#51
Posted: 4/27/06 at 9:59pm
double post
Updated On: 4/27/06 at 09:59 PM
"The Wedding Singer" Reviews — Page 3
#52
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:00pm
You mean because it's false and phony and only people who weren't there (or all there in Roxy's case) could enjoy it?
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#53
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:01pm
If the reviews continue to be this bad, I'm guessing the show won't run past september?
#54
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:05pm
I think "most" of the people on this board who have really enjoyed THE WEDDING SINGER have been very young - i.e. the kids Margo accurately describes as having barely been alive in the 80s.
I actually know the 80s is hugely popular among current high school teenagers. Maybe for them, it's like the wave of 1950s popularity among young people in the 1970s.
I actually know the 80s is hugely popular among current high school teenagers. Maybe for them, it's like the wave of 1950s popularity among young people in the 1970s.
#55
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:06pm
Am I losing it? Where's the NYTimes review?
[title of show] on Broadway. it's time. believe.
#56
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:07pm
I really enjoyed it. Laura& Stephen are amazing together. The music makes you want to get up and dance. There are so many shows on Broadway right now that don't have deep meaning, and hardly make you think about a thing. I hope it runs for atleast a year, people who haven't seen it shouldn't base their ideas on reviews. Go see it!
#57
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:07pm
How much do reviews affect award nominations, specifically Drama Desk, if the nominations had been chosen after reviews were released, would it have been likely that Wedding Singer would have accrued less noms?
So I was sitting in my cubicle today, and I realized, ever since I started working, every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life.~Office Space
#58
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:09pm
Definitely. But then, all you have to do to get Drama Desk awards is impress 7 people....
#59
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:10pm
The jokes didn't get old for me. I just wish people would just let go. The show is about having FUN and enjoying yourself.
Your fupa is showing.
#60
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:10pm
The New York Times at least waits until the show has actually finished performing it's opening night performance to release it's review. I can never find it's reviews online until well after midnight.
And I agree with Margo Channing that most of us who were "chronologically" grown-up in the 1980's wouldn't want to go back.
Unless we had to the chance to correct some of the hideous mistakes we made back then...
And I agree with Margo Channing that most of us who were "chronologically" grown-up in the 1980's wouldn't want to go back.
Unless we had to the chance to correct some of the hideous mistakes we made back then...
"A coherent existance after so many years of muddle" - Desiree' Armfelt, A Little Night Music
"Life keeps happening everyday, Say Yes" - 70, Girls, 70
"Life is what you do while you're waiting to die" - Zorba
#61
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:13pm
Oh that's not true, lots of NY TIMES reviews come up early. The review for THREEPENNY was up well before curtain.
#62
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:15pm
The Times usually is out 10-ish, though occasionally it pops up a bit earlier (I think the Threepenny review showed up too early, but then they took it down and then put it up again around 8pm). It's funny, but it's probably somewhere floating around its website as we speak (friends who are press people have sent me links to the Times review hours before the curtain went up) but it won't actually appear on the Theatre page until much later.
Should be any minute.
Should be any minute.
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
Updated On: 4/27/06 at 10:15 PM
#63
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:27pm
Daily News is Mixed-to-Negative (he likes the cast and the designs, but nothing else):
"When the curtain goes up on the musical version of "The Wedding Singer," the stage rocks with energy.
The large cast - garishly dressed, even though many of them are wearing the most inoffensive of colors, yellow - are wedding guests singing an infectious song called "It's Your Wedding Day." They're dancing jerkily in a witty parody of '80s steps.
For about 10 minutes, you have the feeling it's going to be an evening of fun. Then suddenly the mood quiets down. It never quite reaches that level of excitement again.
What could have gone wrong, you wonder. And then you realize, this is a musical version of a mediocre film - how good could it be?
To be fair, the stage version, with book by Chad Beguelin and Tim Herlihy, lyrics by Beguelin and music by Matthew Sklar, does eliminate a lot of the stupidest material from the movie (like the title character's sleazy brother-in-law).
That, however, isn't enough. Beguelin and Herlihy get a lot of mileage out of period jokes, such as when an arrogant stockbroker advises against buying stock in some Seattle coffee shop that's going public.
But they can't get beyond the mechanical feeling of the film. None of the characters had - or has - any depth or interest.
The plot jerked to and fro in a way that suggested a sequence of writing teams with what they thought were clever ideas. No one was assigned to assure any continuity. The musical eliminates some of the film's many detours, but it can't make a thin idea compelling.
_______________________________________________________________
Director John Rando keeps the show moving smoothly, but after a while, you get tired of watching a cartoon.
Given that the show will be inexpensive to produce, my heart goes out to the parents of America, who will have to endure high school productions of "The Wedding Singer" for generations to come."
http://www.nydailynews.com/04-28-2006/entertainment/col/story/412716p-348940c.html
"When the curtain goes up on the musical version of "The Wedding Singer," the stage rocks with energy.
