A Song for the Ugly Kids

Basement Theatre, Lower Greys Ave, Auckland

12/05/2009 - 16/05/2009

BATS Theatre, Wellington

19/05/2009 - 23/05/2009

NZ International Comedy Festival 2007-09, 2013

Production Details


Lucy Warwick was an ugly kid. A no hoper, a loser, a walking disaster. The chosen one. 

One day stupid Lucy cracked her head on the pavement and her brain fell out. And inside Lucy’s disproportionately large head was a crazy world. The world of the Ugly Kids. The place where her misfit imaginary friends battle to make ends meet.

Imagine a world where your dreams are real and your real life is the stuff of dreams: Where the man chasing her down the dark alley is actually a guy called Joe who has a failing sex shop and a penchant for mousetraps.

Hear the heartbreaking plight of Carrie the cough-lolly dragon. Howl out loud at the rantings of The Gangster Chicken. Witness the tragedy of Ross the invisible quiche. Meet two stock-broking geese, 1 karaoke alien, and a depressed fairy. It’s tough being make-believe!

A comedy juggernaught has crash landed. A razor sharp, off-the-wall look at life through the imagination of one strange little girl.

"This show is going to stink of originality" says Dan Musgrove, one half of the creative team, "if Family Guy was set in post-apocalyptic Picton, it would be a lot like this show."

"I agree" says Natalie Medlock, the other half, "my acting is so intensely powerful that I often have to visit a doctor after rehearsal."  

Dan Musgrove and Natalie Medlock, creators of the critically acclaimed hit shows Blinkers and Spurs, are bringing their absurd brand of character-based comedy to the 2009 NZ Comedy Festival in A SONG FOR THE UGLY KIDS.

At last, a song for the ugly kids, for the make believer in all of us…

"A pair of ferocious comic talents" – Theatreview
"Masters of observation" – Lumiere
"Humour and pathos in perfect harmony" – Capital Times

Dates:  Tues 12 – Sat 16 May, 7pm
Venue:  The Basement Theatre, Lower Greys Ave, City
Tickets:  Adults $16 / Conc. $13 / Groups 10+ $10
Bookings:  0800 TICKETEK (842 5385) www.ticketek.co.nz

Dates:  Tues 19th – 23rd May, 9:30pm
Venue:  BATS Theatre, 1 Kent Terrace, City
Tickets:  Adults $16 / Conc. $13 / Groups 10+ $10
Bookings:  book@bats.co.nz 04 802 4175

Infectious silliness leaves warm glow

Review by Melody Nixon 06th Jun 2009

Natalie Medlock and Dan Musgrove present us with a twinkling, silly and gorgeous hour of entertainment in their one couple show A Song for the Ugly Kids. As they state in their curiously childish programme, this  show is about “the things in life that are a little bit wrong” – wrong, but totally funny, that is.

There is a lot that is wrong in the series of bizarre and outlandish skits Medlock and Musgrove guide us through as they plot the landscape of their friendship and couple-dom.

Their range of wacky ‘characters’ – a gay male model of indiscriminate origin/accent (but still somehow culturally offensive); a pair of ‘nuts’ psychics; Bob the Pedophile; Charlie the tormented children’s storyteller; the list is much longer and more absurd than that – act as mediums for the central characters, “Dan” and “Nat,” to explore their own inner silliness, and perhaps more seriously the emotions of their lives together.

But the show for Ugly Kids remains gentle, and ultimately uplifting, with a kind of geek-chic moodiness that is absorbing.

Musgrove shines most when exploring those characters who have an earnest sincerity. His timing as Charlie the tormented children’s storyteller is beautiful; his big hearted goofiness as the Aussie boyfriend Jamie who fiercely loves his headless girlfriend is, well, plain touching.

Medlock brings a great dose of quirkiness to the geek-chic mix, and manages to be charming even in her role as masturbating salivating Pedophile Bob. We get a sense that it is Medlock’s daring that has pushed the boundaries of these characters from just weird into totally wrong.

In the end it is the utter silliness of A Song for the Ugly Kids that is most infectious. After the sense of “wtf?” dies off, we are left with a warm fuzzy glow that doesn’t fade – it’s the warm fuzzy that comes from seeing people doing whatever they damn well like on stage, and still managing to make it work for the audience. With the Ugly Kids this talented pair have brought us something super fun, refreshingly silly, and definitely worth a view.

