Portrait of working-class family is warm and funny

Donmar Warehouse

Danny Lee Wynter’s second play looks at a working-class family in Ilford in 1980 and 1995. In particular we follow a mixed-race teenager coming to terms with his homosexuality, influenced and overwhelmed by his mother and her two sisters. The critics warmed to it, some more than others, and all agreed it was ‘very, very funny’ (Time Out). They liked the period accuracy. They praised the actors including Ria Zmitrowicz, Jodie McNee, Charlotte Jaconelli, and young Leo Whitfield Harris. Director Tim Sheader got credit too for ‘the charm and warmth’ (The Stage). The Times’ Clive Davis went so far as to say: ‘It is, quite simply, the most entertaining homegrown play I’ve seen since Till the Stars Come Down’. Praise indeed.

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

5 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑

The Times’ Clive Davis declared it was ‘extraordinarily funny, endlessly thought-provoking and propelled by some electrifying performances. It is, quite simply, the most entertaining homegrown play I’ve seen since Till the Stars Come Down (…) In much the same way, it homes in on ordinary lives lived far from the metropolitan smart set.’

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

Holly O’Mahony for WhatsOnStage noted: ‘It’s reminiscent of Beth Steel’s Till the Stars Come Down in its hyper-naturalism: hair is blowdried and a roast is eaten in real time. There’s a little of Billy Elliot in Ted too, as he finds himself torn between the boxing gloves Ken wants him to wear and Mrs S’s musical tapes, which he adores. Wynter himself grew up in east London and presumably pours some of his own experiences into what ultimately unwinds as a by-turns acutely funny and desperately sad tapestry of a very particular time and place.’

Fiona Mountford for the Telegraph declared: ‘What is an unending delight is the frank, witty and expletive-filled conversation between Tillie and her sisters Jackie (Jodie McNee) and heavily pregnant Ann (Charlotte Jaconelli). As Chekhov conclusively demonstrated, three sisters is the ideal number and we could happily watch this trio strop and bicker all day. Zmitrowicz, McNee and Jaconelli all put in gloriously vibrant performances in this heartfelt production from Tim Sheader who, fresh from his successful remounting of Jesus Christ Superstar with Sam Ryder, once again proves himself a notably versatile director.’

Aliya Al-Hassan for BroadwayWorld concluded: ‘this production shows the strength and realism of Wynter’s writing; the playful banter at the family dining table, the sharp ribbing that only a relative can get away with and relationships carefully drawn to reflect the diverse messiness of human life. With some brilliant performances and a thoughtful exploration of Black manhood, Ilford Boy is an imperfect, but gorgeous little production.’

The Standard‘s Nick Curtis called it: ‘A coming-of-age tale in a rich East London milieu, actor Danny Lee Wynter’s second play is warm but not cosy. It teems with vulgar wit and life, and Tim Sheader’s production features a host of fine performances.’

Anya Ryan popped up at Time Out to told us: ‘it is very, very funny, full of the kind of casual idioms that make up the easy way you speak to family and friends: ‘you can’t turn a dog into a chair, and if you do it won’t be comfy’. Drawing the lines between the people we were in the past and the people we become, Wynter has written something wise, witty and packed with big feelings. But here, it is the little things that move you: having to hand back the keys to your family home or inheriting old cassette tapes that have been held by the people you love. It’s good stuff.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton thought: ‘Wynter crams too much into his narrative, and the play never escapes its sense of being a therapeutic outpouring. But it is wonderfully vital in its portrayal of Ilford life – and sobering in its depiction of just how hard it was to be a Black gay man in this context. The sisters are wonderfully drawn and very convincing in their relationships to each other.’

The Stage‘s Sam Marlowe called it a ‘slight, but big-hearted play’.  She declared: ‘Gossamer-light and sequin-sparkly, this bittersweet new play by Danny Lee Wynter is as beguiling as it is insubstantial. It’s essentially a conventional coming-of-age story, with choppy family dynamics set against a teenager’s emerging sense of self and sexuality. The tone and texture of the writing has shades of sitcom and soap; it’s also reminiscent of the earlier work of Mike Leigh, Jonathan Harvey and Jim Cartwright. But if it all feels a little overfamiliar, it’s pretty tough to resist the charm and warmth of Tim Sheader’s production, with its vigorous, cartoonish performances. And at its best, Wynter’s effervescent dialogue is deliciously funny.’

Kate Wyver for The Guardian commented: ‘There is sharpness and humour within the core family’s spiky arguments, with an abundance of anguished love offered by Ted’s mum (Ria Zmitrowicz), though some of the wider family could have more substance.’

Aleks Sierz for The Arts Desk had a mixed response: ‘On the “yes” side, this is a good old-fashioned family play, with some neat comedy and entertaining episodes (…) Then there’s the “no” side of the playwriting: just as the play is set in the mid-1990s so Wynter’s writing style is of a similar pre-in-yer-face-theatre vintage.’

The Financial Times’ Sarah Hemming decided: ‘it’s a play that takes on rather more than the structure can hold. But it honours both family and found family, cherishes the bravery of ordinary people in the face of adversity and prejudice, celebrates acceptance and is written with huge heart and wit.’

Critics’ average rating 3.6⭑

You can see Ilford Boy at the Donmar Warehouse theatre until 28 November. Buy tickets directly from donmarwarehouse.com

If you’ve seen Ilford Boy at The Donmar, please leave your review and rating below

Latest version of musical flop better but still not a hit

Old Vic Theatre

Boublil and Schonberg‘s  Martin Guerre got a poor reception when it premiered in 1996 and there have been many unsuccessful attempts to re-launch it ever since. The latest iteration is directed by the Old Vic’s soon to be ex-Artistic Director Matthew Warchus. The critics seemed to agree that it is the best version yet but still not there, ‘there’ being on a par with the creators’ big hits Les Mis and Miss Saigon. Structure was said to be the problem and that has been altered considerably in this chamber presentation in which the story now centres on Guerre’s wife played by a well reviewed Liv Andrusier.

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

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

‘lean into its pagan excess and heart-on-sleeve emoting, and this is a gripping evening’ said Claire Allfree writing for the Telegraph. She highlighted: ‘The singing – notably Liv Andrusier’s Bertrande, mixing sweetness and steel particularly beautifully on new song Someday – is superb.’ While acknowledging that ‘Warchus’s production is far stronger at emphasising the story’s mythic darkness than fleshing out character psychology’, she pointed out: ‘By staging it so effectively in pocket-sized form, Warchus may have inadvertently made a case for Martin Guerre as a minor piece rather than a rediscovered classic; it’s hard to imagine this iteration of the musical transitioning to a bigger stage. But as the final scenes seamlessly build and build, I was thoroughly seduced.’

3 stars⭑⭑⭑

Alexander Cohen of BroadwayWorld reported: ‘this updated version’s heart remains elusive, but its undeniable charm keeps our blood pumping. The rambunctious music is impossible to ignore, and the tightly choreographed chorus sways and throbs like a shoal of tuna. Rob Howell’s in-the-round wooden set heats it with folktale warmth.’

