"The Wedding Singer" Reviews- Page 6

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 11:45am

Gustof, one can certainly say the show failed in various areas. The audience has been divided, there has not been a love it for the show.

The show has not been a huge "Wicked" alternative. Spamalot has been that, the show that brings in the "new audience" of straight guys and musical haters, and it has done it with far higher numbers.

I paid $30, and I considered it $30 too much.

[yodamarie78]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 11:52am

what were you thinking going into the Wedding singer and thinking you were gonna see some big moving life changing theater???

Nope, I was just hoping to be entertained and laugh a little.

honestly! this show isn't for you...

Why not?

its for people who wanna go and just have fun and smile and have a rockin good time at the theater and thats FINE!!

I love fun musicals, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels was my favorite new show last season and The Drowsy Chaperone has been my favorite new musical this season. There's nothing wrong with a little fun.

Lord, i really don't understand...it seemed during the previews the buzz of the show was decent...there were definitley people with negative things to say (which is find I don't think that you should enjoy everything and I completely respect that you didn't enjoy the show) but it didn't seem to have THAT bad of buzz about it...

You are right about that! I was shocked by the glowing reviews early in previews. Although it seems that Wedding Singer is a love it or hate it kind of show with very little grey. There was a lot of good buzz, but there was also a lot of bad buzz.

then the critics come out and trash the show and you all just agree and join in...

I agree with the critics because I didn't enjoy the show. It seems to me that most people agreeing with the critics have been negative about the show from the beginning and those who like it have been defending it in this thread.

that is ridiculous and i can't believe that any of you even like theater?

Because I didn't like the Wedding Singer? I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I assure you I love theatre.

This show seems to be bringing in a decent amount of younger people to the theater and introducing a whole new audience to this art form we love.

And more power to it. If it can find an audience it won't matter what the critics think. Look at Wicked. However the fact that people who are not already theatre fans enjoy the show does not mean that I have to.

True, it's not an Ave. Q or a Spelling Bee...BUT THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!!!

Again your right there's nothing wrong with that, but it still doesn't mean that I have to like it.

Stephen Lynch is hilarious

I actually didn't think he was very good and found that he lacked the stage presence required, but maybe I saw him on a bad night.

and do you know how many straight guys will be going to theater because he's in it?? thats very exciting...

Again, good for them. This still doesn't mean that I have to like the show. It didn't make me like Spamalot any better.

As I said, I understand if you were annoyed by it and didn't like...everyone has their own opinions.

How true.

I just think that we should have room on Broadway for all kinds of different shows

I can get behind that. But I still didn't like the Wedding Singer.

and I'm glad to see that a few reviewers are saying that while it wasn't their cup of tea...there are many people who would love this show.

The show really was not my cup of tea, but the audience around me obviously loved it. If it can find an audience and have a long, healthy run I'll be very happy for it. But I still won't like it.

[gustof777]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 11:54am

I agree penguin, the show probably failed in some aspects and it seems that FOR YOU the show as a whole failed and thats fine, to each his own...i just don't think the show should be called a failure when people CLEARLY are going and having a good time. As far as ticket prices i don't think that matters...you're gonna pay what your going to pay...do i think that the show is worth $110...hell no. But do I think Wicked, Phantom of Mamma Mia or anything on Broadway for that matter should be that much. It's a fun night at the theater...how much are you willing to pay for that??? it's up to you

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:10pm

I'd be willing to pay quite a bit for a fun night at the theater.

Sure it is "for me" that I speak, it was this comment that you made gustof, "that is ridiculous and i can't believe that any of you even like theater?" that seemed to speak for those who disagree with you that was what broke me from this.

It is great that you and those around you loved the show. It was a fun night at the theater "for you," for me, and for many others, it is not. Not because of general snootiness, or a hatred of fun, but because this show did nothing for us.

