London Coliseum

It’s easy to see why risk-averse producers find stage adaptations of successful films tempting. There’s a readymade audience that already knows and loves the characters and the story. The question is, what will a theatrical dimension add to the original? The question loomed large among the reviews of this adaptation of Hayao Miyazaki‘s 2001 animated feature about a little girl’s adventure into a world of spirits, especially since a number of reviewers clearly loved the original. Another comparison cropped up frequently, namely how did it compare with the RSC’s celebrated adaptation of another Miyazaki film My Neighbour Totoro.  The stage version of Spirited Away has already had success in Japan and comes to the UK intact, with added surtitles. There was much praise for the way John Caird (who directed Les Miserables) and Maoko Imai had reimagined the film for theatre, for the design by Jon Bausor and for the score by Joe Hisaishi. Opinion was mixed and, while there were no bad reviews and two awarded 5 stars, the high ticket prices brought down the Value Rating.

[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]

Louis Chilton in The Independent (5★) was not sure if ‘one of the greatest and most adored animated films of all time’ needed a stage version but, ‘If we must have an adaptation, it’s impossible to imagine a better one than this.’ ‘Spirited Away is three hours of constant, unpredictable spectacle,’ he wrote. ‘There are so many scenes here, so many locations and characters, all imbued with a tremendous visual flair and kineticism…it connects – not just on a sensory level, but on an emotional one too.’

Gary Naylor at The Arts Desk (5★) admitted to being a massive fan of the film, so his approval of the stage version is significant: ‘Though the puppetry and costumes are visually stunning, we never lose sight of the fact that we are watching a stage show and not a whizzbang hybrid of CGI and live action. The unique aesthetic is honoured.’ He concluded: ‘going through the tunnel with Chihiro, learning alongside her…and emerging older and wiser is the key to appreciating this landmark production…not everybody will get that, and that’s fine. For those who do, there’s nothing that compares.’

For Cindy Marcolina at Broadway World (4★), it was ‘event theatre at its best.’  ‘It features astonishing visuals and sublime stagecraft alongside the beautiful, iconic score,’ she said. Like other fans of the film, she had concerns for the uninitiated: ‘While it’s a piece of spectacular beauty and curious philosophy, keeping everything in means that the 125 minutes of the movie have become three hours with an interval. Still, it rarely drags. It’s a chunky show geared towards those who stay entranced by the emotional pull of a story they already know and love.’ She offered further evidence that this is one for the fans: ‘There’s reverence in the approach and accuracy in the ideation.’

Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (4★) loved it: ‘This show is so transfixingly beautiful and so completely assured that it feels like balm; it’s almost hypnotically assured.’ She concluded, ‘Everything and everyone pull together to make the entire production into a very loving tribute to a deservedly acclaimed film. It’s captivating.’ John Nathan in The Jewish Chronicle (4★) described it as ‘a production that has made no compromises in creating some of the most astounding sights you will see on a stage’.

Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (4★) was full of praise, too full as it turned out. It was, she said, ‘meticulous in its visual detail and choreography, delightful in its puppetry, both meditative and whirling in its speed, and packed full of comedy and adventure.’ ‘Sachiko Nakahara’s costumes stand out,’ she said. The music ‘adds sweeping emotion and an epic feel’ and ‘The physical movement is symphonic.’ However, she cautioned, ‘While superbly performed, it is a harder challenge to animate its emotional life because it is so dominated by action and spectacle.’ In the end, she found it a bit too much: ‘it is utterly magical but this banquet of a show also leaves you stuffed.’

Nick Curtis in The Standard (3★) is not a fan of the original film but conceded this adaptation is ‘superbly done’. He liked the way ‘The actors create credible relationships with serpentine dragons, giant, rotting godheads and tiny soot sprites, and there’s a core of emotional truth behind the story’s non-sequiturs and wild tangents.’ He said, ‘The show captures scale and perspective in a way theatre rarely achieves.’ But, ‘It’s too sappy and fairytale-ish to be entirely for adults, too discomfiting and grotesque for some children.’ It was far too long for him: ‘(it) starts to pall though as the story meanders through yet more bizarre twists and turns and the acting gets shoutier.’

Andrzej Lukowski at Time Out (3★)  spent a lot of time comparing it unfavourably with My Neighbour Totoro: ‘this impressive but slightly starchy … production … doesn’t pull it off with the same panache and feeling of ground being broken as ‘Totoro’.’ And, ‘Although Toby Olie’s puppets and Sachiko Nakahara’s costumes are vivid and impressive, they aren’t the absolute showstoppers that the RSC’s gargantuan…constructs are.’  And, ‘where all the spirits in ‘Totoro’ are puppets, ‘Spirited Away’ … is reliant on human actors changing costumes a lot – sometimes it has the look and feel of an old fashioned song and dance spectacular.’  But he did like it, sort of: ‘(if) a true transposition of the film would have to take your breath away constantly, then for three hours it at least does it frequently.’

Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (3★) was another who preferred the RSC’s show. He described Spirited Away as a ‘sumptuous production’ but said, ‘Totoro has a simplicity and strangeness that works like a charm on stage. Here, the film’s shimmery sense of wonder has undergone a rather dutiful theatrical solidification.’ It’s fair to say, he was not spirited away: ‘At three hours, the dream-like narrative can feel at once stretched and too knotty, and less substantial than it initially appears.’ His conclusion was a downbeat comparison with the film: ‘A lavish labour of love, then, but the magical source-material transports you further, for less.’

The Times‘ Clive Davis (3★) had a disappointing evening: ‘during this meandering journey through the spirit world my inner youngster kept muttering: “Are we there yet?”’ He continued, ‘the colours and lighting are muted, and you miss the fluidity of the animated film.’ Sam Marlowe in The Stage (3★) was also underwhelmed. She said it ‘often looks lovely. But it’s missing the emotional guts and sinewy connective tissue required to make it properly 3D, its swirling imagery and meandering narrative remaining stubbornly flat. There’s always something rich and strange to look at, always something fantastical happening; but we often don’t know exactly what, or why – and too often, crucially, we don’t much care.’ She ended: ‘It rarely taps into the transformative, imagination-sparking power of theatre as an art form – and ultimately, that begs the question: what’s the point?’

