my dracula review 8/6/04 a positive review by far!

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 8/7/04 at 2:08am

Ok, so going in to see the show I was very excited and went with two friends and my mother who were all very very hesitant to see the show.

On leaving, everyone was very impressed with the production (yes there are flaws and I will get to them).

Lets start with the music. While this is not Wildhorn's best score it is still amazing. The song life after life (which is reprised again in the second act) is just amazing and so beautifully sung. The music in the first act while it is great is nothing compared to the power numbers that are contained in the second.

Performances:
Tom Hewit is an amazing actor and does wonders with the part WHEN HE IS NOT FLYING! he looks rather scared most times while flying. His voice is amazing and we were just taken inby his performace.

Mellissa Errico whom I am not a huge fan of definitely won me over in this show. Most productions of dracula i find her part annoying and kinda boring but I was definitely enthralled by her performance.

Stephen McKinely was miss cast! truly the only person in the cast I did not like!

Kelli O'hara definitely gives the best performace of the entire cast. (and you get to see her naked).

which brings me to the nudity that has been such a controversy throughout this production. It was done very very tastefully and whether it was needed or not it DID NOT take away from the production and flowed very well.

The sets:
WERE AMAZING! everything flying and everyone flying (wicked could take some hints from flying people)

ok which brings me to the negative parts of the show
the book eludes to many things that were in the original book but left out. They are missed. Its not the strongest book of a musical ever written, but far from a horrible book.

Sound: the mics were definitely having issues tonight and stephens mic was turned off in the middle of a song (pretty much his only song).

the intermission has been shortened to 30 minutes sand with more previews will be shortened to a normal intermission

the show runs at a mere 2 hours and 30 minutes with an over long intermissison but I think needs to be beefed up a bit to run about 2 hours and 45 minutes and add a few scenes back in.

Overall, I think it is a good show that will last on broadway much like jekyl and hide did.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/7/04 at 2:14am

Gee, you only used the word "amazing" five times. Sorry it wasn't a superlative experience for you.

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 8/7/04 at 2:15am

sorry for using amazing too much im kinda tired...

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/7/04 at 2:19am

That's okay. I think six or more means you had a really good time.

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 8/7/04 at 2:22am

I am just excited after reading all the horrible and ridiculous reviews of the show on this board its nice to finally have a first hand experience of the show and that I disagree with the majority on the board...it was also ncie to see the audiences reaction and realise how much of the audience LOVED THE SHOW to give it a huge standing ovation (atleast inthe orchestra)

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 8/7/04 at 2:31am

You smell like cobbler.

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 8/7/04 at 2:46am

well thank you sum that was a very enlightening and helpful post

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 8/7/04 at 5:03am

Finally! Someone who agrees that WICKED is not the spactacle people said it was. Everyone expected the damn witch to fly. I will see DRACULA for the flying and pretend it's Idina Menzel.

[Testing1232]

Posted: 8/7/04 at 10:53am

Umgeo,

While I totally respect your opinion, I have to disagree with you on the score. "Amazing"??? I think its decent at best, but that is my opinion. I dont think it comes close to the "SP", or
"J & H". I was waiting the entire show for one song to come close to the power of "This is the Moment", "In His Eyes", or
"A New Life", and it never happened. Agree that "Life after Life" is a good song, but not surpised it was reprised, given that it is the show's best number.

Agree totally that Kelli O'Hara is the best in the show. Like Hewitt as well. At times I felt like I was watching Cuccioli in J & H, but thats not a bad thing.

Errico? We must have been watching different shows, because I thought she was expressionless and boring. Wasnt even crazy about her voice in a number of the numbers, and I DO think the has a wonderful voice.

As far as the audience. We were front Mezz, and the people around us seemed to feel the same way about the show. Not absolutely horrible, but really needs work. I would hate to think that only people sitting in the Orchestra would enjoy the show. Far as the standing "O". We saw some people standing, but we figured that either it was their first broadway show, they felt bad for the performers, or they were pissed off that they plopped down $100 to see this show. If they stand for "Dracula", we wondered what they would do at "Avenue Q", "Assassins", "Caroline or Change", etc. (as well as "Wicked", which I love, but others like to bash)

Like I stated earlier, totally respect your decision, but disagree on a number of fronts.

