BULLETS OVER BROADWAY Reviews- Page 6

[lovebwy]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 2:14am

Sounds like it's time to put this stinker out of it's misery.

Couldn't happen to a nicer racist homophobe pedophile.

[dented146]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 2:29am

I thought Bullets would get better reviews. I'm very surprised. I personally thought Gentleman's Guide was better but not the universal rave that it turned out to be. This may help that show. I hope it does. Unlike many, I thought Brantley was way to too negative here and also on Rocky which I really thought was a terrific production with a couple of wonderful performances which he completely dismissed.

There isn't much to take away from all the reviews of all the shows. Except for After Midnight and Gentleman's there has been little agreement among the pros except this feeling that there is a lot of OK but not stellar.

It will be very interesting to see how word of mouth determines the outcome. I think that the positive audience reaction for Bullets will mean more than the reviews. Maybe the same will be true for some of the other shows.

[haterobics]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 2:40am

I think Brantley's name checking of "Radio Days" and "Midnight in Paris" just because they are also period pieces is what made me question his grasp of how varied Allen's movies are otherwise. I mean, Bullets is a broad farce that has nothing in common with Midnight in Paris which was a twee magical gem of a movie (sadly, it has been too long since I saw Radio Days, but that seems to be in neither camp with the other two, either). I mean, sure, there are movies with Woody dressed as a sperm and then being chased around Central Park by a giant breast, so he can go very broad, as well.

Whereas Blazing Saddles is a Mel Brooks western, High Anxiety is a Mel Brooks Hitchcock movie, Spaceballs is a Mel Brooks Star Wars movie, and on and on...

I think there is a lot of overlapping material between Bullets and The Producers, especially the central conceit of a nebbish getting a shot at putting on a big Broadway show with farcical elements, and then Stroman directing both, and both being at the St. James, so I get comparing those two... I just think Brantley dropped the ball on his comparison of the two.

I do wonder what the Orgasmatron musical number would be like, though.

[haterobics]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 2:47am

"Couldn't happen to a nicer racist homophobe pedophile."

I get that he's racist because the show doesn't include any black actresses, except the black actress actually cast in it; and all the scenes in Harlem that people mistakenly think is The Cotton Club are actually the gangster's club. Not to mention having an Asian wife for 17 years.

And I get that he's a pedophile, since he wasn't charged or convicted of any such charges ever and he married someone who was 19, which is above the age of consent in all 50 states.

So.. I'm really only curious when he became a homophobe?!

Updated On: 4/11/14 at 02:47 AM

[Dessie]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 5:53am

No gay characters in his movies - stereotype walk past Alvy Singer and Annie Hall and they make Fire Island joke.

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 6:24am

Brantley really goes after Stroman's direction in that review. Wow.

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 6:27am

Gentleman's Guide wasted NO time putting out an ad on BWW saying its the best-reviewed new musical, huh?

I thought they've been using a similarly-worded ad all season though. Regardless, now people might stop leaving it off their list of contenders for Best Musical.

Updated On: 4/11/14 at 06:27 AM

[bdboston]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 7:28am

The NY Post is extremely positive - 3.5 out of 4 stars.
‘Bullets Over Broadway’ is a sterling musical comedy

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 8:02am

Looks lie we have a winner here folks.

[Phillytheatreguy10]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 8:33am

Wow, I really thought this one was a lock to walk away with it all this year! I have to say, reflecting on the season of musicals, nothing was as exciting to me as "Kinky Boots" and "Matilda" were last year, IMO it's a pretty mediocre year for musicals, it's really anyone's ballgame come Tony time! Noticing the new ads for "Bullets" they didn't even use great pull quotes I mean "fun machine", that's the best they could do!?

[Eurotrash]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 8:41am

Today's London's Daily Telegraph is mixed to negative, with praise for direction and cast.

"...hard edged and comparatively charmless ... the show, for all its self-evident extravagance, shoots an alarming number of blanks."

"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-reviews/10758010/Bullets-over-Broadway-review-shooting-too-many-blanks.html

[actorgaedu]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 9:06am

Do people really rely on critics to determine their entertainment value? I know tickets are expensive, but come on! Since when do critics know what the average Joe wants from a Broadway musical? Brantley wouldn't know an average Joe if he got punched in the face by one. I have never seen the point of critics. Let people make their own decisions about shows. There have been many well reviewed shows that just didn't cut it with audiences (Bloody, Bloody Andrew Jackson - Broadway) just as there have been many not so well reviewed shows that go on to become blockbusters. Um, Wicked. Critics, schmitics.

[haterobics]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 9:34am

"No gay characters in his movies - stereotype walk past Alvy Singer and Annie Hall and they make Fire Island joke."

You're basing his homophobia on one joke from 1977, as opposed to Meryl Streep playing one half of a lesbian couple in Manhattan in 1979?

I don't think someone writing from their own worldview as someone who is not gay is "homophobic." He has made enough movies for it to have come up more often than it has, but how that is part of a "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality"? (aka the definition of homophobia).

