1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Oct 28, 2017 6:54:16 GMT
Went last night also. We both quite liked this. Sat in row A - this is fine as long as you are not at the ends where some were leaning in at times to see what was happening. Row AA does not cover all of row A. There is no rake between the two, but you look up at the stage so for most this shouldn't be too much of a problem. Went to the 9pm show which they ran straight through at 1 hour 40 mins without interval.
|
|
10 posts
|
Post by neonsun on Oct 28, 2017 23:45:13 GMT
Could this be so bad that' it's good ?
|
|
13 posts
|
Post by theatreguyny on Oct 29, 2017 12:11:03 GMT
Could this be so bad that' it's good ? Its actually good. It tells a great story, well acted, with great production values. |
|
13 posts
|
Post by theatreguyny on Oct 29, 2017 12:12:12 GMT
I decided to buy tickets again last night. It was fantastic. They really are making it work. I am going to Woman in Black tonight to compare the two.
|
|
270 posts
|
Post by littlesally on Oct 29, 2017 12:51:39 GMT
I agree with Kermode on the movie. I really wanted to love this. And some parts, I did.
80% if the effects were excellent but the others were weak and this threw the balance of the show.
Liked the acting with the exception of Peter Bowles who is laughably wooden.
Sir Ian was the wrong choice: camp and prissy instead of demonic.
The Exorcism itself felt so rushed that, if I didn’t know the story, it would have been unintelligible.
I think the critics will maul it mercilessly. I just think it was a wasted opportunity.
|
|
3,580 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Rory on Oct 29, 2017 14:37:18 GMT
Could this be so bad that' it's good ? It's good full stop. |
|
3,580 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Rory on Oct 29, 2017 14:45:56 GMT
I also have to defend Peter Bowles. Despite my initial doubts about his casting, I thought he brought gravitas and conviction to the role of Merrin and he wasn't at all hammy or campy in my view. He didn't send it up (which McKellen did a bit). He has the tall gaunt frame which suits the role. Was a tiny bit worried when the first scene reminded me ever so slightly of Joseph and the Dreamcoat in the Middle East, but Bowles totally dispelled that for me very quickly.
If I could give one tip to the producers, it would be to focus less on Regan's wig and more on the makeup for her and Karras.
|
|
13 posts
|
Post by theatreguyny on Oct 29, 2017 20:35:26 GMT
I agree with Kermode on the movie. I really wanted to love this. And some parts, I did. 80% if the effects were excellent but the others were weak and this threw the balance of the show. Liked the acting with the exception of Peter Bowles who is laughably wooden. Sir Ian was the wrong choice: camp and prissy instead of demonic. The Exorcism itself felt so rushed that, if I didn’t know the story, it would have been unintelligible. I think the critics will maul it mercilessly. I just think it was a wasted opportunity. If the critics do maul it they are more out of touch then I thought. First, they don't buy the tickets, they get the best seats, they get free drinks and they are for the most part older and completely out of touch with current popular sentiments. I want to believe that they can judge a play based on its script, its direction, its acting, its production and its impact on an audience. Having seen hundreds of Plays on the West End and Broadway and Off Broadway, I can tell you this is a beautifully executed psychological thriller about "Faith" If any critic comes to any other conclusion, then there must be some other agenda attached and their opinion should be discarded. |
|
13 posts
|
Post by theatreguyny on Oct 29, 2017 20:35:51 GMT
If the critics do maul it they are more out of touch then I thought. First, they don't buy the tickets, they get the best seats, they get free drinks and they are for the most part older and completely out of touch with current popular sentiments. I want to believe that they can judge a play based on its script, its direction, its acting, its production and its impact on an audience. Having seen hundreds of Plays on the West End and Broadway and Off Broadway, I can tell you this is a beautifully executed psychological thriller about "Faith" If any critic comes to any other conclusion, then there must be some other agenda attached and their opinion should be discarded. Read more: theatreboard.co.uk/thread/831/exorcist?page=12#ixzz4wvoYQwc9 |
|
2,060 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Oct 29, 2017 20:51:29 GMT
I'm going to see the film at the BFI this Tuesday night (Halloween!) mainly to compare the two (although its the directors cut which I have never seen before), I don't want to come down too hard on people who love this play but from what I remember, the whole religious aspect of the plot was handled a whole lot better in the film than it is in the play (i.e. the sacrifice of ones self to save another)
|
|
13 posts
|
Post by theatreguyny on Oct 29, 2017 21:18:23 GMT
I'm going to see the film at the BFI this Tuesday night (Halloween!) mainly to compare the two (although its the directors cut which I have never seen before), I don't want to come down too hard on people who love this play but from what I remember, the whole religious aspect of the plot was handled a whole lot better in the film than it is in the play (i.e. the sacrifice of ones self to save another) Blatty never intended for the film to be about faith. He wrote a book and a movie that was a "whodunit" That entire plot line is gone in the Play which focuses entirely on the issue of "Faith" The Play is focused now on a psychological expose of Damian and his loss of faith. He must choose "Faith" to save the little girl. The directors cut adds a scene which Blatty insisted on Merrin and Damian sitting on the steps where Damian asks "why this little girl" That scene is in the Play. Other than that, the only other additions are stills of makeup trials that were rejected that are cut into the movie for a brief second and Regan walking in a backbend down the stairs, which by the way, is also in the Play. |
|
13 posts
|
Post by theatreguyny on Oct 29, 2017 21:18:47 GMT
Blatty never intended for the film to be about faith. He wrote a book and a movie that was a "whodunit" That entire plot line is gone in the Play which focuses entirely on the issue of "Faith" The Play is focused now on a psychological expose of Damian and his loss of faith. He must choose "Faith" to save the little girl. The directors cut adds a scene which Blatty insisted on Merrin and Damian sitting on the steps where Damian asks "why this little girl" That scene is in the Play. Other than that, the only other additions are stills of makeup trials that were rejected that are cut into the movie for a brief second and Regan walking in a backbend down the stairs, which by the way, is also in the Play. Read more: theatreboard.co.uk/thread/831/exorcist?page=12#ixzz4wvzMEdPg |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 7:07:11 GMT