Hopefully, the critics will feel the same as you do. Would hate to see this show close after a few months, given the time and money spent, not to mention putting people out of work.

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 8/7/04 at 1:23pm

There's nothing wrong with a little cobbler.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/7/04 at 1:43pm

Even though I can't quite wrap my head around this whole 'reviewing previews' nonsense, I would like to make just a couple of comments.

Anyone that can make a comment like 'and you get to see her naked,' and then turn around and say it is 'tastefully done,' has very little chance of being taken seriously.

I'm also a little dismayed at the emphasis on special effects as a signifier of quality. I had hoped that the trend started by falling chandeliers would have started to wane by now, but it seems destined to continue - and even keep getting worse. It's interesting to me that everyone castigates the 'tourists' for being entertained by these 'extravaganzas' - and here are many on a board devoted to theatre who have the same sensibilities. Sad, indeed. Updated On: 8/7/04 at 01:43 PM

[Testing1232]

Posted: 8/7/04 at 2:06pm

<< I'm also a little dismayed at the emphasis on special effects as a signifier of quality. I had hoped that the trend started by falling chandeliers would have started to wane by now, but it seems destined to continue - and even keep getting worse. It's interesting to me that everyone castigates the 'tourists' for being entertained by these 'extravaganzas' - and here are many on a board devoted to theatre who have the same sensibilities. Sad, indeed. >>

D,

I totally agree, and that is where I can see people getting caught up in the effects and letting them cloud their vision of what, by almost all accounts (and I DO realize, as I stated in my review, that we are in previews) is a seriously flawed show.

I truly feel like the show's producers definitely put the special effects in front of everything other aspect in terms of importance, and it shows. When the nudity seems to be the central theme in the show, it doesnt say much.

[Corine2]

Posted: 8/7/04 at 2:14pm

I thought the positive things about the show though was the cast.
Kelly (the barbie doll) has a gorgeous voice and so does the rest of the cast.
I did not like the music. It needs a lot of work!
If only Tom shed more clothing. He really is hot. Even as a bat!

[rclocalz]

Posted: 8/7/04 at 2:26pm

DGrant - I am just making sure that I am not taking your opinion wrong in saying that you believe all the special effects, set designs, and look of a show has nothing to do with quality? I personally believe that the people who put in all the hard work to make sets look spectacular, flow smoothly, make the flying effortless, light up the stage with brilliant palettes of colors, and work so hard for the safety of the actors are "artists" themselves. It takes so much talent to pull all that off without the audience knowing how. Therefore the technical elements are top quality.

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 8/8/04 at 12:25am

Ok, so as for the nudity lines in my post that people say are contradictory. Well let's see the first was supposed to be a joke...I'm a homo so I don't really care that she was naked. But I think it was extremely tastefully done.

As for the score, it was not his best but far from his worst score. There were very memorable songs and some borings ones as well.

As for the flying YES IDINA SHOULD HAVE FLOWN IT RUINED THE SONG FOR ME!

While I agree that special effects do not make a show (phatom still sucks) I think the special effects in this show add to the show.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/8/04 at 4:13am

rclocalz - I would never go so far as to say what the technical people do is not an art in-and-of itself. I WILL, however, unequivocably state that it means NOTHING if not in the service of a story well told. The current state of American film (if there can be said to BE a state) is evidence that special effects alone do not art make. Most people involved with any element of the performing arts will tell you that the STORY - and how it's told - is what it's all about. The fact that Idina did not get her fabulously belting a** hoisted into the air should not have made a difference - IF they were telling the story. Conversely, the fact that people, places and things fly all over the place in Dracula doesn't mean a G** D*** thing if it isn't in the service of the STORY!!! And the fact that we are dealing with one of the most celebrated works in English literature tells me that the source material is NOT the problem. Get down to basics, learn how to sturcture a plotline with interesting characters - and stop trying to pass off your multi-million dollar extravaganza as anything other than what it is - a vegas pyrotechnic show to get you from the point of getting drunk to spending money. And if that's NOT what it is, then you need to go back to school. Updated On: 8/8/04 at 04:13 AM

[Corine2]

