Chicago show. In amazingly bad taste. But the young crowd screamed after every number; guess they don't believe in applause nowadays.
2
Such an amazing, clever, and beautiful musical play. The NYSlimes is at it again. A must see.
Saw it in Chicago last night, knowing nothing about it. Found the Times review afterwards and thought "Spot on."
5
I have not yet seen it, but after seeing clips on Youtube, I bought the CD and FELL IN LOVE quickly. I laugh out loud with every song. Clever lyrics and catchy melodies. I can even "see" the dance numbers just by listening to the fabulous orchestrations. This critic is obviously a theatre snob who denigrates shows that are smart and fun. How dare we be entertained for a few hours with giggles? As a writer, I am appalled by this review which reeks of envy more than anything. Don't believe the review. Laughter is an underrated and decaying commodity. If a show entertains you, that's everything. Honestly, I was so blown away by the brilliance of this show that it had me questioning whether my own project can meet this high bar. The only thing that's rotten here is the review.
4
I saw the show last night more than a year into its run, and it was energetic and fun. The audience had a great time. For the Times review to suggest that this show is more tasteless than The Producers or Book of Mormon gives a misimpression. Not as clever or as sustained in its hilarity, sure, but how many shows are? Most people would find this show much less vulgar than Mormon. We were fortunate to see Christian Borle in one of his final performances in his Tony-winning role as Shakespeare. New cast member Rob McClure as Nick Bottom is a big-time Broadway talent so if you missed him — as you probably did — in Chaplin or Honeymoon in Vegas, this is a great chance to see him.
2
I look to Mr. Brantley for his opinions and follow him on Social media. I usually agree with his take on shows. I attended "...Rotten" on Saturday evening. I had low expectations for this show and fully expected the second act to fall flat. I understand his criticism of this show. The gags just continue to slap you in the face. With every slap I laughed, loud and hard. Sometimes we need to just laugh at art. It's OK to not take this art form too seriously. The three of us who attended the show agreed that some knowledge of musical theater is needed to get the in-jokes. But the fact that they aresophomoric or low-brow doesn't undermine their delivery by a talented group of actors. Just because an actress reminds us of one who's come before doesn't weaken her cute, comedic turn. Doesn't Mr. Borle's camp remind anyone else of a young Tim Curry? I thought the performances were terrific from all the leads and featured roles. Mr. D'arcy James, Mr Borle, Mr. Oscar and the rest of the cast did what we, the audience, paid them to do, ENTERTAIN! While the writing may not exactly fall into the masterpiece category, this show is worth the price of admission. Art should prompt discussion. This piece has done just that as my comment is the 102nd response to Mr. Brantley's opinion.
5
We had a good time at this last night, and thought both Borle and D'Arcey James were very good. Mr. Brantley's criticisms are not without merit--but then I remember he adored 'Light in the Piazza" a few years ago. Since then (it was terrible, truly terrible) I've been unable to take his reviews seriously.
2
Thoroughly Enjoyed This Show!! Left the theater singing the last song and wanting to buy the DVD. I am not a Shakespeare fan - didn't even know he's The Bard. My daughter studied theater and took several Shakespeare classes in college - including while studying abroad in London. This was her pick as it was her college graduation trip. I was skeptical about the plot and a Shakespeare theme, but turns out i LOVED IT! My sister did as well - we didn't catch all the Shakespeare jokes, but we enjoyed it.
1
Really late to this party but, I must say I agree 100% with Mr. Brantley on this. Seeing this show as a 20 year old theatre student, I went in with high hopes, hearing about this really funny show that people are loving. I was ready to leave after the first number, and only stayed at intermission to see if it could possibly redeem itself. Mr. Brantley hit the nail on the head, this show is so desperately played for laughs that nothing should get a genuine laugh. Each joke is made, and could be funny, but then is proceeded to be painfully explained WHY it was funny. For example, there is a line about Les Miserables, which is first said with an American pronunciation, it's funny, we get that they mean the extremely well-known show, but no, they go on to pronounce it the way it's pronounced in French, which the audience seemed to find hilarious, but I cringed at. Like Mr. Brantley says, they do no know when to stop. The phallic humour is unbelievably unnecessary, or at least there are just too many jokes. Every song was painfully long, painfully choreographed, those poor actors must be DEAD after each number. This is a show where the audience needs to realized that high production value does not mean the show is good. This show made me angry at Broadway and the theatre-going community. This is not good theatre and should not be praised as such. It is a play about omelettes, is that really Broadway material? Perhaps had it been small and Off-Broadway it would have been brilliant.
5
Amen. Just saw it in Chicago and couldn't agree more. I only stayed to the end out of respect for the friend who gave me a free ticket (which she herself had gotten at a bargain basement price -- for the Chicago premiere!) The audience reaction was over-the-top at times, totally out of proportion to the material. Are producers paying audience plants now, like laugh tracks on TV?
1
2 hours of loose, silly fun is what we all need from time to time. Thank you, Something Rotten, for providing that in abundance.
4
Just saw this show and went to read the review and Ben got it exactly right. A one joke musical that stretches to two hours. Good performances, costumes, lighting, but just a couple of laughs and a lot of time wondering why you're there.
3
Looks like Brantley was in a bad mood when he saw it. That happens. Personally, I hate most farces & pastiches, but this show was really a lot of fun. Ignore Brantley, unless, of course, you're in a bad mood.
2
Went back and rethought my initial comments and decided that after listening to the vast recording, this is a great show! What brought me to that conclusion was the fact that while people have been using musical quotes from other shows for centuries (Mozart did it in Don Giovanni) it's a difficult task to make it work as well as this creative team does in this show. I would never spoil it for anyone, but the spoofing makes us laugh not only at Shakespeare, but musicals in general and how we laud over some of them, and ultimately ourselves for doing so. The clever lyrics are matched to truly melodic music, also not an easy task. Believe me, it's much easier to write angst music any day, then to write something clever and dare I say entertaining. Then we have the ultra solid performances which truly put this show over the top. Yes this was my favorite show of the 14-15 season.
3
Some of what the reviewer says is true; however in the end it all works. I have sent so many people to see Something Rotten from theatre neophytes to veterans, and they all loved it. Let's face it, who doesn't like a genre that has the ability to skewer itself, and Something Rotten does it to perfection. It even takes it one step further by taking jabs at itself. I also find it fascinating that the reviewer uses a word like tedious, only because how could anything that moves as quickly as this piece ever be tedious. Finally, let us be honest...if the reviewer thinks that Book of Mormon and The Producers are "elegant” what word would he use to describe The Sound of Music. My advice, see this show, you will not be disappointed.
