Review: ‘Frozen’ Hits Broadway With a Little Magic and Some Icy Patches

Guess they just better go back to H.C. Andersen's version: scary, but it hangs together and has no snowmen.

This review, and some of the comments, remind me of Teletubbies. 20 years ago, with a preschooler and a new baby, I saw part of a Teletubbies episode and remarked to my husband over dinner what a nonsensical mess it was; I couldn't believe anyone would write such claptrap or that PBS would buy it. A couple of months later, I walked into the room where my daughter was standing up in her playpen, literally transfixed by Teletubbies and clinging to the rail of the playpen so she could see it clearly. She LOVED that show and it was the only thing that held her attention for more than 2 minutes. We cuddled up and watched one episode each day after that day. In other words, those geniuses know their audience and what is/is not important to that audience. The adult perspective is irrelevant to what I'm sure are hundreds of little girls belting out Let It Go in unison. Lucky little girls. May they all enjoy the experience.

Why bother to review shows like this? Serious theater goers aren’t going to bother and Disney fans don’t care about a serious review. Use your time to go see an off Broadway show that may turn out to be a hidden gem.

Whilst I have yet to see FROZEN yet, I have high hopes that Disney once again proves that it's IPs work well on stage, as they are developed the same way when making the animated musical features. Bringing families to Broadway is good for everyone in the theatre community and NYC tourism.

I don't understand why Jesse Green is reviewing Disney musicals. It's like Pete Wells reviewing McDonalds. There's an audience, you're not in it, and just because it's called "Broadway" doesn't mean it should be reviewed in the same way and by the same people as Angels in America or Sweat.

Recreating a computer generated hit in human form seems almost sad. All we have left is to wish for what we once were.

I saw the show during the first week of Previews with my 12 year old daughter. She loved it from the costumes to the incredible special effects crammed onto a Broadway stage; to the characters to the songs. We stayed after and met the cast at the stage door for autographs. They were as gracious and kind to the (mostly) children who were clamoring for them as they were talented in performing onstage a few moments before. Was it an amazing, well-developed show with a cohesive storyline and deeply-meaningful characters? Definitely not. Did I love it and rate it as good/great theater? Not a chance. But was it entertaining, fun and engaging, especially for children in the 5-15 age-group? Yes. Hating on it for being a Disney show or trying to turn a profit is just mean-spirited. I don’t see anyone deriding Hamilton for wringing every last cent out of the touring shows; merchandise; tie-ins with every medium available, etc. This review, as many readers have correctly indicated, applies the same pseudo-intellectual snobbish analysis as it would to a show attempting to be edgy or deep like Angels in America or even Rent during its day. That’s the fatal flaw of this review, nothing else. This show is meant to be light and fun. It make kids feel good and finishes with a happy ending. It does that and much more. In the age of school shootings, Frozen is a great show for children and a fine first exposure to the magic of Broadway.

Very interesting to read about yet another fraught stage adaptation of a Disney movie (a trend I always view with apprehension). But there's something vacuous at the heart of this review which recalls why national theater sections such as the NYT's should not have "Frozen" reviewed by males. Not that a man can't do a good job of it, but most can't, and the tip-off is whether they see Anna or Elsa as the main character. Any (re)viewer who sees Anna as the center of the story has to be suffering from testosterone poisoning. Hence the gender bias was obvious here before I checked. Everything regarding content and balance in this film and its adaptation rests on the ability to grasp how women and especially young women understand the core plot, which isn't sisterly love (yawn) but female liberation. In my view, lacking this insight means that this musical hasn't been reviewed here yet.

Seems like the main problems that were to be found in the movie have become glaringly obvious in this stage production--that the story is inconsistent, the main characters make no logical sense, the side characters are generally useless, and as great as the belting songs might be for showtunes, they don't mix well with the Norwegian setting and tone of the rest of the story. I can't say that I'm terribly surprised.