Originally published in The Lumière Reader.



Make a comment

Subtly insightful

Review by John Smythe 20th May 2009

On the surface it all looks quite silly. It feels a bit like a family gathering where a couple of precocious kids decide to do some acting for us, and because we love them, we love it. But for people who don’t feel like part of the family, it may well be a "What the f***?" experience.

The question is, is there more than meets the eye; some element that gets in under our skins or lodges in the folds of our brains; a vein of gold than runs just under the surface of their playground?

The set up finds us feeling invited to a cosy chat with Dan and Nat over a cuppa. That she (being English) prefers tea while he is more into coffee becomes indicative of a range of differences that could spell incompatibility if they let it. This thread works well as a relatively realistic counterpoint to the absurdist scenarios they string together on that theme of difference and diversity.

Their world is full of very odd people – the ‘Ugly Kids’ of the title – whose stories unfold through a series of inter-woven sketches …

Charlie the Aussie handyman, with mimed tools and bruises to prove it, has a girlfriend, Anna, who aspires to becoming Australia’s next top model and whom he loves to bits – "I wouldn’t change anything!" – despite her particular shortcoming: she has no head …

One-eyed Wanda divines fortunes in a silver plate while Frederick finds the future in a silver orb …

Shrill penny-whistling Charlie tells a series of downbeat stories about a hairy Alsatian called Rex who is not exactly Lassie Downunder …

White-blonde Brendan with an indeterminate accent (possibly a widely-travelled Japanese) becomes obsessed with a very large pen …

The Bird-Head can read Dan’s mind and annoy him by asking rhetorical questions from songs …

Bob and Jane (gender-reversed casting here) touches on the extremely icky no-go zone of paedophilia, presumably to tell us that some kinds of ‘ugliness’ are not OK, or to disempower it through comic send-up …

These are the warps through which the weft of Nat and Dan’s relationship are woven. Or vice versa. And each is set up, explored and developed, then paid off with a twist that I will not divulge here. Suffice to say that in most cases a rethink is provoked or an abiding truth is consolidated.  

To my mind it’s a subtly insightful show and thinking twice in retrospect about the choices made will add value to an entertaining hour.
For more production details, click on the title above. Go to Home page to see other Reviews, recent Comments and Forum postings (under Chat Back), and News.




Make a comment

One woman's awful is another guys 'awesome!'

Review by Andra Jenkin 12th May 2009

If I didn’t have my flatmate with me I would have thought I was hallucinating. Everyone around me was laughing, but I didn’t get the joke. Not even when I was smacked over the head with it. Not even the third time around. 

Dan Musgrove and Natalie Medlock play a succession of characters, who appear, reappear, and deliver the same joke, over and over, each as equally awful as each other in my opinion.

Nietzsche had it right, hell is other people, and those people are Nat and Dan. Or Frederic and Wanda, Ana and Jamie, whatever incarnation they happen to be in. Nat and Dan are unfunny in a lot of accents.

They aren’t helped by the seating. We have third row centre, which theoretically should be good seating, but when the main characters sit side by side, centre stage on chairs, you have to choose which one to see. Neither is any better. 

The highlight of the show is the programmes. They are cleverly made to look like the sort of card a child makes their mum. It is endearing and quite funny, with its little creation story and childlike drawings. I say go along and pick up a programme, but don’t stay for a show you can’t see and which you don’t want to hear.

They offer polished performances. They have practiced very hard and learned a whole lot of lines. I’m talking months of practice. Which means that the Charlie character’s awful rendition on the recorder is deliberate. He means to do that!

I have to mention that others were laughing. It was surreal. Like I’d missed the first crucial ten minutes and I just didn’t get the joke from there on in. But I was there at the start! For all three 80’s songs. So the only thing I can think of is that all of their friends and family to came along to be supportive. I only hope they didn’t have to pay for the tickets. Had I paid for the ticket I would have left, but I had to stay, if only to warn others.

The pre-show music appears to be from a Warehouse 80’s compilation tape. Huey Lewis and the News sing about the power of love. Tina Turner tells us she doesn’t need another hero. By now she’d be begging for another comedian. I am waiting for the music to have something to do with the performance, but like the stage props, the choice appears to be random.