Tim Bano, writing for Time Out, opined: ‘it is, simply, not a great musical. There are soaring solo melodies, contrapuntal chorus numbers, a sense of a score always bursting at its seams, but only a couple of numbers stand out – the title song and a swelling new anthem called ‘Someday’ – and the result is a restless musical about identity that can never quite find its own.

The Standard‘s Nick Curtis decided: ‘Warchus’s direction, and Rob Howell’s basic design of a circle of benches strewn with red chaff, are succinct and effective. The lighting and the band are crisp. But my god it’s over the top. Everyone here sings with a tremulous, volcanic passion, but on the bus home I realised I was humming the signature number “Martin Guerre” to the “Go Compare” ad jingle (…) Perhaps the story is itself the problem: the very mystery that makes the real-life tale of Martin Guerre so tantalising doesn’t lend itself to an easily resolved narrative. Oh well., Back to the drawing board.’

LondonTheatre‘s Anya Ryan noted: ‘Part of the problem is that Martin Guerre will always be judged against its illustrious siblings. While it has many of the hallmarks of a Schönberg and Boublil musical – multilayered love songs, sweeping operatic melodies, and emotionally charged storytelling – the material itself just isn’t as carefully constructed or momentous. But this production does its very best to breathe fresh excitement into the story. Warchus rips up what has gone before to deliver a delicate chamber piece, leaning into the personal relationships and deep longings at the musical’s core (…) but I was forever questioning what Bertrande was actually thinking, wishing for even a flash more insight.’

Dominic Maxwell of The Times recorded: ‘for all the grandness of the feelings so earnestly expressed on stage, few of them stretched into my part of the stalls. Complexity is good in storytelling, confusion is bad, and for too long I was just clinging on to who was who and what was what and wondering why the cast were daubed with bits of white make-up.’ He ended: ‘I found it intriguing rather than devastating, skilful more than soulful.’

The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar reported: ‘Among the twists and surprises, the real fireworks come from Matthew Warchus’s ingenuity as director. His in-the-round production creates intimacy between Martin and his wife, Bertrande (Liv Andrusier), but also brings a frothing sense of mob rule as the villagers brand her a witch and punish her for his desertion. Warchus, as deft as he is, cannot override all the problems of the musical and the reworking feels simultaneously fast and slow, the sleeker shape bringing momentum but the songs – operatic, emotional, too tonally similar – slowing everything down again.’

Critics’ average rating 3.2⭑

You can see Martin Guerre at The Old Vic until 31 October 2026. Buy tickets from oldvictheatre.com

If you’ve seen Martin Guerre at the Old Vic, please leave your review and rating below

Not quite a play but quite an impact

Almeida Theatre

I was in two minds whether to round up the reviews of Caryl Churchill‘s latest play. It only last 20 minutes, the run is short and sold out, and there weren’t many reviews. But she is an important voice in theatre and the reviews are on the whole enthusiastic. Triumph (an anagram of Hi Trump) starts with Kate O’Flynn‘s press officer talking about her Leader’s triumphs. Later we find her and her journalist lover, played by Matthew Beard, in bed, at which time he tells her the reality of the leader’s vile behaviour. All the words are from Roman historian Suetonius‘ descriptions of Roman emperors. Back at the lectern, she reveals the truth she’s learned, only to find the people are even more convinced in their support. James Macdonald directs.

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

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton described the work: ‘Triumph isn’t quite a play. At just over 15 minutes, you’d call it a jeu d’esprit, or a sketch, except that fails to describe its utterly chilling quality. Churchill has taken the words the Roman historian Suetonius used to describe the cruelty of emperors from Julius Caesar to Domitian and put them into the mouth of a modern-day media manipulator. All the words used to describe the tyrant are from Suetonius as a panel on Miriam Buether’s red-hued set announces; all the echoes are for us to find.’ She explained: ‘Directed with crisp straightforwardness by James Macdonald, Triumph makes its point by using sheer excess of Suetonius’s descriptions. This gory cruelty is historic, yet it speaks utterly to the dangers of anyone seeking absolute power.’ She continued: ‘Triumph is a reminder of the power of Churchill’s imagination: the way her mind makes dramatic leaps and forges links that most people do not see’.

David Benedict of The Stage stated: ‘It’s more of a politicised sketch than a play, but it’s hugely welcome that at 88, Churchill’s urge to question the world theatrically remains undimmed.’

The Financial Times‘ Sarah Hemming had a similar view: ‘it has the quality of a cautionary sketch and it runs for only a week. But it shares with much of her work that scalpel-like wit and use of fantasy to hold a dark mirror up to society.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

The Standard‘s Nick Curtis commented: ‘Like all of Churchill’s most recent works, it is a bright miniature with a crystalline single idea, straightforward in its message. It contains little of the metaphysical hijinks, formal experimentation or character depth of her great earlier plays. The passages describing the attitudes and acts of “the emperor” apparently come directly from Suetonius. I confess it’s not a work I’m familiar with, but Churchill isn’t the first person to draw parallels between the orange president and Nero, Caligula or Claudius.’

The Times’ Clive Davis was not a fan: ‘It’s not so much a play, more a fragment (…) As a satire on Donald Trump’s presidency, it’s of passing interest. Any playwright who didn’t happen to be the octogenarian grande dame of radical theatre would probably have been told to come back with something more original than the idea of using Suetonius as a metaphor for the mayhem in Washington.’ He questioned: ’how deeply can you explore any character in just 20 minutes? Is this theatre for the TikTok generation?’

Critics’ average rating 3.6⭑

You can see Triumph at The Almeida theatre until 23 October 2026. Buy tickets (returns only) from almeida.co.uk

If you’ve seen Triumph at The Almeida Theatre, please leave a review and rating below

Anne-Marie Duff is ‘magnificent’ in disappointing play

Dorfman Theatre, National Theatre

The critics were delighted to see Anne-Marie Duff back on stage (‘magnificent’ The Guardian) but most of them were disappointed that it wasn’t in better vehicle (‘slovenly writing’ The Times). Helen Edmundson‘s play shows how an incident, in which an ‘ordinary’ middle-aged woman is abused by a 11 year old boy, escalates until she becomes a victim of a misogynistic society and is pushed to the brink. Not all the critics were negative about the play: ‘leaves you feeling thoroughly shaken and queasy’ said Time Out. Blanche McIntyre directs.