Spirited Away can be seen at the London Coliseum until 24 August 2024. Buy tickets direct from spiritedawayuk.com

Average critics’ rating 3.7★
Value Rating 18 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price. In theory, this means the higher the score the better value but, because of price variations, a West End show could be excellent value if it scores above 30 while an off-West End show may need to score above 60.)

If you’ve seen Spirited Away, please add your review and rating below

Lyceum Hammersmith

Minority Report started as a sci-fi story by Philip K Dick but its most famous manifestation is as a film starring Tom Cruise. Inevitably, a number of the reviews compared the budget theatrical version by David Haig to the multi-million dollar Hollywood spectacular…unfavourably. In the critics’ reports, no-one awarded more than three stars, mainly because the plot is ‘muddled’ and ‘too sketchy’ and, for some, it looks ‘naff’. On the plus side, the lead Jodi McNee‘s performance was widely praisedand some liked the fast pace supplied by director Max Webster (Life of Pi) and the ‘ambitious visuals’.

[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]

Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (3★) was upbeat. He felt that while ‘his adaptation is admirably succinct, the political and psychological dimensions of the piece, hurtling by in 90 minutes, feel too sketchy.’ He looked for the positive: ‘in its most exhilarating moments, with search-lights criss-crossing the auditorium, you get a reminder that theatre can, and should, be exciting – and an inkling too of its tech-assisted future.’

There is no star rating attached to Andrzej Lukowski’s review in Time Out. It’s possible he thought it was so bad, it didn’t deserve any stars, but more likely there was a glitch on the website. At best, it feels like a three star review: ‘Although the many, many action setpieces in Max Webster’s production are accomplished, it’s hard to see the point in most of them… Even more muddled is the plot.’ He liked its lead: ‘McNee is charismatic and intense and looks pretty cool carrying a big gun while shouting at people.’  His conclusion was: ‘If this is the future I want no part in it.’

Anya Ryan in The Stage (3★) had mixed feelings. ‘The production has a slick air of ultra modernism, and whizzes through scenes at a relentless pace. Despite some spectacular, ambitious visuals, though, there’s the nagging sense that the theatre might not be the best medium for this dystopian fable.’

Nick Curtis at The Standard (3★) summed it up as ‘smart and daft, mind-expanding and lame’. Every aspect of the production gets  a mention, not always complimentary . ‘Designer Jon Bausor uses pivoting metal grids and video screens … which is inventive but inevitably a bit naff’; ‘Director Max Webster favours pace and stridency over subtlety’; ‘The stimulating intellectual provocations of the script are constantly undermined by clichéd and slapdash plotting.’

Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (3★) said ‘Despite a virtuoso production by Max Webster and his design team, which transforms a tiny stage into a richly realised vision of the near future, it never quite grips as drama.’ She went on, ‘It looks magnificent, but it never really digs below its sharp, hi-tech surface.’

Clive Davis in The Times (3★) ‘Jodie McNee’s harassed neuroscientist/CEO…holds your attention even when you can’t help noticing that the bargain-basement tech surrounding her is more reminiscent of Blake’s 7 than a Hollywood epic.’ He described ‘vehicles that are supposed to be something out of an Elon Musk sketchbook but actually resemble the car rides that keep children entertained in shopping centres’. On the plus side, ‘Haig poses useful moral questions about the trade-off between freedom and security. And McNee is hypnotically intense.’

Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (2★) was more critical: ‘this is a strangely lifeless creation – a zombie hybrid of film and stage. David Haig’s script has an undercooked plot filled with anaemic twists, while both the action and pace need finessing’. She continued, ‘the tension so necessary for an action drama of this kind is lacking.’ She found ‘the 3D set unmatched by its hollow 2D drama.’

Matt Wolf, writing for the LondonTheatre website (2★), was lukewarm: ‘The show’s look as it stands now is its lucky charm, even if the majority report, I have a hunch, will focus on a script in need of a reboot.’Demetrios Matheou at the Arts Desk (2★) found nothing to enjoy: ‘Webster’s amped-up direction – reaching its nadir with some bizarrely choreographed chase scenes – simply overpowers a text that isn’t fit to purpose in the first place’. He added, ‘There’s a forced nature, too, to the dialogue and hysterical emotions’.

Alexander Cohen at Broadway World (2★) came up with an interesting analogy: ‘David Haig’s new stage adaption is more like a cyberpunk-themed orgy at Printworks.’ (Printworks is a chain of entertainment centres but I’m not sure that particular activity is one of the attractions.) He went on to tear apart the show: ‘the production’s retro Dr Who-style brand of schlocky futurism and plastic campiness blocks it from conjuring any sense of pulsating paranoia.’ It was, he said, ‘Gormless fun for a while, but a beating emotional heart is noticeably absent.’

The Bridge Theatre

Frank Loesser’s 1950 classic musical Guys And Dolls is given a significant makeover by Nicholas Hytner at The Bridge Theatre. His ‘big idea’ is to produce an immersive production in which some of the audience stand in the middle of the auditorium while sets rise and lower around them. Most critics liked the atmosphere this created although there was some disagreement about whether it helped or hindered the story, which is based on Damon Runyon’s humorous tales of New York street life. Bunny Christies’s set and the (Olivier winning) choreography by Arlene Phillips and James Cousins were also well received.  There may be some variations in opinion but no review awarded less than four stars. Since the opening night reviews appeared, there has been a change of cast so the many highly complimentary remarks about the singer/actors have been omitted from this summary.  (The new cast has also been praised.)

Susannah Clapp in The Observer (5★) led the charge: ‘Fuelled by Bunny Christie’s design, Tom Brady’s musical supervision and choreography by Arlene Phillips with James Cousins, it swings up, down and sideways, enveloping the audience without ever dimming the dazzle of performance.’ ‘This is immersive theatre with real point,’ she continued, explaining ‘the story ‘needs city jostle and faces from the street.’ The choreography, she said, ‘whisks across small spaces without seeming cramped, and has more flare than flounce, more expression than attitude.’

