Moulin Rouge at Emerson Colonial Theatre Reviews

[Wayman_Wong]

Bob Verini of Variety gives ''Moulin Rouge!'' a rave review:

''Yes, they can-can — they can transform Baz Luhrmann’s 2001 absinthe-tinged fantasia “Moulin Rouge!” into a socko stage spectacular. The story’s been strengthened in this splashy production, while expectations of cinema-inspired visual splendor are met and even exceeded. … With 70-odd pop smashes — from Piaf to Perry, from “Lady Marmalade” to Lady Gaga — baked into its dialogue and DNA, “Moulin Rouge!” has a battery that never runs down. Future prospects on Broadway and beyond, following this brief premiere engagement resuscitating Boston’s venerable Emerson Colonial Theater, seem as rosy-red as the luscious crimson wash poured over the whole business.

https://variety.com/2018/music/reviews/moulin-rouge-review-broadway-musical-1202895995/

[CarlosAlberto]

standingovation79 said: "REN598...nothing gives. I'm a HUGE fan of this movie. I, like i'm sure lots of musical fans, have thought this was a no brainer bway adaption for years. But there is such a thing a bad show, and this is it. This is, in my opinion about as bad of an adaptation as they could have created. Sorry, not sorry. And i've read Brantley's reviews and seen his interviews for years, this does not seem like his taste at all to me. Who knows, maybe he really did just like it. I have to say, and I've thought this for a while now, taste is dead. Most people don't even know what a good show looks like anymore. this show has no book, is not focusing on good storytelling, is sloppily directed with no focus on tone, is unimaginatively desgined in a way that is theatrical, and has an abysmal leading male performance....if you like it, ok great...but this is not what i was hoping for with this show at all, and lots of people commenting are saying the same thing."

It's one thing to voice your opinion. You are most certainly entitled to one. It's another thing to force it down other people's throats. 

Let others see the show and judge for themselves. It's not your job to change people's minds or deter them from seeing a show they may want to see.

[sdrick]

standingovation79 said: "the only thing that rings TRUEabout Brantley's review is the BADLY WRITTEN book by John Logan (I can't believe the check cleared after the producers saw what his book read like).

It smells to me like he's trying to reel it in after his misstep with the review for Head Over Heels.

That's BALDLY written, not badly . . . baldly.  Here's the definition:  " without any extra detail or explanation; plainly; bluntly."

[sdrick]

Baldly: without any extra detail or explanation; plainly; bluntly.

 

[millie12]

I am floored by the reception. But these are all very much not substantive reviews. All of which call the show entertaining. None of which say anything about the writing or its' merits as a substantive offering in the musical theatre canon. It seems, like many others, the critics are blinded by the sets, lighting and belting.

[barcelona20]

Not all "official" reviews are as brightly and bubbly as NYTimes and Variety.

"Speaking of the audience, I would be remiss if I did not report that on the Saturday night I attended “Moulin Rouge!,” the full house responded with an enthusiasm that seemed to me as overproduced as the show. Prolonged applause froze several production numbers for so long that the dancers’ muscles started to quiver. But for my part, I would have preferred to leave the theater with tears in my eyes rather than with a shower of confetti hearts in my hair." 

http://www.wbur.org/artery/2018/08/06/moulin-rouge-colonial-theatre-boston-broadway

"Viewers who flock to spectacles like Cirque du Soleil or who grew up crowding concert tour stops plus fans of “Mamma Mia!” and the like will spread a good word about “Moulin Rouge!” Some others of us, not so much."

http://www.patriotledger.com/entertainmentlife/20180806/theater-review-moulin-rouge-musical-is-whirling-fantasy-from-beginning-to-end

"It would also be helpful if there were stronger chemistry between Olivo and Tveit. If she were a bit more enamored and vulnerable and he a bit more brooding and sincere, together they might be able to ignite a strong enough spark to make their love story truly epic and eternal. Currently, their love can't compete with the sensory overload. And when their story does finally resolve on what turns out to be a heartfelt ending, the moment is obliterated by that needless mega-mix finale."

https://www.broadwayworld.com/boston/article/BWW-REVIEW-MOULIN-ROUGE-Spins-Wildly-At-Bostons-Restored-Emerson-Colonial-20180805

"With things moving as quickly as they do, the thing that is sacrificed is the depth of the relationships, especially between Satine and Christian. We know that they are passionate about each other, but don't feel it as much as we feel the danger between Satine and the Duke, or the protectiveness that Zidler feels for Satine. As good as Olivo and Tveit are in their individual roles, there is a lack of sexual spark between them."

https://www.talkinbroadway.com/page/regional/boston/boston395.html

[Wayman_Wong]

Let's get real: In the bigger showbiz picture, the N.Y. Times and Variety ARE the ''substantive'' reviews. How many folks were breathlessly awaiting to hear from WBUR, a public-radio station in Boston,  or the Patriot Ledger, a local paper in Quincy, Mass., whose daily circulation is 38,000? If you hate ''Moulin Rouge,'' I imagine the Times and Variety raves are galling and infuriating since you don't agree. If they had panned ''Moulin Rouge,'' its detractors would feel vindicated and be crowing, ''See? I told you it was terrible!'' But I'll bet the producers will take the Times and Variety raves over anything WBUR or the Patriot Ledger have to say.

But at the end of the day, the audiences will have their say. And even in the mixed reviews, the critics acknowledge that ''Moulin Rouge!'' is a crowd-pleaser (much to the chagrin of its haters).

[barcelona20]

Wayman_Wong said: "Let's get real: In the bigger showbiz picture, the N.Y. Times and Variety ARE the ''substantive'' reviews. How many folks were breathlessly awaiting to hear from WBUR, a public-radio station in Boston, or the Patriot Ledger, a local paper in Quincy, Mass., whose daily circulation is 38,000? If you hate ''Moulin Rouge,'' I imagine the Times and Variety raves are galling and infuriating since you don't agree, but I'll bet the producers will take them any day over anything WBUR or the Patriot Ledger have to say."

When did I ever say that the NY Times and Variety aren't more "valuable" from a marketing perspective?  Of course they are.  I just wanted to respond to Millie's comment to demonstrate that there are many reviewers who weren't "blinded" by the sets.  Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that not everyone loved the show?

[Wayman_Wong]

There's no show that ''everyone loves.'' But why is it that hard to believe that there are people (and critics) who happen to LOVE the show, as much as those who HATE it? Both things can exist.

[barcelona20]

It's not hard to believe at all, but is there anything wrong with presenting both sides?