Updated On: 4/11/14 at 09:34 AM

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 9:35am

The thing is, people here are not average joes. The torists may or may not care what the critics say, but here we all look at shows with a more critcal eye. That is why we care.

[Phillytheatreguy10]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 9:46am

^^To piggy back on that, Tony Voters are also NOT average Joe's, and for a show doing poor business a Tony could make or break them with tourists. They see award they think, "Oh this is good! I'll spend my $200 here"

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 9:49am

I'm surprised that I agree with just about everything in Brantley's review.
I'm very glad he added the rave for Cordero. He and Wolfe were the best parts of this show.

[Play Esq.]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 9:52am

These reviews make Riedel's Bullets article feel even more like he was shilling.
Riedel Bullets

[Up In One]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 9:58am

Hey Actorgaedu I look at and use the reviews when I go to London. If you read a cross section of them you pretty much get a sense of the piece your considering. These reviews are important in the first months of a run because many people want to see a hit and reviews are part of creating the perception of a hit. I will admit that I sometimes let reviews dissuade me or better put, I let reviews help me move on to the next show I want to see. But if there is something I want to see no critic will stop me. There's way too much product out there and its way to expensive (even at a discont)to not need a Consumer Report in place short of a reliable word of mouth source.

Updated On: 4/11/14 at 09:58 AM

[Sauja]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 10:20am

Actorgaedu, I think people absolutely use critics to help them make a decision. They aren't the be-all/end-all to make a show successful, but they have an impact. It's worth noting that every time this comes up, people point to Bloody Bloody or Lysistrata Jones failing or Wicked's enormous success. If the same examples are used every time, you have to ask if they're the outliers, not the proof.

Another show that comes up on these boards a lot is Will Eno's Thom Paine, which I know a ton of people here said they saw because of Isherwood's rave. It's usually brought up because they felt like they got suckered, but it's one example of people seeing a show they really didn't have interest in because the reviews were so strong.

Annnnyway, I'm rambling, but my general point is that critics have an impact. Not an infallible one, but an impact nonetheless.

And to get back on topic, I agree with every word Brantley wrote on this one. To me, this was by no means the worst show of the season, but it was the biggest disappointment by far. I almost left at intermission. The only reason I'm glad I didn't was Betsy Wolfe's second act song.

[chris d]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 10:38am

Bullets Over Broadway is seriously one of my favorite movies ever and, after reading the reviews, I'm disappointed and probably won't make a trip to NYC to see it (as I had planned). I agree with Hackasaurus_rex: with all the quirky characters and colorful revisionism the movie is still a very intimate and human story. It has as much warmth as wit. It sounds like Woody and Stroman made some cynical and even egotistical decisions in bringing this to the stage. As much as I adore the movie's script, I feel it was lazy of Allen to basically photocopy it and give to Stroman to stage it. I feel like it was a bad idea to filter the story into an integrated musical format. When I first saw the movie I thought of ideas for how it could be done on Broadway. I thought it would be cool if David, as a serious playwright, would someway find himself writing a script for a traditional revue, struggling to keep his artistic integrity, get the attention of producers of serious plays, make some money and get some fame (not unlike Barton Fink), and weave the musical numbers in a meta sort of way.

But I feel like maybe Stroman felt pressure to make a hit and just decided to go big, responding to what she's competing with on Broadway these days. I feel like, in the movie, the theme of artists never compromising is illustrated in earnest as well is in jest.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 11:11am

I think picking "Stro" as the director was a big mistake here. A better director may have turned this into a smaller, funnier, more "Woody-ish" affair. And why didn't they make David's play a Musical? Seems like an obvious choice. For me, everytime the chorus girls formed a vee (a lot of times), I though, what does this have to do with the plot, it's just filler. Also another director may have gotten the Actors to create characters instead of characterizations. Just my two cents...

[RaisedOnMusicals]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 11:43am

It's a pull quote delight (and the quotes below don't use any from the raves in Time and The New Yorker which were already used in a full page ad in today's Times.) By the way, does anyone remember a show that had this many absoulte raves with a fair mixture of pans as well?

The AP: Thrilling, musical theater bliss

NY Post: Old fashioned entertainment, and boy does it hit the spot

Newsday: And old fashioned madcap lark of a show.

Bergen Record: Extremely entertaining, devilishly funny from start to finish.

WSJ (Teachout): Solidly entertaining

USA Today: As much sheer, shameless fun as you'll see all season.

Chicago Tribune: A whiz bang retro Broadway musical that occupies a classic musical comedy niche you can't find elsewhere on Broadway this season.

Entertainment Weekly: One of the sprightliest, effervescent new musicals in years.

Updated On: 4/11/14 at 11:43 AM

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 11:43am

I found a bit more to like than Brantley, but I'm glad that he pointed out how weirdly nasty and mean the tone of the thing is. I thought I was crazy for feeling that way about this kind of show.

[Up In One]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 11:52am

Yes Raisedon practically every musical that opened this year got it's share of raves and pans with the exception of the Idina Menzel concert

[LYLS3637]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 12:10pm

Up in One-- did you read the reviews for "If/Then"? Fair share of good and bad just like everything else.