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

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton explained why she liked the play: ‘The setup of Helen Edmundson’s new play is very simple. Its twists and turns, however, draw gasps from the audience as Anne-Marie Duff’s Julie, an ordinary woman living an ordinary life, suddenly finds herself at the centre of a legal and emotional maelstrom. Its plot is part of its pleasure, so it’s a shame to give too much away, but suffice it to say that Julie quickly moves from being victim to being accused in a court system that allows manipulation and injustice to thrive.’ She continued: ‘What gives Some Woman its particular quality, though, is Edmundson’s interest in the way that women of a certain age become ignored. Julie’s reaction to what happens to her is in part because she is tired of being invisible, putting her needs last. She wants, as she says, people to look at her and to see her.’ She concluded: ‘it’s a tense and engrossing evening and a wonder to spend it with Duff, the kind of actor you could watch forever.’

The Telegraph‘s Dominic Cavendish was another supporter of the play: ‘As well as chiming with our Kafkaesque times – in which law-abiding citizens can feel they’re only one misstep from losing everything – Julie’s intensifying isolation embodies a sense of the insurmountable forces faced by feminism’ and of the star: ‘Duff makes a nominally “invisible” woman a potent presence, moving from eyes-closed disbelief, to bleak, blank despair, to a sense of courageous resolve.’

Holly O’Mahony for Time Out said: ‘Helen Edmundson’s new play Some Woman is described as a thriller, but the experience of watching it is more like a slow strangulation – one that leaves you feeling thoroughly shaken and queasy on the other side.’ She concluded: ‘Edmundson’s play posits that women beyond ‘a certain age’, as they’re so often described, are not only invisible to society, but dangerously vulnerable once they’re no longer deemed of value to men. This is feminist theatre that serves justice to its case.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

‘Opposing forces tug against each other in this new drama as Anne-Marie Duff is magnificent amid playwright Helen Edmundson’s implausible plotting. The result is a failed suspension of disbelief yet a convincing central performance’ began The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar. And ended: ‘She is not only the everyday victim of misogyny but an everyday female hero too. This message has its own power, however bad the plotting may be.’

The Standard‘s Nick Curtis started positively: ‘Anne-Marie Duff gives a fine performance of harried, slowly ramping desperation in this bleak drama about the hostility and unfairness women face in society. It’s good to have this subtle, heartfelt actress back, after two years away from the limelight, in a story that feels both horribly timely and horribly timeless.’ He was more negative about the play: ‘(The) script is punchy but schematic … with situations and characters arranged to push Duff’s Julie Robson toward a series of brinks (…) Much of Edmundson’s writing is eloquent, particularly Julie’s elucidation of her own lurch toward despair, and her paean to motherhood. But some of it is clunky beyond belief from a writer who is usually adroit.’

Jane Edwardes for Plays International praised the star: ‘Duff is such a good actor that every time she comes back home, which she does at the start of most of the scenes, you know her state of mind as she moves from bewilderment, through anguish, despair, and resentment to rebellion.’

The Stage’s Sam Marlowe gave this analysis: ‘It’s a grim, somewhat monochromatic picture: beyond a vague, rather dated-sounding reference by Julie to “the online stuff, the stuff with influencers”, there’s not much sense of context. The play’s observations are accurate, undeniably, but they’d have greater impact in a drama with a more varied texture and colour palette.’

2 stars ⭑⭑

Anya Ryan of LondonTheatre said: ‘Despite being a play that puts forward a tick-box collection of social issues, Duff is remarkably sincere, becoming progressively more shattered as Julie’s options close in around her. She looks constantly on the verge of releasing a scream, physically trembling in moments of distress.’

The Independent’s Alice Saville was disappointed: ‘Julie finally rebels – but with a gentleness and caution that doesn’t make sense in this black-and-white world. Duff is capable of delivering so much fire. Here, it’s as though she’s giving the patriarchy a kicking in house slippers, when what she needs is a steel-capped boot.’

The Times’ Clive Davis complained: ‘Anne-Marie Duff is a fine actress, but even her presence can’t compensate for the slovenly writing’ and warned: ’you’d be wise to stay away from this one’.

Critics’ average rating 3⭑

Some Woman can be seen at the National Theatre’s Dorfman Theatre until 21 November 2026. Buy tickets from nationaltheatre.org.uk

If you’ve seen Some Woman at The Dorfman Theatre, please leave your review and rating below

Kristin Scott Thomas & Stephen Mangan shine in Chekhov’s tragi-comedy

Harold Pinter Theatre

All eyes were on this production after the previously successful Chekhov productions from the same artists- The Seagull starring by an Olivier Awrad winning Kristin Scott Thomas, and Uncle Vanya directed by Ian Rickson and adapted by Conor Mcpherson. For most of the critics, The Cherry Orchard didn’t quite match the glories of those productions, but it was still much appreciated: ‘Ian Rickson’s elegantly directed production uses a plain-speaking new adaptation by Conor McPherson’ (Guardian). Kristin Scott Thomas was highly praised (‘luminous’ CityAM) as the down-at-heel aristocrat. So was Stephen Mangan as her would-be rich working class would-be saviour (‘a serio-comic masterclass’ Standard). All the cast were complimented for their portrayals of the motley collection of characters unable to come to terms with change.

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

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

Dave Fargnoli of The Stage was impressed: ‘Sweeping through the familiar passages of Chekhov’s tender tragicomedy like a crisp autumn breeze, this faithful new adaptation from celebrated playwright Conor McPherson is refreshing, clear and unfussy. McPherson’s lucid take on the story of fading aristocracy glitters with moments of disarming vulnerability and deadpan humour that honours Chekhov’s play while illuminating subtext, developing the dramatic potential of some relationships and alighting on unexpected interpretations of others. Director Ian Rickson paces it decorously, allowing each scene plenty of time to breathe, but never letting the pace flag, wringing out laughs with physical comedy and wry, rapid-fire punchlines. The atmosphere that develops is at once ghostly, fragile as cobwebs, and unexpectedly warm-hearted, full of bittersweet yearning.’

CityAM‘s Adam Bloodworth thought: ‘Luminous Kristin Scott Thomas is the perfect choice for eccentric, blinkered stateswoman Lyubov Ranevskaya in Anton Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard, a mound of gesticulating passion and nostalgic delusion as the broke matriarch being slowly and painfully dethroned from her Russian country pile.’ He pointed out: ‘Conor McPherson and Ian Rickson’s new adaptation leans into the script’s farcical elements. In particular, Rickson exploits Mangan’s comedic nose; at times his performance nears slapstick, but he carries a general effeteness and lightness of touch that makes him an interesting provocateur opposite (Scott Thomas’s) airily out of touch matriarch.’

The Telegraph‘s Dominic Cavendish dwelt on the quality of the cast: ‘displaying her gift for clenched emotion… the star stamps her mark on the superficially carefree, inwardly agonised heroine, Ranevskaya (…) The low-born local businessman Lopakhin, brilliantly played by Stephen Mangan with sheepish charm and evident inner conflict’. There are, he said: ‘glorious performances across the board and the generations: mention should be made of Vinette Robinson as her long-suffering adopted daughter Varya; Shubham Saraf as the accident-prone, lovelorn Yepikhodov; and Jeff Rawle as the dotty, hard-up landowner Pishchik. Karl Johnson, simply superb throughout, supplies the requisite pathos as the scatty old retainer Firs, left to his own devices in a final, presumably fatal act of abandonment that tallies the cost of the others’ self-absorption.’