2
Just saw this and loved it - a fun, energetic show. From this review, I was expecting Shrek: The Musical-type humor, but SR stooped nowhere near that level. Show is funny, songs are catchy, but most importantly, the performances are excellent. Brian D'Arcy James alone made it worth seeing, but Christian Borle, Brad Oscar, John Cariani were all terrific.
1
Finally! A review that I can agree with. I really don't get all the hype around this show. I went based on the rave reviews and was completely underwhelmed. The audience about me were going wild and all I kept thinking to myself was "really?". This show is like a pantomime. Cartoon sets, lazy writing (how many lyrics/music can we steal from other shows and pass it off as clever - lots apparently) lame jokes. Maybe I expect more from musical productions like heart, clever writing, imagination even, but in world where big production numbers and colorful sets keep the general mass market population happy this is a sad and sorry decline.
3
Eh. I had a great time. Not my favorite and not likely to be considered a true classic, but definitely entertaining and funny. I'd see it again. This review just seems kind of obnoxious.
8
If "Book of Mormon" is an A+, "Something's Rotten" is a B+.
"Mormon" is better because - oddly - it's both more outrageous and more subtle.
If you are going to shock an audience into laughter, then the song "Hassa Digga" does that in a way that "Rotten" never does. On the other hand, the "in" Broadway jokes of "Mormon" really are "in." Most people don't get the many, many allusions that "Mormon" tosses out, from "Sound of Music" to "Little Shop" to "Wicked." The Broadway jokes in "Rotten" are placed so that everyone will get them.; they are
too obviously subtle.
"Mormon" is also about something; the adaptive nature of religion. Rather than
just make fun of Mormonism - which it does - the show contains the message that religions are formed to meet the needs of the people. It is, dare I say it, a fairly profound thought: God is created in Man's image. "Rotten" doesn't even aspire to
a larger message.
At any rate, that doesn't make "Rotten" rotten. It is still worth the price of admission and I did enjoy the evening. The only thing that is inexplicable is Kate Reinders. She is, indeed, doing an impression of Ms. Chenoweth. It is probably not her fault; I assume she is being directed that way. But why?
"Mormon" is better because - oddly - it's both more outrageous and more subtle.
If you are going to shock an audience into laughter, then the song "Hassa Digga" does that in a way that "Rotten" never does. On the other hand, the "in" Broadway jokes of "Mormon" really are "in." Most people don't get the many, many allusions that "Mormon" tosses out, from "Sound of Music" to "Little Shop" to "Wicked." The Broadway jokes in "Rotten" are placed so that everyone will get them.; they are
too obviously subtle.
"Mormon" is also about something; the adaptive nature of religion. Rather than
just make fun of Mormonism - which it does - the show contains the message that religions are formed to meet the needs of the people. It is, dare I say it, a fairly profound thought: God is created in Man's image. "Rotten" doesn't even aspire to
a larger message.
At any rate, that doesn't make "Rotten" rotten. It is still worth the price of admission and I did enjoy the evening. The only thing that is inexplicable is Kate Reinders. She is, indeed, doing an impression of Ms. Chenoweth. It is probably not her fault; I assume she is being directed that way. But why?
1
Couldn't agree with Ben Brantley more. This show felt like an extended version of the "Friend Like Me" number on Aladdin on Broadway, where they reference all the Disney shows (same director, coincidence?). It was tired, manipulative, badly written and relied way too much on referencing and borrowing from OTHER more deserving works of theater to get laughs and applause. Every major cheer, applause and laugh in the house came about because of a reference of a different musical or play. It was button-pushing at its worst. It was so manipulative I actually felt offended that they thought I would cheer just because they happened to reference ANOTHER Broadway musical again, and again, and again, and not even that cleverly at that. That whole "A Musical" number wasn't even a good song, it felt like one of those bad songs the host is made to sing at the opening of the Tony Awards. I was just waiting for the end and made a bet with myself that the very last line of the show would be a final manipulative pulling-of-strings and, ALAS, it was "America, Land of Opportunity". Of course, everyone roared with cheering after that line, because: 'merica. Doesn't matter if the thing is well written, just add a bunch inside theater jokes, musical theater references and unwarranted patriotic lines and people are sure to love it and if they don't, then "they don't know how to have fun". AWFUL, AWFUL SHOW.
5
Ok I don't get why you are knocking this show. The jokes are obviously funny and clever and they are making lots of money from the people that like this show, probably more money than you will make. I just don't get it. It was featured on the Tonys and they got quite the applause(this being from other theatre all stars).
1
I get it because I felt the same way, and LC explained his/her reaction quite clearly.
Having just seen the show, I have to agree with every word. Before seeing it I thought this reviewer was just in a bad mood, but this review is spot on.
I so wanted to love this thing, but just could not.
I so wanted to love this thing, but just could not.
3
I wanted to love it, too. I know they chose NOT to do an out-of-town tryout and took the riskier route of going straight to Broadway, but I so wish they could have tinkered with it more. The showstopper "A Musical" happens midway in the first act, but nothing afterwards reaches that height of hilarity, not even the reprise of that same song at the very end (with slightly different lyrics).
Those kinds of pacing problems would have become obvious if it was a 'work-in-progress' longer, as would the tired gay and Jewish stereotypes. I think Mr. Brantley's review got it exactly right. I went to see this AFTER reading his review, thinking that maybe he was being overly harsh, but I don't think he was at all.
I was happy, however, to see Brian D'Arcy James in a leading role, along with Christian Borle -- the whole cast is outstanding -- but I hope the next potential blockbuster takes the time to work out all the kinks before opening in New York.
Those kinds of pacing problems would have become obvious if it was a 'work-in-progress' longer, as would the tired gay and Jewish stereotypes. I think Mr. Brantley's review got it exactly right. I went to see this AFTER reading his review, thinking that maybe he was being overly harsh, but I don't think he was at all.
I was happy, however, to see Brian D'Arcy James in a leading role, along with Christian Borle -- the whole cast is outstanding -- but I hope the next potential blockbuster takes the time to work out all the kinks before opening in New York.
