First reviews for the Broadway revival of "Of Mice and Men" have been positive, especially for O'Dowd's performance, as well as Franco's performance and Shapiro's directing.
Here's the Times review. I'd call it mixed to negative, although I'm never any good at depicting these things.
Most of the reviews seem to echo the neutral performance by Mr. Franco, who, for me, was underwhelming. I love him, his novels and his movies… but to me he was just… good ol' Mr. Franco with an accent.
And then there's Chris O'Dowd, who is getting the praise he deserves for his incredible, incredible, incredible performance.
Congrats to everyone involved for the overall praise this revival is receiving!
Brantley is definitely mixed to negative, and his review matches EXACTLY how I felt as I left the theatre. "Stagnant" was the word I used, "inert" was his word of choice. And that crack he took at Meester... hilarious. I am surprised by the rest of the reviews, honestly. I found the whole thing to be tepid at best.
Television, film, soap opera, art, poetry… Is there anything James Franco can’t do? Broadway perhaps? Find out if Mr. Franco conquers Steinbeck’s classic tale of disillusionment in the American dream as deftly as he’s perfected the art of looking stoned on the big screen in our full review of Of Mice And Men. Our review “Of Mice And Men” at Longacre Theatre starring James Franco and Chris O’Dowd.
So according to Brantley, the best actor in the piece is the dog:
"Though Mr. Franco musters a single, perfect tear for the play’s tragic climax, I only came close to shedding one. That was in the first act, when a dog (a real one) is led offstage to be shot because it stinks. That dog seemed to have true fear and bewilderment in its eyes. It felt, well, human, in a way none of the people did, and my heart sank when I knew it wouldn’t be coming back."
And none of the reviewers are there at the opening. (Bloggers can go whenever they want.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
hough Mr. Franco musters a single, perfect tear for the play’s tragic climax, I only came close to shedding one. That was in the first act, when a dog (a real one) is led offstage to be shot because it stinks. That dog seemed to have true fear and bewilderment in its eyes. It felt, well, human, in a way none of the people did, and my heart sank when I knew it wouldn’t be coming back
Ummmmmmm...they don't ACTUALLY shoot the dog, right?
Hater, FYI, most shows don't use pretend food unless it's not eaten. If there's a turkey on the table but they never sit down to eat, that's a prop. If they sit and eat during a scene, that's real food although not always what it appears to be. You can craft a ham out of tofu if there are vegans in the cast.
"If they sit and eat during a scene, that's real food although not always what it appears to be. You can craft a ham out of tofu if there are vegans in the cast."
Yes, I understand that. I just didn't think I needed to break down that if they eat it, it isn't pretend food, though.
There are more unemployed Americans now than there were when “Of Mice and Men” debuted on Broadway in 1937, making its third-ever production on Broadway something more than just an excuse to debate the performance of the multitalented, multitasking James Franco in his Broadway debut. Some, oddly, seem to dismiss the relevance of John Steinbeck’s work because it’s assigned regularly in high school.... Of Mice and Men Review