For Clive Davis in The Times (5★), it was ‘sheer bliss’. ‘On a cold, wet night, we had found our little corner of heaven,’ he purred, and noted ‘Bunny Christie’s neon-trimmed design is as stylish as the period costumes’.

Quentin Letts in The Sunday Times (5★) exulted in his idiosyncratic way about the ‘Joy, laughter, liberation from all the ghastly priggishness of the 21st century.’ Helen Hawkins reporting for The Arts Desk (5★) called it an ‘exuberant new production’. John Nathan in The Jewish Chronicle (5★) described how ‘The air is thrillingly charged with a frisson of danger and the energy of the in-yer-face performances.’ ‘it is the ambition of the evening that astounds’ he said.

For Nick Curtis in The Standard (5★), it’s a ‘near-flawless’ production. ‘I can’t stress enough the meticulousness and care that has gone into every aspect of this show. Blissful and exhilarating,’ he said. and ‘The choreography, by Arlene Phillips and James Cousins, in these tight and elevated spaces, is astonishing. Sarah Crompton at Whats On Stage (5★) declared it to be ‘a definitive and joyous piece of theatre. It is an absolute triumph, not to mention a blast.’ Throughout, the choreography by Arlene Phillips and the co-director James Cousins, fills the space with movement that is both classy and cool…  It is a wonder and a tonic.’

Dominic Cavendish in The Telegraph (5★) loved the way ‘Hytner’s box of tricks, the Bridge, unleashes the show all around you if you’re one of the 380 punters standing in the thick of it. Even when seated, you’re gazing upon an extravaganza that explodes every which way.’ He liked ‘Hytner’s impeccable feelgood escapism’ and was impressed that ‘The choreography (Arlene Phillips and James Cousins) is fast and fluid, not too fancy, using spatial constriction to evoke a joyous hustle and bustle.’

Isobel Lewis in The Independent (4★) was much more enthusiastic: ‘The staging may be inventive, but this production already feels like a classic, knowing when to rock the boat and when to stick to what works. And boy, does it work.’ Sam Marlowe at the Stage (4★) thought, ‘The staging doesn’t reframe the show in any revelatory new way.’ Thus disagreeing with Susannah Clapp at The Observer (above) who said it had ‘a real point’. On the whole though, she declared that the production ‘sure is one swell time.’

Arifa Akbar from The Guardian (4★) in the seated area had a different view (in both senses), grumbling, ‘It was clear that the promenading audience was experiencing the show differently’. She was an outlier when it comes to the choreography, which in her opinion, ‘never quite flies, maybe owing to the slightly cramped size of the sets.’ Comparing it unfavourably with the Young Vic production of Oklahoma!, she said it is ‘an emphatically traditional enactment of the story itself, with period dress (costumes by Deborah Andrews) and exaggeratedly cartoonish characters.’   She acknowledged that it is ‘a feat of innovative staging’.

Guys And Dolls is running at the Bridge Theatre until 4 January 2025.   Click here to buy tickets direct from the theatre

Average critics’ rating 4.7★
Value Rating 49 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price. In theory, this means the higher the score the better value but, because of price variations, a West End show could be excellent value if it scores above 30 while an off-West End show may need to score above 60.)

Link to Paul Seven Lewis’s review of Guys And Dolls

If you’ve seen Guys And Dolls, please add your review and rating below

The Criterion

The musical Two Strangers (Carry A Cake Across New York) underwent considerable development over the last few years before arriving at The Kiln in London where it mopped up enough critical and audience acclaim to justify a transfer to the West End. This two-hander tells the story of two 20-somethings in New York for a wedding. Sam Tutty plays an enthusiastic British man who believes all the cliches about the Big Apple, and Dujonna Gift is a cynical New Yorker who puts him right. The plot is essentially as it says in the title.

Two stars carry a play across London

• Lyttelton Theatre

An adaptation by Ben Power (The Lehman Trilogy) of Charles Dickens’ last completed novel Our Mutual Friend, with songs by P J Harvey, must have seemed like a surefire winner. Running through the typically Dickensian larger-than-life characters and complex plot about money, poverty, death and resurrection is the River Thames itself. Sadly for the National Theatre, the critics were not swept away. On thecwhole, they found the script shalloe but Bunny Christie’s set which evoked the river went down well. PJ Harvey’s song proved a sticking for most critics. So, Ian Rickson’s production was greeted with three and two star reviews with just one critic enthusiastic enough to award four stars.

[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]

That was Andrzej Lukowski in Time Out (4★). ‘The performance space becomes the Thames – the effect is majestic and disconcerting (I felt a bit seasick in places),’ he shared. It was, he said, ‘Dickens’s late class drama turned into a work both elemental and righteous.’

Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (3★) found it ‘light on the satire and heavy on mood, strikingly staged as a kind of 19th-century noir.’ She concluded: ‘The play winds up to a melodramatic end, with its potboiler elements exposed, but it still retains a curious power, and performances shine.’

Sarah Hemming at the Financial Times (3★) admired the ‘restless, intelligent, absorbing production’ but thought, ‘as drama it is held back by sheer narrative bulk.’ Susannah Clapp in The Observer (3★) decided: ‘Ian Rickson’s production aims to be more than episodically charged, to explore the life of the city that is not contained by character. It is not sufficiently wraparound-vibrant to achieve this.’

For Sam Marlowe in The Stage (3★) ‘emotional impact is a casualty’ and  ‘its characters don’t quite come to life, drowning in the politics and plot mechanics’ but she did appreciate ‘The performances are sinewy and direct, with Ellie-May Sheridan scene-stealing.’ Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph  (3★) agreed: ‘the laurels go to the transfixing stage debutante Ellie-May Sheridan, who seems to have stepped out of Dickens’s imagination.’ Otherwise, for him, it was a ‘five-star wow bobbing in a three-star show.’

Fiona Mountford in the i (3★), like many others couldn’t resist a watery metaphor: ‘we emerge from this theatrical river feeling slightly soggy and mildly bewildered.’ Sarah Crompton at Whats On Stage (3★) also took a dip: ‘it feels bogged down in the shallows, never quite plunging into the depths of the story’s meaning or fulfilling its own intelligent and honest intentions. It’s full of integrity, but lacks drama.’

