There's an article in the NY Times about how they are making drastic revisions to this show for Broadway. Apparently Andrew L Weber is so impressed with the updated that he's closing the current London production and will re-open in Juen with the changes that were made for the Broadway opening. Personally, I also received the preview CD and I was not overly impressed by the music, but than again, sometimes when the music is associated with an actual production with a story and meaningful characters, it starts sounding a lot better.

MFNYC is correct and the "buzz" on this show is very exciting, particularly due to Lloyd Weber's actions. The NY Times pretty much tells the story.

I'm seeing this show tomorrow night. I'll report back.

You can go to this site: http://www.bombaydreamsonbroadway.com/ Click on "music clips" and sample some ot the show's songs.

We have four kids, boys ages 11 and 10, and twin 5 year old girls. The girls are adopted from India and LOVE Indian music, dress etc. Would this show be appropriate for kids this young? They are good in theatres, but I don't want to push it if it isn't really for kids.

I think 5 is a little young for Broadway theater. It's expecting a lot for them to sit still for 2 1/2 to 3 hours. Their love of Indian music, costumes, etc., will only keep them interested for just so long.

When talented people work so hard at something they love, it pains me when I can't enjoy the effort. What on earth were these creators thinking?

I'm still stunned by this theater experience and words escape me, which isn't typical for me.

The easiest way to describe Bombay Dreams ("nightmares" is a more appropriate word) is to imagine a kind of Sunset Boulevard (with the diva but without all those steps in a mansion) meets Les Miz, mixed in with a little Punjab-style Riverdance, and even a little Miss Saigon but, instead of the helicopter, you get Philadelphia waterfalls and a demolition crane. I kid you not.

The story (if that's what you can call it) is poor boy meets aspiring feminist film director who's engaged to evil, scheming lawyer (think Rent). Sparks fly and poor boy suddenly finds himself a movie star, taking all his cues from the diva-of-Bollywood, betraying his roots, his post-op transsexual friend, and his granny, and wallows in shallow riches while pining for the feminist film director. After newly rich boy discovers scheming laywer is about to demolish shanty town home, rich boy gets an epiphany and comes to the rescue, offering autographs to the demolition men and saves the day and the slum. Then rich boy runs to wedding of feminist film director and scheming lawyer (think The Graduate) and blows scheming lawyer's cover and gets the girl. What on earth has Andrew Lloyd Weber been smoking?

There are some interesting theatrical moments in Bombay Dreams but too few to sustain an entire evening. I walked away feeling empty and used, threatening to never eat chutney again. Others simply walked out at intermission. The music tries hard to please but don't expect to be humming any tunes unless Hindustani is your native tongue.

Oh NYCFS, egads, how sad to read your review! I should have trusted my insticts. Damn, if only we hadn't bought tickets after those relatives from the hinterlands told us they were coming in June. But fear not, NYCFS, I won't shoot the messenger!

I digress but reading this thread made me think. The last show I saw in London was Starlight Express. I think it was in 1985.

This did not get a favorable review in the NY Times today. They kind of agreed with NYCFS!

Oh crap. Now I have 2 turkeys in 1 week. We have Prymate on a Tuesday and Bombay on that Thursday. One can only hope for a stomach flu.

Let's not totally despair. There were a few things the Times liked! But then again, since our tickets are for June 12...maybe it'll close by then and I'll get my money back!

I must laugh at the comment above about AL Weber being so impressed with the changes in NYC that he's closing the London production and reopening with the new one. The London production has been only partially filling with half price tickets for the better part of a year and was due to close soon. This sounds like his ploy to "reopen" as a new production and sell more seats -- that's all. Meanwhile, I have my tickets for the London production (half price) in a couple weeks.

Ok: I saw it in London, and I saw it again here in New York last night.

The script changes I recognized for the most part provide a bit more explanation of Bollywood, which I think it probably necessary in America where very few people I meet know anything much about it. (Non-South Asian British people know a bit more in my experience, though seldom can name films, songs, or stars.)

I still recommend it as satisying entertainment. Many super-deligthful musical numbers, with the additional pleasure of their being unique to the Broadway stage. Many song and dance routines rock, and the costumery is brilliantly exotic and colorful.

And a fine and amusing introduction, if one is needed, to many of the enchanting features of the Indian musical movie tradition.

The audience (in a full house) last night was enthusiastic and appealing - about a third South Asian, the rest looking to me mostly like New Yorkers.

It's a good show for something new in the way of musical entertainment; also if you have South Asian friends and colleagues way to get a hit of their entertainment culture; and, worth noting, definitely ok for kids I think, 12 and up at any rate.

As a lover of Indian culture, high and popular both, I am hoping that preconceptions won't keep people away form this. Again: the "high pitched irritating sound" mentioned by someone here not only is not present in all songs, it is 100% not present at all in the show.

OK, so I finally saw Bombay Dreams in London. Yea, it was entertaining. But probably the worst premise for a story ever. We are to believe that this kid breaks onto the stage of an internationally televised Miss World Pagent and takes over the stage. The cameras focus on him and no one removes him from the stage. Poof. They decide to make him a star. Next scene, he's filming a movie and can't sing, can't dance, and deliberately pushes the big star out of his way. He is totally impossible, yet we are supposed to believe that after a three minute pep talk from an assistant director, he suddenly understands what it is all about and can suddenly act and sing and remember his steps, and stops goofing off. And that's only the beginning. I can accept "trite" in a musical, but what I can't accept is total "stupidity" which is what this is. OK, so the musical numbers are fun and it is still a fun evening of theatre. And while I'll admit many musicals aren't necessarily believeable, this one didn't have a single thing that happened that was within the realm of possibility.

Just my personal opinion, of course.

Thats what bollywood movies are supposed to be ... an over-exaggeration of life. People who watch Bombay Dreams need to have some background on Indian style movies to really enjoy the show!!

I know what Bollywood films are. Over exaggeration I could take, but total stupidity was something else again. I repeat. How are we supposed to identify with a character who supposedly has wanted his whole life to be a Bollywood star and when he gets his chance to do so, he actually deliberately keeps making a fool of himself on camera? How can we believe that he really doesn't even want to make a good impression? But, maybe that's been corrected in the Broadway version. I was mentioning my thoughts on the show to a Londoner one day in the TKTS line, and he said that my comments pretty much echoed exactly what nearly every critic had said about the London production. But I was making those comments without the benefit of ever having read a London review, so it's hard to imagine that I'm that far off base.

Our three words to describe Bombay Dreams: Hokey, hokey, hokey!
Not the worst thing we've ever seen, but certainly not the best!

Thanks for saving me money Howard!

What do you think about Frogs? Never saw it the first time around.

McLaurie, since we're subscribers to Lincoln Center Theater this year, we got our choice of seats last month. And, since we're great fans of Stephen Sondheim and Nathan Lane, we have high hopes.
(Incidentally, joining its subscription program is a great bargain. It's only $40 a year per person. Our tickets for The Frogs alone saved us more than the $40 each. For the four shows--The Frogs, Henry IV, King Lear and Barbara Cook--being members saved us at least $140 each, maybe more during the year. The new subscription year starts July 1. For info, call 212-239-6277.)