YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN Reviews- Page 6

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 12:21am

Did you like the show itself DAME?

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 12:26am

So you got Premium seats at street prices?
Interesting.
I was upstairs and it didn't sound too loud.
But I agree a lot with the TIMES, which I usually don't.
Mostly on making Chris Fitzgerald do those old jokes and not cute.
And I am glad Sutton and Andrea are getting the raves they desreve.

[Popular]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 12:30am

Well I have learned that reviews don't mean much. Perhaps it's being unfairly compared to THE PRODUCERS or maybe it really is as bad as some are saying. Go and form your own decisions if you're interested. It's a shame it's not being received better but I, for many reasons, wont shed any tears for them.... mostly because it'll last a while no matter what the critics say.
Updated On: 11/9/07 at 12:30 AM

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 12:32am

http://www.broadway.com/gen/general.aspx?ci=556168

[vitamins]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 12:33am

Regardless of the reviews, I'm still excited to see it over Spring Break or over the summer. I agree that the movie doesn't naturally sing, but I still want to see it. It also pisses me off that all of the reviews compare it to The Producers.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 12:34am

Yeah, I think the critics had it out for Brooks after the phenomenon that was THE PRODUCERS.

I'm going on Tuesday and am still (if not more) as excited as before the reviews came out.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 12:37am

Don't you think critics compared CAROUSEL to OKLAHOMA?
It's a whole different level, but still it always happens.

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 12:42am

John Simon is a Rave:

"How many Broadway shows offer the chance to watch the lustfully cavorting hero and heroine rise on a gurney above the proscenium arch, there to make love as their undergarments float suggestively to the stage below?

``Young Frankenstein' is such a one and, not coincidentally, it is that much above its nearest competitors. Having won huge success with ``The Producers,' Mel Brooks has turned another of his movies into a stage musical. Unlike the famously mock-terrible ``Springtime for Hitler' in the earlier show, however, ``Young Frankenstein' is meant to be a hit, and a hit it assuredly is..."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601098&sid=a2s69oZ6SYX4&refer=movie

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 12:45am

Clive Barnes gives the show 3 out of 4 Stars:

"WHERE did we go almost right? - as Max and Leo (almost) used to sing in "The Producers." The new Mel Brooks/Susan Stroman musi cal extravaganza "Young Frank enstein" is nearly very good indeed - but it is not the "The Producers...""

"Now for the good news.

In telling this tale of a young scientist who sets sail for Europe on the H.M.S. Queen Murray to reluctantly join the family business of making Monsters in darkest Eastern Europe, Brooks and Stroman pull out every stop.

Despite music that's more ho-hum than hummable, Brooks's lyrics are bright and witty.

Better yet, the book - maintaining virtually all of those iconic quotable quotes - does a great job, with the assistance of co-writer Thomas Meehan, in transferring the original script to the stage..."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11092007/entertainment/theater/not_quite_a_monster_725476.htm

[pab]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 12:56am

"Yeah, I think the critics had it out for Brooks after the phenomenon that was THE PRODUCERS."

Yeah, they all got together at their weekly Critics dinner and decided to bash the show. I couldn't make it so they sent me an email and told me to say as well.

[broadwayboy1017]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 1:02am

bad review from the times......
NEGATIVE

[DAME]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 1:21am

WR:
Yes I did. I wrote about it in the mojito thread. Wasn't crazy about Roger Bart.

[BroadwayAbridged]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 1:21am

Someone's still got to explain to me why Blazing Saddles is the "obvious" choice for the next musicalization instead of the perfect-for-musicalization Men in Tights.

Oh right, Blazing Saddles has more brand recognition...

Never mind then. I guess nobody needs to explain it to me.

[pab]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 1:29am

It's only been mentioned as the "obvious" choice because Mel Brooks wrote that it might be done in the lyrics of the finale of YF.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 1:34am

Perhaps TO BE OR NOT TO BE would be a good movie to turn into a stage musical. Of course, Mel just remade the Lubitsch classic, so he doesn't own the rights to it. This means that ANYONE could write a stage version, it wouldn't have to be him.

[antz]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 1:36am

I'd have to agree with both Variety and NYTimes. Ir's too bad though, I had a great time at the show (though I though it was only mediocre) when I saw it in out of town previews in Seattle and thought they had enough time to tighten it up and edit things here and there. It sounds like they didn't do very much...the runtime is still 2hrs 40min (Act one is waaaaay too long). Still, I'm glad they give Sutton Foster and Andrea Martin recognition. Roger Bart worked for me too.

Still, I agree that this will have a run of several years and is a little critic proof (although I'm not sure if people will fork out over $400 after a while).