Alun Hood of WhatsOnStage declared: ‘Rickson’s direction is masterful, alive to every nuance, confidently embracing the dualities in Chekhov’s text: these people are deeply unhappy yet uproariously funny, and the sense of lives about to change forever is keenly felt. McPherson’s script is salty and smart and, most laudably, never sounds like a translation. Not everything about the update works, but that’s a small quibble about an emotionally intelligent production that renders a classic play alive and accessible, while still satisfying the most exacting of Chekhov enthusiasts, and boasting one of the greatest ensemble casts on any current London stage.’

Marianka Swain for LondonTheatre noted: ‘When Kristin Scott Thomas’s Ranevskaya returns home to this place full of ghosts, she describes it as a “crossroads”, and that sense of a liminal space – between past and future, one world and the next – pervades both Conor McPherson’s evocative new translation of Chekhov’s masterpiece and Ian Rickson’s gorgeous, elegiac production.’

The Independent‘s Alice Saville remarked: ‘What really does shine is Rickson’s mastery of Chekhov’s humour, in a production that never feels drawn-out or stodgy. This play is very, very funny, until it’s not – until you realise that this estate has stolen untold lives for centuries, and these unlucky, lingering, lovable few must pay the price.’

The Standard‘s Nick Curtis described the stars’ performances: ‘Scott Thomas gives a twitchy, strained, rictus-smiling central performance as Ranevskaya, the adored but terminally feckless landowner who seemingly can’t bear to be in a room with herself. She’s always slipping out of embraces and tricky situations, squirreling secretive drinks. Mangan delivers a serio-comic masterclass in timing and fretful awkwardness as the peasant turned businessman Lopakhin, and the supporting cast is impressive. The whole thing is a little rough around the edges but … also thrilling and refreshing.’

Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski pointed out: ‘Adapting playwright Conor McPherson cranks up both the bitter and the sweet as he massages the plot and dialogue for some big laughs … More importantly, there (is) an absolutely storming performance – dare I say career best – from the perennially underestimated Stephen Mangan as Yermolai Lopakhin. A self-made man of humble origins, his relationship with the lofty but impoverished household of Lyubov Ranevska (Kristin Scott Thomas) is the complicated heart of play.’ He concluded: ‘it’s the more painful emotions that linger in the splendid central turns from Scott Thomas and Mangan, the sense of people too in love with a perfect past to ever truly embrace an imperfect future.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

Tim Bano for The Financial Times had mixed feelings about the mixed moods: ‘McPherson’s adaptation … clearly relishes the tonal shifts in Chekhov: they both enjoy weaving their plays with threads of daft humour as much as with anxiety and grief. That makes things difficult for the actors. Kristin Scott Thomas sticks very much to the serious side as once-wealthy landowner Ranevskaya … you get the sense of someone resentful of being the all-powerful matriarch, and so putting on an act of inertia and helplessness. It’s almost like she wants the coming reckoning. But it’s an uneven performance, as she underplays some moments and overcooks others. Though Mangan brings that expert comedy depth, even more thrilling is when he plays the tragedy, too. When his Lopakhin returns from the auction of the estate to reveal he’s bought it himself, the way he mutates nervousness into glee into disappointment is remarkable to watch.’

Gary Naylor for BroadwayWorld wasn’t convinced: ‘The Cherry Orchard is a state of the nation play – any time, any place – but it’s also a monument of literature, making the heart soar and dip as you see these fragile men and women make mistakes and take their chances. But Ian Rickson’s production doesn’t quite catch all the heights and depths of the emotions, the technical efficiency rather limiting the stakes. Do we really feel Madame’s despair as the orchard is cut down in plain sight as she stands next to her luggage, never to return? Do we really feel Lopakhin’s insensitive triumph, guilty but holding back a smirk? Do we really feel Firs’ isolation in a new world come to crush him at last?’

The Times’ Clive Davis observed: ‘all eyes are on Scott Thomas as her character wraps herself in illusions. There is sometimes an emptiness to her eyes that is quite chilling, as if she is living her real life inside her head. When she is not at the centre of things, though, the evening falters.’

The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar thought: ‘Kristin Scott Thomas … brings a hard-edged modernity that you believe in. She feels of our time, despite the references to dachas and peasants, and could be an upper-middle-class Chelsea mother or minister’s wife, stewing in regret and an unfulfilled life. Ian Rickson’s elegantly directed production uses a plain-speaking new adaptation by Conor McPherson. (…) (it) is handsome and engaging, the crumbling drawing room of Chloe Lamford’s set design bearing damp patches and a faded grandeur.’ However, she felt: ‘some of the edges are softened, such as the fire of student and would-be revolutionary Trofimov (Jack Riddiford). You don’t feel much pathos for the set as a whole, and the drama never quite enters dark or tragic territory.’

2 stars ⭑⭑

The Daily Mail’s Patrick Marmion didn’t like the anachronistic adaptation: ‘The Cherry Orchard is a subtle study of tragic self-delusion from a time when Russian society was falling apart before the first revolution of 1905. Yet in Conor McPherson’s hollowed-out ‘reimagining’ of the play, any sense of place or class struggle has all but vanished. Instead, the action looks like it’s been transferred to the 1980s – a peculiar move, at odds with continued references to the end of serfdom in 1861.’ He ended his diatribe: ‘it’s like watching a herd of cats purposelessly gathered on Chloe Lamford’s damp-riddled set. A few desultory artefacts, including a shrine of religious icons, are largely ignored – just like the play’s historical moment.’

Critics’ average rating 3.5⭑

Value rating 37 (Combination of average rating and typical ticket price)

The Cherry Orchard can be seen at the Harold Pinter Theatre until 9 January 2027. Buy tickets from haroldpintertheatre.co.uk

Read Paul Seven’s review of The Cherry Orchard here

If you’ve seen this production of The Cherry Orchard, please leave your review and rating below

New production does Rent’s score justice

Tom Stoppard Theatre

Luke Sheppard, perhaps best known for Paddington The Musical, has directed an in-the-round production of Jonathan Larson‘s 1990s musical about love, creativity in the shadow of AIDS. The critics mostly felt it did justice to the score but some found the storyline was drowned by the fabulous songs. Stranger Things’ Gaten Matarazzo acquitted himself well.

5 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑

Marianka Swain for LondonTheatre said: ‘under Luke Sheppard’s electrifying direction, it … packs an almighty punch. It honours the soul of the original, while making it feel thrillingly fresh’. She clearly loved this musical: ‘its passion is undeniable, especially the oft-cited line “No day but today”, which is both wrenchingly sad and a call to action. As Mark puts it: “The opposite of war isn’t peace – it’s creation”. RENT is a soul-stirring act of creation, and so too is this exhilarating revival.’

