"To Be Or Not To Be": Not To Be

The title is a reference to The Last Action Hero (so sorry about that), but it seems to sum up the reviews of the new stage version of the Jack Benny/Carole Lombard film To Be Or Not To Be. In fact, Clive Barnes even uses a similar line to close his pan of the show: "So what is it: To be or not to be? Not. Definitely not."

The other reviews are no better.

David Rooney, in Variety, calls the show a "misguided rehash" and says, "...it's in the long-winded second act, where he tries to one-up the screenplay, that things become embarrassing." He points out that star David Rasche (who took over when Craig Bierko left the production) "seems acutely aware the jokes are not landing." Oh, and of course, there is the sly reference to the show's title: "Nice idea, but at least in this clumsy attempt, it's not to be."

Ben Brantley, in The New York Times, opens with this line:

If the producers of the walking corpse of a comedy "To Be or Not to Be" are feeling unappreciated this morning — and it’s a safe bet that they are — here’s a consoling thought for them.

He goes on to point out that the original movie was underrated at its time of release and eventually became seen as a classic. Of course he adds that he sees no time in the future where anyone will say, "Doh! How could we have missed the greatness of it?"

Brantley also wonders if, instead of making the Young Frankenstein musical, Mel Brooks should have instead optioned To Be Or Not To Be as his follow-up to the Producers musical. Brooks, of course, has already done his own version of To Be Or Not To Be, which isn't exactly a beloved part of Brooks' filmography.

To his credit, Brantley avoids making a To Be Or Not To Be reference in his review. On the other hand, Linda Winer, in Newsday, gets the reference out of the way right off the bat: "'To be or not to be' is not the question. Why? Now that's the question."

Malcolm Johnson, in the Hartford Courant, gives the show a moderately good review, although even he says, "All of this makes for an enjoyable evening, though not always as funny as [director Casey] Nicholaw obviously hopes."

The Washington Post critic Peter Marks usually reviews Broadway openings, but he seems to have skipped this one. Perhaps he read Michael Riedel's takedown of the show, which blames the show's problems on writer Nick Whitby. (No reference to Whitlessby?)

Wall Street Journal critic Terry Teachout and New York magazine have yet to publish their reviews. But even if those notices are glowing (which is a pretty far-fetched thought at this pont), it's probably too late to save To Be Or Not To Be.

UPDATE (10/17/8): Because Teachout only appears in the Friday WSJ, he reviews the week's openings all at once. To Be Or Not To Be warranted only a paragraph. Calling the show "disastrous to behold," he writes the following:

...Nick Whitby's adaptation, which takes the script of the 1942 film, pumps it full of new punch lines and tacks on a semiserious ending, makes no sense at all -- not least because none of Mr. Whitby's jokes are even slightly funny.

His review of All My Sons, which co-stars Katie Holmes, is just as withering. Meanwhile, we're still waiting for New York's review.