Green says just about everything I said (here in the comments to the review them; and to colleagues in Denver and NYC) about the Denver tryout (I saw the 2nd perf. in Denver). I think the creators, despite the feedback they received from professionals, and comments here in the NYT from NY transplanted theatre pros who saw the Denver tryouts -- hubristically decided that the show would sell itself on name recognition and "Disney" alone and yet they had expressed the desire to create a separate work of theatre that could stand on its merits apart from the animated film. The result was a bit of a mess in terms of costumes from several eras and a cardboard Elsa who can power out a song but barely has a character and disappears for long stretches of stage time, while the kid sister has a real character and story arc. Thank God that absurdly illogical nightgown is gone! A pet peeve of mine in Denver. But does the incongruous and vaguely (doubtless unintentional) anti-Semitic (the chorus sounded more Yiddish than Norweigian) Klezmer number that opens Act II remain? Is act II still a mess?

If Disney can make huge profits by just showing up with popular cartoons and popular characters that appeal to children’s simple tastes, then why would it want to go to the trouble to produce “serious, coherent modern musicals” worthy of the theater and theater ticket prices? To those who take issue with Mr. Green: Whatever Disney puts on stage merits an honest critique, like any other production. Being “Disney” does not make it sacrosanct. Dismissing a show’s intent or its flaws by marginalizing its target audience — in this case, kids — is insulting. Rest assured, Mr. Green’s words won’t affect Disney’s exploitation of its brand one bit. But, it may give pause to those adults who will be buying the tickets and who also want to give their children an early (and hopefully lifelong) appreciation of the theater. (I would be one such parent, if my kids were within Disney’s target demographic.)

Broadway has almost completed it's demise into becoming nothing more than an over-budgeted PAC center. From Frozen to Margarittaville to the Donna Summer Show to the Cher Show to the Carole King show and on and on. Varying degrees of nothing. Let's not forget SpongeBob. Even the straight plays are all or mostly old revivals. Thank god for the occasional gem off-Broadway.

Ah, the endless monetizing possibilities of the Internet. This useless statement accompanies a direct link from the Times to buy tickets: "When you purchase a ticket for an independently reviewed play or musical through our site, we earn an affiliate commission. But our primary goal is that this feature adds value to your reading experience." I can't tell which is worse: knowing that the Times makes money when people use the link, or that their "primary" (ha!) goal is to "add value" to my "reading experience." Pretty screwed up, right? I didn't realize that I read for monetary value, though I'm afraid more and more that the Times only "produces content" for its "primary" goal: to make money.

According to the logic of these posters, only 9-year old girls should review shows geared for 9-year old girls. What does a 9-year old girl know about dramaturgy, and who cares?

As everything else in media today it is being consolidated and corporatized, including now Broadway. Prepare for more Shrek, Aladdin and Frozen dreck. Cruise ship entertainment for the lowest common denominator masses.

You remind me very much of David Richards, who flogged productions in my home town of DC years ago. His acerbic scribblings disheartened and enraged many a struggling young theatre company. And I can read your mind right now—you are trashing a lavish Disney production that can afford to shrug off your animadversions. True. No, what I object to in your criticism, generally, is what made me loathe Richards: the air of intellectual superiority; the constant punning (as if it were wit); the self-referential asides. Poor little you, paid an ample wage to sneer your way through Broadway shows that families of modest means scrape and save to attend, and observe in joy. As the great Christopher Fry once observed: “Poor criticism spends most of its time assuring acorns that they shall never become oaks.” To borrow from your own adolescent sense of humor, that’s you in a nutshell.

It was still better than that beached, stinking, dead jelly-fish of a show THE LITTLE MERMAID which must be one of the ugliest creatures ever to appear and die on Broadway. It seems Disney was really asleep at the wheel with that one! FROZEN seemed to by micro-managed in order not to land on the trash heap of musical theatre history, but by being so calculated it really was ultimately charmless and rather clinical. Oh, well.

I hate that Disney and the powers that be went ahead with Frozen instead of the fabulous Hunchback of Notre Dame that was staged magnificently first at the La Jolla Playhouse and then at the Papermill Playhouse in NJ. Spectacular sets, a complex and rich book and a score that soars and transports.... and the acting! Good Lord, Michael Arden, you are a wonder!! instead, however, they roll out this toothless drivel. Bleh... Redeem yourself, o powerful Disney-- for the sake of art, let somebody else stage Hunchback. It's spectacular, and it deserves to live...

