Review: "Sister Act" at the Murat

March 1, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The stage musical adaptation of the hit Whoopi Goldberg film “Sister Act’ was never my first choice to see when it played on Broadway. It was never my second or third choice either on theater-intensive trips there.

When given a choice, I tend to dodge such adapted-from-the-movies musicals that seem built from title recognition rather than the passion of a creative team.

I’m happy to report, though, that, in a solidly entertaining Equity touring production, “Sister Act” (through March 3 at the Murat) exceeded my expectations.

The makers of “Sister Act” know that audiences aren’t coming to it to see the formula tweaked. They’re looking for a feel-good film brought to life on stage with something to compensate for the lack of stars and familiar songs. They get that and more not because of a terribly original story (Think “Some Like It Hot” meets “Nunsense”) or a memorable star turn.

Instead, “Sister Act” succeeds through a combination of energetic-but-not-frantic pacing, some fun lyrics, dynamic music (in the Disney musical vein—thanks to composer Alan Menken) and a professional, well-cast supporting that never made it feel like we’re just another stop on a whirlwind tour.

The spiritual head of the charming supporting cast is Chicago mainstay Hollis Resnik as the Mother Superior, offering an object lesson in how a barely sketched character can come to life when given to the right actress. Her presence helps balance a show, giving important weight (well, lightweight) to the subplot about the growing respect and friendship that develops between her and in-hiding party gal Deloris Von Cartier (Ta’rea Campbell).

While it might not stand out critically when “The Book of Mormon” is down the block on Broadway, this “Sister Act” went a long way to converting this non-believer to its charms.

Your thoughts?

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT