| fly my vulturers fly!!! if/then is tanking with crix...so far | |
| Posted by: | BroadwayLouBlaze 09:24 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| Those of you...and there are saldly many here...are in your element tonight as poor reviews are piling up for if/then. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: fly my vulturers fly!!! if/then is tanking with crix...so far | |
| Posted by: | Ann 09:06 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | fly my vulturers fly!!! if/then is tanking with crix...so far - BroadwayLouBlaze 09:24 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| Oh, clam down. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: fly my vulturers fly!!! if/then is tanking with crix...so far | |
| Posted by: | sf 09:01 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | fly my vulturers fly!!! if/then is tanking with crix...so far - BroadwayLouBlaze 09:24 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| What's a "vulturer"? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: fly my vulturers fly!!! if/then is tanking with crix...so far | |
| Posted by: | BruceinIthaca 12:51 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | fly my vulturers fly!!! if/then is tanking with crix...so far - BroadwayLouBlaze 09:24 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| Why "saldly" [sic]? Some people liked it, some didn't--I was among those underimpressed with it in DC. I am also one of those who felt reasonably positive about "Mothers and Sons," and it, too, came in for considerable critical and chattical excoration. Chacun a son gout and De gustibus, and all that. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Variety....negative | |
| Posted by: | barna99 09:54 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
| In reply to: | fly my vulturers fly!!! if/then is tanking with crix...so far - BroadwayLouBlaze 09:24 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| n/m | |
| Link | http://variety.com/2014/legit/reviews/broadway-review-ifthen-starring-idina-menzel-1201150134/ |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Variety....negative | |
| Posted by: | MikeR 01:11 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | Variety....negative - barna99 09:54 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| I haven't seen the show, but I'm told by a friend who has that the Variety review gets it absolutely wrong in the last paragraph (her spoiler about the ending). In his words, "100% completely, unquestionably, provably wrong." Any comments from others who have seen the show? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Yes, Variety got it wrong (Spoilers) | |
| Posted by: | Showtunegal 07:33 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Variety....negative - MikeR 01:11 am EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| Yes, the critic did misunderstand the ending, but in all fairness, it truly isn't that easy a show to follow and I could see misunderstanding what happens at the end--I'm sure she's not the only one. But the point is, the critic wrote that Elizabeth "chooses" one life over the other, but what happens at the end, as I see it, (SPOILER) is the man, Josh, who Liz marries, shows up in Beth's story at the end and it looks like they will get together, because, although he died in Liz's story, in Beth's he didn't defer his return to the army because their kid was born, so he wasn't in harm's way and didn't get killed. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Variety....negative | |
| Posted by: | seeseveryshow 01:22 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Variety....negative - MikeR 01:11 am EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| "And here comes the spoiler for anyone wondering which life Elizabeth chooses to live: did you really think it would be the feminist career woman who betrays her husband, has an abortion, and climbs to the top of her profession? If you do, then I have this bridge to Brooklyn you might want to buy." I don't understand what Marilyn Stasio is referring to in the last paragraph of her Variety review. That is not how the story ends. I don't recall that either Liz or Beth betrays a husband. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| It reads like she hasn't even seen the show... | |
| Posted by: | UWS_JIM 09:31 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Variety....negative - seeseveryshow 01:22 am EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| The whole concept isn't "I have two paths so which one will I decide I want". Marilyn Stasio should be ashamed. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Brantley.... | |
| Posted by: | Ncassidine 10:11 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
| In reply to: | Variety....negative - barna99 09:54 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| Link | NYTimes review |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| "Yet I suspect this show, which has been doing solid business in previews, will have no trouble finding an audience." | |
| Posted by: | lowwriter 12:53 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | Brantley.... - Ncassidine 10:11 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| Not if Ben Brantley can help it with his review of If/Then | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "Yet I suspect this show, which has been doing solid business in previews, will have no trouble finding an audience." | |
| Posted by: | BestFriend 07:57 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | "Yet I suspect this show, which has been doing solid business in previews, will have no trouble ... - lowwriter 12:53 am EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| Well, he didn't with his review of Wicked. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "Yet I suspect this show, which has been doing solid business in previews, will have no trouble finding an audience." | |
| Posted by: | BruceinIthaca 01:06 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | "Yet I suspect this show, which has been doing solid business in previews, will have no trouble ... - lowwriter 12:53 am EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| As with "Mothers and Sons" (which I liked a lot more than "If/Then," albeit in its DC version), I think Brantley writes a fair and actually somewhat generous review. He praises Idina Menzel for doing what she does well (even when her material lets her down), praises the other actors as appropriate to their roles in the show, and focuses his negative remarks where many of us thought they belong--the trite and poorly written book and the less than distinguished score. And if Adele Manatee stays with it, I bet the reviews won't matter for awhile. The teenage girls who made "Wicked" a huge success are now at the right age for this one. I still think "Next to Normal" was better and braver and, even when it dipped into cliches about mental illness, still was reaching for something important. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| And what about the title? An odd choice and a potential liability? | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 07:26 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Yet I suspect this show, which has been doing solid business in previews, will have no tro ... - BruceinIthaca 01:06 am EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| As everyone has noted, this show arrives with a star, and the star is still the event. But bigger picture issues here, beyond Menzel's departure (which will come one day): isn't the title "If/Then" with its odd punctuation and stubby shorthand less attractive than it might be? It's accurate in terms of content, but it's hard to imagine anyone being curious -- with $138 in their hand -- about a show dubbed "If/Then." "Once" is poetic, "If/Then" chilly. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "Yet I suspect this show, which has been doing solid business in previews, will have no trouble finding an audience." | |
| Posted by: | lowwriter 01:11 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Yet I suspect this show, which has been doing solid business in previews, will have no tro ... - BruceinIthaca 01:06 am EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| I thought the review was pretty much a pan except for some of the performances. If the songs and book are both trashed, why would I want to see it after reading the review? I have a ticket for the show but I wouldn't have bought one after reading Brantley's and other reviews. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "Yet I suspect this show, which has been doing solid business in previews, will have no trouble finding an audience." | |
| Posted by: | pierce 02:07 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Yet I suspect this show, which has been doing solid business in previews, will have no tro ... - lowwriter 01:11 am EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| And after reading Brantley's review for Wicked I thought the show would be headed for the half-price ticket booth and a modest run. Instead, it became a smash. The critic's job is to be report honestly about how he/she felt about a show. I think most of them realize that today's theatergoers will take note of what's been written, then make up their own minds. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley.... | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 11:31 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
| In reply to: | Brantley.... - Ncassidine 10:11 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| Better review than he gave WICKED. Seriously. Check. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed | |
| Posted by: | WaymanWong 10:46 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley.... - Delvino 11:31 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| You're right. Brantley's 2003 review of ''Wicked'' opened with a love letter to Kristin Chenoweth, but it was a huge pan of the show. He said she was ''the essential helium in a bloated production that might otherwise spend close to three hours flapping its wings without taking off. ... 'Wicked' does not, alas, speak hopefully for the future of the American musical.'' Nor was Brantley alone. Newsday's Linda Winer called ''Wicked'' an ''overproduced, overblown, confusingly dark and laboriously ambitious jumble.'' And John Lahr in the New Yorker wrote: ''The show's 22 songs were written by Stephen Schwartz, and not one of them is memorable.'' (Gee, ''Popular'' and ''Defying Gravity'' sound memorable to me.) Not all critics panned ''Wicked.'' Elysa Gardner in USA Today: ''The most complete, and most satisfying, new musical I've come across in a long time.'' So, ''Wicked'' gets the last laugh, having celebrated its 10th anniversary. If that's not ''Popular,'' what is? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Wicked is a bloated production and incredibly long and hyperactive n/m | |
| Posted by: | lowwriter 04:09 pm EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed - WaymanWong 10:46 am EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| n/m | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 01:31 pm EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed - WaymanWong 10:46 am EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| and, once again, you are confusing popular success with artistic success. not the same thing. at all. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed | |
| Posted by: | WaymanWong 12:32 am EDT 04/01/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed - enoch10 01:31 pm EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| That's not the point I was trying to make: I think you have to take critics with a grain of salt. And even critics can disagree about whether a show has achieved ''artistic success.'' Also, artistic successes CAN be popular, too. When John Lahr says that Stephen Schwartz hasn't written a single ''memorable'' tune in ''Wicked,'' that says more to me about Lahr's tastes than it does about Schwartz's tunes. Clearly, many people DO find ''memorable'' songs in ''Wicked.'' | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 12:53 am EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed - WaymanWong 12:32 am EDT 04/01/14 |
|
| |
| but - >>So, ''Wicked'' gets the last laugh, having celebrated its 10th anniversary. If that's not ''Popular,'' what is? indicates to me you're arguing the popularity of WICKED invalidates lahr's position that it's a bad musical. a position i agree with, popular but bad. that's arguing quantity over quality. sorry if i am misreading it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 01:55 pm EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed - enoch10 01:31 pm EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| I don't think you can fault Wayman for the confusion. The fault lies at the feet of the creators of these shows. They have decided to pursue popular success by heading for Broadway (a commercial entertainment destination where, by definition, popular success is the only metric of success) rather than off-Broadway where that would not be the case. This is a choice. There are those here, perhaps including you, that imagine that Broadway is some larger version of Playwrights Horizons. It is not. It is a place people go to make money. That may be a tough pill for some fans of musical theatre to swallow, but that's the fact. If/ Then would not be on Broadway if the folks involved were not trying to make money. Ditto for all the other crap we are seeing this season. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 05:45 pm EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed - ryhog 01:55 pm EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| though it may be a tough pill to swallow for some, perhaps including you, it is possible be a success in both realms and in venues beyond playwrights horizon. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 06:02 pm EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed - enoch10 05:45 pm EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| Oh I agree, and that's a pill I gladly swallow. I can't imagine you would think otherwise. And of course there are works that succeed artistically and also on Broadway. But there are far too many shows that don't, and that's what I am addressing. Right now we have a season of artistic mediocrity, and it appears it may be headed for financial mediocrity as well. That's actually not a bad thing, if it causes a break in the right direction. The scary part is that it is equally or more likely to break the other way. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed | |
| Posted by: | Chromolume 11:26 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed - WaymanWong 10:46 am EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| "The show's 22 songs were written by Stephen Schwartz, and not one of them is memorable." (Gee, "Popular" and "Defying Gravity" sound memorable to me.) Which again defends the sensible point of view that very few new songs are instantly memorable - aside from jingles and the hook in a pop song, which are really designed to be "earworms." (Though I would argue that the "hooks" involving the titles of both songs you mentioned are, pretty much, instantly memorable). It takes a few hearings of almost anything to really start taking it in. I think "memorable" has become a friendly euphemism for "derivative" - in other words, something isn't "memorable" if it doesn't already sound like a song you've heard before. Which is why, unfortunately, jukebox shows are going to be around for a good long time, I fear - no chance of an "unmemorable" score when you can go in "humming the tunes" before you even buy the tickets. :-( | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 12:04 pm EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed - Chromolume 11:26 am EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| I think the whole "memorable" notion is yet another example of trying to peg some objective standard to something that is all about subjective appeal. The cold truth is that these new shows we keep trying to fathom (of which If/Then may be the ultimate poster child) are never going to develop into memorable scores, or even memorable songs. Jukebox scores function like insurance policies for producers, and they are utilized because precious little of the songwriting we are witnessing has much of what, in another industry, we would call curb appeal. Tom Kitt did a superb job of adapting, arranging and integrating the songs of American Idiot for the stage. At least a dozen of those songs-probably more-are materially better than any song in If/Then. Did we need to be "trained" to like Green Day's songs? I think not. What does that tell us about what is wrong with the songwriting on Broadway circa 2014? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed | |
| Posted by: | WaymanWong 12:45 am EDT 04/01/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed - ryhog 12:04 pm EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| Whether a tune is ''memorable'' or ''hummable'' will always be a subjective call. I personally find Kitt's tunes from ''Next to Normal'' AND ''If/Then'' more appealing than some of Green Day's stuff. Yet for all of Green Day's worldwide success selling millions of records and winning Grammy Awards, somehow that still didn't translate into a Broadway hit. When ''West Side Story'' opened, there were critics who called the score ''unhummable.'' As Sondheim has said, it took radio airplay from the soundtrack of ''West Side Story'' to turn those tunes into the mainstream songs they are. Just as John Lahr branded Schwartz's songs to ''Wicked'' unhummable, time has proven that some of them are wildly popular. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 01:38 am EDT 04/01/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Something ''Wicked'' this way, reviewed - WaymanWong 12:45 am EDT 04/01/14 |
|
| |
| I don't think there is any air between your view and mine on this memorable/hummable nonsense (even if we don't agree about Kitt's own work vs the Green Day). It's pretty simple to me-people like what they like. No one is going to convince any of us to like music that doesn't speak to us personally, and that's not a bad thing. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley.... | |
| Posted by: | LegitOnce 10:19 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
| In reply to: | Brantley.... - Ncassidine 10:11 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| Ouch! The premise of “If/Then” recalls “Sliding Doors,” the 1998 movie in which Gwyneth Paltrow led parallel lives with different hair colors. But its conceptual novelty factor aside, “If/Then” more exactly resembles a Lifetime movie — or two Lifetime movies spliced together — the kind in which prominent television actresses, in between crime shows, portray women whose lives are forever altered. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley.... | |
| Posted by: | Singapore/Fling 10:42 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley.... - LegitOnce 10:19 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| Ouch indeed. It reads like Brantley went out of his way not to give them anything that they could remotely pull for quotes ("The score is insistent, mildly agreeable! Idina Menzel has a smashing climactic lament!"). And then the Variety review is just painful from the first sentence. It's a shame, in so far as Kitt and Yorkey set out to do something interesting. Meanwhile, does anyone else feel that the Best Musical race is now between "Aladdin", "Gentleman's Guide" and "After Midnight"? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley.... | |
| Posted by: | mikem 11:04 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley.... - Singapore/Fling 10:42 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| Bullets over Broadway can still nab the prize. Otherwise, it seems like a lukewarm kind of season. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Of course! Forgot about "Bullets". | |
| Posted by: | Singapore/Fling 11:07 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley.... - mikem 11:04 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| Oh yes! I had forgotten that was still to open. And that does sound like it's going to get a lot of love. Though not in a creep, in the attic kind of way. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley.... | |
