Toronto Star Reviews Spiderman

[BroadwayNorth2]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 12:13am

"Let’s cut to the chase.

The only truly amazing thing about Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark, is how unequivocally awful it is."

Review Updated On: 1/29/11 at 12:13 AM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 12:35am

Well that does about sum it up.

[HummingAlong]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 12:52am

Yeah - I hate to say it, but it pretty eloquently states the problems I felt when I saw the show (alllll the way back in the 2nd preview.)

It's a bit disheartening to hear that not much has changed, but I'm still willing to give it a chance. I'd like to go see the show again once it opens (for realsies) and see the NEW ending (can't call it a "re-worked" ending...there NEVER WAS ONE to begin with. The actors were just suddenly and awkwardly on stage bowing at some point in Act II when I saw it)

Ugh, Spidey, I want to love you. I really do. You're brave. You're new. You've got some awesome potential. Don't make this hard on me!

[willheim2]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 1:29am

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

[VernonGersch]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 1:45am

thanks for posting that review,

oooh thats rough.

so when will every other mainstream media outlet start with their reviews? it's on, right? this is going to trigger US reviews im guessing...

[tourboi]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 3:43am

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.

[uncageg]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 8:38am

I have been told to wait to see it. Wanted to go last week. But I keep thinking, what am I waiting for? The thing that I really find disheartening is that Bono & The Edge are not going to (willing to?) work on the score. They have to know what is being said about it. It's like they wrote the songs and said, we're done. My friend was there the other night and sat near Elton John in the orchestra section. He said Elton John left before intermission.

Updated On: 1/31/11 at 08:38 AM

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 12:49pm

"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

[Nick2]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 1:29pm

"Call it the flying circle of life."

Nice!

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 1:59pm

"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?

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 2:52pm

Vern,

This was in the review:

"So most of the critical fraternity in NYC are privately letting it be known they plan to see the show over the next week and will probably be filing their notices on Feb. 8, which is the day after the opening was supposed to have taken place"

Doesn't look like anything will be coming up roses for Julie Taymore.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 4:50pm

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.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 5:09pm

I just had someone post this on my Facebook wall...

"a friend of mine went to see it with his grandkids on a saturday matinee, and the theatre was half empty...word is spreading..."

[finishmyhat]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 5:18pm

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.

[willheim2]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 5:25pm

I was curious about this reviewer, and it turns out he is quite an interesting, educated, accomplished and respected guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ouzounian

[HummingAlong]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 5:27pm

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.

[uncageg]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 6:31pm

I think "the word" has already spread with all of the media attention but it seems people are still buying tickets. I heard last week on tv that advance sales were dropping off though. I wonder if it was today's matinee that they attended? If so, it could be weather related possibly.

[Brick]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 6:35pm

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

[Cornelius2]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 6:46pm

Completely agree with the Toronto Star Review-
saw the show on Thursday night and "awful" is the word-
love Lion King (have seen it 5 times)
and U2 (have seen them in concerts several times)
but found very little to like in Spider-Man...
Also, from conversations with fellow audience members it seemed that many of them were in comped seats (I wasn't)...
little/scattered applause at the end.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 7:04pm

TheatreDiva- You say "word is spreading,"


I didn't, my friend did.

[HummingAlong]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 7:58pm

sorry diva - it was just an easy way to address that it occurred on your post. no worries.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 1/30/11 at 9:57am

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!

[canmark]

Posted: 1/30/11 at 10:24am

Exactly. This sounds like Lord of the Rings all over. Trying to do too much and ending up with too little.

[Broadway Bob*]

Posted: 1/30/11 at 10:26am

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

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 1/30/11 at 11:24am

No real need for an update: A sequel. Plenty of fodder from the last 20 years.

Wasn't it reported a while back that Mandelbaum had not been well?