If the critics do maul it they are more out of touch then I thought. First, they don't buy the tickets, they get the best seats, they get free drinks and they are for the most part older and completely out of touch with current popular sentiments. I want to believe that they can judge a play based on its script, its direction, its acting, its production and its impact on an audience. Having seen hundreds of Plays on the West End and Broadway and Off Broadway, I can tell you this is a beautifully executed psychological thriller about "Faith" If any critic comes to any other conclusion, then there must be some other agenda attached and their opinion should be discarded. Read more: theatreboard.co.uk/thread/831/exorcist?page=12#ixzz4wvoYQwc9How could they maul something so funny? If they do maul it, it just means they don't have a sense of humour. |
|
13 posts
|
Post by theatreguyny on Oct 30, 2017 9:20:47 GMT
If the critics do maul it they are more out of touch then I thought. First, they don't buy the tickets, they get the best seats, they get free drinks and they are for the most part older and completely out of touch with current popular sentiments. I want to believe that they can judge a play based on its script, its direction, its acting, its production and its impact on an audience. Having seen hundreds of Plays on the West End and Broadway and Off Broadway, I can tell you this is a beautifully executed psychological thriller about "Faith" If any critic comes to any other conclusion, then there must be some other agenda attached and their opinion should be discarded. Read more: theatreboard.co.uk/thread/831/exorcist?page=12#ixzz4wvoYQwc9How could they maul something so funny? If they do maul it, it just means they don't have a sense of humour. That comment is a perfect example of "snarkey" It is neither valid or humorous. |
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Oct 30, 2017 9:40:26 GMT
How could they maul something so funny? If they do maul it, it just means they don't have a sense of humour. That comment is a perfect example of "snarkey" It is neither valid or humorous. Even I, as a comparative newcomer to this board, know that Ryan's thing is being facetious, with a love of a good double entendre. It's nothing to get upset by. If you don't like it, there'll be another comment along in a few minutes. I haven't seen this and don't feel a strong urge to do so, but it does actually sound like there might be some intention for the production to be amusing rather than terrifying. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 9:49:26 GMT
Ryan is one of the proper good eggs on this site. His humour may not always land for everyone but is only ever meant with humour and never the snide malice of certain other posters (myself included on days when I'm feeling particularly salty).
I don't know what the full intentions of the creatives are with this production, but with Ian McKellen giving the voice of the demon The Full McKellen, yeah, it's hard not to laugh at points. He does a great job but maybe using someone less recognisable - and therefore less easy to remember the internationally beloved face and twinkly eyes of - would have kept the production more firmly on the side of malice than (dare I say) camp.
|
|
2,060 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Oct 30, 2017 10:42:47 GMT
I don't think the comment from @ryan was 'snarkey'(?) in the slightest - wait until @parsley puts a review up, then you might have something to get upset about...  |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Oct 30, 2017 10:53:57 GMT
Or this'll be an awkward moment when we find out that @ryan 's comments have been completely serious this entire time, and the Donmar really did take out a restraining order on him when they cast Jonathan Bailey in The York Realist  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 12:16:11 GMT
How could they maul something so funny? If they do maul it, it just means they don't have a sense of humour. That comment is a perfect example of "snarkey" It is neither valid or humorous. Waiter! Bring me my handbag! Ooooooh. And bring me a martini while you're at it. And don't even think of sullying it with an olive. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 12:47:11 GMT
Or this'll be an awkward moment when we find out that @ryan 's comments have been completely serious this entire time, and the Donmar really did take out a restraining order on him when they cast Jonathan Bailey in The York Realist Josie Rourke is going to have to get up early to get the better of me! |
|
5,910 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Oct 30, 2017 19:14:26 GMT
Or this'll be an awkward moment when we find out that @ryan 's comments have been completely serious this entire time, and the Donmar really did take out a restraining order on him when they cast Jonathan Bailey in The York Realist Josie Rourke is going to have to get up early to get the better of me! I bet Jonathan gets you ‘up early’ eh? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 0:18:29 GMT
Oh my, Mr Bailey! Saw him in TL5Y and almost fainted.
|
|
133 posts
|
Post by japhun on Oct 31, 2017 16:12:44 GMT
Saw this last night- enjoyed it for the most part. There were real moments of tension, but overall I feel the shock value/scariness just wasn't there. The vomiting was literally 'blink and you miss it'...I was in row H stalls and could barely see it. Sir Ian's voice was more hilarious than frightening...especially hearing him say 'succulent c---'...there were giggles all around in what was surely intended to be a shocking moment. The stalls were only about 75% full, and the box office was upgrading left and right- the couple next to be went from rear dress circle to row H Stalls...lucky for them! All in all I would say I liked it, but I have a feeling the critics will destroy it. I also can't imagine this doing well over the Christmas holiday...not exactly family fun. |
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Nov 1, 2017 7:26:53 GMT
Saw this last night. It’s not perfect but great fun and at times very clever.
Seagrove and Mckellen miscast, the pea soup moment very dissapointing (Witches of Eastwick cherry moment much better), I didn’t think the projections worked and they all needed to be mic’d.
That said the group I went with all loved it, we jumped 4 times and I would still recommend to see it.
|
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Nov 1, 2017 8:01:02 GMT
|
|
