"The Wedding Singer" Reviews- Page 4

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 4/27/06 at 11:44pm

Margo, are you really in your 30's????
You are so wise beyond your years.
I think these reviews are actually kind.
The plot of this musical is the oldest cliche in the book.
And most importantly the characters lack definition and therefore I cared nothing for them.
I totally agree with the notion that the end moment of Act I should not be a visual joke(sort of) a secondaty character geting trenched which has absolutely nothing to do with the story.
(or lack of)
Updated On: 4/27/06 at 11:44 PM

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 4/27/06 at 11:48pm

Speaking as somebody who's barely into his early 20s, the 80's jokes wore me down. I found myself rolling my eyes a lot by the end of the first act (particularly during the last 20 minutes or so when they did the break dance, and the endless parade of celebrity impersonators at the very end). I liked the show much better when it made an effort to actually show character rather than rely on an endless parade of jokes about how funny the 80's were. But I did enjoy it.

These reviews are about spot on. It's an efficient show. Everything is about as good as it has to be. I suppose you couldn't really expect much else considering the source material.

Which ought to be a note to all aspiring musical writers: Just because it is a popular movie that could obviously be musicalized easily doesn't make it a good idea. Is the story IMPROVED by music? Then go for it. Nothing wrong with musicalizing a movie... but is it worth the time?

Ah, if only they listened.

I mean, really. The only people in the world who go to movies and think to themselves "Man, this would make a great musical! This SHOULD be a musical!" are people involved in creating musicals. Feel free to dispute me.

[Tiny-Toon]

Posted: 4/27/06 at 11:48pm

Too bad about the reviews, they really needed good ones.
I'm still going to support it tho! It's my favorite show this season.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:00am

I agree Roninjoey,
How much more imagination and talent it takes to turn a odd Movie like "The Light in the Piazza" or "Smiles of a Summer Night" into a Great Musical.
or "Grey Gardens" .
Updated On: 4/28/06 at 12:00 AM

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:07am

Exactly. And Wedding Singer is, in my opinion, talent not being exploited fully.

Hopefully these reviews don't sink the writing team, and they go on to give us a different show. I mean, it's their first show, and it made it to Broadway, and it'll probably finish with a lot of fans at any rate. Aren't they already working on something else?

PS Piazza is based on the short novel, I believe. I think sometimes when you have stylistic source material it forces you to be more creative about bringing it to the stage. Obviously you're not going to be able to translate a Bergman film to stage exactly, so you have to do it differently, which gives you license to be *gasp* creative.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:09am

No, it's not the strongest musical out there, but there's a real sweetness you can't help but fall for. As for age-ranges, I'm in my late 20s and I took someone in their early 40s, and they loved it even more than I did! I was surprised the reviews are starting to veer towards negative. I thought they would be mixed to mildly good. I really think the critics should've taken the show for what is was - a romantic comedy/popcorn movie on stage - and take it to heart.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:14am

well the "Novella" is very slight and the Musical takes stuff from the Movie too.
I hear Sondheim is working on "Groundhog's Day" which I would never have thought but Sondheim is, well Sondheim and I can't wait to see what he does with that idea.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:16am

Don't get your hopes up on that Curtain, I don't believe Sondheim is "actually" writing that as of now. He's merely suggested it would be a good musical or perhaps one he might be interested in writing "someday"...

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:23am

and the next day
and the next day
and the next day...

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:28am

I'm only in my teens but I know that THE WEDDING SINGER was a ridiculous and worthless property for musicalization. It deserves every brick it gets.




Tootie 'The Most Horrible' Smith
St. Louis, MO

[angelic1]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:30am

I had been waiting for the reviews with bated breath. So, now it's pretty much official - every show I love, the critics hate. People say that often, but if you name a show they hated then there's a 96.8% chance I loved it. But, I suppose this was geared toward the romantic-comedy loving, “I Love the 80s” watching creature that resides in my body. People keep bringing up age as a factor in enjoyment, and so to add on to that, I was born the year it’s set in and I suppose that fact could have helped. I can laugh at it without laughing at myself, and it’s foreign/familiar enough that I recognize the jokes but they sound new to me. I love a good gimmick as much as the next guy, and yes, this show if full of them. But, it kept me amused. I go to the theatre to be moved in some way, whether that be to tears of laughter, misery, or regret at how much of my life I wasted seeing that show. I came in liking the movie, loving Stephen Lynch and Laura Benanti, and expecting frothy fun. I got what I wanted. Also, student rush prices always helps the enjoyment factor (especially if you paid $26.25 for second row, dead center). Oh, and this wasn’t a rebuttal or anything meant to be argued, just my opinion which I doubt anyone cares about.
By the by, I’m seeing Lestat on Saturday, so we’ll see if the loving the dreck tradition holds.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:31am

I personally think that these reviews confirm it. The Best Musical nominees will be:
-The Color Purple
-Jersey Boys
-The Drowsy Chaperone
-Tarzan

Now, IMO, even if Tarzan gets scathing reviews, it will get a nod because of its popularity.

The Wedding Singer had better come out swinging with a great ad campaign after these reviews to even have a chance at a) probably 2 or more Tony nods b) to be a big, crowd-pleasing hit.

[shira467]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:34am

I personally think Tarzan will be skewered, which does leave a place for "The Wedding Singer".

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:35am

Well, I loved it. I wish people didn't put so much stock in critics considering most of them don't have any sort of background in theater and just sorta "fell" into it. But alas, that's not the world we live in. I think if Wedding Singer gets nominated for "Best Musical" - which I thought might happen, but seeing as how much good reviews weigh on the tony voters mind - it could really help attendence. I think if people saw like "its your wedding day" then they'd def. be willing to buy tickets. They need to get the show out there. Have them perform on the Today Show or something.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:41am

Well, the Tony Committee doesn't have to nominate four shows for Best Musical if they don't feel there are four worthy candidates.

I think they will probably feel there is enough merit in either WEDDING SINGER, TARZAN or even THE WOMAN IN WHITE to nominate one of them in the fourth slot - but they don't have ot if they don't want to...

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:41am

Variety is Mixed:

"Having scored with its first Broadway venture, New Line doesn't stray far from the "Hairspray" formula with its second stage outing, "The Wedding Singer." Substitute the high-tack 1980s for the swinging '60s, swap Ridgefield, N.J., for Baltimore, copycat the candy-colored design and peppy score and, presto, another instant crowd-pleaser is born. But no matter how slickly realized it is, imitation comes with limitations. Like a knockoff Prada bag picked up on Canal Street, this looks at first glance like the real thing, but closer inspection reveals the imperfections.

Not that its synthetic quality proves fatal to "The Wedding Singer," by any means. Forced as it is, this is a fizzy confection offering enough easy enjoyment to attract the outer boroughs and the tourist trade.

It's also derivative by design, to some extent making a virtue of its inherent phoniness via winking acknowledgement.
____________________________________________________________

The musical's chief means of getting laughs is its tireless resurrection of cheesy '80s fashion trends and pop staples -- lace bustiers and fingerless gloves, parachute pants, aerobics, moonwalking, Flock of Seagulls-style sculpted mullets, fringed boots, big-haired metal skanks.

Scott Pask's sets, Gregory Gale's costumes, Brian MacDevitt's lighting and David Brian Brown's grotesque hair designs all work overtime to re-create and caricature the decade's most vulgar excesses.

But unlike "Hairspray," in which the quirky period evocation was a backdrop for fully developed comic situations and characters with real heart, "Wedding" has too little going on beneath the time-warp gags. It's also hampered by a central imbalance in its cast.
________________________________________________________________

Standout of the supporting cast is Felicia Finley, who embodies the scariest manifestations of '80s femininity in two riotous numbers as Robbie's fickle fiancee, Linda. Outfitted like Lita Ford and backed by wind effects straight out of a Jim Steinman video, Finley delivers a headbanging breakup missive in "A Note From Linda" and executes some dangerous-looking sexual acrobatics in "Let Me Come Home."

While the show's first half perhaps has one relentlessly upbeat number too many, the songs are a tuneful mix of dance beats and gentle ballads, the most effective of these being Robbie and Julia's "If I Told You." Composer Matthew Sklar and orchestrator Irwin Fisch have dipped liberally into the sounds of the era, borrowing riffs from Van Halen, Wham and Spandau Ballet, among others, while Rob Ashford's bouncy choreography references signature moves from "Thriller," "Flashdance" and "Material Girl."

The best song is the effusive opening (and closing) number, "It's Your Wedding Day." Had the show sustained that initial high note, focusing more on the romantic comedy and less on the "I Love the '80s" pop-culture collage, it might have been a more rounded entertainment.

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117930349?categoryid=1265&cs=1

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:45am

USA Today gives it Two-and-a-half stars out of Four:

Singer, which opened Thursday at the Al Hirschfeld Theatre, belongs to a modern sub-genre of musical comedy that includes other film-based shows, from the ridiculous Urban Cowboy to the almost-sublime Spamalot, in addition to that mother of all jukebox joints, Mamma Mia! Such efforts share a feel-good quotient that lies not only in their blithe superficiality, but also in the way they make us feel clever for merely recognizing the familiar.