And so to the ones who really took against it. Alexander Cohen at Broadway World (2★)  said: ‘reduced to its naked mechanics, the exposition laden writing lacks the lustrous life blood that so warmly flows through the veins of Dickens’s literary worlds.’

Clive Davis in The Times (2★) came out fighting, calling it ‘this weirdly misconceived adaptation’. He didn’t pull his punches: ‘Ian Rickson’s lumbering production is anything but a page-turner.’ And a final kick at the ‘crowded, undernourished melodrama.’

For David Benedict at The Standard (2★) it was ‘a leaden three-and-a-quarter hours.’ His analysis of the failings of the adaptation included this comment: ‘where Dickens’ contextualised writing allows coincidence to thrive, in dialogue as bald as this, the coincidences just feel contrived.’ He concluded, ‘Near the end, Rokesmith sings “Why, why, why, why, why…” Indeed.’

PJ Harvey’s songs

It seems you either like PJ Harvey or you don’t, and the critics didn’t, except for the Time Out reviewer who is clearly a fan: ‘Harvey’s songs are integral…the poised drama they provide feels vital to a show which is bigger on storytelling than emotions and might have felt flat without its spine-tingling tunes.’ The Guardian had a foot in both camps, describing the songs as ‘anti-ballads’ whose ‘seriousness gives the story a lugubrious depth but also undercuts Dickens’ satire and levity.’

No-one else had a good thing to say about them. Tim Bano in The Independent (3★) noted ‘as the story gets more interesting and the characters richer, the songs remain the same – each character stands centre stage and sings out at the audience – until you can’t help sighing a little when another one strikes up, knowing another dirge is on its way.’ The i had a similar thought: ‘It’s a fine idea, but one that plays to decidedly diminishing returns as the mournful, almost identical-sounding numbers mount up.’

The Financial Times said the songs ‘add to the ballast and, often in a gloomily low register, are challenging to deliver.’ For WhatsOnStage, ‘the songs, which are dark and relentless as well as impressive, have a tendency to stop the action rather than move it on.’ The Telegraph agreed: ‘those ditties often impede the action, without adding much ambience.‘ ‘It sounds as if Harvey is constantly recycling the same two slender, indie-flavoured themes,’ said The Times.

For The Observer, ‘They supply a dark, rough undertow but they don’t push on the drama. Rather, like a tide, they simply recur.’ To the ears of The Standard: ‘Harvey’s ceaselessly repetitive, deadeningly slow rhythms and mostly stolidly unchanging harmonies – unhelped by Powers’ flat, earnest lyrics – never make a case for songs being in the show whatsoever.’ Broadway World too could have done without them and didn’t let politeness stand in the way of a good insult. The ‘sludgy dirge’ was a ‘bloated concoction of subdued power ballads paired with painfully superficial lyrics are such a tagged-on afterthought that the production couldn’t just go on happily without it, but would actively improve if it were abandoned.’

Thank goodness for Bunny Christie’s set

Time Out gave a vivid description: ‘At first the performance space looks virtually unadorned. Soon though, the entire ceiling – or rather a series of poles the lights are attached to – starts to undulate, rising and falling like the tide. Eventually it’s joined by the very surface of the stage, which ripples and heaves.’

The Independent recorded: ’50 spotlights hanging over the stage in receding strips, each undulating slowly, giving the queasy impression of the river somehow reflected in the sky, rather than the other way around.’ The Observer said: ‘Christie’s set – with iron lighting rigs that rise and fall – is evocatively adamantine, when not looking like decor for a 21st-century loft.’

The Stage referred to ‘a flinty, hard-edged staging‘ and the i called it ‘striking’.

London Tide can be seen at the National’s Lyttelton Theatre until 22 June 2024

Average critics’ rating 2.8★

Value Rating 41 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price. In theory, this means the higher the score the better value but, because of price variations, a West End show could be excellent value if it scores above 30 while an off-West End show may need to score above 60. This rating is based on opening night prices- theatres may raise or lower prices during the run.)

If you’ve seen London Tide, please add your review and rating below

National Theatre

The Brontë sisters are re-examined in Sarah Gordon’s comedy Underdog: The Other Other Brontë, which won the Nick Darke Award in 2020 and is now given an outing at the National’s small Dorfman Theatre. Most critics occupied the middle ground, finding it funny but shallow, but the i gave it a rare 5 stars while The Stage could only find a curmudgeonly two. Gemma Whelan from Game of Thrones and Upstart Crow stands out as Charlotte in a story of sibling rivalry also featuring Rhiannon Clements as put-upon Anne, and Adele James as marginalised Emily.

[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]

Let’s start with Fiona Mountford in inews (5★). Describing it as ‘ebullient’, she said it was ‘as joyously invigorating as a brisk walk over the Yorkshire Moors’. She liked the ‘robustly 21st-century critique of sisterhood, ambition, reputation and gatekeeping’ and said, ‘Whelan is in her element as the uncompromising Charlotte, witty, selfish and magnificent with it.’

Neil Norman in the Mail (4★) liked the sisters: ‘Arresting performances from Whelan as the deeply unsympathetic Charlotte, Clements as the independent-but-withdrawn Anne and James as the stoical Emily keep Gordon’s spirited play alight.’

And so to the three star reviews. Here’s Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (3★): ‘Directed with pace by Natalie Ibu…Gordon’s script bounces along, albeit with some glaring modern-day lessons on masculinity and inequality tacked on. It is quick-witted and amusing’, then comes the iron fist in the velvet glove, ‘though it never deepens enough for the emotional punches to land.’ She praised the look of it: ‘the exposure of envy and competition beneath the Brontës’ sisterliness is mirrored in the visual metaphor of Grace Smart’s set which consists of a verdant floral mound uprooted at the start to reveal dark matter beneath.’

Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (3★) talked of a ‘canny, but in my view overly perky, portrait of the siblings’. He expanded, ‘It’s as if in fearing to make the past dull, it must be brought alive in primary colours. In avoiding the clichés of the Gothic…she errs towards the goonish.’ His final comment suggested he was judging the show by the standard of an imaginary play in which ‘the novels, in all their richness, … speak for themselves.’ On the plus side: ‘It’s very stylishly designed by Grace Smart, pacily staged by Natalie Ibu, and winningly played across the board.’