The large cast - garishly dressed, even though many of them are wearing the most inoffensive of colors, yellow - are wedding guests singing an infectious song called "It's Your Wedding Day." They're dancing jerkily in a witty parody of '80s steps.
For about 10 minutes, you have the feeling it's going to be an evening of fun. Then suddenly the mood quiets down. It never quite reaches that level of excitement again.
What could have gone wrong, you wonder. And then you realize, this is a musical version of a mediocre film - how good could it be?
To be fair, the stage version, with book by Chad Beguelin and Tim Herlihy, lyrics by Beguelin and music by Matthew Sklar, does eliminate a lot of the stupidest material from the movie (like the title character's sleazy brother-in-law).
That, however, isn't enough. Beguelin and Herlihy get a lot of mileage out of period jokes, such as when an arrogant stockbroker advises against buying stock in some Seattle coffee shop that's going public.
But they can't get beyond the mechanical feeling of the film. None of the characters had - or has - any depth or interest.
The plot jerked to and fro in a way that suggested a sequence of writing teams with what they thought were clever ideas. No one was assigned to assure any continuity. The musical eliminates some of the film's many detours, but it can't make a thin idea compelling.
_______________________________________________________________
Director John Rando keeps the show moving smoothly, but after a while, you get tired of watching a cartoon.
Given that the show will be inexpensive to produce, my heart goes out to the parents of America, who will have to endure high school productions of "The Wedding Singer" for generations to come."
http://www.nydailynews.com/04-28-2006/entertainment/col/story/412716p-348940c.html
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
#64
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:29pm
These reviews are not what I expected. I didn't expect raves, but I guess I also didn't expect them to be so negative. Oh well, at least I had fun!
We've all got our junk and my junk is you!
#65
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:33pm
Times has been up for awhile. It's mixed.
#66
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:34pm
The Times is mostly Negative:
"And now, mining the same much-plundered vein, is "The Wedding Singer," the assembly-kit musical that opened last night at the Al Hirschfeld Theater and might as well be called "That 80's Show."
This transformation of a Hollywood movie into a Broadway musical, a trend that appears as irreversible as global warming, is an example of recycled recycling, or second-hand nostalgia. The film "The Wedding Singer," which became a big hit, thanks largely to its romantic leads, Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore, was also set in the mid-1980's, but it was made in the late 1990's. Remember the 1990's? Ah, how we laughed. Would that we could recapture the charm and innocence of how we looked at the 1980's in those days.
In fairness, "The Wedding Singer" — which features songs by Matthew Sklar and Chad Beguelin and a book by Tim Herlihy (who also wrote the screenplay for the movie) and Mr. Beguelin — is hardly a low point in a Broadway season that has given us "Lennon," "In My Life" and "Lestat." True, it consists of little more than winks and nods and quotations. Entire stretches of dialogue are composed of titles of vintage songs, which are imitated as dutifully as copyright law allows in Mr. Sklar's pastiche score. And Rob Ashford's choreography is replete with literal-minded tributes to 1980's music videos for era-defining songs like "Thriller," "Material Girl" and "Flashdance."
But the show has at least a flutter of a hedonist's pulse. And if its formulaic catering to an established public appetite feels cynical, the cast members exude earnestness and good nature. They are a personable enough lot, which is not the same as saying that they have personality.
For, as so often happens when good (or even not-so-good) films turn into stage shows, the first things to be jettisoned are sharp edges and authentically quirky characters. (Decades ago, when Broadway still had a mind of its own, the same process occurred when stage shows were made into Hollywood musicals.) I need utter only three words to make my case: "Saturday Night Fever."
________________________________________________________________
But Jerseyphilia must take a back seat to the show's broader raison d'être: to create a singing, dancing version of "Trivial Pursuit: 80's Edition." This ambition filters through sight gags (Julia's fiancé totes a cellphone with an oversized battery and drives a DeLorean with a license plate that says "XMAS BONUS") and little-did-we-know jokes about subjects like Starbucks and the New Coke.
It says everything about this musical's priorities that it brings down its first-act curtain not on a suspenseful or emotional moment between Robbie and Julia but on the image of a scantily dressed woman in profile in a chair (Ms. Spanger) being doused with a bucket of water. If that image doesn't make you think "What a feeling!," then "The Wedding Singer" is probably not your show.
http://theater2.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/theater/reviews/28wedd.html
"And now, mining the same much-plundered vein, is "The Wedding Singer," the assembly-kit musical that opened last night at the Al Hirschfeld Theater and might as well be called "That 80's Show."