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

‘this is a thrilling musical, both perfectly of its time and still relevant today’ declared WhatsOnStage’s Sarah Crompton. She explained: ‘The in-the-round staging has been preserved for this larger and more splashy West End revival and it helps to lend great spirit and energy to a piece that is baggy and episodic but always engaging.’ She went on: ‘Sheppard’s direction is also cleverly paced, letting big scenes – Maureen’s “arty” performance to demand proper housing for the homeless, the meeting at the Life Café – unfold with panache, while keeping the focus on the individual stories that are being told. The actors are all are terrific.’

The Times’ Clive Davis described how ‘With cast members seated in a semicircle around the stage (some audience members are up there too), David Woodhead and Tom Jackson Greaves, the designer and choreographer …  generate a rock club-style sense of community (…)  Katy Richardson’s band, half-concealed on a raised platform at the rear of the stage, is suitably loud and loose-limbed.’

The Financial Times‘ Sarah Hemming was also impressed that ‘The Tom Stoppard Theatre (formerly the Duke of York’s) has been reconfigured to embrace a portion of the audience onstage, with the cast weaving through them and sometimes sitting among them before rising to sing. It’s a change that wraps the spectators in “la vie bohème”, as it’s depicted here, emphasising the communality at the musical’s heart and giving a rough, impromptu feel to the production that contrasts with the blazing professionalism of its execution. It just adds to the soaring emotion of this pulsating staging.’ She had reservations: ‘the storylines tend to crowd each other out (…) And the episodic, propulsive nature of the piece undercuts the weight of the issues. The ravages of both Aids and heroin addiction are framed a little too aesthetically.’ But ‘Flaws aside, this is still an exhilarating show, superbly delivered, its central message about making the best of your brief time on earth powering across loud and clear.’

The Telegraph‘s Dominic Cavendish this rousing, felt this ‘faithful revival by Paddington director Luke Sheppard more than earns its keep. It boasts a strong West End debut, too, for Gaten Matarazzo.’ He complimented all the cast: ‘Every leading player gets the opportunity to shine, with particularly fine performances from Travis Ross as the brooding Roger, always plugging away in the hope of writing one last belter; Alexa Lopez as Mimi, sexually cavorting and howling like a wolf in the love-hungry Out Tonight; and Jeevan Braich, flamboyant and defiant as Angel.’ He noted: ‘as the show has become more distinctly of its time, it paradoxically looks more durable – it captures a vanished New York but its relentless spirit seems undimmed.’

Louis Chilton for The Independent concluded: ‘At the end of the day, the big question facing a revival like this is whether it can fundamentally justify its own existence. Rent manages that, and then some.’

Aliya Al-Hassan of BroadwayWorld declared: ‘(Larson’s) lyrics hit as hard as ever, even though the duration (two hours, 45 minutes) may be a little too long for some. This version of Rent deserves the hype it has been receiving and is a fitting tribute to the monumental legacy of a musician and creative genius that we lost far too young.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

Tom Wicker for The Stage pronounced: ‘There’s a fierce, sincere anger in the book and lyrics at the heartless gentrification of New York (now pretty much complete) and power in its centring of queer characters. But its earnestness, however on the money, feels heavy-handed.’

Time Out’s Andrzej Lukowski (3 stars assumed) was more critical of the production: ‘The concert-like production is based around an ensemble of hot androgynes and self-consciously beautiful misfits, dressed like a more-stylish-than-it-sounds collision of Dickensian urchinwear and early Pearl Jam chic. Sheppard has put a large amount of additional audience seating on the stage, which hems the action into a small performance space with minimal sets (…) It would be a great staged concert but I’m not sure how well it works as a theatre show. Sheppard’s aesthetic choices seem to override his interest in storytelling (…) A formidable vehicle for Larson’s songs, but a less impressive one for his story.’

David Jays for The Guardian wasn’t sure about the strength of the book (‘keeping eight principal characters in play is tricky’) but ‘The glory of the show is its songs – the bolshie ensembles and scared solos. Larson threw everything into Rent, from wrenching anthems and witty tango to strutting pop. He must have hoped to have more musicals ahead of him, but wrote like he was running out of time – that desperate sense to write the songs, love the love and live the life is the urgent heart of the show.’

Adam Bloodworth for CityAM was critical: ‘by today’s standards, taking something so horrific as AIDS, which took the lives of 20,000 Brits alone, and putting it as a backdrop to a central story about people getting kicked out of their flats (which is dealt with with far more emotion) feels strange and tone deaf.’ He opined: ‘the story line (is) often there to service the arrival of the next song rather than advancing the plot’.

Critics’ average rating 3.8⭑

Value Rating 38 (combination of average rating and typical ticket price)

Rent can be seen at the Tom Stoppard Theatre until 29 May 2027. Buy tickets from the theatre tomstoppardtheatre.com

If you’ve seen Rent at the Tom Stoppard Theatre, please leave your review and rating below

The worst play of 2026?

Riverside Studios

Affluenza , written and directed by Andy Sandberg, is a candidate for the worst play of the year according to the critics. Why? ‘It’s not deep nor funny, it lacks pace and determination, and it’s ultimately an atrocious watch’ (BroadwayWorld). The stage debut of Noah Schnapp didn’t save it: ‘Schnapp is the main draw but doesn’t have much to do in either of his thinly-sketched roles beyond swear and strop around’ (WhatsOnStage).

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

2 stars ⭑⭑

Aliya Al-Hassan for LondonTheatre suggested: ‘A dramaturg is urgently needed to add structure to a production that goes off on bizarre and unnecessary tangents’. She described it as ‘a missed opportunity to say anything thoughtful at all.’

Holly O’Mahony for The Stage found: ‘it grows increasingly directionless and leaves you unsure of exactly what it is you have just watched.’

The Standard‘s Nick Curtis reported: ‘For the record, Schnapp is fine, and Manrara isn’t bad, but there’s no real depth to anyone or anything here.’

1 star ⭑

The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar was puzzled that ‘Both (Schapp’s) characters are supporting parts, taking up so little oxygen on stage that you wonder why anyone would cast a big name and then tuck it away in two bit-parts?’ Similarly, ‘Janette Manrara is acting rather than foxtrotting here, but again plays a host of tiny roles’. In fact, she was mystified by the whole play: ‘It is hard to decipher what we are watching here – comedy, drama or a theatrical car crash in slow motion.’

Theo Bosanquet for WhatsOnStage declared: ‘it goes on one of the most head-scratchingly befuddling narrative trajectories I’ve ever seen on stage.’ He notedf: ‘Schnapp is the main draw but doesn’t have much to do in either of his thinly-sketched roles beyond swear and strop around, while Young is convincing as the lawyer but woefully miscast as the adult Noah’.

