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.’

‘There is plenty of dazzle, but little dilemma,’ said Susannah Clapp in The Observer (3★). 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 (last seen in Evan Hansen) 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 not some much about cake and more about them getting to know each and themselves.

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