Seattlest: That’s Young Fronkensteen

guest

Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:01:25 -0800

I am an extreme fan of The Producers (original and recent). This show does not lick the boots of The Producers. Basically, it sucked. Reminded me of a high-skool production (with great props). Igor and the Monster were quite well played. Other than the Puttin-on-the-Ritz scene (which was great), the rest of the show was complete dreck. Scheisse. Ordure. The tubby sitcom-refugee woman has a decent voice, and had almost no opportunity to show same. Any resemblance to Madeleine Kahn is nonsense. Ditto for Bart's Gene Wilder. Andrea Martin did a so-so Blucher. The lab-assistant-bimbo girl was so unconvincing, blah. Save your money. Perhaps this can be tweaked to not bomb in NYC. But I'm not optimistic. As said above, I think this is a half-assed attempt to cash in on the reputation of The Producers.

guest

Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:13:48 -0800

I totally agree with slabbit. I love Mel Brooks but this production is a group of producers trying to ride on the sucess of The Producers. It is a shoddy knock-off with forgettable songs and scenes. Turning a movie into a musical should add to and deepen the humor, instead, the music/dances detracted from the humor. I have to say, there were some stand-out performances; the actors playing Igor and Frau Blucha were hilarious.

guest

Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:06:09 -0800

I enjoyed it. As did everyone I know who saw it. Can't beat the $30 ticket. Not sure what others were expecting. It's Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein The Musical!

slabbit

Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:03:00 -0800

Seriously, the musical is not that good. I love the movie and LOVE Mel Brooks, but they have a lot of work to do before they open on Broadway if they want anything better than lukewarm reviews. The first act is a bit of a mess and WAY too long. It is funny, but not nearly as funny as I expected or people who have seen "The Producers" will expect. The songs are really a bit of a problem. There are probably too many of them and they seem to be a lot alike. Most of them are entertaing but completely forgotten by the next scene. The second act was much better, mostly due to it being quite different than the movie. The perfomers are great, but the product needs a bit of work for the musical be anything but a tourist-type musical on Broadway.

velo

Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:01:58 -0800

Hm #2, if it is not as great as the film and costs $70 to go, something doesn't add up. Why wouldn't I just get the film and save a wad of cash?

guest

Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:59:54 -0800

It was NOT awful at all. The only people I know that didn't like it don't like Mel Brooks. Honestly, if you don't like his humor, do everyone a favor and stay home. If you were expecting it to be as great as the film, stay home.

guest

Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:38:10 -0800

Audrey, You forgot to mention how awful this production was. Also, how it was THREE HOURS LONG. And how the average ticket price is $71. And how awful it was.