Posted: 8/8/04 at 10:41am

Dracula does have great special effects.
It has a very talented cast.
It has gorgeous actors and actressess.
But it still was one of the stupidest and most boring shows i have ever had to sit through.
It is a pain in the neck.
I am being very kind at the moment. Tom Hewitt is a god. He is a great performer but in Dracula he shows very little emotion is a stiff and has no chemistry with his leading ladies.
I hope they fix the show.
Because it was a true dissappointment.
(I do think it can be fixed. Tom Hewitt needs to invision Tom Cruise while pursuing Melissa Erico. He needs to be more sensual the chemistry between them was not there and unbelievable and the ending is the silliest thing i have ever seen.
I will spare the details but this show has a great cast they just need to get comfortable with each other)
I loved watching Tom fly.
(The lyrics in the songs were so bad though. It made Dance of The Vampire's look good)
Updated On: 8/8/04 at 10:41 AM

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 8/8/04 at 12:19pm

Well... maybe I just have my head up my butt... but I just saw last night's preview, and I LOVED it! Yes, it needs some fine-tuning before opening night (isn't that what previews are for?), but overall, I was thoroughly entertained and impressed! And I'm NOT the biggest Frank Wildhorn fan either. Of course, it's not the type of show that's going to get "rave" reviews from all of the critics (both amateur and professional). It's not your typical "42nd Street" Broadway musical. But I think it's leagues above "Dance of the Vampires" (I'd rather see Flying Vampires than Dancing ones any day!), and is at least as good as "Jekyll and Hyde", if in a slightly less pedestrian, dare I say "tourist-friendly", sought of way. If you're looking for a big "pop" ballad/show-stopper... keep looking. This is an entirely different type of score for Wildhorn, which may be why so many of his die-hard fans aren't drooling over it. I actually think the score has the potential of garnering Mr. Wildhorn some of the best (professional) reviews of his career. Anyway... for what it's worth, I liked it enough to buy two more full-priced tickets to see it again in September.

Updated On: 8/8/04 at 12:19 PM

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 8/8/04 at 11:35pm

Well, as for special effects Dgrant I completley agree that they need adding and taking away from performances BUT without special effects they can also RUIN a song. When Idina sings about flying and defying gravity and then she levetats on a platform THAT RUINS A SONG TO ME! SHE does not defy gravity once! so why sing about it?

As for in dracula I found the special effects added to and aided in telling the story, which I loved, yes it needs reworking but its in previews!!! (I'm hoping they work a bit of that out!)

[Corine2]

Posted: 8/8/04 at 11:51pm

I am sure it will be ready when it opens.
I just hope so. Broadway can't have another closing.
All the good shows are closing. So, Dracula should remain on Broadway.
Updated On: 8/8/04 at 11:51 PM

[NYSinger1]

Posted: 8/9/04 at 12:51am

Being one of the "hesitant" friends who went with umgeoboy, I want to validate some of what he said. I, who am not a Frank Wildhorn fan, was not totally bored by the score of Dracula. It was decent. I do think that he has written better shows. However, I think he wrote this show to go along with the "special effects".
next, as for the nudity. I personally think it adds character to the show. It makes it unique, and sexualises the part of Dracula, which I think is needed. It works well, and is tastefully done.
the technical aspects of the show were "amazing". The combination of the lighting and the "gliding" and flying during the show made it very believable and exciting. It's a wonder what modern technology can do on a stage these days. (however, I am not sure that the flying is so modern....)
The show is very well cast. Everyone plays there roll really well.
As a whole, do I see Tony nominations? I am not so sure. I think the technical aspects of the show will be nominated, but I am not sure if the show as a whole is of Tony quality. I do think it will open to mixed reviews, but still have Box Office success (can we say Wicked). Some kinks need to be worked out before the press opening, and I am sure they will be.

I agree with Corine about the fact that the cast doesn't have much chemistry. (ahh Chemistry) I hope that is something that will develop.

That is it for Dracula, but to bump heads with umgeoboy. I think that Idina's levitating is perfectly fine. It adds depth to the song. I think we need to use our imagination a bit when seeing a broadway musical. not all things are within budgets, time contraints, and actors contracts.....

[NLiotta]

Posted: 8/9/04 at 1:11am

for thoes who saw the show, should i sit upfront, middle, back, or front mez
what kind of show it it

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 8/9/04 at 10:05am

I sat in the orchestra and had a great view. its an old house so the orchestra is not very deep but the show has a mezz and a balcony. I would suggest the orch or front mezz leaning more towards the orchestra seats.