did anyone else not like 42nd street??

[kate2]

Posted: 8/13/05 at 9:15pm

My parents took me to see it for my birthday last year and i was falling asleep through a lot of it. i managed to keep my eyes open though(unlike the guy infront of me). i was expecting so much more. the dancing was great but other than that, i was bored out of my mind.

anyone else feel this way?

[broadway betty]

Posted: 8/13/05 at 9:24pm

Oh yeah, I hated 42nd Street. I wanted to ask for a refund. The music didn't grab me at all. And while it was cool to see all those tapping feet, it still wan't enough for me. I wanted to walk out during the intermission but I don't do that. I like buying cast albums of all the shows I see but I have no desire to get this one. Or Mamma Mia or Movin' Out.

[Dre2387]

Posted: 8/14/05 at 2:03am

i didn't like it. The tap-dancing wasn't as good as Crazy For You, which is my second favorite musical. But I did like the guy who played the director. his voice was cool.

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 8/14/05 at 2:06am

Love it. Wish more modern musicals were like this.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 8/14/05 at 2:36am

I suppose it depends on your expectations.

If you did not know that 42ND STREET originated in 1933 as a movie, and even though the stage adaptation dates from 1980 it is not put together with a 1980s theatrical sensibility. The songs are mostly "performance" songs with little connection to the plot, and the plot was hackneyed by 1930s standards.

I saw the original production in 1980 just after it premiered and found it great fun. As much as I like thoroughly integrated musicals, I am still a sucker for that old fashioned Broadway razzle-dazzle that is no longer part of the Broadway musical scene. So when the kick line forms at the end of "Lullaby of Broadway" and the voices all join in "Come Along..." well, for me it's a lump-in-the-throat, hair-standing-on-end moment because it's a chance to grasp the type of Broadway that was around in the 1930s when Merman and Victor Moore and Bob Hope and Jimmy Durrante were stopping shows. Now, we can't go back but at least in moments like this we can catch a glimpse of what it was like.

Now if you don't enjoy those old fashioned musicals then no, you won't like 42ND STREET and there's no law that you have to.

But at least try to understand what shows like that mean

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 8/14/05 at 3:39am

i went to see it with my grandma and even she found it boring. it sucked!

[IMsooHyprToday]

Posted: 8/14/05 at 4:09am

... guys come on. While i can respect that people have their own opinions, one thing that irritates me is blatant insults to the show without any constructive criticism or ways to back up their opinions intelligently.

I can see that how someone would be able to say they disliked the script, or disagreed with soem of the directorial choices (if they saw the tour.....) but i cannot imagine anyone being able to fall asleep. (unless it was a community show..........)

Posted: 8/14/05 at 4:14am

Dissing the show that gave you "The Lullaby of Broadway" makes it very unclear as to why you're even visiting this site.

[BreakingTheCircle07]

Posted: 8/14/05 at 5:05am

I agree it being a very weak book show. It's simple formula for a simple plot with lots of dancing. Meh.

[Greekmusicalfan]

Posted: 8/14/05 at 5:13am

I didn't get bored and I definetely didn't hate it ! I enjoyed it, but it is not one of my favorites !

[Urban]

Posted: 8/14/05 at 8:37am

42nd Street the movie was pre-code gold. I just like the era, the banter, zannyness and the naughtiness that pre-code movies offer. 42nd Street the broadway musical I thought captured that spirit pretty well, or as well as a theatre production of 1980 could.

Saying that I can understand how some people may not enjoy it, and that's fair, to each his own.

Of course I really want "The Golddiggers of 1933" to be made into a musical.

[Glebb]

Posted: 8/14/05 at 8:57am

LOVE the movie, did not like the recent Broadway production.
I wasn't bored by the show, I just didn't find it clever like the movie.
It wasn't Sweet Charity bad but Thoroughly Modern Millie was better.

[kyle33nyc]

Posted: 8/14/05 at 9:18am

I think 42nd St is a show for people who don't like book musicals. All dancing and big smiles, very little substance. The show became such a huge sucess due to the brilliant "marketing strategy" of David Merrick.

