The puppet show is still rude and fun, but not so shocking

Shaftesbury Theatre

Avenue Q needs no introduction unless of cours you were a child when it was last in the West End 20 years ago. It’s perhaps best summed up as Sesame Street meets The Simpsons, only ruder. This revival brings back the original Broadway director, Jason Moore, and original puppet designer, Rick Lyon. On the whole the critics wallowed in nostalgia (there are very few updates to Jeff Whitty’s book), and seemed pleased to enjoy content that might be difficult to stage in a new show. Mostly they loved Robert Lopez and Jeff Marx‘s songs, although some dissented.

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

5 stars ★★★★★

Alun Hood for WhatsOnStage summed up what many felt: ‘Avenue Q remains a delight, the theatrical definition of naughty but nice. Outrageous, smart and kind, it’s lovely to have it back.’

4 stars ★★★★

Tom Wicker for The Stage reported: ‘Its pitch-perfect, primary-coloured evocation of trying to get by in a world that never seems to give you a break is funny, weirdly touching and relevant. Some modernising tweaks to the book and songs to include references to AI-related job losses, social influencing and podcasts work seamlessly well.’ He declared: ‘for big laughs and a winkingly naughty jolt of hand-operated humanity, this show is hard to beat.’

The Standard’s Nick Curtis was delighted to see the show back: ‘It’s both hilarious and liberating to see goggle-eyed, gape-grinning puppets drinking, swearing and shagging. The pitch-perfect, genre-mocking songs (Robert Lopez and Jeff Marx) and the book (Jeff Whitty) gleefully demolish taboos in a way that should leave the “you-can’t say-anything-these-days” crowd sputtering over their keyboards.’

The Financial Times’ Sarah Hemming observed: ‘Some gags have aged badly, while others need rethinking (former child star Gary and cabaret dancer Lucy the Slut, for instance). But Avenue Q remains a bonkers, fundamentally big-hearted show with a salient message to hang on in there: the final song about transience, “For Now”, has a wistful ache that really lands.’

The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar was amused: ‘The force of the show’s faux-naivety works because of the comic dissonance between the puppets’ innocence – wide eyes, cutesy voices – and their adult misbehaviour (drunkenness, pole dancing, sex and betrayal). Lopez and Marx’s songs are a blast’.

The Times’ Clive Davis recommended: ‘If…you desire a musical that combines deliciously louche humour with smart lyrics, then you must get along to the Shaftesbury Theatre.’

His colleague Dominic Maxwell at The Sunday Times agreed: ‘I left it knowing that I had just seen a bracingly funny show that also knows that life is fleeting and that we all falter as we try to work out how the hell to live it.’

Marianka Swain reviewed for the Telegraph: ‘the joy of this jauntily efficient show (from which many meandering new musicals could learn) is that these existential crises are presented through catchy songs by Robert Lopez (of Frozen fame) and Jeff Marx. Along with Jeff Whitty’s crisp book, they temper the life lessons with a constant stream of bawdy gags.’

Anya Ryan for LondonTheatre mentioned: ‘With a cast as strong as this one, it is difficult not to be wowed by the cutesy charm of it all. Rick Lyon’s cuddly puppets are animated into existence by an ensemble who have the dance of it all down to a tee.’

BroadwayWorld’s Aliya Al-Hassan joined the chorus of praise: ‘At a time when it seems like we are constantly told what not to say, Avenue Q still revels in speaking the lines that you may well be thinking. Rude, crude and totally unsuitable for children; it’s great to have it back.’

3 stars ★★★

Louis Chilton for The Independent felt the show hadn’t aged well: ‘there’s no getting around how obnoxious and old-fashioned the show’s attempts at provocation now feel’ but he conceded: ‘The performances in particular are all strong, and involve an impressive juggling of singing, puppetry, and character-switching. The songs are bright and catchy, more pithy than substantial.’

Time Out’s Andrzej Lukowski reported: ‘The script has been given a cosmetic overhaul and now has references to Trump, AI, etc. It’s all pretty skin deep, though. Again: Avenue Q today is not the punky outsider it was almost a quarter century ago. But as a heritage musical, it remains a delightful one-off.’

Critics’ average rating 3.9★

Value rating 43 [Value rating is a combination of average rating and typical ticket price]

Avenue Q can be seen at Shaftesbury Theatre until 29 August 2026. Click here to buy directly 

If you’ve seen this latest production of Avenue Q, please leave your review and/or rating below

Dated or bang up-to-date?