3
I saw SOMETHING ROTTEN last night and it certainly has moments of great hilarity. But the Puritan character, Brother Jeremiah (Brooks Ashmanskas), was played as one, long, tired mincing "fag joke"--playing on the most obvious stereotypes. I get that the show is a broad farce reminiscent of vaudeville, but the creators have SOME obligation not to take the easy way out when portraying particular "types." That amounts to minstrelsy and is deeply offensive. I get that there is a stereotypic Jew in the show, too. But he is portrayed as a warm, loveable character as opposed to the closeted prig who is the villain of this piece. As a 61-year old gay man who has been out since 1974, I'm just sick of it. Broadway should know better, but they often play to the cheap seats on portrayals of gay people in "comedies." Shameful considering how many gay people work in the business.
5
We saw it the night before it opened... there were no less than 4 show-stopper production numbers that had us roaring, the audience hooping and hollering, and of course the standing O for "A Musical". How many other shows can you say that about? Yes, it's sophomoric, the 2nd act disappoints (gee, how many musicals does that happen with??), the ending is a letdown, blah blah blah. The writer and composer (brothers, both highly accomplished) bring a fresh spin to Broadway. It was hysterically funny, and a delicious cupcake for people who know their musical theatre and Shakespeare. Brian D'Arcy James is terrific and Christian Borle, as a preening, self-important rock-star Shakespeare, steals the show. Sure, the "omelette" joke is worn out, but that production number!! Ranks up there with "Springtime for Hitler." "South Pacific" this isn't, but as far as the "Producers", "Spamelot", "Book of Mormon" genre-themed shows go, it's just as good. I enjoyed this more than "Mormon". And like "Mormon", it's based on original material; not a musicalized movie.
6
I enjoyed this more than "Mormon".
Oy.
Oy.
Agreed.When I saw the show during previews I could say that the first act was relatively solid. However the second half needs a lot of work and there were a lot of half-jokes that weren't developed or landing. At times I feel like the writers just spun the "What makes a good musical" spinning wheel to develop the jokes, and not in a "The Producers" good kind of way. The joke sophistication is somewhere between campy and NYC Jew, constantly winking at the audience to the point of saying "I get it, I'm in NYC." The show isn't timeless, and the themes are short-sighted, unrelatable, and incomprehensible at times if the show were to ever leave the Tri-state area. The second act is a shallow wreck book-wise, summed up with characters leaving stage in order to develop conflict later in the story, but had no reason to exit stage left pursued by bear in the first place. It is clear that no one really on the writing staff did any research to Shakespeare's time-line since the show opens at some time around 1594-1595 just around the closing of Romeo and Juliet and the written Sonnets, and ends with the performance of Hamlet in 1600 and the settling of what I hope is Jamestown in 1604. Yet, Bottom's wife, who is pregnant some time in 1595 gives birth in 1604, tells me that even the baby didn't want to be part of the production. If you're going to see a musical this season, just keep walking by this show's box office.
2
Seen it three times so far and going back with friends to see it a fourth. It's fun, and happy, and bright, and perfect for a Spring evening. Let the critics have their say, just go and enjoy.
7
By way of comparison, The Guardian calls this musical "mildly amusing and oddly anodyne", and goes on to complain that "it settles for sweet when it ought to be scurrilous, comfortable when it ought to be really clever. It’s never offensive, but it’s never very exciting either. The closest it gets to iconoclastic is the song I Hate Shakespeare, a sentiment dear to the heart of most middle schoolers....In that song Nigel complains that Shakespeare 'has no sense about the audience, he makes them feel so dumb'. There’s no danger of that here. But as the author of Omelette should know, audiences don’t need to be coddled either."
2
Did Mr. Brantley wake up on the wrong side of the bed on the day he saw this show? He must have as it's clear that the rest of the audience lvoed the show. I saw it yesterday and the standing ovation in the middle of the first act was not only well-deserved but the most spontaneous evidence of enjoyment I've seen in a Broadway theatre in a while. This show was an aboslute delight, leaving people smiling and saying "wonderful" and "terrific" on the way out.
Did the actors work hard? You bet. Were there lots of references to other shows and to Shakespeare's canon? Yes indeed and they were all very, very funny. Were there sexual double entendres? Yup, all over the place and they were delivered with a wink so the audience could enjoy each and every one.
I've seen some plays that were stinkers, even ones that Mr. Brantley has raved about in paragraph after paragraph. This one, despite Mr. B's carping, is just terrific and I mean to tell everyone I know to buy tickets so that they can enjoy a terrific evening of fun and laughter.
Did the actors work hard? You bet. Were there lots of references to other shows and to Shakespeare's canon? Yes indeed and they were all very, very funny. Were there sexual double entendres? Yup, all over the place and they were delivered with a wink so the audience could enjoy each and every one.
I've seen some plays that were stinkers, even ones that Mr. Brantley has raved about in paragraph after paragraph. This one, despite Mr. B's carping, is just terrific and I mean to tell everyone I know to buy tickets so that they can enjoy a terrific evening of fun and laughter.
11
Agree 100% Hard to believe I saw the same show as Brantley. It was hugely entertaining and I suspect virtually all of today's audience agrees with me.
1
I saw Something Rotten last weekend. I'm an avid theater goer and I've seen many Broadway shows and I must say that for a musical, it was the best that I've seen in years. It was both exciting and hilarious and the audience enjoyed it immensely. The opening number was stunning. I enjoyed all the puns as well as all the musical references and the references to many of Shakespeare's works. I have nothing negative to say about this show. I also hope that it is around for years to come. I'm actually going again because it is a musical that has great music, dancing and acting. Although I often appreciate Ben Brantley's reviews, he is dead wrong on this one!!!
10
I'm so glad I saw this show in previews. It's a "sit back, relax and enjoy the ride" kind of fun, campy show. I'm glad I laughed as hard as I did. I'm thrilled I was part of a musical that had a literal show-stopping number in the first act and I am even more happy that there was no review from a critic out there to sully my impression. How many shows have you been to lately that received a standing ovation in the middle of the first act? Not enough in my opinion. It's a fun, silly, not perfect show that is a definite crowd-pleaser. So that offends Mr. Brantley. But... this is the problem with critics.....it's their job to pick a theatre piece apart and too often they can cause a closing of a show that is actually just a good night of entertainment because it's their job NOT to sit back, relax and just enjoy a silly evening of camp. Too bad for them. But good for us that we can. I hope this show runs a long, long time so many more can enjoy a funny evening of theatre AND a chance to see and hear some amazing actors.
