I just talked to some friends about this, and apparently the consensus is that if you've seen it live, don't see the movie. But if you HAVEN'T seen it live, the movie's a riot.
That doesn't surprise me at all, even though I didn't see it live. Basically, it means that those of us who saw the movie and thought it was good and funny, missed the total magic of seeing it live. And those who have seen that magic have a real letdown.
I wonder how good that touring production would have been. It was supposed to come here in February, but the tour was cancelled, no doubt because of the movie release. Without the original cast, I suppose it simply would have depended dearly on how well it was done.
...and I hope your viewing it and making your comments mean that the troubles you referred to earlier have been resolved ot alleviated.
Always having been fond of the first movie production (with Zero Mostel), I've got to wonder, why was the second one necessary? And gee, Matthew Broderick wasn't all that good, WOW, who'd a thunk, huh?
And I like Nathan Lane, but after a bit, don't you wish he'd just tone it down a notch or two?
Anyway, any opinions as to why this venture was even needed?
Yes. The musical version won a record number of Tony Awards and was side-splittingly hilarious. Brooks felt it should be captured on film. It wasn't a bad idea by any stretch.
Recommended Posts
Lifted Up
That doesn't surprise me at all, even though I didn't see it live. Basically, it means that those of us who saw the movie and thought it was good and funny, missed the total magic of seeing it live. And those who have seen that magic have a real letdown.
I wonder how good that touring production would have been. It was supposed to come here in February, but the tour was cancelled, no doubt because of the movie release. Without the original cast, I suppose it simply would have depended dearly on how well it was done.
...and I hope your viewing it and making your comments mean that the troubles you referred to earlier have been resolved ot alleviated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Alas, neither resolved nor alleviated. Just being dealt with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Always having been fond of the first movie production (with Zero Mostel), I've got to wonder, why was the second one necessary? And gee, Matthew Broderick wasn't all that good, WOW, who'd a thunk, huh?
And I like Nathan Lane, but after a bit, don't you wish he'd just tone it down a notch or two?
Anyway, any opinions as to why this venture was even needed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yes. The musical version won a record number of Tony Awards and was side-splittingly hilarious. Brooks felt it should be captured on film. It wasn't a bad idea by any stretch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.