For Sarah Crompton at Whats On Stage (3★), ‘Natalie Ibu’s direction (is) confident and fleet…Whelan…is commanding as she turns Charlotte into a monster…Adele James brings deep emotion to the under-written part of Emily, author of Wuthering Height.’ However, she seems to be having the same thought as the Telegraph critic: ‘what goes missing amidst the humour and the sisterly squabbling, is the sense that the Brontës did actually deserve their place in the literary canon.’Nick Curtis used plenty of complimentary adjectives in his review in the Standard (3★)- ‘rumbunctious’ ‘playful and visually witty’ but he also damned it as ‘slender’.

Heather Neill at The Arts Desk (3★)felt ‘Natalie Ibu’s speedy direction fits the light-hearted, often caricatured storytelling, the audience always knowingly acknowledged…Whelan is a fire-cracker, rarely still, very funny.’

Clive Davis in The Times (3★) described it as ‘hyperactive burlesque’, and ‘a short story posing as a novel.’ In compensation, he found ‘Gemma Whelan’s salty performance always holds your attention’ and he appreciated ‘All the salty language, not to mention the unashamedly anachronistic jokes’.

Andrzej Lukowski in Time Out (3★) also liked Gordon’s script and Gemma Whelan’s performance: ‘(the) dialogue is blunt, funny and wilfully anachronistic..the supremely watchable Whelan devours her part whole’. Although he liked ‘Natalie Ibu‘s larky, visually inventive production’ and thought ‘Underdog is a very funny play,’ he felt, ‘That funniness doesn’t always work to its advantage. It has nuanced points about authorship, legacy and family that are obscured by the sound of laughter.’

Lucy Kenningham at CityAM (3★) took it quite personally. Having told us she has a sister, she ended her review: ‘Short and ambitious, it hurls ideas into the Yorkshire air, many of which land flat. But examinations of sisterhood are depressingly rare, so when those ideas are explored, they hit hard.’ (She clearly missed Till The Stars Come Down, The House of Bernarda Alba and Dancing At Lughnasa, all recently at the National, and all exploring sisterly relationships.)

While Sam Marlowe in The Stage (2★) made many of the same points as her fellow critics, she was less forgiving. She referred to it as being ‘reductive to the point of becoming glib and cartoonish’. ‘There’s nothing deeply felt and scant sense of character, in a play more invested in winning easy laughs,’ she said. ‘The actors are game and hard-working, and at best it’s mildly entertaining. But as an exploration of women who left us such sinewy, sexy, courageous writing, it feels like a sadly wasted opportunity.’

The Observer’s Susannah Clapp (2★) had little time for the show: ‘where in this mechanical modernisation is the imaginative power that makes the sisters worth attending to?’ although she did concede: ‘Natalie Ibu’s strenuously comic production gets lively perfs from Rhiannon Clements as Anne…Adele James as vibrant Emily, and Gemma Whelan as domineering Charlotte.’

Underdog can be seen at the National Theatre until 25 May 2024. Buy tickets direct from nationaltheatre.org.uk

Average Critic Rating 3.1★

Value Rating 48 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating moderated by the typical ticket price. In theory, this means the higher the score the better value but, because of price variations, a West End show could be excellent value if it scores above 30 while an off-West End show may need to score above 60. This rating is based on opening night prices- theatres may raise or lower prices during the run.)

Read Paul Seven Lewis’s review of Underdog

If you’ve seen Underdog, please add your review and rating below

Wyndham’s

Eugene O’Neill’s Long Day’s Journey Into Night is one of the great American plays of the twentieth century, some say the greatest. The latest West end production, directed by Jeremy Herrin, brings together Succession star Brian Cox as the paterfamilias James Tyrone, and Patricia Clarkson as his morphine-addicted wife Mary. It is she, even more than he, who got the critics excited. This is a long play, as most of the reviews reminded us. ‘For three and a half hours, the four members of the Tyrone family – a morphine addict, two alcoholics and a consumptive – shout and mope and recriminate’ (to quote The Independent).  The supporting cast of Laurie Kynaston,  Daryl McCormack and Louisa Harland (recently seen in Ulster American) were all well received.

[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]

Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (4★) praised both stars. About Brian Cox he said: ‘this verbose, confined epic calls for vocal clout and physical heft. Which he has.’ Then: ‘the terrific American actress Patricia Clarkson as the stricken matriarch generates an increasingly hypnotic force of unstable energy.’ The play is, he said, ‘a heart-rending mirror of forsaken souls in which we may all glimpse our own familial griefs.’ He ended with one word: ‘Recommended.’

Sarah Crompton at Whats On Stage (4★) had  this to say about the duo: ‘Cox, all bark and ferocity, plays up the character’s fury, his sense of betrayal, his anger at the world and himself’ and ‘In Patricia Clarkson’s eagle-sharp interpretation, Mary (is) a dominant force, whose evasions, untruths and occasional moments of absolute knowledge prevent her family from confronting their own demons.’ She was impressed by ‘The clarity and directness of Herrin’s production and the way that the cast both speak and listen with absolute intent brings it to vivid life once more.’

For Nick Curtis in The Standard (4★) ‘Cox is magnetic as Tyrone, volcanic one moment, maudlin the next. He’s well-matched by Clarkson whose prim body language and sly evasions betray the wariness of the secret addict.’ The rest of the cast hold their own: ‘Jeremy Herrin’s production is full of pathos and ruined grandeur, with superb performances all round.’ He noted ‘Kynaston…brings great delicacy and watchfulness to Edmund: he also resembles Clarkson in profile. McCormack…brings a malign, defeated charisma to Jamie. Derry Girls’ Louisa Harland turns the caricatured Oirish servant Kathleen into a gust of light relief.’ He had praise too for the look of the production: ‘Designer Lizzie Clachan emphasises the oppressive, inescapable nature of their tragedy with a cramped box of a set.’

