shane54

I think with the majority of musicals the best you can hope for are 'mixed' reviews.
This show is/will be a major hit with the public and will benefit from word of mouth.
I don't think the reviews are anything to worry about!

I saw this show saterday and it's the best show I have seen. It's brilliant!

It is a sensational show BUT the Palladium is a HUGE theatre to fill 8 times a week with a show which will not appeal to the coach parties expecting big sets and spectacle. I have to see the show again and I am not one generally for multiple viewings.

Front Row Dress, on 21 March 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

I was there last night and I am 'old'(ish). I haven't laughed so much in ages - for me it lived up to all the hype I have heard and more. The  principal and ensemble cast were truly amazing and, as I have said previously, I can’t wait to go back again.

Front Row Dress, on 21 March 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

I'm 42 and thought it was brilliant, tbh your review is the first bad one I have read, it won't be for everyone though.

Saw this last night & I can't compare it to before but thought it was messy. The book is weak, the dialogue trite & a lot of the 'jokes' unfunny. (it was mentioned early on in this thread but I really found the 'shall I shave my head & pretend to have cancer' comments in very poor taste) The best humour, in fact one of the few good points about the show, is a few minor characters who are very amusing. I thought the leads were all pretty weak, especially Simone (though I'm not sure if that was an alternate last night?). She was vocally all over the place.
I quite like the Spice Girls & expected it to be more fun. I have come to the conclusion that they only have a handful of decent songs & the rest fall flat. Viva Forever in Spanish is beautiful though, that arrangement was inspired. I also found all the women in it a bit too blokey; I understand about girl power, controlling your own destiny & rejecting over sexualised marketing of female pop stars etc but I think the whole tone is wrong. The Spice Girls were outspoken & cheeky, but not chavvy ladettes as Eternity are portrayed.
It is staged well, I liked the sets & the screens, but a few scene transitions were clumsy, with cast just scurrying off cross-stage while the next scene started. There were quite a few line fluffs too, maybe down to re-writes, but not very professional.
Overall it had a bit of a Bill Kenwright touring production vibe about it...
And the end was so sudden - nothing happened! The four girls re-united (with hardly any discussion), sang Wannabe & then the whole cast started dancing & grinning like maniacs; it wasn't until some of them took a bow that the audience realised it was over! Then there's an 'everybody on your feet' song medly that was quite jolly - with more costume changes than the rest of the show.
OK for a bit of a lightweight night out but not great. The supporting characters & the ensemble dance numbers are the best part. And this is the improved version?
Was in the stalls and it wasn't full (tho a Monday).

A few more thoughts from Thursday's performance:

I could not have told that they're still in previews. The show was in a really good shape. However, I was a bit disappointed that they did not include the "he knows we're still in previews" joke after the natives presented their play to the mission president.

View from Circle Row E was really good, but I'll have to see the show from a bit more front to see the facial expressions of the mormon boys better.

Alexia Khadime and Stephen Ashfield were the two standouts. Salt Lake City (add blanks where needed) was a total showstopper, and I was always grinning when Stephen was on stage.
Also totally liked Jared and Gavin.

I'd simply say BoM is the best show I've seen for quite some time (if not ever). Luckily I'm back in 2.5 weeks time (and once again in May :-) ).

Let's hope we get a London Cast Recording!

Oh, and I thought it was really clever that they made a one minute break after the usual "turn your mobile off" announcement so that everybody had enough time to do so.

yallerybrown, on 10 March 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

I saw it in previews too and I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're talking about. I thought John Partridge was brilliant as Zach. I do think that Zach is a character who could easily come across as wooden if not played right, but in my opinion, he was fantastic. You could really hear the emotion in his voice even when he was sitting at the back of the stalls and talking to people who were 100ft and an audience away from him. I'm pretty sure he wasn't hired simply because he's a star, he was hired for his extensive background and talent in musical theatre and acting.

When I first saw A Chorus Line I thought the scenes between Zach and Cassie could maybe do with a little work in general but I saw it again last night and felt that aspect had far improved (the rest was still brilliant, as always) - but I had no doubt it would, as the actors are really settling into their roles now.

yallerybrown, on 10 March 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

What a ridiculous comment.

Jamiem, on 01 March 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

Eight days a week? Well you can't say they ain't committed.

lesterf, on 27 February 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

A Chorus Line is very different to every West End show I've seen before in that there is basically no set, and I've got to be honest, when I first sat down to see it I did think it looked very bland (bearing in mind I'd never seen the show before OR the film). However, I thought the set worked fantastically because it drew attention to the characters. With nothing to distract me in the background I found myself paying much more attention to the stories they were telling through dance, song and their words - and for a show that's so full of fantastic stories, I think that's essential. If you want to see a show that's visually stimulating then A Chorus Line probably isn't for you (although I find it fascinating how the cast members sometimes become a moving set, in a way, and also I think the lack of colour throughout the show makes the background in One Singular Sensation much more dazzling) but if you want a show that's rich, deep, funny, interesting, heartwarming, real and full of great music and dancing then you're in the right place!

I've seen it a few times now and it's been completely worth every penny I paid.

I think it's very sad to equate value for money with number of costume and scene changes and how much "that guy from Eastenders" is on stage.

Value in theatre for me is about how much I connect with the piece, how strong the story/characters/concept is and the emotional impact it has on me. And this show ticks all three boxes.

If you're panning the show for its simplicity then you are missing the point. Which is fine, it's not for everyone. But that's the risk you take when going to a show "blind". If you want to do that then ok, but don't complain about spending the money on a show you didn't enjoy when a quick scan of Wikipedia would have given you a clue that that might be the case.

Lester, you don't seem to get how this or any show works.  You want a scene in the rehearsal hall downstairs where the cast are learning the lyrics to the song???  How exciting is that!  Does that give you more bang for your buck ( or pound)?  And would that be instead of or in addition to the Zack-Cassie scene and Paul's monologue which now occupy that spot onstage?  Do you want all of it or just the cast stuff BECAUSE IT'S ANOTHER SET?

Do you really not get that the bare stage with the white line is the essence of the show?  Do you really equate ticket prices with the opulence or otherwise of the set?  Honestly, it's a very odd and rather disturbing consumerist esthetic you are proposing.

There are quite a few people selling it on ebay. I am sure some of them will deliver to Hungary.

Quite different from Andrew, but he's got such a great voice and approach to it. Really looking forward to seeing him