Mixed reviews for 'Lord of the Rings' on stage
First, the good news. The London Times says the new lavish stage adaptation of "Lord of the Rings" that opened last night in Toronto is "full of energy and wonder." Newsweek calls it "rousing and resonant." Time magazine hails the show as "the season's definitive megamusical."
But those are some of the few raves. Otherwise, scathing reviews are raining down upon the most expensive stage production in history like hell fire from Mount Doom.
The Associated Press says it's a "never-ending production" that "drains" J.R.R. Tolkien's novels of their "spirit and emotion." The Toronto Star declares it's "dull," warning, "You may find yourself fighting back tears, but they'll be ones of disappointment." The Los Angeles Times adds, "Artistically, the stage version makes the movie seem that much more impressive." Read the full L.A. Times review — click here.
Forget this show coming to Broadway where a good review from The New York Times is essential. Lead critic Ben Brantley writes, "Everyone and everything winds up lost in this $25 million adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's cult-inspiring trilogy of fantasy novels. That includes plot, character and the patience of most ordinary theatergoers."
The New York Post reports, "While the official line is that 'The Lord of the Rings' is still going to be staged in London next year, sources say the producers and creators are bracing themselves for what could be a complete wipeout in Toronto — and the end of the line for the show."
Click the "continue reading" link below to read a roundup of reviews quoted at greater length.
Photo: Hobbits confront the Ents on stage in the new musical adaptation of "The Lord of the Rings."
(Kevin Wallace Ltd./ EPO)
Toronto Globe and Mail: "'The Lord of the Rings' may boast of its record-breaking cost, but it still looks a lot like unfinished business. All it needs is an engaging storytelling approach, an emotional arc, credible performances and a more coherent musical score. In other words, what's missing from this adaptation is the essence of theatre itself as that divine place for sharing stories and forging emotional connections between the audience and the performers."
Newsweek: "'LOTR' is a smoke-and-lights spectacle that approaches Tolkien’s work with respect. Rousing and resonant. The show is full of striking images. Toronto’s hobbits will likely kick up their hairy feet and stay awhile."
Toronto Star: "They offer non-stop music to engage our ears, endless visuals to hold our eyes prisoner and special effects to raise our pulse. But except in fleeting moments, they haven't given us anyone or anything to care about. The problems with this version of The Lord of the Rings are so basic that you wonder how those involved with it could watch it coming together and still not see what was wrong. It's like giving a child an elaborate electronic toy, when all he really wanted was for you to tell him a good bedtime story."
The Los Angeles Times: "Neither a straight drama nor a traditional musical, the new production succeeds only as a dazzling spectacle. Even so, you'll need to bone up on the books just to follow what's going on, let alone enjoy the ride. Or better yet, get the DVDs, which for all their interminable length demonstrate how material as intractable as Tolkien's can be made dramatically addictive. With the exception of Gollum (a terrifically vivid Michael Therriault), the hobbit mutant guide who longs to have his 'precious' ring back, none of the characters makes much of an impression. They're figures in an outline, nothing more."
Time: "The stage version of 'The Lord of the Rings' is a robust, serious, quite faithful transposition of the saga. This is the one 'LOTR' (to use the fans acronym) you can consume in a single evening and say with a pleased smile, 'Yes, that's it'. It captures much of the original works' grandeur, variety and melancholy, for a vanished, perhaps imaginary age where great evil was met with greater good. It is a musical that becomes a spectacular morality play, an adventure with a soft and stricken heart. The Ring Fellowship has staged the season’s definitive megamusical, 560 mm north of Times Square. For now, Broadway is off-Toronto."
The London Times: "From whimsical to magical and majestic, the $27-million stage production of 'The Lord of the Rings' is lavishly designed to appeal to 'Rings' newcomers as well as diehard fans of J.R.R. Tolkien's trilogy. Clocking in at a hefty 3 1/2 hours (with two brief intermissions), the epic fantasy is full of energy and wonder. Yes, plot and character development are compressed, but the production's sensory-stimulating sound and light show is easily the match of those digital effects that set the Peter Jackson motion picture versions apart. And it easily surpasses the dazzle that has become the trademark of Cirque du Soleil performances. There isn't a weak link in all the elements - the sound, music, lighting, costumes. The acting can be stentorian at times. but seems in keeping with the nature of the original dialogue."




excuse me 'lord of the rings fun' which i think was meant to be 'fan', have you actually seen the stage adaption without reading someone else's comments on it, which is biased as i guess from your moessage of 'i don't like any stage adaptions' that you haven't seen it. therefore, loosen the purse strings, go and see it and then make a decision because it's fantastic.
Posted by: seenthefilmsandstage | June 03, 2008 at 06:09 PM
I don't like any stage adaptions. The main thing about Lord is scenery and action. Both of them are impossible on stage.
Posted by: Lord of the rings fun | April 08, 2006 at 12:00 AM