I feel mean when they’ve obviously put in so much effort, but my flatmate assures me that someone has to do it, otherwise they will be encouraged and continue. She also tells me liars go to hell, where I think it’s already been established, the entertainment will be Nat and Dan to an 80’s soundtrack. Now there’s a song for ugly kids. 

There is perverse and scatological humour for those that like it. There are those who surely do. People, as I may have mentioned, are laughing. I just can’t figure out why. There is one character I think is promising, but then, sure enough, he does the same gag as the first time around, only with a ‘something up the bottom’ joke as a bonus. I’m not a complete prude, and some comedian’s really can make that old chestnut pay off. Not this time.

They closed to huge applause. The guy behind me who I thought might need medical attention he was laughing so hard, said ‘I want a copy of this CD’ when the 80’s music resumed. Perhaps a pscyhe nurse would help.

When we left the theatre, me feeling embarrassed and ashamed for putting my flatmate through such an ordeal, she not looking me in the eye, we hear the enthusiasm of the crowd. Just goes to show, one woman’s awful is another guys ‘awesome!’
For more production details, click on the title above. Go to Home page to see other Reviews, recent Comments and Forum postings (under Chat Back), and News. 


Thomas LaHood June 6th, 2009

I've pointed this out before but here it is again - there is NO REWARD for reviewing theatre in this town.  Whether you are supporting the mainstream opinion, provoking dissent, supporting the struggling industry or trying to be objective (though why would anyone EVER want to do that?!), all you can really reap is venom, vitriol, suspicion, misrepresentation and MAYBE a friendly word of agreement.  Which rather neutralises the enjoyment of a complimentary ticket to a night at the theatre in exchange for a few hours in front of the word processor.  So, you know, we don't generally try to piss you off when we write them.  We try to be honest.  Honest.

John Smythe June 6th, 2009

So this is your idea of good criticism, is it, “I don’t have to put a name so I’m not going to”?
- Anonymous.
- Riddled with unsubstantiated generalisations (“so many good shows are dogged on this site” – perhaps you could list them).
- Peddling gossip (I have never had conversations with myself on this site even when I have used a pseudonym, although I have pointed out that articulating different points of view through different characters is our stock-in-trade as purveyors of drama).
- Railing against “nasty comments” without realising your own comment fits that bill absolutely.
- Raking over old stuff that has long since been dealt with, either in this comment stream or elsewhere on this site.

Let me say unequivocally, now that I have seen and reviewed A Song for the Ugly Kids myself, I completely agree that Andra’s review falls well short of a reasonable standard of reviewing, not for the opinion it expresses but for its lack of substantiation and its failure to offer any indication of the form, style and substance of the show.

With the wisdom of hindsight I should have withheld it, which would have consigned the work to relative obscurity amid the 253 performing arts productions Theatreview has reviewed so far this year (often more than once, especially where Fringe theatre & dance and Comedy Festival shows have played in more than one town).

As it stands – apart from the huge support and visibility the incident generated – it has been a powerful learning opportunity for Andra, me and all the other critics who contribute; an experience such as most theatre practitioners have had, cringed over at the time and learned to value in retrospect.

Given the content of most of the work we engage with as practitioners, audiences and critics, is it too much to ask for a bit of humanity, compassion and forgiveness here?

You seem to be asking for an infallible guru who can be revered and never argued with, rather than an open ‘conversation’ conducted according to the principles of free speech, which inevitably means a proportion of intemperate, illogical, bitter, unjust – or maybe just pissed and sleepless? – voices will get an airing.

Or do you just want it to be a mutual admiration society?

I assert that Theatreview is absolutely a “celebration” of our professional performing arts which respects all those involved by seeking to engage in rigorous critical discourse by generating reviews and opening the site to discussion. 

I draw your attention to the guidelines offered to Forum posters (and wonder if something similar should be added to the Comments page): 
- - - - - - - - - - -
The aim of the Forum is to generate constructive communication within the performing arts community, including audience members, professional practitioners and those who are part of the wider infrastructure (sponsors, funding bodies, arts administrators, etc).

Remember: Communication is Conversation as Contribution.

Please stick to the given topic and do as you would be done by. Being fundamentally opposed to censorship, we'd rather not moderate these forums. The site therefore takes no responsibility for opinions posted. If you disagree with one, add your own comment.