Me thinks Disney does not agree and so just bought the front page! The FROZEN ad is huge. Disney hitting back here!

Another critic offers an opening night review based on the belief that Frozen on Broadway “is not a daring reinvention of the material, but a repackaging of the film for the stage. It’s the surest way to please the movie’s faithful fans.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/theatre/what-to-see/frozen-reviewst-james-th...

Last night I was watching ABC News and the last story was basically a promo for the opening of Frozen under the guise of a piece about women on Broadway. Whenever there is anything new in the Star Wars world ABC News always manages to do a story on it. Of course all are owned by Disney. With all that is going on inn the world ABC News should not be wasting precious airtime cross promoting other Disney properties.

The author faults this production for its "contradictions" and the "confusion" it sows. But this review suffers from the very same defect: for example, Mr. Green notes the performances "are never less than professional if seldom more than that," and yet, in the following sentence, praises Ms. Levy's performance as "sensational," carried out with "astonishing aplomb." Meanwhile, Ms. Murin is "charming." It's difficult to trust a review that calls out a production for its imbalance when the review itself is equally schizophrenic.

My goodness what was Mr Green thinking he was reviewing? Shakespeare's A Winter's Tale? This is a live action Disney cartoon designed to attract and thrill little girls and early tweens. It is a harmless, artless confection of pretty tableaux, with a few ear-wormly songs and a very well stocked gift shop for parents to squander a decent amount of money on Disney merchandise. Kids who loved the movie will love the show and they really don't need a bombastic and portentous diatribe to let them know that they just might not be having as much fun as they think they are having no matter what their "circumpolar" circumstances may be.

Want to know the best musical on Broadway these days? "The Band's Visit". Now that's a musical.

Oh lighten up folks. Not every musical can be another Hamilton.

Keep the teen age girls happy . Broadway went from O’Neill and and “ Streetcar named desire “ to Disney . The decline of America . Sad .

Even though I choose not to see this production, I cringe at the thought of all the community theaters who will subsequently do it. I've lost count of the number of productions of "Beauty and Beast," "Shrek the Musical", and "The Little Mermaid" that have been launched in the last couple of years in this area. Yawn.

Often brilliant music and lyrics aside (see: The Little Mermaid or Aladdin) I've come to view askance Disney productions of anything. The firm has no sour and its willingness to bastardize for commercial opportunity is appalling. Witness its complete denigration Victor Hugo's magnificent Hunchback. It was a violation or rape proportions and one I will neither forget nor forgive.

Leave it to Disney to milk as much money as they can out of whatever winning formula they have "in their vaults". How many reworks of Beauty and the Beast can you do, or Cinderella, before it loses it charm? Bad enough about the constant and shameless promotion of all things Disney on ABC, and that they buyout every and anything successful and appealing in entertainment these days.

I can't wait a couple of years when "Coco" comes to Broadway. I'd like to read that review. The show will be "deadly."

In fact, with the possible exception of "Lion King," Disney Broadway musicals are to theater what their theme park rides are to transportation. I know the original production of "Beauty and the Beast" ran twice as long as the original production of "My Fair Lady," but that doesn't exactly mean it was twice as good.

Mr Green is asking the wrong question, but it is inherent when an arts critic evaluates a piece of Commerce. Jesse is looking for a good play, Disney has one goal which is to maximize profitability. these two are inherently misaligned. no one asks if the new diet coke can is artful, its sole goal is to increase sales. if Mr Green wants to see as you like it there are ample opportunities and I'm looking forward to his reviews of the upcoming winter's tale and lear, not to mention travesties and angels in America.

Just curious...How can songs "feel over-tailored to their moments and," simultaneously, "mismatched"? Mismatched to what? The moment they apparently matched too well?

