Young Frankenstein Review
 

I was lucky enough to see Young Frankenstein this week and it was great.

The show started around 7pm and ended around 9:30. The lighting and scenery were impactful and the music/singing perfectly done.

Since I know this question sometimes pops up, the show in my opinion is for more of the teenager plus crowd. There were definitely no children in attendance.

Megan Mullally played the original Madeline Kahn role and, although in my opinion no one can ever do a better Elizabeth, she did a fine job and is an excellent singer. It's a bit like Karen x2, but it was good.

Roger Bart was also amazing as the young Frankenstein.

Even better he announced at the end of the show that it seems there is a forthcoming light at the end of the tunnel regarding the strike. In his words things were very close.

I would definitely recommend the show!

We saw Young Frankenstein when it previewed in Seattle in August, and we had a great time.

I was surprised that many of the critics were unkind to the show when it opened in New York City.

Apparently it's a show for people who are looking for a good time, but not for theater critics.

I was looking for a good time and was a bit underwhelmed with Young Frankenstein, as were some friends. The songs aren't nearly as good as those in The Producers, but perhaps some of my problems had to do with the fact that I really love the film. I guess it's worth a full-price ticket, but it's not the best musical I've seen in the past few years.

I agree Doug that it doesn't hold a candle to the movie but it was entertaining to me nonetheless.

I mean seriously how could anyone ever do Gene Wilder, Peter Boyle and Madeline Kahn?

"Could be worse. Could be raining".

I could see comparison to the movie being a problem. I have a lot of lines from the movie memorized.

Keith

I haven't seen it yet (but anxious to), and have found comments and reviews interesting to say the least. I've heard more "disappointed" comments than anything else. It's funny because I thought making The Producers into a Broadway musical was a horrible idea and it worked so well. But then it was already geared towards the whole idea of "Broadway musicals" and easily lent itself to being one. But as one critic said, the movie Young Frankenstein was already kind of a homage and spoof to the old black and white horror films. When you put that on stage, the black and white film connection is immediately lost.

But if there was anything I thought WOULDN'T work on Broadway it would be the Puttin on the Ritz number. How can you top Peter Boyle's interpretation which has me on the floor in pain from laughing every time? So I've been bowled over by the almost unanimous reaction to it on Broadway. I guess rather than trying to duplicate it, they turned it into a whole different kind of production number and it seems people love it.

After seeing Spamalot (huge Monty Python & The Holy Grail fan) on Broadway this past summer and being pretty disappointed, I can only imagine how Young Frankenstein (another favorite) might disappoint, as well.

For some reason, The Producers clicked on all cylinders (saw it three times in L.A.), while Spamalat just did not have the incredible timing needed to make it work for me.

((H))

Yes, "Puttin on the Ritz" was the high point of the show. Very inventive and lively. They really made it "big" and it worked perfectly.

I couldn't wait to see the Producers and Spamalot when they first opened. I think alot of the appeal of the Producers was the chemistry between Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick, which was evident when they left the show. I loved the Producers. Spamalot (and I too am a huge Monty Python fan) was a bit disappointing to me, it was watching a live action movie, although I thought Sara Ramirez was just terrific. I love the movie Young Frankenstein, but really have no great desire to see it on Broadway. Noone, imho, can top Gene Wilder and the rest of the cast. Just my two cents.

I liked it. I really really liked it! Perhaps it was because it was opening night, and mrlani was in a Hugo boss tux and gorgeous purple satin Ralph Lauren tie. Or perhaps it was the VIP seating with Tommy Tune and Liz Smith in front of us and Mike Wallace behind us and Elaine Stritch next to us, and all of the other celebrities amongst us. Or perhaps it was looking forward to seeing Roger Bart in another role, since we first met, when he portrayed cousin Kevin in the Who's Tommy.

But really I think I liked it because I came to the theatre with no expectations. Never did I expect it to surpass the movie - how could it possibly?

The Producers should not even be compared as that was a relatively obscure cult movie that was brought to the stage - how could it not surpass the film? Two very different scenarios.

Yes there were some dull spots. Some lines that miss their mark. And no, I would not consider a $450 ticket to this. But I liked it a lot, and will happily see it again. I was pretty surprised by all the negative reviews. It was as if they wanted to not like it. They wanted to be disappointed. Or perhaps it is knowing each punchline before it is delivered?

How could you not thrill at Sutton Fosters' hayride in all it's bawdiness? The sets were amazing, the lighting good, and I never found a problem with the sound that one critic ranted about.

I guess perhaps I'm one of those glass half full crititcs.

And it was so nice to see Mel call Gene Wilder to the stage at curtaincall.