Old Vic Theatre

Dale Wasserman’s stage adaptation of Ken Kesey’s book is not the same as the film, a fact noted by the critcs. The book has its faults- primarily in its misogyny and its old fashioned view of mental illness, as some reviews made very clear. Its concept of a psychiatric institution as a metaphor for an authoritarian society dealing with dissidents is given a new perspective in Clint Dyer’s production by making all the patients black and the people in charge white. This worked for some critics, but not others  For many reviewers, the cast were the saviours of the show. There were numerous name checks but special mention went to Aaron Pierre as the rebellious McMurphy, Giles Terera as inmate Dale Harding and Olivia Williams as Nurse Rached.

5 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑

Maygan Forbes for WhatsOnStage loved it: ‘Clint Dyer’s direction is razor sharp, finding rhythm in both chaos and control. The ward is rendered with astonishing precision; Ben Stones’ set transforms the Old Vic into a claustrophobic, watchful institution that feels less like a stage and more like a system closing in. You forget where you are (…) Bold, precise and deeply affecting, it grips from first beat to final silence, powered by a company firing on every level.‘

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

The Times’ Clive Davis found Pierre: ‘utterly persuasive. Every manic gesture, every small act of bravado, is the mark of a character who exists on the margins.’ He commented: ‘If the in-the-round staging — a fixture in Matthew Warchus’s final season as the Old Vic’s artistic director — means that some of the dialogue goes astray, it draws us into the heart of the skirmishes between staff and patients. At times, we became the kind of voyeurs who once saw the mentally ill as entertainment. This play may be uncomfortable viewing at times, yet it’s exhilarating, too.’

Olivia Rook at LondonTheatre decided: ‘Dyer’s vision is felt most keenly in the production’s opening and closing scenes, which are full of the rich sights and sounds of Mardi Gras Indian parades, as the ensemble cast enter beating drums and singing, washed in Chris Davey’s murky amber light. He has also assembled an impressive, predominantly Black cast as Ratched’s patients to foreground the novel’s colonial implications — and it is their palpable chemistry that is the production’s biggest success.’

Referring to the ‘unimprovable’ movie, Gary Naylor for BroadwayWorld observed: ‘any production has to sway out of the way of those biggest of hitters and turn their force into a means to tell the same story but in a new environment, a new context for our times.’ He assured us: ‘A framing device and a casting decision does that.’

The Telegraph’s Dominic Cavendish had reservations: ‘We could do with a greater sense of the risk of that gamble, a stronger feeling of period and indeed more live-wire volatility all round.’ But he concluded: ‘The added racial charge aside, this fittingly intense, non-conformist production delivers a chilling reminder of the perennial cost of dissent.’

3 stars ★★★

Having said this stage adaptation of Ken Kesey’s novel is ‘cruder and more explicatory than the movie’, The Stage’s Sam Marlowe went on: ‘Its portrayal of mental illness is uncomfortably outdated and there’s a troubling seam of misogyny running through it.’

David Jays for The Guardian found: ‘As the anarchic McMurphy, Aaron Pierre gives a storming performance but although Clint Dyer’s stirring take on Ken Kesey’s 1962 novel boldly reframes the story, the text can’t support his ideas.’ He explained: ‘By casting Cuckoo’s Nest’s inmates with predominantly Black actors, Dyer gives Kesey’s tale a new political edge, as pawns in a system designed to disempower (…) What is explicit in both the original novel and this 1963 adaptation by Dale Wasserman is a relentless misogyny – so this reading feels at once radical and retrograde.’

Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski was critical of the interpretation:  He also felt  Pierre was ‘somewhat miscast’, saying ‘it’s too light a performance’.

The Standard’s Nick Curtis pointed out: ‘Since the forces of (white) authority are primarily vested in Olivia Williams’s autocratic, manipulative and sour Nurse Ratched, a nasty spine of misogyny runs through the story. Williams stepped into the production late, after Michelle Gomez withdrew, though you wouldn’t know it from her focused, resolutely unsympathetic performance.’

2 stars ★★

The Independent’s Alice Saville was scathing: ‘Taken simply as a comedy, this play works fantastically well, delivering laugh after well-paced, guilty laugh to an audience that knows they probably shouldn’t be finding this stuff quite so funny. But this story was written with more rebellious intent. It aimed to liberate, not to reinforce the values of a society that still belittles mentally ill people, and keeps them locked out of mainstream society. Taking their pain seriously? Now that would be radical.’

Critics’ average rating 3.5★

Value rating 47 (Value rating is a combination of the critics’ average rating and the typical ticket price)

One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest can be seen at The Old Vic theatre until 23 May 2026. Buy tickets directly from the theatre

If you’ve seen One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest at the Old Vic, please leave a review and/or rating below

Michael Frayn’s dense play delights some, baffles others 

Hampstead Theatre

The critics had furrowed brows over this revivial of Michael Frayn‘s complex story of a mysterious wartime meeting between two physicists, one Danish and one German, in which the play itself (and Joanna Scotcher‘s set) becomes a metaphor for quantum mechanics and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.  The Times critics found himself ‘stumbling in the dark’, but BroadwayWorld gave it five stars, finding it ‘creates genuine tension’. The critics generally praised the cast of three, Alex Kingston,  Damien Moloney and Richard Schiff, although they were disappointed that the latter fluffed his lines. Michael Longhurst directs.