14
I thought this was one of the most enjoyable evenings at the theater this season. On the whole, the production is not as good as the glorious "An American in Paris," but to my taste a whole lot more enjoyable than "Airline Highway" which is a "critic's pick" in this paper. While there are definitely weak moments in "Something Rotten," the Elizabethan tap dance number is worth the ticket price. I also enjoyed "Living on Love" which got a very lukewarm review from this paper. I guess there is a large margin between what the public enjoys and what critics enjoy.
3
I didn't dislike it this much, but I'm happy to see the wave of positive reviews tempered by someone finally pointing out how mediocre the material itself is. Although it's been whipped into an entertaining frenzy by a first-rate director, cast, and production design, it's really just a long Forbidden Broadway revue by way of The Producers (with maybe a touch of Spamalot).
The show's a crowd-pleaser, but it would be a travesty if it actually won any top awards this season.
The show's a crowd-pleaser, but it would be a travesty if it actually won any top awards this season.
5
I have to heartily disagree with you here. I think Christian Borle absolutely deserves the Tony he's been nominated for.
3
Shakespeare deserves lampooning, if not for his successes, then for his excesses. He rode a wave in the age of Elizabeth. He played to royal and nationalist sentiment at a time when the royal court was learning to use English, not French, in daily discourse. He created a great English hero, Henry V, who was more of an imperialist blusterer. Shakespeare didn't include a scene with Henry dying of dysentery--I guess Sir Larry or Sir Kenneth wouldn't have played that anyway.
A rousing first number, and quite delightful until the 4th number, which alas was where the tedium, repeat jokes, milking of the same few gags over and over, and then devolution to an overplayed insipidly silly finale began. Hugely talented cast, some wonderful performances, let down by the material. The variety of The Producers and The Book of Mormon, continuing to catch you by glee-filled surprise, is what was lacking here. The "restraint" Mr. Brantley refers to as lacking is actually less excess but increasingly inane repetitiveness, however festive and exuberantly zany the show remains in some delightful patches.
2
I know several people who have seen this show, all regular theatergoers, and they all raved about it more than any other show since "Book of Mormon." I'm going to go & make my own judgment.
8
Sounds like a great premise for a show, and after all, Shakespeare in his time was hardly above the lowest common denominator in humor, to appeal to the unwashed standing on the floor, as well as references to the highest classics of Latin and Greece for the lords and ladies in the balconies. Most of the really dirty bits were lost with the Victorians. That's just part of his immortal genius. Happy birthday, Bill!
I saw this twice in previews and loved almost every moment of it. The performances were top notch and the songs were infectious. I had a little issue with the ending, but it wasn't enough to leave me with a bad taste. I just don't know why you had so much disdain for the joy of others? This reminds me of the scene in "Birdman" where the critic tells Michael Keaton's character that she didn't see the show but will bury him anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d5KovCbU8w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d5KovCbU8w
4
I felt the same as Mr. Brantley.
But what does one expect? This is a show populated by the usual Broadway suspects doing what they've been hired to do countless times before. The only new names are the writers, who no doubt bowed to the "star power" of the leading players.
But more importantly. When I saw this show, I was struck that it was an evening of Theatre made for other Theatre people. That's always a bad idea. And nearly always boring. The problem is epidemic in New York, particularly in classical material, where the makers believe everyone's seen it and so strive distinguish themselves by being "different" rather than simple, original, or trusting of the material. This is also true of the musical scene which repeatedly gives us actors playing the same "roles" merely renamed.
But what does one expect? This is a show populated by the usual Broadway suspects doing what they've been hired to do countless times before. The only new names are the writers, who no doubt bowed to the "star power" of the leading players.
But more importantly. When I saw this show, I was struck that it was an evening of Theatre made for other Theatre people. That's always a bad idea. And nearly always boring. The problem is epidemic in New York, particularly in classical material, where the makers believe everyone's seen it and so strive distinguish themselves by being "different" rather than simple, original, or trusting of the material. This is also true of the musical scene which repeatedly gives us actors playing the same "roles" merely renamed.
2
I agree with most of the comments here - Brantley was harsh and meanspirited, and yes, glad I saw the play in previews, before reviews, because the show was entertaining, fun, and joyful. Everyone around me was so full of praise and smiling, both at intermission and afterward. Sophmoric? Who cares, funny lines, memorable songs, lots of puns and innuendo - a terrific night of theater, that will likely be squelched because of such undue criticism.
Wonderful reviews were given for Matilda and Once - those....Meh.
Wonderful reviews were given for Matilda and Once - those....Meh.
4
Joyce, I agree with you completely that this show was fun, entertaining and joyful. I hope that this terrific night of theatre is NOT squelched as it deserves to run and entertain audiences for a long time.
As for "Once" - there was a show that was dull, where every song sounded like every other song, where nothing was memorable and the ending was sad and tawdry. Why it got critical plaudits was beyond me.
"Matilda" was entertaining but if I hadn't been there to take my granddaughter to see it, I wouldn't have sat through it. What none of the critics who gave it high praise mentioned was that the words in songs sung by the chorus could be understood. British accents? Sloppy diction? Poor
direction? Whatever....it was just a blur of sound. Not what I'd expect from such a highly-rated show.
In contrat, "Something Rotten" is clear, funny and all-around delightful.
As for "Once" - there was a show that was dull, where every song sounded like every other song, where nothing was memorable and the ending was sad and tawdry. Why it got critical plaudits was beyond me.
"Matilda" was entertaining but if I hadn't been there to take my granddaughter to see it, I wouldn't have sat through it. What none of the critics who gave it high praise mentioned was that the words in songs sung by the chorus could be understood. British accents? Sloppy diction? Poor
direction? Whatever....it was just a blur of sound. Not what I'd expect from such a highly-rated show.
In contrat, "Something Rotten" is clear, funny and all-around delightful.
Oh, well. It shouldn't be surprising. The idea itself is sophomoric. It's conceivable that it could nevertheless have been carefully crafted into a good show, but it was never very likely.
5
I was shocked to read this review. I'd been raving about this triumphant musical for weeks. I kept telling friends, "It's hilarious, tuneful, smart, and heartfelt. Just wait till the reviews come out-- it's gonna be HUGE!"