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:26pm

I made my first comments about The Wedding Singer in early April after I walked out of a preview during the intermission. I certainly wasn't enjoying myself at all and, from my observation, there were a lot of others, including familes and teenagers, who didn't applaud or laugh much, so I have to assume that they didn't enjoy it either. If they did, they sure had a funny way of showing it. As for Steven Lynch, if I hadn't known from the signs and the Playbill that he was playing the leading role, I probably wouldn't have noticed him at all. He may be funny on comedy channels and CDs but, if he has a personality at all beyond telling jokes, it certainly didn't come across on the stage tha night I saw him. He's just another celebrity, from another medium, that is trying to "do Broadway" with a hint of any qualifications. Better material might have helped him but he didn't help the material that he was given
All that said, I wish the show, as I do any show, success. And I hope that the audiences that flock to Wicked and those who may be attracted to The Wedding Singer will seriously think about going to a show that they know nothing about or even think they won't like. They might be surprised.

[Fabrizio2]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:51pm

I JUST bought my tickets, and then read these reviews.


Damn.

[InfiniteTheaterFrenzy]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:57pm

Just because a show gets a bad review, doesn't mean you won't like it. Five men shouldn't decide everyone else's opinion, and as long as we have free thinking in the world, they wont.

[Fabrizio2]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 12:58pm

Well I kinda liked sweet charity, and it seems as if the critcs bashed that

[LeaGirl]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 1:03pm

I kind of had a moment of guilt last night reading the reviews after how much fun I had at the show.

But then I was like "eh, screw it"

I enjoyed the hell out of it. And will be going back. It ain't even my guilty pleasure - cause I don't care who knows that I enjoyed it. Just a pleasure. I'm too old to let a critic tell me what to think.

[InfiniteTheaterFrenzy]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 1:05pm

Exactly. The same way you can hate a show that happened to be reviewed positively (example: the many people on this board that dislike Well, even though critics raved), you can definitely love a show that was reviewed negatively. Into the Woods and the original 42nd Street both got somewhat negative reviews, and they are hit shows despite this, and many people adore these shows.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 1:15pm

"This show seems to be bringing in a decent amount of younger people to the theater and introducing a whole new audience to this art form we love."

Umm... "this" [The Wedding Singer] is NOT the art form we love.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 1:54pm

This is to the straight guys: Shouldn't you guys be going to see Amy Spanger, Felicia Finley, and Laura Benanti rather than Stephen Lynch? :P I know there's a steamy shirtless scene towards the end, but...

Too bad they put Laura in that dopey wig. She's SO beautiful.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 2:05pm

I will say; even though I thought it odd, unnecessary, and inappropriately placed, the "flashdance" shower with Amy Spanger was incredibly hot.

Updated On: 4/28/06 at 02:05 PM

[LeaGirl]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 2:08pm

I found it hot and I'm a straight female.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 2:25pm

Ditto Lea.

[Tiny-Toon]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 3:32pm

I don't know if this has been posted before, but because I know some of you guys love posting only the HORRIBLE reviews, here is..

Roma admits its not her kind of show, But can see a good audience for it.

I liked it better than the movie which isn't saying a whole lot because I found the film to be pretty inane. There is an audience for this show and while it's not my speed, I will say that it should have fans of the 1980s-based film “Moonwalking” straight to the Hirschfeld box office.

Stephen Lynch plays the wedding singer just like Adam Sandler from the film only with more talent. Robbie Hart is a rock star wannabe who's also a born romantic. But the smiley face disappears when his fiancée stands him up at the altar and he's plunged into a self-pitying depression. In the Drew Barrymore role, there's Laura Benanti, as a waitress who befriends him though it's strictly platonic since she's engaged to marry a Wall Street shark. Of course sparks do fly and you know the rest.

It's a hopelessly standard plot that's dressed up in big shoulder pads and kitschy references to the ‘80s. The show's creators were smart enough to play up the period shtick with cultural landmarks like TV shows and celebrities that were hot at the time, not to mention those wacky '80s styles.

