I read the TImes review, and didn't think it was as bad as they made it sound by any means!! I enjoyed it, even while recognizing that it would not be a show for the ages.... No memorable songs, but it had some very endearing moments, the Dickens story itself is of course gripping, and contrary to the reviewer, I loved the performers. I think this play will inevitably be compared to Les Miz, and on that score, it definitely does not stack up.

Considering the price of Broadway shows these days, I've become more selective in my choices. A Tale of Two Cities will not be on my "have to see" list.
Incidently, the Times reviewer was not the only one critical of the show; in fact, far from it!

I was somewhat surprised to read the NYTimes review yesterday -- as well as half a dozen others. Yesterday is when I learned that reviewers no longer critique the opening night show (which was last night). They review previews. Many of the reviews were available online yesterday before the opening night show even took place. Just thought I'd mention that, as I honestly thought the old habit of reviewers waiting for the official opening night was sacred.

True, that MOST of the reviewers were quite negative. Most did seem to praise the leading actor, James Barbour, except Brantley of the NYTimes who actually said, "With a voice that combines the boom of thunder with the breathlessness of Marilyn Monroe and a leaning posture that appears to be in eternal search of a lamppost. . ."
Ouch. Did he really compare his voice to Marilyn Monroe's? That hurts!

I stand by my review.

My take on Brantley's comment about the lamppost wasn't negative. The character was supposed to be intoxicated much of the time during at least the first half of the play.

As far as the NY Times review a day early: the Times posts evolving headlines and articles on their website 24 hours a day. NP - did you read it late last night after the opening performance?

I paid $36 for my ticket - I got my money's worth.

My prediction: Despite the reviews, audiences will come and many will love it.

CPG,
Thanks for the info on LCT. For some reason I wasn't aware of it, but it sounds like a good deal.

So many people I know saw South Pacific in previews at discount prices, but not so great as your price.

I never did get around to getting tkts for TOTC. But judging from the reviews it looks like discount tkts will probably be available for a while so I guess it can wait.

Just as I predicted on Sept. 5, this show has indeed been panned by the critics and that's because, as they all agree, its a stinker. As Ben Brantley so aptly put it in the Times, "To say it could have been worse — i.e., gloriously, hilariously bad — is not a cause for rejoicing."

I disagree with Centralparkgirl's prediction that audiences will come. This show will be closed within a couple months. They'll struggle to find a positive quote to display on the marquee. Let's see if I'm two for two with my predictions.

CPK, I too read Ben Brantley's reviews with a huge grain of salt, but trust me, despite the character being drunk, I do NOT think Mr. Brantley meant anything remotely positive about his looking for a lampost to lean on! This is made pretty clear in the full context:
". . .with a leaning posture that appears to be in eternal search of a lamppost, Mr. Barbour invests every minute he’s onstage with heavy-lidded, overripe languor."

But even he comes out better off than this poor gal:
"Even the fearsome Madame Defarge, the revolutionary firebrand who (literally) knits the destiny of others, lacks distinctive menace. As played by a mop-haired Natalie Toro, she seems like a generally amiable arts-and-crafts type, temporarily in a bad mood because she lost her Carole King CDs."

Now that's FUNNY!

I'm with you upupaway in your prediction on the life of the show! It definitely will not last long.
Some shows, like Mamma Mia, are critic proof. Alas, A Tale of Two Cities is not!

Has any play in recent years been a huge success after Ben Brantley giving it a bad review?

Hi andrew8. That's a very good question - one that I don't want to research, but I'm sure someone else will.

About TOTC, I don't think it will be a huge hit, but I think many people will enjoy it. The audience that was there the night I was, acted like they were seeing a huge hit. I've noticed a change in audiences over the last many years. Besides how people dress to the theater, reactions, imo, seem to be different too. It's just my opinion that the bar is lower today in audience enjoyment. What do the rest of you think about that?

centralparkgirl, you have hit a nerve with me. Not just theater, but our entire society has dumbed down. Just think about what's popular on television these days!
As for whether any show has survived a Brantley criticism. I can't name any specific for sure, but I am positive they have. For one, I don't think he liked Mamma Mia too much.

Do you think Brantley tries to create more of a shock value with his reviews to create more of a buzz for himself?

It sounds like it from reading some his reviews since I've been on Fodors. Then again I'm hardly an expert on theater.

I do recall Ben Brantley's review of Wicked being nothing but an ode to Kristin Cheoweth. Basically he hated the show but said he waited for her reappearance as she was magic. While I agree she WAS magic, (I've never understood Ida Menzel getting the Tony instead of Kristin), but it's hard to explain why the show has been such a sold out success with no Kristin Cheoweth!

And I also remember his panning Spamalot -- saying something like it was the best of the season only because the season was so bad.

IDINA! :-)
She got the Tony for Rent too.

Ida? Who the hell said that? :D

I loved her in Rent. Not so much in Wicked which I thought BELONGED to Kristin.

I don't believe that she did, Starrs.

That's right, Howard. I was so thrown by my writing Ida instead of Idina, I missed that point. She WAS nominated for Rent, but didn't win.

You are right, Howard. I am wrong.
She was just a nominee.

andrew8,I'll have to disagree with your theory about Brantley. I think he's a very intelligent and sophisticated reviewer. Of course, maybe I feel that way because I usually agree with him! (And, yes, I'm in that minority who didn't like Wicked!)

However good or bad the show, it took guts to put on one that is guaranteed a review starting with:

"It was the best of shows. It was the worst of shows ..."