Louise Penn at Broadway World (4★) didn’t find it too long: ‘not a second is wasted in Jeremy Herrin’s fine production, which features a delicate showcase of addiction, longing, and despair from Patricia Clarkson.’ She also thought Brian Cox gave ‘a mesmerising performance’. She shared with other critics an admiration for the way ‘Lizzie Clachan’s set and costumes capture the sense of a prosperous past while providing muted hues which fit well with Jack Knowles’s lighting.’ She clearly loved the play: ‘Long Day’s Journey Into Night is the mirror into which we can see our souls.’

Sam Marlowe in The Stage (4★) thought it was ‘faultlessly performed’, but reserved her highest praise for the two stars:  ‘A serene smile battling with tiny nervous gestures, her eyes increasingly somnolent and vague as the drug kicks in, Clarkson is shattering. Cox’s James combines an ox-like bulk and power with the silver-haired, self-conscious elegance of an old stager.’ She concluded: ‘It’s a demanding experience, which Herrin allows to accumulate its force slowly, but the acting here is dauntless: a monumental testament to domestic agony.’ Matt Wolf at The Arts Desk (4★) centred his review around Patricia Clarkson: ‘Jeremy Herrin’s slow-aborning if properly sorrowful production confirms a sense confirmed by experience that this text really does belong to Mary’. (‘Aborning’ is an American word for being born.)

Susannah Clapp in The Observer (3★) thought not only was it long but also didn’t half the impact it should: ‘Jeremy Herrin’s production is careful, slowly gathering – and three-and-a-half hours long. The opening scenes are muted, not so much anguished as anxious.’ She continued, ‘Solo confessions are the motor of the play but they gain in intensity with a greater sense of family…than there is here. The wounds look grave, not – as they should – fatal.’ However, she was impressed by ‘the sheer force of writing and of acting’.

Tim Bano in The Independent (3★) described how ‘Herrin turns this into a showcase for Big Acting, with no distractions.  The stripped-back approach is really exposing, and there are moments when it doesn’t bear up to the scrutiny.’  Even though he found ‘some scenes in the second half feel really bum-numbingly long,’ the play is, he said, ‘very impressive, often mesmerising and – when it hits right – really profoundly moving.’ About Patricia Clarkson, he said she ‘has an extraordinary ability to flitter in and out of reality, sometimes just with her eyes.’

For Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (3★), while ‘Cox is, as always, thrilling to watch’…’it is Patricia Clarkson…who steals the show…hers feels like a true, infuriating, compassionate portrait of an addict.’  She was not entirely won over by O’Neill’s play: ‘Some scenes glitter with dark energy, and are truly tragic. Others feel protracted, the play’s old-fashioned exposition exposed, and the over-used device of characters narrating memories feeling like lengthy confessions.’

While all the critics loved Patricia Clarkson, some were less sure about Brian Cox. Fiona Mountford in inews (3★) said: ‘Clarkson is magnificent, giving the performance of the evening, shaping Mary into a figure of almost ethereal radiance, present but also absent’ but ‘Cox struggles to shift register sufficiently and convinces us a little less of the weight of the wounds he bears, especially in comparison to Clarkson’s deep mining of truth.’ She found ‘The almost three-and-a-half hours of Jeremy Herrin’s production do weigh heavily.’ Andrezej Lukowski in Time Out (3★), while praising ‘a superlative turn from …Patricia Clarkson’, opined, ‘Cox doesn’t quite nail the role of James Tyrone’. He also had reservations about the direction: ‘mostly this is a very straight production… It’s a daunting play, yes, but it shouldn’t be a museum piece.’

Least convinced was Clive Davis in  The Times  (2★): ‘O’Neill grinds us into submission with dialogue which turns in achingly slow circles,‘ he said. ‘Cox is always watchable,’ he admitted, ‘but he’s still not able to prevent long-winded confrontations and confessions from slipping into melodrama.’ He didn’t like the production either: ‘Herrin’s prosaic approach doesn’t supply much in the way of light and shade. Lizzie Clachan’s austere set design offers little to please the eye, either.‘

Long Day’s Journey Into Night can be seen at Wyndham’s Theatre until 8 June 2024. Buy tickets directly from delfontmackintosh.co.uk

Average critic rating (out of 5) 3.4★

Value rating  23 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price. In theory, this means the higher the score the better value but, because of price variations, a West End show could be excellent value if it scores above 30 while an off-West End show may need to score above 60. This rating is usually based on opening night prices- theatres may raise or lower prices during the run.)

If you’ve seen Long Day’s Journey Into Night, please add your review and rating below

Prince Edward Theatre

MJ The Musical has been a money-spinning success on Broadway, now it hopes to repeat the magic in London’s West End before conquering the rest of the world. The book is by double Pulitzer Prize winner Lynn Nottage who wrote Sweat. She covers Michael Jackson‘s life and career up until the eve of the Dangerous tour. This has the advantage that no mention need be made of the allegations of child abuse which were first publicised during that tour. That doesn’t stop all the critics mentioning the ‘elephant in the room’. But how did it affect their reviews? They were largely divided between those who can put the allegations aside and those who can’t. If you belong to the former, there is clearly much to enjoy in Christopher Wheeldon‘s choreography and of course Michael Jackson’s music, brought to life by the original Broadway star Myles Frost.

[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]

Neil Norman in The Express (4★) had a nifty way of justifying his concentration on the show: ‘Any attempt to cancel a man who has already been cancelled by God is a redundant exercise. The music stands. The songs are amazing. Let that be enough.’ And, pre-empting the criticism that this is just another jukebox musical: ‘Some may consider this a hollow, vacuous enterprise but this is show business, folks, and it is his artistic, not personal, legacy that is being celebrated.’

Dominic Maxwell in The Sunday Times (4★) was similarly accommodating. He accepted that it’s ‘a partial account’. ‘As drama it only goes so far. As spectacle, as a celebration of what he achieved in song and dance, it’s pretty much sensational.’ Earlier in his review, he praised it as ‘a jaw-droppingly well staged, fabulously sung and fluidly choreographed act of necromancy.’

The Independent‘s Alice Saville (4★) felt there was ‘enough darkness’ in the story up to that point. She was impressed by the way Lynn Nottage’s script ‘exposes Jackson through his songs, showing how he increasingly danced to the rhythms of past traumas’ (referring to his childhood). She liked the way Myles Frost ‘moves with a dreamy, fantastically eerie lightness’ and she praised ‘Derek McLane’s impossibly lavish scenic design and a universally strong cast.’