Mr. Brantley's curmudgeonly smackdown was so vicious and mean-spirited I wonder if he has a personal beef with the production. Check the other reviews, and you'll glimpse the truth: "Something Rotten" is the best musical comedy to hit Broadway in decades.
Mr. Brantley's curmudgeonly smackdown was so vicious and mean-spirited I wonder if he has a personal beef with the production. Check the other reviews, and you'll glimpse the truth: "Something Rotten" is the best musical comedy to hit Broadway in decades.
8
Re: "Something Rotten!," reviewed by Ben Brantley, April, 22, 2015.
Ben Brantley is a fair-minded reviewer. If he panned "Something Rotten," then its humor must stink to high heaven, and its intellectual content zero.
If I see this musical, I'd call it a show for overgrown adolescents.
Broad humor is all right, but it should be served with wit and intellectual sophistication on the side.
Ben Brantley is a fair-minded reviewer. If he panned "Something Rotten," then its humor must stink to high heaven, and its intellectual content zero.
If I see this musical, I'd call it a show for overgrown adolescents.
Broad humor is all right, but it should be served with wit and intellectual sophistication on the side.
1
Whoa. The reviewer notes that the tone and style of the humor are similar to The Producers and The Book of Mormon, but then says rather vaguely that Something Rotten is overblown in comparison. Codpiece jokes and in-jokes about musicals are over the top compared to The Book of Mormon and The Producers? It'd be far more interesting to compare how the three work AS PLAYS: dramatic structures whose jokes, dances, songs, are woven into a presentation of themes, just like like real drama, and succeed or fail on that basis. To my mind, it's the most relentlessly funny of the three, and golly, the only one of the three that's ORIGINAL to the extent of not recycling previously used material, so the claim in the review of a lack of originality is just short of willfully perverse.
I'm very sorry that people overreact to Mr Brantley's dismissal of a show they love, because critics have to make tough calls sometimes. But the clear implication of disdain for the audience that leapt to its feet when this show entertained the HECK out of them starts to smack of Clifton Webb as Waldo Lydecker in Laura: Why does the public insist upon anointing work that does not meet my standards? My enraptured seatmates were all out-of-towners, not friends of the production, but I suppose their taste is to be censured as well.
By the way, and to conclude the rant, there's no complaint made in the review that wouldn't apply equally to the very best of Gilbert & Sullivan.
I'm very sorry that people overreact to Mr Brantley's dismissal of a show they love, because critics have to make tough calls sometimes. But the clear implication of disdain for the audience that leapt to its feet when this show entertained the HECK out of them starts to smack of Clifton Webb as Waldo Lydecker in Laura: Why does the public insist upon anointing work that does not meet my standards? My enraptured seatmates were all out-of-towners, not friends of the production, but I suppose their taste is to be censured as well.
By the way, and to conclude the rant, there's no complaint made in the review that wouldn't apply equally to the very best of Gilbert & Sullivan.
3
I usually do not share most of Ben Brantley's opinions. Of the three shows he mentioned, the one which will always stand out in my mind for many reasons is THE PRODUCERS which was the forerunner not only of these types of shows, but the dreadful and money grubbing Premiere Seating which I refuse to purchase. I must say Producers was the best of the three shows for my taste. I brought 44 high school theatre students to SOMETHING ROTTEN and they loved the show. However, those who saw FUN HOME preferred it over SR.
I thought the performers were wonderful especially Christian Bole who is amazing talented and worth the effort to see the show. There were several show stopping dance numbers, but not as good as Susan Stroman's tight tap dancing marvels. I left the show predicting it would be the smash hit of the season for the Tony's. However in closing, I thought it depended too much on cheap humor, too many cliches, and Shakespeare's talent. I found myself really bored except for the big production numbers which were exceptional.
I would rather spend my money on FUN HOME which I am pulling for to win the Tony's.
I thought the performers were wonderful especially Christian Bole who is amazing talented and worth the effort to see the show. There were several show stopping dance numbers, but not as good as Susan Stroman's tight tap dancing marvels. I left the show predicting it would be the smash hit of the season for the Tony's. However in closing, I thought it depended too much on cheap humor, too many cliches, and Shakespeare's talent. I found myself really bored except for the big production numbers which were exceptional.
I would rather spend my money on FUN HOME which I am pulling for to win the Tony's.
1
It's always amusing when people defend bad theater by pointing out that there was a standing ovation, as if that means anything in these days of lower-than-low standards. I'm with Stephen Sondheim: today's slack-jawed audiences are prewired to ABSOLUTELY LOVE each show they attend and reward it with a standing ovation because, after all, they shelled out $150 bucks to see it. If they didn't give it a standing ovation, that makes them suckers, and no one wants to be a sucker.
11
Aside from the that, the critic sees a given show because he's been assigned to see it--it's his job--whereas the rest of the audience carefully picks a show it thinks it's likely to enjoy. Thus even if the show were free the critic would be (mutatis mutandis) objective in his assessment and the rest of the audience biased. The wonder is that this obvious fact seems always to elude the majority of the commentators.
1
um...it was in the Middle of the show...rare..very rare
3
I am not defending bad theater. I am neither slack jawed nor a fan of all of Sondheim's work. I did not pay $150 for this show and I do not reward many shows with a standing ovations. However, this is easily one of the most entertaining shows I have ever seen. Brad Oscar is brilliant. And although the second act is not quite as strong as the first, it is still one of the best shows I've seen in years. I love pretentious intellectuals who always refer to Sondheim as their proof of intelligence. I love serious theater. But Stephen Sondheim's A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum is not exactly Chekhov. And in his attempts to create serious theater, he sometimes forgets to be entertaining. And although he is brilliant, he hasn't created anything successful in years. I agree with Brantley's review of Zhivago, which I also saw last week. I've been reading reviews of theater, books, and films since I was a teenager. But sometimes I feel that critics sometimes write favorably or negatively in an attempt to bring attention to themselves.
1
This was the first show I have ever seen that I genuinely enjoyed so much that I had to start up conversations with the strangers sitting next to me so I could explain it. I haven't laughed this hard at a show since seeing Book of Mormon and all this review does is show that "critics" take themselves way too seriously. Maybe if you didn't enjoy a show that received two standing ovations, one midway through the first act (which happened at mine as well) then you should reevaluate your disdain for it.
6
I have yet to see a show that doesn't get at least one standing ovation at some point and most certainly always at the end. I don't think it is a measure of anything anymore.
