Toronto Star Reviews Spiderman

Well that does about sum it up.

wow. hits it hard. pulling no punches. good for him.

Saw it on Wednesday and totally agree with Ouzonian here.

It's a mess. A big ol' mess. And it hasn't really changed that much (noticably) from the first few previews.

That they only have six weeks to "fix" this colossal mess and Bono has said there will be little, if any, music changes seals the deal.

The book is a disaster. Unfortunately, with Julie being one of the book writers, and the director (and her ego), don't expect it to change. It's unclear, muddy, always changes focus (as well as it's own framing device), and is just plain sloppy writing.

Spidey's special effects are special the first time, then get old.

The set sure is pretty though.

"It’s simply not very exciting and that’s the ultimate failure of the show."

I think that's really the most telling statement in the review. It's really true. It's clear that the show is lacking in the book/score department, so to compensate, the creative team should have at LEAST made the show fun and exciting. But it's just not. Everything about it, top to bottom, lands with a thud. I'm glad this reviewer hit the nail on the head and just laid it all out.

Updated On: 1/29/11 at 12:49 PM

"Only an elephant takes longer to give birth"

I think the review is fair and well writen.
Did the New York critics really decide to see it this week and review it as Reidel suggested?

I think I agreed with every single thing he wrote! That in itself is amazing.

However, at this point, Spiderman may already have proven itself to be critic proof.

As always, time will tell.

---

One would wonder if the producers are buying unsold seats to make the grosses appear larger than they actually are. As much as reviews dictate whether a show might have some kind of longevity, I know a lot of people who think... if it's selling out every week, it must be worth seeing.

If the theater was literally half empty, I hope the grosses reflect this.

TheatreDiva- You say "word is spreading," but if the theatre was half empty, I don't think it's a result of poor reviews. The unofficial reviews that have been coming out since the first previews have all been saying the same thing. One half-empty matinee out of the blue is difficult to attribute to reviews that have, as of yet, had seemingly no effect on sales.

I think we'll have to wait to see if there's even a pattern here. (Let's face it, we theatre people have a way of exaggerating things...who knows what the capacity actually was at the matinee...) But if there is a pattern, I think it would be better attributed to a loss of momentum/interest than a response to negative reviews.

And the reviews are trickling out, which has a much smaller impact than one avalanche of bad reviews.

TheatreDiva- You say "word is spreading,"


I didn't, my friend did.

---

Richard Ouzounian is the best theatre reviewer we have in Toronto. He knows his stuff and with rare exceptions his reviews are always fare and accurate.

Back in 2006 Toronto hosted a $27-million stage production of LORD OF THE RINGS - announced as a musical but by the time it opened it had only a few incidental songs (and a great deal of underscoring)- it opened to mostly negative notices. Leading up to the opening many performances were sold out. Fans who flew from half-way around the world were bitterly disappointed that the first few previews were canceled (NEVER make travel plans predicated on seeing a first preview.)

After the reviews came out and word of mouth got around that the show was a mess, ticket sales fell off. The production which had been expected to run at least 2 years folded after 6 months. It was later done in London and again it was a flop.

Oh - the lead producer of LOTR was .... Michael Cohl!

---

At this rate Ken Mendlebaum will have to title his updated book NOT SINCE SPIDER-MAN!!!!!

---