Cindy Marcolina let rip in her BroadwayWorld review: ‘not even a lavish set by Charlie Corcoran can hide the fact that this is a tasteless, aimless, pointless piece of theatre.’ She continued: ‘It’s almost unimportant to talk about the performances, as none of them make a difference…Schnapp is merely adequate, but the script wouldn’t allow him to be anything else. The rest of the cast amble between wooden, overdramatic, underachieving, and eager to see the curtain drop. It’s understandable: AFFLUENZA doesn’t add anything to the landscape. It’s not deep nor funny, it lacks pace and determination, and it’s ultimately an atrocious watch. ‘

Louise Penn for Plays International complained: ‘Affluenza is a victim of its own self-importance, and by the end it has collapsed into a ridiculous turn of events blighted by pizza boxes, shouting, and a plot which is impossible to follow. When so little of a play makes sense, it is hard to recommend it on any level.’

‘Unfortunately there’s not an ounce of subtlety in the script or Sandberg’s direction’ said The Times’ Clive Davis.

Critics’ average rating 1.4⭑

Affluenza can be seen at Riverside Studios until 28 November 2026. Buy tickets from riversidestudios.co.uk

If you’ve seen Affluenza, please leave your review and rating below

 

5 star acting, 3 star play

Menier Chocolate Factory

The critics lavished praise on Jesse Tyler Ferguson‘s portrayal of Truman Capote (‘captivating’ LondonTheatre) but were disappointed by Jay Presson Allen‘s play (‘shapeless’ Telegraph). They loved Paul Farnsworth‘s set which changed the whole auditorium into a replica of Capote’s apartment.

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

The Guardian‘s Mark Lawson made the point: ‘Here is a particularly frustrating example of an at least five-star performance of an at best three-star script. I’ve split the difference while wishing Tyler Ferguson a different text. A new play about Capote would require him to offer a stronger defence about treacherous use of others’ lives than a Broadway museum piece that sounds oddly light about addiction and betrayal.’

Aliya Al-Hassan reviewing for LondonTheatre praised the star: ‘Ferguson is captivating in the role: camp, catty, and totally unapologetic. Capote is a distinctly unlikable character in many ways, categorising his friends into ‘A’ or ‘B’ lists in a conversation with his florist and name-dropping at every opportunity. But Ferguson also elicits a huge amount of sympathy for this damaged man who struggles with alcoholism, narcissism, and, ultimately, acute loneliness. It would be easy to tip into parody of Capote’s unique vocal pitch and intonations, but Ferguson strikes a considered balance.’ And the set: ‘It’s unlikely you will see a more detailed and thoughtfully contructed set: Paul Farnsworth’s utterly immersive design transforms the whole space into Capote’s New York residence, complete with handwritten notes, his collection of paperweights, crammed bookcases, and framed photos on every surface. It feels like a deeply personal space into which we are invited. Seating is dotted around on sofas, armchairs and stools so audiences feel they are an active and valuable part of the production.’

Clementine Scott for BroadwayWorld commented: ‘This Capote gains sympathy for his lonely melancholy after a lifetime of social climbing, but loses it with his ruthless callousness towards his friends (…) This version of Capote meanders from his childhood, to his alcoholism and suicidal ideation, and back to celebrity namedropping, without ever dwelling too much on any one theme. The effect is gossipy and alluring, but Presson Allen sometimes strays dangerously far from the point.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

The Times’ Dominic Maxwell exhorted: ‘If you want to see a really fine performance, go see Jesse Tyler Ferguson as Truman Capote inTru.’ He continued: ‘And if you want to see — or be in — a really fine set, come and be wowed by how the designer Paul Farnsworth has turned the Menier Chocolate Factory in London Bridge into an outsized reimagining of Capote’s brown-and-burgundy New York living room.’ There had to be a catch: ‘If you want to see a really fine play… well, two out of three ain’t bad.’ He concluded: ‘It’s a beguiling novelty for a while, yet it’s interesting rather than really dramatic.’

The Stage’s Sam Marlowe found: ‘for all Tyler Ferguson’s magnetism, Tru is too brittle, bitchy and self-interested to care much about. He’s mildly diverting company, for a while; but that’s not enough, unfortunately, to sustain the play.’

Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski loved the set that turns the Menier into Capote’s apartment: ‘The actual play can’t really live up to the magnificence of the setting. That’s not the fault of performer Jesse Tyler Ferguson, who offers a funny, often very poignant channeling of the Alabama-raised author and socialite. That distinctive voice could so easily fall into parody – it was half a parody already. But Ferguson brings Capote to life’. He noted: ‘Ferguson’s lugubrious tone and charismatic performance – witty, self-pitying, caustic, irrepressible – does a hell of a good job of persuading us that this is one continuous coherent train of thought. But the fact is it’s not, as inevitably he moves from subject to subject without an entirely satisfying structure.’

The Standard‘s Nick Curtis talked about the set: ‘Come for Modern Family star Jesse Tyler Ferguson’s waspish performance as Truman Capote, stay for Paul Farnsworth’s magnificent, immersive set. In Rob Ashford’s staging of Jay Presson Allen’s almost-monologue, the audience is seated around a sumptuous evocation of the writer and social gadfly’s overstuffed New York apartment.’

2 stars ⭑⭑

Claire Allfree for the Telegraph didn’t like it: ‘The problem is not Ferguson, who captures not only Capote’s needling combination of self-loathing and hubris but also his curious physical tics, while managing to make him both intriguingly complex and interestingly unlikeable. No, the difficulty is Allen’s shapeless monologue, which never finds a convincing dramatic framework: to whom Capote thinks he is talking when he acknowledges the audience directly is a question not so much left unresolved as barely even considered.’ She summed up: ‘In the end, watching Tru is a bit like attending a party full of strangers and spending the whole evening wondering exactly why one bothered.’

Critics’ average rating 3.3⭑

TRU can be seen at The Menier Chocolate Factory until 14 November 2026. Buy tickets from the theatre 

If you’ve seen Tru starring Jesse Tyler Ferguson, please leave a review and rating below 

Gillian Anderson & Billy Crudup in the play of the year

@sohoplace

The critics loved this production of Edward Albee’s classic play about a drunken couple taking out their pain and disappointment on each other. Praise was showered 5-star reviews on Gillian Anderson (‘a performance of masterful control’ Telegraph) and Billy Crudup (‘phenomenal’ Time Out). They also loved the intimacy of the in-the-round production directed by Marianne Elliott (‘so close to its players that you end up feeling skin-crawlingly guilty by association’ Independent) and Miriam Buether’s set (‘a slowly revolving gladiatorial arena’ Standard).

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

5 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑

WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton praised the play, saying it ‘sizzles with energy and power. In a production as good as this one, starring Gillian Anderson and Billy Crudup as Martha and George, the couple whose drunken sparrings stretch over a long night’s journey into day, pulling their house guests, ambitious academic Nick (Josh Dylan) and his frail wife Honey (Phoebe Horn), into their emotional maelstrom, it has the capacity to hold an audience spellbound.’ She concluded: ‘There’s something magnificent about seeing one of the great American plays so clearly realised and rethought. There are no gimmicks here, just clarity and respect. It is a great night at the theatre.’