I don't have to put a name so I'm not going to. June 5th, 2009

This discussion totally sums up so much that disappoints me about Theatreview. Here is a really good play and some trash "reviewer" comes along and tears it to pieces. Thank god so much of the acting community has voiced a true reflection of the play. So many good plays seemed to be getting an unfair shot because Theatreview doesn't have the resources to get enough decent reviewers to go review. This may not have worked out too badly in the favour of Nat and Dan who have a lot of great friends/ fans who have whole heartedly supported their great show, but what about the other shows who just get left like that- with a poor excuse for a review and nothing else? Sure, not all shows are this good, but so many good shows are dogged on this site, whether by reviewers or by comments, or by the inappropriate reviewer being sent to a show- a show that they just won't enjoy. If there is a choice between a non-reviewer to come to review a play or no reviewer- go with the no reviewer! Otherwise it is not really a review or an indication of what was seen! 

And after it was pointed out to me recently that John Smythe has a habit of having conversations with himself on this site (and also dogging shows etc) see ...


...I just presume that nearly every pseudonym on this site is him having conversations with himself (Neil Furby, Oscar Wylde etc). 

A site about theatre should be a celebration! Not poisonous, where people can say nasty comments about people's work as has happened after other reviews (helping nobody, ah the irony...) or where the person writing those comments easily could be (and HAS BEEN!) the same person co-ordinating this site....

I agree with Paul- at least this review makes a lot of the other reviews look great! And perhaps puts other not-so-good- reviews in perspective.

But I guess until something better comes along, this is all we've got.... a hellish thought....

The Invisible Reviewer May 18th, 2009

I caught this show as well, I find it difficult to accept that the reviewer found it so abhorrent. Personally i liked the show, even though Im not really a fan of comedic plays with two actors playing multiple characters, Im an audience member with one very simple requirement - "Entertain me." I've paid up front for the honour.

Was I entertained? Yes I was. Was the show enjoyable? Yes it was. Was it worth the money I'd spent on the ticket? Absolutely.

They say; "... you cant please all the people all the time". I guess "all the people" were the reviewer and her flatmate. Take heart Dan and Natalie, I thought you guys were wonderful.

neil furby May 16th, 2009

Oscar Wilde once defined “the highest criticism” as “the record of one's own soul,” and insisted that only by “intensifying his own personality” could the critic interpret the personality and work of others.” Is this what you are referring to Mr Oscar Wylde ??

Oscar Wylde May 15th, 2009

"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about"

Ms Jenkins is intelligent and thought provoking.

Should she have thrown up syrup on discussing this play? No

"A review is an evaluation of a publication, such as a movie, video game, musical composition, book, or a piece of hardware like a car, appliance, or computer. In addition to a critical statement, the review's author may assign the work a rating to indicate its relative merit. More loosely, an author may review current events or items in the news." Wikipedia.

Should she have told everyone it was great even if she thought it wasn't, we live in a world full of lies? shouldn't art be about truth?

Arts for arts sake!!! 

Jim Cale May 15th, 2009

The reviews of this review were very helpful to me. They clearly articulate the reasons why the original review was flawed, and provide many examples of perfect reviews which everyone agrees with.

The comparison of this 2009 comedy review on theatreview.org.nz to a dance review published in the herald two years ago was particularly relevant and enlightening. The herald review could in no way be summed up as: Went to a show. There was dancing. I didn't like it.

I notice that nearly all the review reviewers here are struggling actors, dancers, writers or some such other pillars of professionalism. I am quite sure that they are in no way connected to the act being reviewed, not even through mutual friends. So to me, their impartial opinions hold a lot of water.

Lastly, theatreview.org.nz does not need reviewers like this who elicit impassioned response from readers. You need bland, middle of the road reviewers who don't offend and whose reviews receive zero comments and nobody tells their friends about. That is surely the way to success.

Kristian Larsen May 14th, 2009

Just for the record Neil that Bernadette Rae piece was unambiguously published as a review.

Meg Helm May 14th, 2009

I saw this show last night, and was a member of the audience who was not a fan, friend or family member (having never met Natalie or Dan, or seen any of their work before). I’m not sure where this reviewer is coming from, but for those out there who are considering seeing this show, I’d suggest even the last 5 lines of Andrew Johnsons comment gives a far more accurate idea of what to expect. I’m not a critic, blogger or theatre buff, but I’m your average person who enjoys comedy - I had a great time and thoroughly enjoyed the show, laughing alongside (as pointed out in the review) the rest of the audience.