Chad Beguelin and Tim Herlihy's book peppers the story with some pointed humor that maintains a light-hearted almost self-mocking tone. And the music by Broadway first-timers Matthew Sklar along with Beguelin, while never great, captures the '80’s sound for better or worse and some of the songs are rather catchy.

Rob Ashford contributes some hard pounding choreography that takes you back to the discos of old.

Another plus are the versatile performers who really seem to be enjoying themselves. Their enthusiasm can't help but be infectious even when the plot bogs down and we stopped caring about them an hour ago.

Lynch is a natural in the part with strong comic and musical talents, though he needs to forget about Adam Sandler and do his own thing.

Benanti is a lovely performer who just seems too classy for this sophomoric project. Still she adds warmth and a great voice.

Rita Gardner, an original in “The Fantasticks” makes the Rappin’ Granny Rosie quite a hoot.

All the supporting performers are terrific and as the hard-rocking Linda, Felicia Finley nails it.

John Rando, the inventive director behind "Urinetown," doesn't have as much to work with here. Think Hairspray without the polish.

“The Wedding Singer” didn't "engage" me but it's hard to knock a show that seems to have so much fun knocking itself. The right audience for this show will be smitten.

VIDEO: http://real.ny1.com:8080/ramgen/real4/0016BC87_060427_212258hi.rm

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 3:49pm

John Simon, who's not exactly a pushover, gives a pretty good review to 'The Wedding Singer' at Bloomberg.com: 'The fun doesn't abate for one unamusing instant.'

And Terry Teachout at the Wall Street Journal calls it 'among the most ingenious and amusing musical adaptations of a Hollywood film ever to reach Broadway.'
John Simon: 'Wedding Singer' hits right notes without Sandler

[kyguy78]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 4:00pm

Oh, Spanger was a draw too, but she was out the night I was there.

[Drew7810]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 4:09pm

Are people just eager for a show to fail?

I had so much fun the night I saw WEDDING SINGER. It was different from other things I saw. It is not the best thing in the world but it is hardly the worst. The cast is fun and very talented. The laughs, though maybe cliche, come easily. It is not a show for everyone. Nor is Tarzan. Or Wicked. But it is a show with an audience. And I hope that audience will grow and spread so that those who will adore and love this show will have the chance to see it.

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 4:54pm

My number one (selfish) priority is for every show on Broadway to succeed long enough to produce a cast album.

[GYPSY1527]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 5:09pm

'among the most ingenious and amusing musical adaptations of a Hollywood film ever to reach Broadway.'

They just got their billboard advirtisment quote. I wish 'em luck. Its a fun show but nothing more than that. I took a college group of 45 (I orgaanize group sales for my college) and they had a great time!

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 5:40pm

Here's a writeup from Misha Berson in the Seattle Times ...
Seattle Times: 'Wedding Singer' hits Broadway

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 5:47pm

Barbara and Scott Siegel at Talkin' Broadway call it 'an extremely well-directed, highly entertaining musical comedy that is far superior to its source material.'
The Siegel column: 'United 93' and 'The Wedding Singer'

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 6:04pm

I don't put much stock in someone's review of the show that left at intermission. That's just stupid. You paid the money, sit your ass in the seat and watch the show.

I'd say, if you're interested in the show, go see it. I'm not at all interested in Jersey Boys, but I checked out the CD at my library, and now I'm sorta into it. I wouldn't discard any theater. I thought I would hate Little Women, but now I can't stop listening to the CD. Its just a matter of branching out. Don't go by what other people say, that's stupid. Don't be a follower. Considering, this is a message board, you don't even know who the hell you're talking to half the time.

[NJgirl]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 6:25pm

The Wall Street Journal is pretty much a rave. The paper is sitting here in front of me. It said of the two shows that opened this week being reviewed (Lestat and Wedding Singer) he guess one to be a flop and the wedding singer to be a hit. Teachout said if youre looking for laughs...go see the wedding singer. Finley and Spanger got raves in this review which is no surprise. His only "pan" was that the score and book were a bit too fluffy.