I know that early shows before 1945 or so didn't have integrated books, but at least the early shows of Rodgers & Hart and Cole Porter seem more interesting than this nonsense.

Kyle

[nolatheatre]

Posted: 8/14/05 at 9:19am

I agree with the statement saying that the book was weak. But, i also did not like the sets! On the touring production they sang were in the money with shiny gold costumes and a plain red backdrop. I was bored and lost. But, there were alot of technical mistakes made that day like the mike going out during the lullaby of broadway and the sets leaving to early. But, it did not impress me at all.

[ticenewyorkcity]

Posted: 8/14/05 at 9:27am

nope i for one loved it
auditioned for it all the time, obviously never getting past a 4th or 5th call back
and seeing it 24 times during it's revival
d

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 8/14/05 at 9:50am

The big problem for me in 42nd ST. (both the film and the Broadway adaption...but much more the latter) is that Peggy Sawyer (the ingenue you are supposed to care about and root for) is pretty dull.

Dorothey Brock, the supposedly untalented one, has all the pizazz, all the funny lines...and the talent.

[My Fair Lady]

Posted: 8/14/05 at 9:56am

I saw the show last September and I have to admit, I'm also a sucker for the old-fashioned Broadway musical where people break out into song out of nowhere. While by no means is it a "great" musical, it's fun if you like cheesy, old-fashioned shows.

[BwayBoy25]

Posted: 8/14/05 at 12:01pm

despite being the musical that gave you songs like the lullaby of broadway this show is one of my favorites simply because of the tap dancing...how many other shows can you get that many ensemble members tapping in perfect unison and opening and closing the show?

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 8/14/05 at 1:29pm

kyle dean massey was great. he was in the recent tour.

[Harpo]

Posted: 8/14/05 at 10:27pm

I saw it waaaaaayyy back in January 1981 with Jerry Orbach and Tammy Grimes. They may be why I really enjoyed it, but I do have a soft spot for musical extravaganzas/Ziegfeld Follies type shows.

"Lullaby of Broadway" is burned in my brain. I will always love that song.

[joeybiltmore1]

Posted: 8/15/05 at 12:54am

I actually LOVE the script of this show but thought the revival failed to bring any real drive or heart to the story. It's like they couldn't wait to get to the next song and didn't trust the script at all. The script doesn't have to be all corny if played for the spirit, drama and love of theatre that is written all through it. The dances sure were wonderful, though!

[Justice]

Posted: 8/15/05 at 1:57am

You can add me to that list of one who fell asleep. This show is too simple...and typical. I know where its roots stem, and was familiar with the show when i was younger. I was actually looking forward to seeing it after hearing so much raves. But, I think what bothered me was that it was a revival emulating the original. The cast was good..but it just didn't move me.

[NYC_or_Bust]

Posted: 8/15/05 at 2:04am

I guess I'm just a sucker for BIG, BRIGHT, FLASHY musicals...i like shows that allude to the past...not past like "before dorothy dropped in" but like ziegfeld and the 20s and 30s...I agree with the saying "the musical for people who love broadway musicals"...I mean back in Broadway's big break with show boat and later oklahoma, etc...broadway was about big flashy shows..sure you had to have some kind of conflict but the MAJORITY of shows weren't dark and cynical...WICKED, CABARET, ROCKY HORROR, etc. (not saying these show's aren't good, so please don't bitch me out), i'm just saying...broadway was about big glitzy in your face glamour shows...and shows like 42nd Street preserve that time in history...and that's a piece of broadway history that should never be destroyed

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/15/05 at 2:07am

Love it!

Usually hate those kinds of shows...FLASHY ones.

I like dark shows.

But 42nd Street is about the dancing and the music.

[Eastwickian]

Posted: 8/15/05 at 6:18am

It had good numbers (if you like those kind of numbers) seemly shoe-horned into a rather hackneyed creaky plot with terrible forced jokes. A bit like Mamma Mia with tap dancing