John Smythe May 14th, 2009

Bernadette Rae is the resident dance critic for the NZ Herald. I am certain it was published as a review. And yes, like all reviews, it expresses an opinion. It does not go on to enquire into why the work's makers chose to do as they did, whether those objectives were achieved and if so, to what value ... It just lets her description speak for itself. And because she is The Critic, it carries a certain weight ...

neil furby May 14th, 2009

Kristien The article you directed people to go read was a opinion piece  not a review .  I think it is but I might be getting a bit foggy on the whole review/opinion piece/critique mode of audience appraisal of the  magic called Theatre

John Smythe May 14th, 2009

Very interesting, Kristian. Do you recall how many dissenting voices were given subsequent space in The Herald? I note they don't append such correspondence to the archived review.

Kristian Larsen May 14th, 2009

I love it when reviewers go there, its impossible for them to back out. This is the standard Andra. Read and learn...


Kate Prior May 14th, 2009

Gold gold gold! Reviews like this have sell-out show written all over them. If I wasn't trapped in the South Island I'd be running down to Bats buying tickets. Leisha is correct, this goes in the blog basket.

OLIVER DRIVER May 14th, 2009

Dear Ugly Kids,

I promised I would no longer hassle reviewers who write crap reviews so unfortunately I can't comment on this one.  

Thanks for your song, it was absurd brilliance wrapped in genius and made me want to take long walks in the park and buy a puffer jacket.



John Callen May 14th, 2009

Your reviewer Andra Jenkin sat two places from me on the opening night of this wonderful piece of absurdist hilarity. Indeed, there were moments when I could not see both actors together. This was a small price to pay (as was the ticket price) to be able to enjoy a theatrical experience as entertaining as this.
The term "reviewer Andra Jenkin" is an oxymoron, in that the piece she wrote was a mere opinion. We are, of course, all entitled to an opinion. An opinion without any substantive backing, however, is somewhat hollow. Thus was the piece Ms Jenkin wrote. Spelling mistakes and misquotes aside (no-one is perfect, after all), the so-called review offered no backing for the opinions stated and not a word of true criticism. Informed opinion and constructive criticism can be a valuable tool for the improvement of theatrical endeavour. This was not the case in this review.
Natalie Medlock and Dan Musgrove are two very talented and very funny actors whose skills reach much further than we saw in this work. However, the work here made all but your reviewer sit up and take notice. The humour was looney and the juxtaposition of "loser" characters, together with a sad but effective gender swap, lifted the shackles of limitation on theatrical "rules" and societal attitudes. I was one of those leaving the theatre with a huge grin and a determination to spread the good word and support these talented actors. Frankly, they deserve (much) better than the review they received here.

Andra Jenkin May 14th, 2009

Ye Gods! 
Firstly I  want to thank Shane for pointing out my error.  He is correct, it's Satre, bloody, bloody Satre. I hate getting that kind of thing wrong. I have no excuse. But I'm sure he will be comforted to know that I am kicking myself for that right now.
I did keep saying that others were laughing, and if anything I was trying to avoid telling people exactly what was in the show which was why I didn't go into the specifics of what I didn't think was funny.
I'm really glad that Nat and Dan's fans have got behind them, I hope this whole thing sells you a whole lot of tickets (making money off a bad review is always the best revenge). I'm glad that every one of those fans gets a chance to say what they want about me and the show. More power to them.
Hey, there's probably someone out there who doesn't like chocolate, but if I were that person, I'd be the first to say 'yuk'.

Paul Rothwell May 13th, 2009

This review is so incompetent I first thought it was a parody. One upside for theatreview.com is that this reviewer actually makes all the others look a lot better by comparison.

Isla Adamson May 13th, 2009

Thank you John for explaining that the net was cast wide. However this isn't the first time I've read a review on here and thought "Who are these critics?" Even if it is done on a voluntary basis, wouldn't it be good to have some context on the people writing them? Not in order to name and shame but give their opinion some weight.
I personally can't wait to see these two talented actors perform this show. Reviews such as this one are dangerous and cruel.

John Smythe May 13th, 2009

Well said Leisha – and everyone, thanks for your heartfelt contributions.  I want to thank Andra for provoking responses that give all the Theatreview critics cause to pause and reassess their role and function. All this – along with advice from Rhys Darby (don’t repeat punch lines) and Tommy Honey (don’t spoil the experience by over-analysing) – has been invaluable.
Perhaps I should add that largely because this whole enterprise is operating on a voluntary basis, and because the NZ International Comedy Festival confronted us with a huge challenge in terms of coverage, I faced a choice: either stick with the known quantity of critics and limit the coverage or put out the call for more voices and take a punt in the interests of trying to cover the field …
I’m glad I chose the latter. Some fresh new voices have emerged that are great to have on board. Some 17 individuals are out there currently (10 in Auckland; 7 in Wellington) and we are almost (not quite) getting to everything, despite the Festival’s practice of opening vast numbers of shows on the Tuesdays (hence the welter coming at you today).
If I was being paid to do this, with a back-up staff, would I be more hands-on in monitoring the style and standard of each review as it comes in? Perhaps. But this is a two-way site and just as the practitioners put themselves out there for public appraisal, so do we. And if we got it right all the time ... it could get quite boring, eh. 
Again, thank you all – critics, practitioners and punters alike – for responding and co-responding with such passion.
PS: Josh, not sure about your equating this to the Streisand effect in that (according to the Wikipedia definition) this has not involved any attempt to censor anyone or anything. Quite the opposite.

Liesha Ward Knox May 13th, 2009

On the positive side Andra has contextualized her response, making it very clear that she was in the minority of the audience who didn’t get it. Many reviewers are less kind.
The old question this “review” raises is do New Zealand reviewers know the difference between a review and an opinion piece?
Andra’s work is witty and easy to read, she is certainly entertaining and this would be great material for a blog, but does it belong on this website?
My assumption is that the review section of this site serves two purposes; One - to provide professional critique of performance and two - to facilitate a forum for public opinion based on the professional critique. If there is no distinction between the two, the site is merely an opinion poll.
Aside from all the talk about what does or does not make a review, I hope that Dan and Nat are warmed by the rally of support in their favour.

neil furby May 13th, 2009

  Yes I will certainly be checking out this show when it hits Bats. I know people who do not get Monty Python and others who love it.  But how can a theatre critic divorce themselves from "self " completely is another matter. The reviewer of this show was being completely honest about her reaction to the comedy but she did state that all around her people were laughing out loud.  To all the previous folk who have made comments on this review. Lighten up, stop being so sanctimonious and cut the reviewer some slack.

Josh Judkins May 13th, 2009

Wow! Talk about the Streisand Effect.
I haven't been on Theatreview in quite some time, but I heard about this review and the brilliant series of comments that followed.
Thanks Andra, I'll definitely be going along to see 'A Song for the Ugly Kidswhen it comes down to BATS. After your viceral dislike and such glowing reports from those in the theatre community, I can't wait to check it out.

Tim May 13th, 2009


Paul Ellis May 13th, 2009

Haven't seen the show but I've heard all about it from colleagues, friends and loved ones.  They all seemed to think it was great.  In fact, looking at the other posts here who are mostly from experienced, informed, intelligent THEATRE people, it begs that question that perhaps this reviewer should start writing for something else.... TV GUIDE perhaps?  

