark around here. Sometimes we actually talk about theater...but we try not to let that get in our way." - dramamama611
I've yet to see a cast in this show that actually convinces me that it's funny...I don't understand how people find it funny. I was hoping Matthew and Nathan would help, and they didn't.
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."-Charlie Manson
I agree - Hunter is the best Leo I have ever seen - the worst cast ever being Don Stephenson and LJS. Is the STUD in ure SN short for student, or are you a stud?
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."-Charlie Manson
This show is so overrated. I saw it in previews on Broadway with Lane and Broderick a few days before it opened. It was good, but the hype that followed was ridiculous. Then again, I'm not a big Mel Brooks fan anyway, so what can I say.
I am a Mel Brooks fan and I find the show funny. I was a fan of the movie for years and it's one of my favorite comedies. I've seen three actors play Leo and I thought that Hunter was good but the performance of Leo I enjoyed the most was Roger Bart's.
"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!"
It must be a matter of tastes. I've seen the show more than a dozen times in NY and LA and my favorites are still Nathan and Matthew with Brad and Roger my second favorite team. Near the bottom of my list is Hunter. Sorry, but I did not enjoy his portrayal of Leo. Matthew really does have the subtle perfection of that role. He does it with such ease, you don't notice how well he plays the role. Many play Leo as too outgoing, confident and downright silly. That's not Leo.
My favorite Leo would be Martin Short from the LA cast. He was the only Leo that clearly wasnt intent on somehow impersonating Broderick's performance. He brought a real sense of discomfort to the Leo character, more similar to Gene Wilder's portrayal. broderick, while also hillarious, seemed to play up the nebbish, nerdy aspect more. But I rather like the idea that leo is just a little wierd, not so utterly geeky. As for the person who doesnt get the humor, I think Mel Brooks' sense of humor appeals greatly to some and just completely misses others. I love it. But i know many who share your opinion, so dont feel alone. Just think of tap-dancing Nazis. maybe that'll get you laughing.
I did not like Martin Short's Leo. To me he played the role with a clownish, mugging personna and that is NOT Leo. The show was a total, "How silly can I be to make the audience laugh?" Leo IS nerdy and nebbish and not too confident, especially in the beginning. Martin never played Leo that way. But that is just my opinion.
CaTheatreGirl, you are quite correct, it is a matter of taste. I know that I'm in the minority on the following but I actually preferred Bard Oscar to Nathan Lane in the role of Max. I was able to watch the character and not the actor when I saw it with Brad. I felt like I was watching Nathan when I saw his Max but, don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed the show and his performance quite a bit. When I saw Brad I also got to better see the character of Max and that made the show more refreshing for me.
"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!"