2
Sophomoric humor - sign me up. I'll even take Freshmanic.
5
I haven't seen this show, but am dumbstruck at the venom directed towards Ben Brantley. His reviews are always well crafted. While some theatregoers may disagree with his take on this particular play, which is their prerogative, to say that Brantley should move on to some other profession or that he is a snob or suffering from theatrical menopause is absurd. What is it about these commenters that they can be so vicious? The review is the opinion of a highly educated critic who has seen countless plays and whose views should at least be respected. Certainly people can disagree, but there is no need to so harshly chastise him in the process. He is an excellent writer, very funny and clever, with a good heart, and readers are fortunate that his writing appears regularly in the New York Times.
18
People are childish and emotional have the taste to match. If they are unable to understand or appreciate the reviewer's analysis they fall back on emotional arguments, like calling someone who criticizes anything (gee, a critic criticizing?) "mean-spirited." Both the review and the kind of people commenting here who like this show confirm my impression that this show is a broad, LCD, pandering, cliché fest.
It was a fun night of theater and highly entertaining!
5
This review makes me so angry. Not because Mr. Brantley didn't like the show, but because of the rudeness with which he flippantly critiques some of the actors. Kate Reinders can not help that her voice sounds like Ms. Chenowith's. And to call it an impression is petty.
I thoroughly enjoyed the show twice in previews, and have spread the good word about this mighty fine production to all who will listen.
Perhaps the reason there were so many "Broadway insiders" at the performance Mr. Brantley saw, is because the word of mouth among us has been incredibly favorable.
Awards season will assure a long and profitable run for this show, and years from now when it has ensconced itself in the repertory of community theaters and college theater departments, Mr. Brantley (who should scuttle off into history, now) will be laughed at for this shortsighted review..
I thoroughly enjoyed the show twice in previews, and have spread the good word about this mighty fine production to all who will listen.
Perhaps the reason there were so many "Broadway insiders" at the performance Mr. Brantley saw, is because the word of mouth among us has been incredibly favorable.
Awards season will assure a long and profitable run for this show, and years from now when it has ensconced itself in the repertory of community theaters and college theater departments, Mr. Brantley (who should scuttle off into history, now) will be laughed at for this shortsighted review..
16
I do not believe this show will ensconce itself in the repertory of community and college theaters unless it is substantially rewritten -- writing out the stereotypically offensive gay and Jewish portrayals, and figuring out how NOT to have the show peak in the middle of the first act. Even if you loved the show, you must admit nothing that followed that moment ever came close to it.
At some point in its creation it had the potential to join the ranks of "The Producers" and "Book Of Mormon" but by foregoing an out-of-town tryout, that ship sailed.
At some point in its creation it had the potential to join the ranks of "The Producers" and "Book Of Mormon" but by foregoing an out-of-town tryout, that ship sailed.
I disagree with Ben on this one but I suppose I'm in the moderate camp given the extreme comments here. I did laugh as much at this show as I did at the Producers when it first came to Broadway. Perhaps the show itself is bronze but Nicholaw and his first rate cast make it Gold. A fun time worth seeing.
3
Critics get paid to voice their opinions - nasty or otherwise. But, do you have to be so mean spirited? Theatre is to be for entertainment and that's exactly what Something Rotten gives you. From start to finish a good time! Do you think theatre goers spend all that money to have a sour experience? Glad I see play before reviews come so I can see just how wrong critics are. Needs to get to the point where critics cry wolf one too many times and the public stops listening.
4
This review is probably a bit harsh but most of it is accurate. Something Rotten is a great premise but the execution leaves much to be desired. The central joke of the show is fully mined in the fourth song of the show and, from that point, it never reaches the same heights or finds any magic again - if anything it just coasts along, one lame joke after the next.
PROS
Great idea
A few memorable, catchy songs
One show-stopping number
Great acting and comedic turns by male leads
CONS
2nd Act is mediocre at best
Lame writing for female characters
Tons of dud jokes
The "Omelette" joke should have been a 1-off joke, not the hook to hang the entire 2nd Act of show on
What's sad is that it might win the Tony because of only one song/number from the entire show.
PROS
Great idea
A few memorable, catchy songs
One show-stopping number
Great acting and comedic turns by male leads
CONS
2nd Act is mediocre at best
Lame writing for female characters
Tons of dud jokes
The "Omelette" joke should have been a 1-off joke, not the hook to hang the entire 2nd Act of show on
What's sad is that it might win the Tony because of only one song/number from the entire show.
7
Brantley's hateful review of Something Rotten is fodder for the wags who set themselves up as theatre tastemakers. Shame on you ! I
5
I'll take sophomoric over get-off-my-lawn any time.
Can someone please get a little juice box for Mr. Brantley & turn on "Holiday Inn"?
And check his drawels, I think he may be sitting in his own mess again, being he's so cranky.
Can someone please get a little juice box for Mr. Brantley & turn on "Holiday Inn"?
And check his drawels, I think he may be sitting in his own mess again, being he's so cranky.
10
When a great evening at the theater is reviewed with such distain, it seems to me that Brantly should move on to retirement! It's time! Stop crushing the Broadway with your nasty unhappy existence.
13
I haven't laughed that hard during a show in years. The music is still stuck in my head several days later. The audience was on their feet several times during the show. I thought that it was wonderful and surprised by your negative comments. Yes, it was sophomoric, but that was the point. It was silly and entertaining! Go see the show!
19
The threshold for standing ovations these days is pathetically low. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to attend any Braodway show, deserving or not, that doesn't feature this reflexive ritual.
1
In fact, one sign of a real flop is that the audience remains seated at the curtain call. People already have to stand to exit; if nobody even says "eh, might as well," you're in trouble.
The first act is full of fun and energy but, alas, there's no second act, only a tired rehash of the first. No one leaves humming. The enthused audience at intermission is a startling contrast to the subdued, let-down audience that leaves the theater.
2
I almost fell off my treadmill this morning when I read this review. Not only did I absolutely love this show but I already have tickets to see it a second time! Just thinking about the show makes me smile and there's nothing better than that!
17
Me thinketh Mr. Bradley needs to get... shall we say, laid.
16
Mr. Brantley, you are a snob. This show is fabulous fun and quite worthy of being compared to Book of Mormon and The Producers. Why do you feel that going all out for the audience is a bad thing? I can't wait to see it again! And again!