Sarah Crompton at Whats On Stage (4★) found that ‘it not only swerves the controversies surrounding him, but also never begins to reach the mystery that made his music so magical and yet the man so opaque.’ The quality of the production and its star seemed to compensate: ‘staged by Wheeldon with such energy and panache that the trajectory is breathtaking.’ (Frost’s) impersonation of Jackson’s choreography is razor sharp..but even more impressively he does manage to conjure something of the tortured soul behind the image.’

Nick Curtis in The Standard (4★) concluded: ‘You leave ravished by the spectacle of it all, with countless earworms lodged in your head, and then the moral dubiousness of the enterprise sinks back in.’  He explained why it is possible to get carried away and temporarily ignore what he calls ‘the elephant in the room’: ‘That the show still works is largely down to the half-quicksilver, half-machine performance of Frost…Christopher Wheeldon’s production is a superlatively directed and choreographed piece of absolute pizzaz…writer Lynn Nottage gets to deftly intertwine Jackson’s life and his art.’

For Andrzej Lukowski in Time Out (3★), ‘the omission of any allusion to his friendships with children feels… noticeable’, but concluded ‘A big commercial musical is probably never going to be the medium for the great Michael Jackson drama.’ He loved the ‘jaw-droppingly talented original Broadway star Myles Frost.. Jackson’s arsenal of moves were so singular – and so technically dazzling – that it doesn’t feel dated at all.’

While acknowledging that the show is ‘impossible to view today entirely outside the prism of the allegations’, The Telegraph‘s Claire Allfree (3★) was another critic who focussed on enjoying the show: ‘it’s arguably guilty of magical thinking in casting him exclusively as a victim. But does this make his art – as so beautifully honoured here – any less intoxicating? I’m not sure in the end it does.’  What intoxicated her most was Frost ‘capturing precisely Jackson’s sublime, peculiarly agitated grace, his limbs seemingly made from tensile liquid as he thrusts and coils, shimmers and spins, like a man made from air and light, dancing on water. Blending a pop-video aesthetic with simply superb choreography’.

In The Times (3★), Clive Davis was more cynical about the standard of the production: ‘If the day comes when musicals are created by artificial intelligence they may well resemble this jukebox show. It’s proficient, but oddly soulless.’ In a classic praise sandwich, he said: ‘Christopher Wheeldon’s production offers an immaculately choreographed evening of 24-carat karaoke anchored by the sleek dance moves of..Myles Frost.’

Anya Ryan in The Guardian (2★) was not seduced. She admitted ‘the stage becomes a hub of neon and gravity-defying dance moves’ and that Myles Frost is ‘a shapeshifting force’, however ‘Some might be able to separate Jackson’s art from the artist. But…I felt queasy – bad, even.’

Sam Marlowe in The Stage (2★) was another who felt ‘the glaring omission of any confrontation of the allegations against Jackson of child sexual abuse…makes its smooth, glossy, hagiographic tone feel hollow, if not plain dishonest.’ She was also more critical than some reviewers of the main elements of the show: ‘Lynn Nottage’s book is, at best, workaday and, at worst, excruciatingly contrived…dramatically, it’s all very bland.’ For her, in a statement that will shock Michael Jackson fans, ‘even the groundbreaking music..becomes a little monotonous.’ Taking an opposite view to The Standard (see above), she said it was ‘sounding strikingly dated’.

Alexander Cohen at Broadway World (2★) says it all in his opening paragraph: ‘At its best MJ: the Musical is a tribute act populated by a mixtape of Michael Jackson’s greatest hits and the signature silky angularity of his choreography. At its worst this slathered-in-schmaltz hagiography is like watching the Zone of Interest: you know the disturbing stuff is always just out of view.’

Ludovic Hunter-Tilney in the Financial Times (2★) chose a more sarcastic approach: ‘not since Jesus Christ Superstar has the West End hosted such a saintly protagonist as the hero of MJ the Musical.’ He had no illusions: ‘the production’s main rationale is to get as many songs on the jukebox as possible.’

MJ The Musical can be seen at the Prince Edward Theatre until 7 December 2024. Buy tickets direct from london.mjthemusical.com

Average critic rating (out of 5) 3.1★

Value rating  31 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price. In theory, this means the higher the score the better value but, because of price variations, a West End show could be excellent value if it scores above 30 while an off-West End show may need to score above 60. This rating is based on opening night prices- theatres may raise or lower prices during the run.)

If you’ve seen MJ The Musical, you are welcome to add your review and rating below (but please keep it relevant and polite)

Gielgud Theatre

After her success in Shirley Valentine and Funny Girl, the much-loved Sheridan Smith‘s latest stage appearance was much anticipated. Whether her fans got what they were expecting is doubtful or, as The Independent put it, anyone hoping for ‘thespy, Funny Girl-style razzle dazzle is in for a serious shock’. Ivo van Hove‘s adaptation of a classic John Cassavetes movie focuses on a fading star rehearsing a play, and features his trademark live video centre stage.  The critics were split between those who thought it was unique and special,  and those who found it baffling, with very few taking the middle ground. There were also mixed opinions about Rufus Wainwright’s music. Word of mouth has been poor and the production will be closing over two months early, on 18 May.

[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]

Let’s start with the positive reviews. For Time Out‘s (4★) Andrzej Lukowski, ‘There is truly nothing else like ‘Opening Night’ in Theatreland at the moment – not even close.’ He meant that as a compliment. He went on to say that the live video screen ‘display is at least as important as watching the actors directly’.  ‘It unquestionably has a heart – a buoyancy and belief in humanity that’s lacking in the original film.’ He was full of praise for Sheridan Smith, saying her ‘performance is heartfelt but also surprisingly wry and mischievous’.

Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (4★) was another fan, echoing Lukowski’s view that ‘It may be the most unusual thing on the London stage right now and is captivating in its glittering strangeness’ while calling it ‘every bit as eccentric as the film but … more vivacious in this musical incarnation.’ She liked the use of live video, noting that in a scene when Smith’s character ‘turns up drunk at the stage door on opening night, the screen shows her staggering at the back of the Gielgud theatre itself, a thrilling coup de hi-tech theatre.’ She had praise for the look of the production: ‘Jan Versweyveld’s set has a central sheer red curtain that captures the razzle of the theatre but also implicates our culture of celebrity voyeurism’, and for ‘Wainwright’s slowly gorgeous music’.

Alice Saville in The Independent (4★) was not quite so enthusiastic. She said it was ‘flawed, but intermittently haunting’. She was critical of Van Hove’s production, saying it ‘isn’t sturdily built enough to contain all this emotion: it flattens and muddles where it could heighten.’ She liked Wainwright’s music which  ‘reaches new heights here’ but reserved her greatest praise for Sherdian Smith whom, she said, ‘radiates a raw hunger for love, attention and meaning’ before adding ‘her own part here is pitifully underthought’.

Patrick Marmion for the Mail (4★) didn’t much like Ivo Van Hove’s production but said ‘it’s thanks to the emotional wattage of Smith’s voice that the show really soars’, and he was ‘simply in awe of her acting’.  He also gave thanks for Rufus Wainwright’s music: ‘True, it sometimes dwindles into semi-tonal burbling. But it also explodes with the singer-songwriter’s gift for doomed glory.’

The Times‘ Clive Davis (3★) occupied the middle ground, explaining: ‘The songs and the script are occasionally inspired, but more often maddeningly opaque.’ ‘Van Hove’s book piles confusion upon confusion,’ he continued, mentioning in passing ‘Jan Versweyveld’s untidy set’. However, he did think ‘Van Hove’s trademark use of video screens makes sense’, and he thought, ‘Some of Wainwright’s songs weave a haunting, chamber opera ambience,’ even if ‘too many are derailed by overly dense lyrics.’ Despite his criticism, he declared, ‘I’m still glad I saw this show.’

And so to the negative reviews. Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (2★) started by identifying Sheridan Smith’s qualities of ‘adorability, fragility and fighting-spirit’ before putting the boot into Van Hove’s production, criticising ‘his rough-and-ready mise en scène, which sets the action in a rudimentary back-stage environment’ and saying: ‘Although he pioneered the use of live video on stage, here he barely bothers to justify, dramatically, his use of a roving film crew.’ Wainwright’s score is, he said, ‘stylistically all over the place and many lyrics lacking rhyme or reason.’

Sarah Hemming in the Financial Times (2★) was happy with the star: ‘Sheridan Smith…gives a terrific performance at its heart…she brings great wit, infectious warmth and aching vulnerability’. As for the production, ‘The multi-layering becomes confusing and alienating…and seems to swamp the characters who remain one-note.’

For Sarah Crompton at Whats On Stage (2★), it was ‘a confusing mess… (it) seems to fail from the moment it begins. Other aspects of the production left her cold: she referred to ‘Jan Versweyveld’s cluttered set’ and said Rufus Wainwright ‘never provides is a truly memorable melody or a song that carries the meaning of the show.’ Even Sheridan Smith, she said, ‘struggles to make a mark with the dislocations in script and character.’ She concluded it was ‘one of the most baffling wastes of talent’.

Aliya Al-Hassan over at Broadway World (2★) said: ‘I’ve rarely seen a production more determined to confuse and frustrate an audience.’ It was, she explained, ‘disjointed, lacking clarity and losing all the spontaneity of Cassavetes’ signature style.’ Honing in on Sheridan Smith’s character, she said, ‘van Hove gives her no narrative arc and has written a woman who fails to convince as a real person on pretty much every level. It’s perhaps not surprising to note that the director, bookwriter, lyricist, composer and designer of this show are all men.’ Ouch! In Rufus Wainwright’s music, she noted, ‘There are meandering, downbeat, directionless songs, no particularly captivating melodies and there isn’t a single refrain or memorable piece of music to be found.’ As for the video screens, ‘they add little but a visual overload.’

You might think that was as bad as a review could be but… Stefan Kyriazis in the Express (1★) only found the show worth one star. How’s this for an opening paragraph? ‘This show actually opens with a car crash. Oh, the irony. The production is more like a multi-lane pile-up, complete with overturned leaking oil tanker, giant sinkholes and possibly an earthquake, asteroid or charging rhino or two.’ He drew attention to the live video relay that The Guardian so loved, calling it Smith’s ‘tiresomely attention-seeking Act 2 stunt of collapsing on the pavement outside…If only she’d stayed there.’ Was there anything he liked? Seemingly not: ‘Rufus Wainwright’s tuneless tunes, endless pointless and intrusive camerawork (enough, already), some atrocious acting and frustratingly bad staging.’

Fiona Mountford in The i (1★) delivered another damning verdict, calling it ‘bewilderingly terrible’ and ‘self-indulgent twaddle…through which a nasty vein of misogyny pumps insistently, and sections of which are devoid of even basic narrative sense.’ She also found ‘This overused video conceit appears increasingly tired now and adds nothing.’ Rufus Wainwright’s efforts didn’t impress her either: ‘the music remains awkwardly unembedded in the action and fails to add any depth to the woeful script.’ At least she liked Sheridan Smith’s ‘effervescent and full-hearted performance’.

A couple of American heavyweights weighed in but neither award stars. Nevertheless, it’s clear they were not fans. Houman Barekat in the New York Times said: ‘Van Hove has transformed a taut, subtly observed character study into a sludgy melodrama.’ He thought ‘Smith is miscast …Her onstage bearing exudes a homely approachability rather than high-strung poise or inscrutable aloofness.’   Add to which, ‘The songs, by Rufus Wainwright, are algorithmically bland.’  David Benedict for Variety called it ‘a mess’.

Opening Night can be seen at the Gielgud Theatre until 18 May 2024. Buy tickets directly from openingnightmusical.com/

Average critic rating (out of 5) 2.6★

Value rating  28 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price. In theory, this means the higher the score the better value but, because of price variations, a West End show could be excellent value if it scores above 30 while an off-West End show may need to score above 60. This rating is based on opening night prices- theatres may raise or lower prices during the run.)

If you’ve seen Opening Night, you are welcome to add your review and rating below (but please keep it relevant and polite)