Next up...Cry Baby tryout in La Jolla (can't wait).

[kyleorlando]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 1:44am

Who would have thought that Xanadu would get better reviews than Young Frankenstein?!?

Updated On: 11/9/07 at 01:44 AM

[WickedForever2]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 2:14am

Hmm, in Seattle the ending line was "We'll make the son of Frankenstein, the sequel's coming soon." Do they still sing that?


I pretty much figured this would get mixed-to-negative reviews, but I don't agree nor do I think it will hurt the show. WICKED, anyone? Another huge show in a giant house that got not so great reviews but doesn't seem to be going away any time soon.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 2:17am

Despite all, I'm thinking critic-proof, although it IS a big theater to fill every night. But tourists will flock and frankly, if they put that video from the show we have online outside the theater, it'd seal the deal. The show looks huge and fun and alive. whether it is or not....

[BearX220]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 2:24am

I saw the show's ninth or tenth tryout performance in Seattle and dropped back in here tonight to see the tenor of the reviews. They're more negative than I expected! Because I thought the show's problems were very apparent in Seattle, and eminently fixable... and I was sure Stroman & Co. would attend to business before opening night.

It doesn't sound like much has changed since Seattle. Certainly not enough. I wrote back in August that while the cast was working like crazy, and mostly doing great, YF's issues were (A) bloat and (B) failure to rise about dutiful recitation of fave bits from the movie. Act I was 20 minutes too long and leaden, and audience fatigue had set in long before we finally got to "Puttin' on the Ritz", which is the third or fourth interminable, stage-jamming showstopper, deep in Act II. And reenacting intimate cinema-frame moments fell flat in Seattle's Paramount, a pretty big house... it doesn't sound like they work any better at the Hilton.

The Seattle audiences did go nuts for YF, bloat and all, but bear in mind that we never see staging like this out here. Mostly we get touring companies with "sets" that can be rolled up and UPS'd to the next town. The sledgehammer spectacle of the thing knocked Seattlites out, but on Broadway it gets YF compared to a Disney theme park show.

I'm really sorry YF hasn't been tightened and brightened in the three months since its out-of-town run... a ruthless scalpel could've led to better notices. And I'm double sorry that Roger Bart is taking it on the chin, because I thought he was working his heart out and was just terrific (Mullally: another story). I just don't think it's his fault. It's the dead, know-it-by-heart book (the hermit scene, lifted line for line from the movie, packs all the surprise of a school Nativity play), and the impulse to shovel on still more dance numbers as half the house starts to fret about PATH / LIRR schedules. You should leave 'em wanting more, Mel, not checking their watches in the dark.

-- Sorry from Seattle
Updated On: 11/9/07 at 02:24 AM

[DG]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 2:37am

Critical response to this piece won't matter one whit. It will sell well, and make money.

[blaxx]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 3:05am

I won't get started on the Pirate Queen cast/crew's celebrations that must be going on tonight.
Yippie! This is making my night.

Oh yes. I'm sure they're celebrating that a show that is not even close as embarrasingly bad as theirs, kicked their smelly musical out of the theatre. And also because they will make a huge amount of money that PQ investors wishes they could had ever made... wherever they're "celebrating", I'm sure it burns!

[DG]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 3:20am

I've gotten such a kick out of the discussions about this piece, and especially about Mel in particular.

As I and a few others have pointed out repeatedly, it's called Show BUSINESS - and this man is a legendary master. He's one of a handful that have made their name a brandname on screen - and now he's transferred that to live theatre.

An ego? Please! This industry wouldn't exist, much less thrive, without ego.

The fact is, he's given millions of people around the world hours of entertainment - and that includes his foray into theatre. And he's been widely ackowledged and praised for his efforts. Remind me, which musical has won the most Tony Awards?

If anyone has a problem understanding this, then they are either overly young or too naive to understand what it is he's about.

Learn something and grow up.

And by the way, congratulations Mel.

[Effie]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 4:33am

"WICKED, anyone? Another huge show in a giant house that got not so great reviews but doesn't seem to be going away any time soon."

WICKED is still playing to packed houses because people feel passionately about it. I highly doubt YF is going to whip anybody into a frenzy. DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS is probably a better comparison. Some people thought it was funny, but clearly not enough to sustain a huge run.

My guess is that once the material is left in the hands of people who can't milk a joke like Andrea Martin or Megan Mullaly, the word of mouth is going to be pretty bad.

[DickonDefysGravity]

Posted: 11/9/07 at 5:25am

Frankly, the show really only caters to Fitzgerald. He is pretty damn brilliant in the role.
Mullaly does nice comedic nudges, but seems to need more to work with.
Foster really tackled her role and comes out on top with Fitzgerald.