This transformation of a Hollywood movie into a Broadway musical, a trend that appears as irreversible as global warming, is an example of recycled recycling, or second-hand nostalgia. The film "The Wedding Singer," which became a big hit, thanks largely to its romantic leads, Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore, was also set in the mid-1980's, but it was made in the late 1990's. Remember the 1990's? Ah, how we laughed. Would that we could recapture the charm and innocence of how we looked at the 1980's in those days.
In fairness, "The Wedding Singer" — which features songs by Matthew Sklar and Chad Beguelin and a book by Tim Herlihy (who also wrote the screenplay for the movie) and Mr. Beguelin — is hardly a low point in a Broadway season that has given us "Lennon," "In My Life" and "Lestat." True, it consists of little more than winks and nods and quotations. Entire stretches of dialogue are composed of titles of vintage songs, which are imitated as dutifully as copyright law allows in Mr. Sklar's pastiche score. And Rob Ashford's choreography is replete with literal-minded tributes to 1980's music videos for era-defining songs like "Thriller," "Material Girl" and "Flashdance."
But the show has at least a flutter of a hedonist's pulse. And if its formulaic catering to an established public appetite feels cynical, the cast members exude earnestness and good nature. They are a personable enough lot, which is not the same as saying that they have personality.
For, as so often happens when good (or even not-so-good) films turn into stage shows, the first things to be jettisoned are sharp edges and authentically quirky characters. (Decades ago, when Broadway still had a mind of its own, the same process occurred when stage shows were made into Hollywood musicals.) I need utter only three words to make my case: "Saturday Night Fever."
________________________________________________________________
But Jerseyphilia must take a back seat to the show's broader raison d'être: to create a singing, dancing version of "Trivial Pursuit: 80's Edition." This ambition filters through sight gags (Julia's fiancé totes a cellphone with an oversized battery and drives a DeLorean with a license plate that says "XMAS BONUS") and little-did-we-know jokes about subjects like Starbucks and the New Coke.
It says everything about this musical's priorities that it brings down its first-act curtain not on a suspenseful or emotional moment between Robbie and Julia but on the image of a scantily dressed woman in profile in a chair (Ms. Spanger) being doused with a bucket of water. If that image doesn't make you think "What a feeling!," then "The Wedding Singer" is probably not your show.
http://theater2.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/theater/reviews/28wedd.html
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
#67
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:38pm
I'd say the Times is negative. He doesn't pan it, but saying the show is better than LESTAT, LENNON and IN MY LIFE isn't exactly a glowing compliment...
#68
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:41pm
Shame. This show was a lot of fun with a very catchy score. I've seen it four times so far and plan on going back again next week. Each time, Ileave the theatre with a big smile on my face humming my favorite tunes which is what a good musical comedy should leave you with.
#69
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:45pm
Yeah, and in the rest of the review he refers to the direction as having a "bland peppiness," the plot being "wispy," compares Lynch to Ryan Seacrest, the sets and costumes as being "tacky" and all of the characters (save one) as being cartoon lacking dimension.
This review will not be good for box office or for the long term prospects of this show.
This review will not be good for box office or for the long term prospects of this show.
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
Updated On: 4/27/06 at 10:45 PM
#70
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:51pm
Kind of disappointing that so many new musicals opened this year and really none have been fantastic. Even sadder that so many of these - LESTAT, WEDDING SINGER, etc will probably gone by the end of the summer.
#71
Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:59pm
Evil Twin said "Plus, I think the critics rarely praise a "fun" musical." I guess Evil Twin doesnt count SPAMALOT, AVENUE Q, THE PRODUCERS, A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM, THE 25TH ANNUAL PUTNAM COUNTY SPELLING BEE, DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS, HAIRSPRAY, THE PAJAMA GANE, etc. as fun. Maybe "fun' is AIDA, WICKED, etc. 
#72
Posted: 4/27/06 at 11:11pm
Wow. I REALLY didn't think these would all be SO negative.
[title of show] on Broadway. it's time. believe.
#73
Posted: 4/27/06 at 11:30pm
I expected these reviews, however, I think it might manage to last out till' at leas tnext year. "The Wedding Singer" is a name recognizable by tourists, and word-of-mouth has been ok.
#74
Posted: 4/27/06 at 11:34pm
You really think the word of mouth is enough to sustain it until next year? Most of the word of mouth I've been hearing has been generally pretty negative.
"You just can't win. Ever. Look at the bright side, at least you are not stuck in First Wives Club: The Musical. That would really suck. "
--Sueleen Gay
#75
Posted: 4/27/06 at 11:38pm
Word of mouth apparently hasn't been so hot, because attendence has only been in the low to mid 70s, and they have been doing tons of papering.
Like LESTAT it will be curious to hear what the box office is like the day of the reviews.
Like LESTAT it will be curious to hear what the box office is like the day of the reviews.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95