I saw the show last Sunday and heartily enjoyed it. Here is the main reason to see the show: "Let It Go" and "For the First Time in Forever" (including the Reprise) are astounding to watch and listen to live, with the best special effects, production lighting, and orchestra Disney can buy. Caissie Levy and Patti Murin have amazing control over their voices while belting out the notes. You knew you were watching the masters work. The quibbles Mr. Green raised on cohesiveness ("the somber and thesilly") were all there in the source material, so that's not really unexpected. Maybe it even contributed to Frozen's success with kids? The sets were gorgeous - dominating in scale and detail - and the digital and special effects were great (I jumped when the ice burst out of stage right at one point, and the Northern Lights looked better than the St Petersburg palace in Anastasia, at least). Two moments that did surprise me/felt odd: when everyone on stage starts making out, and the nude can-can during Hygge. But overall, it was a transporting 3 hours to Arendelle. The last few musicals I've watched include Sundays in the Park with George and Dear Evan Hansen, and the slow parts in Frozen don't even compare to the slowwww parts in those musicals.

I would like to start off by saying I am sorry if I appear mean; nevertheless, this show is absolutely dreadful. I do want to mention that Jelami Alladin can charm the socks of anyone and has the potential to be a significant talent; also, the reindeer was fabulous. They both deserve better material. That being said, I dare anyone to find one genuine, honest emotion on that stage. That is a real challenge given the set is too big for the St. James stage and the company spends much of their time trying not to bump into each other. It is hard to judge Ms. Murin's talent given the mediocrity of the material and direction, although I wasn't in any way impressed with what I saw. The book is downright bad and the score pedestrian. I saw the show 2 weeks ago and shockingly Ms. Levy was out (I would remind her that Carol Channing missed only one-half of one performance out of 5000 as Dolly Levi). Ms. Levy's understudy was, to be gentle, not up for the moment, so I was even robbed of what I hear is the one decent thing: Ms. Levy's rendition of Let It Go. You couldn't pay me money to go back to here her do it.

Replace this entire review with the following questions: Will little girls (and little boys) have fun seeing this? Will it make them happy? Will your family have a nice time on an outing seeing it? Green needs lighten up a little.

Great show!

A grumpy review, though actually very constructive in its detail. But if the show bridges risk and darkness with exuberant resolution and souvenir reindeer, that sounds like a formula to entertain both adults and children.

Disney really doesn't want to grow up, because the commercial possibilities of getting parents to splurge for Broadway prices on their kids are so huge. It's unfortunate, because one of the best musicals I have ever seen (not just best Disney musical, one of the best overall) was the out-of-town tryouts of the Jungle Book in Boston. It was an incredible artistic creation, preserving the songs and story of the original but with sophistication far beyond the usual "hey, remember that from the movie?" vibe of most movie-based musicals. For whatever reason, Disney decided not to greenlight that after its Chicago and Boston runs (both of which seemed successful from the numbers I saw), and I can only speculate it is because they didn't think they could monopolize yet another Broadway theatre for years with it. For Disney, artistic merit isn't a consideration and simply turning a profit and having a long touring run wouldn't be good enough for their margins.

I'd love to know how Disney arranged the blizzard that was so exquisitely timed to coincide with the opening of this show. And whether there's any point in sending theater critics to review a franchise.

Mr. Green is Mr. Grinch. We saw Frozen in Denver with 2 little girls. We were all enthralled. The audience was filled with little girls in Elsa costumes who could have had a sing-along with Ms. Levy during "Let it Go." My husband and I had never seen the Disney animated version (we are grandparents), so our 5-year old kept us informed. "Hans is really a bad guy," my granddaughter whispered in my ear. There was plenty of Awe, not awww, in the spectacular scenery. The puppet-meister/singer who brought Olaf to life had me laughing and clapping. I declared him "my favorite" as we left the theater. Tickets are expensive. Broadway and Disney should work on making tickets more affordable. But to those in New York who have managed to purchase tickets to this show, you will love it! And so will the children you bring along.

What's wrong with making enjoyable cartoons? Not everything needs to be about gender, race, or class after all.

Word of the day: circumpolar.

Broadway has in large part become Disney World North, complete with exorbitant pricing.