| Posted by: | LegitOnce 10:56 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley.... - Singapore/Fling 10:42 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| Ms. Menzel... brings an anxious intensity to a featherweight part.... The highest human decibel level [on] Broadway... since Merman!" | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Maybe Rocky will do better business now? | |
| Posted by: | lowwriter 01:09 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley.... - LegitOnce 10:56 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| Wow, the new musicals this season aren't doing that well. I would really like to see Gentlemen's Guide or After Midnight get the Tony Award for best musical. And what about Beautiful, which seems to please audiences more than some of the critics? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley.... | |
| Posted by: | Singapore/Fling 10:58 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley.... - LegitOnce 10:56 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| ;-) Yes, because I want the MOST DECIBEL for my money! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley.... | |
| Posted by: | Ann 10:48 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley.... - Singapore/Fling 10:42 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| I know it's crazy talk, but Bridges got better reviews than Aladdin and most people who have actually seen it seem to be favorable. Aladdin may be viewed as standard Disney with a stand-out performance they can award separately. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley.... | |
| Posted by: | Singapore/Fling 10:57 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley.... - Ann 10:48 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| I hear what you're saying - the "Aladdin" reviews seemed to me to be more enthusiastic, but then the critics went in with lower expectations, and it felt like the general consensus is that the parts are more interesting than the whole. But it's a fun show, which I think has people leaving on a higher note than "Bridges", which people seem to be viewing as a bit of missed opportunity. I also wonder if "Bridges" will be able to pull together the money to keep running until the Tonys, particularly with today's revelation that they've taken out emergency loans. I can see Brown getting another Best Score Award, but unless they get the Big Prize, that's a lot of money down the drain... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley.... | |
| Posted by: | Ann 11:00 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley.... - Singapore/Fling 10:57 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| Oh, well that would make a difference. They have probably followed the If/Then reviews very closely. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley.... | |
| Posted by: | John_Patti (Bridges Reviews Round Up) 09:22 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley.... - Ann 11:00 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| What reviews were you looking at? If anything the score and Kelli got nice reviews, the reviews for what surrounded them were either pans or "buyer beware" statements. No outright positive reviews or raves with the exception of Time Magazine Aladdin got mixed notices but decidedly more positive and several enthusiastic Rocky too had several raves in its mixed bag of reviews | |
| Link | http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Review-Roundup-THE-BRIDGES-OF-MADISON-COUNTY-Opens-on-Broadway-Updating-LIVE-20140220-page2#.UzlpevldXmc |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley.... | |
| Posted by: | pierce 10:00 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley.... - John_Patti 09:22 am EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| Actually, in addition to Time, the reviews from Newsday, the Bergen Record, New York Daily News, New York One, Time Out and the Associated Press were all favorable. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley.... | |
| Posted by: | tpdc 10:25 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley.... - pierce 10:00 am EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| Though every Bridges review seemed like love letters to O'Hara, the score and Pasquale got mostly strongly favorable comments. And the critical praise for the production and show itself was greater than that for Beautiful, Rocky or If/Then. Outside of Menzel, there were some pretty vicous pans for If/Then. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley.... | |
| Posted by: | Ann 10:30 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley.... - tpdc 10:25 am EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| The thing is, what does it all mean for the Tonys? I'm disappointed in myself for getting into one of these conversations again and trying to apply logic ... but, the critics are for the most part not Tony voters, and how closely do reviews match voting? I think looking at a widespread sample of reviews, from blogs to the Times, and at regular theatregoer comments may give some indication. But it of course may mean nothing. And I don't really care, but what are you going to talk about until it's all over ... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Also... | |
| Posted by: | pierce 10:14 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley.... - pierce 10:00 am EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| Neglected to add Entertainment Weekly and NBC New York. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Also... | |
| Posted by: | pierce 11:04 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | Also... - pierce 10:14 am EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| And despite a few reservations, Elisabeth Vincentelli of the NY Post gave the show 3 out of 4 stars; I think you'd have to consider that favorable as well. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley.... | |
| Posted by: | Ann 09:51 am EDT 03/31/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley.... - John_Patti 09:22 am EDT 03/31/14 |
|
| |
| I'm looking at Stagegrade. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| LOL | |
| Posted by: | MockingbirdGirl 10:29 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley.... - LegitOnce 10:19 pm EDT 03/30/14 |
|
| |
| That really *is* a perfect description of Lifetime movies! :-D | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
All That Chat is intended for the discussion of
theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)
Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.
[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Restaurant Revue | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]
Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2014 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]
Time to render: 3.046351 seconds.