8
Brantley, you over exaggerate and miss the boat on this one. It was a thoroughly delightful and creative romp. How you could have liked Honeymoon in Vegas and not Rotten amazes me. My audience was also on its feet mid-performance -- something I am glad you acknowledged!
12
Such a shame that Brian left Hamilton, where he stole the show in a perfect cameo role, for this mess. The 5th Avenue should be thrilled that they got Jasper in Deadland instead: it's also a flawed show, but magnitudes better than Something Rotten. It is one thing to deeply respect and believe in musical theater as an art form, as Lin and RSO do, and quite another to only pay it lip service in the cheapest way possible.
7
Spot on. I saw this in previews and found it exhausting and lacking any real wit or subtlety. But most of the audience seemed to be eating it up, so maybe it will run, while worthier efforts such as Side Show and The Bridges of Madison County close. Such is Broadway.
10
Maybe I love theater too much and understand that each show is different and needs to be appreciated on its own merits. I loved all those shows, but to me, it would comparing apples with bananas.
1
Sometimes, when the brow feels a little too high, when the heavy burden of theater snobbery weighs us down, a nice pick-me-up will come along. Yes, Something Rotten is silly and ridiculous, but it is greatly entertaining. I wasn't bored for a second. There was only one standing ovation at the performance I attended, so the one Brantley attended must have been really special.
4
Mr. Brantley 's review implies that the show stopping numbers in this show were egged on by industry insiders. That would be because he wasn't swept up in the joyous experience how this original new non-jukebox-recycled-movie musical celebrates our love of musical theater. That Brad Oscar number as I have heard stops the show nightly. Especially for those of us that don't read sour reviews of the occasional critic that isn't enjoying himself. I suggest some of the most classic comedies have been labeled by a critic as "sophomoric". The Marx Brothrrs and Monty Python have survived this type of review and this bonafied blockbuster will too. I can't wait to go back again.
17
Had I read this review before I saw "Something Rotten," I would have deprived myself of one the most enjoyable experiences I've had on Broadway in many a year. Tellingly, Mr. Brantley explains away two standing ovations by noting that the audience at the preview he attended contained "many members of the fraternity of Broadway show folk," to use his snidely dismissive phrase. Personally, I would rather trust the judgement of people who have devoted their lives to the theater than to the dyspeptic grumblings of a snob intent on keeping a certain class of people (you know who they are) on their sides of the bridges and tunnels. Sadly, Mr Brantley has probably created the only kind of show stopper he is capable of mounting and the lights on Broadway will be a little dimmer for it.
P.S. If you've seen this show, take to Twitter and spread the word.
P.S. If you've seen this show, take to Twitter and spread the word.
39
Mr. Brantley certainly doesn't need anyone to defend him, but with theater ticket prices being what they are, I don't think of critics as the enemy, but rather, as guides who keep us from throwing good money after bad.
I don't know about you, but I have limited funds and hate it when I feel misled by a mediocre show with a boisterous ad campaign. For those who think Ben Brantley is the only one who wasn't swept away by this show, do what I did -- read ALL the reviews and then make up your mind. Here's 19 all in one place -- though still after reading them I decided to see the show anyway. I re-read Ben's review AFTER seeing the show and realized he nailed it. Live and learn.
http://www.playbill.com/news/article/the-verdict-read-reviews-of-broadwa...
I don't know about you, but I have limited funds and hate it when I feel misled by a mediocre show with a boisterous ad campaign. For those who think Ben Brantley is the only one who wasn't swept away by this show, do what I did -- read ALL the reviews and then make up your mind. Here's 19 all in one place -- though still after reading them I decided to see the show anyway. I re-read Ben's review AFTER seeing the show and realized he nailed it. Live and learn.
http://www.playbill.com/news/article/the-verdict-read-reviews-of-broadwa...
1
Mr. Brantley must have eaten a bad burrito just before watching the play and his review is a grave injustice. Something's Rotten is astonishingly wonderful and deserves nothing but praise. It is brilliant, hysterically funny with multiple Tony Award-deserving performances. It has one show-stopping number after another and deserved the multiple mid-show standing ovations it received the night my friends and I saw it. It's the finest, bravest, most creative show since Book of Mormon and not to be missed. I say all this simply as a fan, with no attachment to the show and no friends in the show. It is undeniably the best musical in years.
8
Have you noticed that there seems something rotten in Mr. Brantley's attitude toward big musicals lately. Is he suffering from spring theatrical menopause? God only know what he would have made of "An American in Paris" had he reviewed that show instead of Charles Isherwood. Even his opening paragraphs have lost their luster and wit, and now wreak of vicious knit-picking. I saw two preview perfs. of SR on April 13th and the final preview 8 days later. I can, without hesitation, that SR is the most enjoyable musical comedy to hit Broadway since "The Producers" opened at the same theatre 14 years ago. It has been a long time since I have heard audiences reacting so vociferously, roaring with laughter not only at the brilliantly clever dance numbers but just non-stop laughter throughout the entire show. The cast is exemplary. For Brantley to say of Brian d'Arcy James' performance that "though he works hard, the character eludes his grasp," is an insulting and completely untrue comment. What was he playing--King Lear? He is tremendous. SR is a cross between comedy & satire, while paying homage to the history of the Broadway musical--the show is beautifully done and superbly performed. Of all the late preview performances I have seen through recent years, I can't recall a review that so unfairly misjudged a production they way Brantley has done here. Read the raves of other reviewers--they got the show right. Mr. Brantley missed the boat, the pier and the harbor with this one.
20
Me thinks Brantley. His nastiness is showing and he has overstayed his time as theatre guru . Ben Power will be overtaken by Will Power !
1
It's "methinks", not "me thinks". "Me thinks" is merely atrocious grammar.
Ben! Lighten up in the Piazza! You acknowledge two standing ovations DURING the show?
The night I saw it audience went nuts. I haven't heard that much laughter in the theater in a long time.
The night I saw it audience went nuts. I haven't heard that much laughter in the theater in a long time.
28
Thank you Mr. Brantley - I too saw a late preview. All around me people were laughing non-stop. Cheering, too. I "got" most of the allusions. But I just didn't think the show was all that funny. Everything was derivative. Now I know I wasn't alone. "Something Rotten" will probably be a mega hit in spite of (dare I say it) us.