Claire Allfree for the Telegraph declared: ‘Albee isn’t simply exposing the disappointments at the heart of marriage but the fictions we construct to shield ourselves from the uncertain future of a civilisation in irredeemable decline. What a play. What a production.’  She described how ‘Anderson, in a performance of masterful control, slowly strips herself back to reveal the desolation beneath. Crudup’s superficial affability gradually curdles into a desperate, bleak self-loathing. They emerge less as two irreparably damaged people locked in a marital cage fight than as equal players in a perverse love story.’

Time Out’s Andrzej Lukowski liked it: ‘Marianne Elliott’s in-the-round production is so intimate – not to mention intense – that after a while the thrill of Anderson and her co-star Billy Crudup being a couple of metres away is replaced by a sort of horror, a sense that we are not simply watching events from a distance, but are physically in the room for the madness.’ He noted: ‘If Anderson is good, Crudup is phenomenal … he is tremendous as the at first urbane, likeable George, who seems like the milder, more sophisticated partner to the coarser, angrier Martha. Squint and he’s the victim in the marriage. But as the night wears on, there’s something sinister about his self-containment and his inability to match Martha’s outbursts: his restraint becomes ominous and nakedly manipulative (…) Crudup is a model of restraint and nuance and that just makes his George all the more sinister – a virus quietly infecting everyone else’s brains.’

For Olivia Rook of LondonTheatre: ‘Crudup’s pedantic George is a revelation. He is bristling with resentment towards his lot in life (…) He wears a mask, lightly passing cruel judgements, asking intrusive questions, and malevolently pursuing his guests like prey, but even he has flashes of vulnerability: shattering a bottle, wrapping his hand around Martha’s neck, and growling like a caged animal when he hears her sounds of lovemaking with another man.’ She went on: ‘Anderson matches his vitriol, endlessly badgering George and name-calling, thrusting her finger in his face as she leaves the stage, determined to have the final word. Her nasal twang grates appropriately, as she repeatedly rips into her husband, abusing their shared history to tap into all his weak spots.’ She was gripped: ‘The audience’s horror is mirrored in their eyes during the desperate, devastating final act — named “The Exorcism” — when Martha and George peel away the layers of viciousness to reveal the achingly empty core of their relationship. There is to be no more pretending — and that final punch lands hard.’

The Independent‘s Alice Saville enthused: ‘Marianne Elliott’s blistering @sohoplace production comes as a shock, putting the audience so close to its players that you end up feeling skin-crawlingly guilty by association. Gillian Anderson and Billy Crudup prowl about a round stage like wounded lions, endlessly battling for dominance – only instead of ripping each other’s flesh, they do something far worse, expertly tearing into ancient grudges, secrets, and shared delusions. If you want to be deeply, profoundly disturbed by a night at the theatre, there’s no finer way to do it than this.’

The Financial Times’ Sarah Hemming found the two stars ‘so scintillatingly good are they that you check yourself for bruises as you stagger out (…) It’s a joy to watch Anderson and Crudup go at Albee’s text, mining every glittering dark gem out of the intricately layered dialogue and bringing exquisite timing to their verbal duels (…) Together they track the couple’s long night’s journey through to dawn, switch-backing from flirtation through dangerous hostility to a quietly moving catharsis. But it’s their skilled delivery of the emotional subtext that really counts. When Anderson’s Martha lets her guard down, you suddenly glimpse the despair that threatens to overwhelm her.’ She tells us: ‘Albee’s withering critique of the American dream, of postwar materialism and of a dog-eat-dog system comes across loud and clear.’

Neil Dowden for Plays International described how ‘Elliott … gives us a compelling theatrical experience throughout the three hours’ stage time – there is no let-up in either the awkwardly funny barbs or the rising feeling of the characters being trapped in an alcohol-fuelled nightmare.’

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

Dave Fargnoli of The Stage said: ‘this lively revival from director Marianne Elliott is fast paced and unabashedly entertaining. Elliott gives the piece a heightened intensity, and at its best, the vicious repartee absolutely crackles.’ About the stars he noted: ‘Anderson’s Martha is brilliantly crude, wielding her power like a sledgehammer, whether relentlessly haranguing or crudely flirting. She spits and snarls in a broad New England accent, and crawls around the stage in drunken despair. At her most vulnerable, she becomes a point of stillness, voice dropping away to a husky, pleading whisper, tears glinting in her eyes. As her equal and opposite George, Crudup initially appears entirely ineffectual, squirmingly uncomfortable in his own skin. Slowly, he reveals a sly, incisive power, his surgically precise verbal eviscerations breaking down everyone around him.’

The Standard‘s Nick Curtis declared: ‘Gillian Anderson and Billy Crudup give towering performances in Edward Albee’s intense 1962 drama, about a middle-aged couple engaged in vicious, liquored-up psychological games to hide the core sadness of their marriage. Marianne Elliot’s production turns a mid-century modern living room (by the ever-excellent Miriam Buether) into a slowly revolving gladiatorial arena, perfect for this in-the-round venue. At three hours and 20 minutes it doesn’t stint on the methodical savagery. The shifting dynamics and brutally funny repartee of the central couple are immaculately mapped. Anderson is as good as you’d hope and expect as the bleary, destructive Martha, but Crudup is a revelation as George, wounded but quick-witted and nimble, like a greying mongoose battling a striking snake.’ However: ‘the central revelation – when it comes – seems too weak to support the torrid psychodrama.’

Alexander Cohen of BroadwayWorld concluded: ‘Who’s Afraid of Virgina Woolf?’s gleeful assassination of American family dynamics would have shocked its audiences more in 1962 than today. The barbarism remains perversely entertaining, but what lies beneath for an audience to get its teeth into? Perhaps the anxiety of relationships, which in the age of social media loneliness and situationships weighs heavier. But maybe best not to overthink it. Come for Anderson and Crudup going toe to toe. Stay for the ensuing blood, sweat, and tears.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

For The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar: ‘The play, while exquisitely written and structured, feels tortuously long at over three hours, and though this is the point – to watch how two people destroy each other yet love each other – it still feels like a punishment. Staged in the round, it leaves little room for hiding. There is a revolve, slow for the most part, which shows their marriage up close, from every angle. For all the comedy and nervous laughs, this couple does combust and the end is devastating. Martha stops her high-pitched attack and becomes vulnerable. George lets go of his emotional cruelty. They have finally stopped the power games and play-acting of their marriage. Or have they?’

Dominic Maxwell of The Times got a bit bored: ‘for the first 90 minutes at least we are excitingly close to the back-and-forth between Crudup’s faded history lecturer and Anderson as his frustrated, high-born wife. Yes, they’re a good-looking pair of disputatious duds (…) if there’s anything lacking in the delectable set-up it’s that George and Martha’s sozzled sniping all essentially play as “banter” (…) There’s so much to admire here, but too little range. This Woolf needs sharper fangs to avoid feeling a good half hour too long.’

