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.
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.
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."
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.
joined:4/22/04
joined:
4/22/04
Posted: 8/6/18 at 1:49pm