6
Normally in agreement with you on most reviews Mr. Brantley, but I loved this show! It is almost as though you saw a different show than the one I saw or were in an awful mood when you saw it. I was shocked when I read your review. Something Rotten is a wonderful crowd-pleaser, skillfully directed. I have friends who have seen the show twice. Luckily, most reviews were overwhelmingly positive.
4
OMG, will someone PLEASE put Ben Brantley out of his misery and find him gainful employment at something for which he is far-better suited? Perhaps hawking Art Deco jewelry at an antique store on 57th St.? A concierge at a resort in Branson, Missouri? Just something, ANYTHING, to get this poor man off the back of journalism and onto his back in a new money-earning position. "Oh, the humanity!" This Hindenburg of a "review" perfectly demonstrates why Ben Brantley is so ill-suited for his line of work (one wonders what strange affliction befell NYTimes Human Resources the day he was hired - a lost bet at poker? A favor called in by someone's pitying great-aunt?). "Something Rotten", is, first and foremost, F-U-N. The last time I checked, Broadway musical comedy is meant to be humorous and entertaining, to lift your spirits, give a thrill and a laugh, to make your forget your cares for a few hours. In this, "Something Rotten" succeeds wildly. Yes it's over-the-top in the best possible way. Moreover, the broadly-brushed characters resonate down through the ages of comedic theater; to connect with a farcical tradition that dates from earliest antiquity. High Art this is not, but, rather, something more satisfying and soul-replenishing. Personally, I can't recommend this show enough. If anything, it's a tonic for Ben Brantley's tiresome partisan hackery that has gone on for far too long at the Times.
31
I don't know about Mr. Brantley's qualifications and peformance, but I certainly agree that the show was fun, and toe-tapping and humming tunes to boot. Is a lot of the humor sophomoric? Yeah, so what? The audience sees a lot of funny acting, singing, energetic eye-pleasing dancing, and above all, an original plot. A show is like a candidate in an election -- even if nobody's perfect, you can still make an excellent choice.
3
Oh, it was "toe-tapping", was it? And these are your own words, and this is how you really talk?
Boooo! What a cranky review, Mr. Brantley! The show doesn't pretend to be anything more than it is -- just a fun celebration of theatre and the people in it. Sorry you had a bad night.
12
I am not sure that you and the balance of the NYC saw the same production! This was the most clever, creative, witty, fun, fresh, intelligent, laugh out loud production. Brain d'arcy James and Christian Bole were outrageous perfection with excellent timing and character development along with the balance of the cast. With two musical numbers that stop the show and have the audience screaming on of their feet, what else are you looking for? The costumes and sets were well done, the pacing of the show excellent and the audience walked out of the show singing very memorable tunes. Sorry Mr. Brandtly but you are WRONG. I typically agree with your perspective but you will be wishing you had invested five thousand dollars in this show! It will sweep the Tony's and run for years! The most undeserving review of your career. America, run to see the show!!!!
CAH251
CAH251
14
Mr. Brantley must be so jaded that he was having a bad night when reviewing "Something Rotten". Never have I enjoyed myself more in at a musical, and NEVER have I seen a show get three standing ovations, one in the middle of Act I. Send , another reviewer to see the show, maybe not one with such bilious attitude.
6
Oh, Ben- Oh poor misguided Ben. Fer the love of a laugh, Ben, would you lighten up? The show is hilarious in the same vein as Mormon, Producers, Drowsy Chaperone, and all the other slightly over the top guffaw-fests! With the world in the state that it's in, you're going to pick on this silliness? It's a great night in the theater and I for one, (along with the rest of the audience on Tuesday night) roared time and again. Go see Ghosts again, you dreary man.
8
Whereas Mr. Brantley found everything sophomoric and over the top, I found everything tuneful and hilarious. Loved the show, as did everyone else in the audience. Broad comedy has its place, and it's right here.
6
Wow! I could not disagree more with this guy. I've seen a lot of shows in my lifetime, and this is one of the best shows I've ever seen. I enjoyed it from beginning to end. The audience loved it! I would definitely give this show the Tony for best musical, and Brian d'Arcy James and Brad oscar deserve Tony nominations. A+++ Five stars.
7
This, from the man who loved "Honeymoon In Vegas"?
"Something Rotten" is silly, sophomoric, over the top, and oh yes a lot of fun.
The material does sag somewhat in the second act, but the production is first rate and the cast is top notch. I really enjoyed the show.
Pay no attention to Brantley's bitchy review. If you go to the show you will leave in a good mood and with a smile on your face.
"Something Rotten" is silly, sophomoric, over the top, and oh yes a lot of fun.
The material does sag somewhat in the second act, but the production is first rate and the cast is top notch. I really enjoyed the show.
Pay no attention to Brantley's bitchy review. If you go to the show you will leave in a good mood and with a smile on your face.
9
Ben Brantley, I know reviews are opinion, but I just feel you are wrong, wrong, wrong here!! This show is brilliant and so much fun. Audiences love "too much"! Too much is never enough! In spite of your jaded negativity here that is likely very out of step with how your readers will feel, I am quite confident this show will be a resounding success. I'm sorry you weren't able to enjoy it like the rest of us.
4
This fiasco seems to have about 18 producers, great for raising investor cash, but after that fun phase, a formula for flop.
2
Yes, the play has something of a varsity show with lots of inside jokes and puerile humor but it is very funny and very lively. I enjoyed myself thoroughly. Me thinks Mr. Brantley had a bumpy night.
3
Sounds like Mr. Brantley just doesn't "get it" to me. It sometimes astounds me what he likes and doesn't like. I can never quite get his review of Wicked out of my head. In it he claimed the only reason to see the show was Ms. Chenowith. Seconds after Idina Menzel arrived on stage I realized the man had business being in a position to judge talent.
1
Wicked is dreadful.
2
I disagree. Enough said.
2
A real scrooge of a review. Time to move on, Ben (as did your predecessor Brooks Atkinson, who, at a similar moment in 1960 was the single dissenting voice reviewing a little show called "Bye Bye Birdie"). May you be condemned to hourly doses of the original cast of your favorite musical of the season singing "But I LOVE Betsy."
7
I saw "Something Rotten" in previews and LOVED it.
6
Mr. Brantley got it right. Talk about a strained, sophomoric and tedious production. I may never attend a preview again just to avoid these ludicrous standing ovations by "friends" of the show.
10