Andrew Johnson May 13th, 2009

The best thing about comedy is that we all find different things in this world funny.   If we all thought the same, then the arts, and the freedom of expression, would cease to exist.
My understanding of the comedy festival is, that its designed to allow a broad spectrum of work to be displayed.  Its not just about the main acts with the famous names...they do however allow media attention to be drawn to the festival as a whole.  Which is a good thing.  It gives work such as the performance devised by these two actors a platform, that otherwise would not occur.
I am not a family member or personal friend of either Dan or Natalie.  But i was brought along by a mutual friend (yes i had a free ticket too..thanks basement people) but had seen Natalie's work in a recent play at the Herald, and had watched the trailer on their FaceBook page.  Thats why i went, and I found the play very amusing.
The word 'Play' being the operative word.  The actors were playing with the audience, thats what acting is about.   It was different.  I mean, they played different characters in dress up, and then even got changed right there in front of the audience....and they knew it.  And although there may have been some humour based around whether you liked the characters and/or set up, there were many obvious equally funny moments and lines for the un-informed.
And i think it is this group of people, the non theatre goers, who should see the show.  You don't need to have too much high brow famous author discussions to feel comfortable at that show. It is what it is.  But most of all, its done with professionalism and cheek, and is well worth the ticket price.  We need to foster this, good bad or otherwise.
I think perhaps the reviewer for this website should look over your work again.  I don't care what you night out was like.  And thats what you wrote. Review the show, and tell people what you think about somebody else....and not your opinion about yourself.  There's not one line in your review that allows potential audience members to decide for themselves.  Surely that's a lack of professionalism in the job, is it not? You certainly have the right to say you didn't like it....but you could have at least said why?
If we only went along to things we knew we were going to love, you never get the chance to be surprised.
Now where's the fun in that....
You should look at the bigger picture with the industry that supports your free ticket and say... here's a couple of people giving it a go, using social media to sell more ticktets, and keep people employed, at a place like the Basement, in a country like New Zealand.  Comedy is good for times of recession.
So for those who want to know:  A song for the ugly kids.
Dan and Natalie on stage playing a range of off beat and completely invented people.  Strangely funny, like watching a couple of  people at a saturday night party play dress ups after a few drinks...in someone's kitchen. Silly and playful, come along if you are looking to forget about life for a while and have a laugh...
If you like little britain, Saturday night live, or other sketch based comedy give this a try....  If you are still not sure, take a look at their youtube video, and decide for yourself.

Charlie Unwin May 13th, 2009

Quite possibly one of the worst written reviews I have ever read. It's ok to not like a show, but a reviewer has a responsibility to explain why they liked or disliked a show – back up their opinion. With so much on during the Comedy Festival, some people are using reviews to decide where to spend their comedy dollar, and a bitter ignorant review such as this has potential financial repercussions for a small company. I read the review and am no more enlightened about the show and its qualities than I was prior to reading. Review the play - not your state of mind.


Todd Emerson May 13th, 2009

My only problem with this show was that I sat behind the reviewer who spent half the show looking incredulously at her flatmate, or searching for her dropped pen on the ground. Were it not for that, i probably WOULD have needed medical attention after laughing so hard.
and i AM going to get a copy of that CD.

madeleine sami May 13th, 2009

Oh dear. If only you'd had a PLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE OF FORTUNE! You might have been able to predict that you wouldn't like the show and not have had to endure it. I loved it so much I wanted to lick their faces and have them poo in my mouth.

Michael Hurst May 13th, 2009

I can't believe that Ms. Jenkin and I were at the same show. I really enjoyed it - silly, energetic, honest entertainment, at times delightful, often rude (though never so outrageous as to completely shock) and above all very funny. Sorry you didn't enjoy it but is there really a need to be so condescending?
The show is a diversion, a piece of whimsey, a flight of (child like) fancy, a bit of fun, a present, a naughty escapade.  What were you expecting?
I know that I expect more from a review than a simple drubbing because the reviewer was the only person (oh, I forgot your flat mate) who didn't laugh.

Barnaby Fredric May 13th, 2009

It's not hard to see the truth behind this review -
"Everyone around me was laughing, but I didn't get the joke."
"People, as I may have mentioned, are laughing. I just can't figure out why."
"Just goes to show, one woman's awful is another guys 'awesome!'"
It's fine that you didn't like it, but it's a shame that the ONE person who wrote the review had to be someone who clearly didn't get it. Especially when, as the review implies, the vast majority of the audience did and had a great time. This is the equivalent of having a review of the muppet show written by the two old guys in the balcony.

Shane Bosher May 13th, 2009

And reveal their stupidity in their haste to name drop to show off their assumed status. That would be Jean-Paul Sartre, not Nietzsche. 

Constructive critique is one thing. Outrageous and destructive invective is another. Rhys Darby was onto something. How dare you, quite frankly.

Brad McCormick May 13th, 2009

I'm all for freedom of opinion and if you didn't like the show, you didn't like the show.
But I'm pretty stunned at firstly, how incredibly patronising this review is and secondly, that the reviewer has made almost no attempt to explain objectively and in detail why they thought what they thought.  Rhys Darby has said that critics who give away punchlines are lazy; I think that critics who write-off shows wholesale and make no effort to unpack anything are just as lazy.

Make a comment

Wellingon City Council
Aotearoa Gaming Trust
Creative NZ
Auckland City Council