It, IMO, was not bad and was not good. The performances of Sutton Foster and Maureen McGovern were great, but they had little to work with as far as music and book. The songs were bland and unmemorable. Not to mention a couple of them were suspiciously similar to other musical theatre songs. I think that if they had fleshed out the book more and cut some of the music it would have been more satisfying. The scenes only seemed to be setups for the songs instead of propelling the story forward. I was expecting more. When you are working with such a great novel I expected to be taken on a journey and well, frankly, I never left my seat.
Jax430
Posted:
Member since
Re: We saw 'Little Women' on Sat.
Thanks for the review, Heidi. I had been contemplating whether I wanted to see it, but I wasn't sure how I felt about it as a musical.
eogara
Posted:
Member since
Re: We saw 'Little Women' on Sat.
That makes me sad, I really would have expected more as well.
TracyInQueens
Posted:
Member since
Re: We saw 'Little Women' on Sat.
I liked Sutton Foster better as Millie. Overall, I liked it, but I'm not approaching it as someone with a theater background who REALLY knows how to critique and analyze. Though I do agree about the songs- usually I walk out humming at least one song, but none of them struck a chord with me (no pun intended )
DH really wants to see Spamalot , which will probably be our next show, since he always lets me pick.