Critics’ average rating 4.4⭑

Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Woolf can be seen at @sohoplace until 19 December 2026. Buy tickets from the theatre sohoplace.org

If you’ve seen this production of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf please leave your review and rating below

Christine Baranski & Richard E Grant get mixed reception

Wyndham’s Theatre

First produced in 1924, Noël Coward‘s Hay Fever  has delighted audiences for a hundred years with its description of a ghastly fading film star Judith Bliss, her bad-tempered husband and their obnoxious son and daughter, who invite unexpected guests to a squirm-inducing get-together. The critics all felt the play and the production were old fashioned fun. Whether ‘a meringue of nothingness’ (WhatsOnStage) is worth the money was only considered by The Telegraph’s Dominic Cavendish: ‘Burns’s production won’t enter the annals. Nor does it justify a top price of £250.’ The star attractions got a mixed reception. Hollywood actor Christine Baranski was generally found to be amusing if not hilarious (‘She commands the stage’ FT;  A few commented unfavourably on her acquired English accent (‘mumbles’ Independent). For many, Richard E Grant seemed the bigger attraction. His insouciant poshness was both a blessing and a curse for the critics: ‘perfect’ CityAM; ‘only okay … no fireworks‘ Time Out. The supporting cast, which included Lucy Karczewski, Nancy Carroll and Charles Edwards, received the highest praise. Emily Burns‘ direction of the farce elements and Frankie Bradshaw’s grand set design were appreciated.

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

What’sOnStage’s Sarah Crompton began by reminding us: ‘Noël Coward’s Hay Fever is a meringue of nothingness. Or rather, as his biographer Oliver Soden points out, it is “not so much artificial, as a commentary on artifice.”’ She pointed out at the end of her review: ‘Meringues aren’t exactly filling, but they are fun to eat.’ Baranski, she said, ‘retains instinctive comic timing and an ability to convey, with a raised eyebrow or a disappointed frown, her sense of life passing her by.’

CityAM’s Adam Bloodworth was a fan: ‘Burns’ conventional but sparkling production proves Coward is still an absolute king of farce.’ He liked the two stars: ‘Richard E Grant is obviously perfect for the feverishly privileged, short tempered David, who, like so many poshos, is magnetic to watch self-destruct (…) Baranski grips equally, flipping in milliseconds between sensual and ballistic’.

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

The Telegraph’s Dominic Cavendish reported : ‘Grant is in his element as the scatty patriarch, combining Tiggerish zest with flashes of truculence. He’s not on stage much, though; Judith is the play’s real motor, yet Baranski’s performance stutters (…) he character should be entertainingly ghastly, yet where we need to see lavish layers of ingrained theatricality – with professed sincerity blurring, alarmingly, into affectation – we get one too many beady stares, and moments of televisual restraint.’ He was pointed in his conclusion: ‘It’s all enjoyable enough, and there are laughs to be had, but Burns’s production won’t enter the annals. Nor does it justify a top price of £250.’

Dominic Maxwell of The Times liked the supporting cast: ‘Coward’s prodigious dialogue calls for robust precision. Carroll leads a cavalry of light-comic supporting turns who know what’s needed. Charles Edwards is sublimely stiff in his tailored suits as the diplomat Richard. Lucy Karczewski is a quiet joy as a 1920s shy girl you could mistake for a socially anxious Gen Zer.’ He decided: ‘Emily Burns’s production gets more reliably spritzy as it goes along. The second act in particular has some relishable set pieces. Frankie Bradshaw’s grand set design mirrors the blues, beiges and gold trim of this theatre. It’s all still pretty pointless — but always handsomely, often amusingly pointless.‘

Tim Bano for The Financial Times thought: ‘Mostly … it chugs along in a pleasant and satisfying way, better than your local amateur effort but no great revelatory production to tug Coward into the 21st century. Grant is entertaining enough to watch, with nutty professor hair quivering on his head, and a childish giddiness at the games his family plays.’ He acknowledged: ‘Mostly, though, it’s Baranski’s show. She commands the stage like Judith does her household. From low imperious hoots, her voice flies up several octaves every few words. It’s cleverly done, this performance by a good actor playing a bad actor who thinks she’s good.’ He concluded: ‘This production is happy enough to be a diverting night at the theatre, but seems afraid of peering behind the performance. Despite a good cast and elegant set, it remains as shallow as its characters.’

‘It’s glossy comfort theatre.’ declared Time Out’s Andrzej Lukowski. He thought the cast almost saved it: ‘Christine Baranski brings a pleasingly doleful turn to reluctantly retired actress matriarch Judith Bliss’. However: ‘the play …  just doesn’t have enough fizz left in it after a century to feel entirely justified without some sort of superstar performance to lead it. And the problem lies with big star Grant … (his) performance is only okay: he offers workmanlike support but no fireworks.’

Regarding Baranski, Emma John for The Guardian thought ‘a technically sound RP oddly constrains her. Judith’s combination of pretend languor and genuine vagueness mean that jokes go begging and some lines land too earnestly’. She pointed out: ‘Director Emily Burns’s CV majors in farce and she stages some lovely bits of business, including a scene when a servant silently lays a breakfast table to a swellingly romantic soundtrack and a Gone With the Wind-crimson backdrop.’

BroadwayWorld‘s Aliya Al-Hassan agreed about Christine Baranski’s accent:  ‘(her) muddled accent of an odd mixture of RP and Atlantic twang impacts some of her delivery. But when she gets into her stride she leans into the acute and comedic melodrama of the role with gusto, sweeping from low imperious tones to much higher octaves. Richard E. Grant’s David has little to do in the first half, but emerges like a beacon in the second as the utterly self-absorbed writer. He is perfectly suited to the role of very well-spoken toff, which he does with ease, exploding into the vehement arguments with beautifully fluid delivery.’ She concluded: ‘Burns is not attempting to rewrite history here and there is nothing radical or new to be seen. The Bliss family are so bored with their lives and themselves that they have to create drama to pass the time, but we never get to peep below the surface of these motivations. A comfortable and comforting night at the theatre – just don’t expect fireworks.’

When it came to the leads, The Independent’s Alice Saville was damning: ‘Christine Baranski mumbles her way through the central role of flamboyant actress Judith Bliss, while Richard E Grant fades unexpectedly into the scenery as her grumpy husband David. Instead, the biggest joy of the evening are this couple’s bewildered house guests, whose politeness imprisons them in an oh-so-genteel form of hell.’

Critics’ average rating 3.2⭑

Value rating 32 (Average rating combined with typical ticket price)

Hay Fever can be seen at Wyndhams Theatre until 12 December 2026. Buy directly from the theatre

If you’ve seen this production of Hay Fever, please leave your review and rating below