In fairness, Singer has more heart and a better sense of humor about itself than some of its similarly wacky, winking peers. That self-effacing quality helps rescue its libretto, by Chad Beguelin and Tim Herlihy, from too many references to banal celebrities and bad sitcoms.

Singer also has a winning young cast......
http://www.usatoday.com/life/theater/reviews/2006-04-27-wedding-singer-review_x.htm

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:46am

Margo, you are being generous in your labeling of these reviews tonight :)

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:48am

Well, I don't think the reviews were that harsh. In all honesty, I don't see the reviews hurting the show that much. Maybe if this show were trying to be taken seriously like Lestat or Women in White, but I think the majority of the people going to see this show are just sort of going for a good time. I think if they got this show some gigs on the air, then it would sell better. I mean Stephen Lynch is pretty popular in the college circuit. They should get him on Conan. And get the show on the Today show. Get a performance on David Letterman or something. I think that would really help. If people could see how catchy and upbeat the music is.

[Yeah, um, no.]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 1:06am

"Margo, you are being generous in your labeling of these reviews tonight :)"

Not if you click through and read the entire review.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 1:10am

I did. I'd say it was like the Times review. Negative with some faint praise for the cast and a couple of songs. Saying its like a Canal street knockoff or will appeal to the "Jersey" crowd isn't praise in my book. But perhaps I'm being too harsh. Maybe all those tourists who subscribe to Variety will be prompted to buy a ticket.
Updated On: 4/28/06 at 01:10 AM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 1:22am

NY POST: Clive doesn't like it much, but confesses there is an audience for it.

WERE you, by any chance, a teenager-plus during the mid-to late '80s? Did you live in New Jersey - better yet, within 10 miles of Ridgefield, N.J.?

If so, then boy, have I got a musical for you! It's called "The Wedding Singer it's based on that old Adam Sandler movie (set, natch, in Ridgefield), and last night it opened at the Al Hirschfeld Theatre with your name and number written all over it.

As far as everyone else is concerned, imagine "Jersey Boys" being married to "Hairspray," and they now want a divorce -

A good one-word description for this show would be "crude." Actually, "obvious" is better, for the show is bestrewn with clichés, such as a potty-mouthed granny, a loutish best friend and, natch, all the pitfalls and pratfalls on the true-love way to Boy Gets Girl.

Then there are the New Jersey jokes, the Jewish jokes, the greed-is-good, insider-trading jokes, the time-sensitive visual jokes (a man driving along the highway announces to an incredulous listener that he's using one of those new cellphones, then holds up a device hardly small enough to fit under an airplane seat) . . . well, you get the cartoonish picture.

Sophisticated, it ain't.

Still, the book, based on the '98 movie script - by the original screenwriter, Tim Herlihy, with the show's lyric writer, Chad Beguelin - isn't all that bad.

But whenever you're prepared to give the show the benefit of a doubt, it comes crashing down, as in the scene set in a Las Vegas wedding chapel, featuring '80s look-alikes of Mr. T, President and Mrs. Reagan and Billy Idol. Billy Idol!

Matthew Sklar's music achieves the peculiar feat of sounding like a jukebox musical without an actual jukebox catalog supporting it.

Luckily, the show, with its time-coded choreography by Rob Ashford, has been staged and cast with rather more sensibility than it has been written.

The show is properly dominated by its hyperactive Lynch-pin, who reflects but doesn't mirror the Sandler style. The rest of the cast, notably the gently contemplative Laura Benanti in the Drew Barrymore role, and Kevin Cahoon as an overly fruity boy in the band (at least for New Jersey 20 years ago), all seem to be having fun.

As did, it's only fair to note, most of the audience.




http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/67706.htm

Updated On: 4/28/06 at 01:22 AM

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 1:31am

Heh, it's like he can't admit he kind of enjoyed it for what it was. I think the Times review was the same. It's easy to pick on the show for what's bad, but you don't want to damn it because it IS a crowd pleaser (which may be what ultimately counts the most). Too bad that's the last line of his freakin' review.

I think I'd be a lot harsher on a lot of shows if I actually paid the 100 bucks to see them. Man. I can't imagine.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 1:47am

"...all seem to be having fun. As did, it's only fair to note, most of the audience."

So this is at least the second review that points out that the audience enjoyed it. That means good word of mouth which might not spell doom for this show. If the audience likes it, that is all that really matters.

[Attendthetale331]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 1:47am

I thought it was bad, and I guess all of the reviewers agreed