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

5 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑

Gary Naylor at BroadwayWorld found: ‘It’s terribly clever, the kind of chewy material that requires a decent night’s sleep beforehand, but it could be very dry, more the stuff of a contentious panel at a symposium, but Frayn’s dialogue and boldness in trusting his audience creates genuine tension and we sway between the men and the ideas, knowing now what they didn’t then.’

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton had this to say about the cast: ‘Alex Kingston is simply superb as Margrethe, bringing a sardonic tone of reality to the men’s endless debate, often sitting at the centre of the circle, while Damien Molony is engagingly restless and questing as Heisenberg, a man who thinks as fast and dangerously as he skis. He perhaps looks a little too young as the 40-year-old Heisenberg, while Richard Schiff, at 70, is a little too old for Bohr. But the age gap emphasises the pseudo father and son relationship between them, and Schiff’s occasional hesitations are combined with a graceful sense of doubt which suits the character of a man who constantly strove to be fair.’

Tom Wicker for The Stage described how ‘As the characters engage on the black, water-ringed circle of Joanna Scotcher’s set – redolent of both an atom and a doomsday clock in its markings – Longhurst keeps us viscerally aware of how history and time don’t progress on a straight line, but constantly surround and shape each other. A blinding flash from lighting designer Neil Austin’s chain of bulbs starkly adds to the warning weight of Frayn’s words.’

Despite the first night fluffs, The Telegraph‘s Dominic Cavendish declared that the play ‘brilliantly fuses the unreliability of memory and unknowability of behaviour with Heisenberg’s own Uncertainty Principle.’ About the proudtcion, he said: ‘Longhurst answers the brain-boxy material with visual dazzle, avoiding static lecture-mode with a double-revolve that shifts the trio’s positions, combining meditative restlessness with a suggestion of atomic particles.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski reported: ‘There is so much talking. It is a dense, unabashedly ideas-heavy play. It is often thrillingly clever, but its density can be tough for us and clearly tough on the cast – of the three actors it’s only Molony who seemed 100 percent on top of the text on press night, both in terms of not stumbling occasionally and also feeling entirely present in the character.’ He concluded: ‘it’s remarkable, but less explosive than it once was.’

The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar was also underwhelmed: ‘It is a handsome production, the dense science-talk in the play’s second half is made clear… yet it does not always manage to lay bare the metaphors and bigger meanings of the science. Tension comes and goes, the dialogue not quite drawing out the characters’ emotional torments which lie beneath the surface’.

Matt Wolf for LondonTheatre, expressing a lack of enthusiasm spoke of ‘a play that has always had about it the whiff of a graduate seminar and here looks as if it is being visibly flayed by its creatives to whip its philosophical and scientific conundrums into vigorous, properly theatrical life.’

Demetrios Matheou at The Arts Desk noted: ‘the ideas and the moral conundrums here are, for the most part, completely absorbing. The spell is only broken, in fact, by the actors…Schiff doesn’t seem entirely comfortable. On opening night he stumbled quite a few times, almost always over the science-speak; and his transitions between warm, almost naïve old scientist and rage don’t always work. Kingston starts off in a slightly too melodramatic register, just a bit too blunt, though she does come into her own as Margrethe becomes a more prominent intermediary in the second half. And both of those actors have plenty of charisma to keep us on board, even when not giving their A game. In the meantime, Molony really shines’.

The Times’ Clive Davis admitted to scratching his head: ‘Frayn is, after all, attempting to make one of the most complex subjects accessible to a mainstream audience. And his dialogue is peppered with the witticisms that have become his trademark. The fact remains, though, that unless you have a thorough grounding in the subject, there are long passages in Michael Longhurst’s revival at Hampstead Theatre where many of us will be stumbling in the dark.’

Critics’ average rating 3.6⭑

Copenhagen can be seen at Hampstead Theatre until 2 May 2026. Buy tickets directly from the theatre

If you’ve seen Copenhagen at Hampstead Theatre, please leave a review and/or rating below

Romola Garai is ‘magnetic’ in updated Ibsen

Almeida Theatre

The much anticipated update by Anya Reiss of Ibsen’s A Doll’s House was received with mixed reviews by the critics. Some thought it ‘an impressively incisive, white-knuckle engagement with contemporary anxieties’ (Time Out). Others though the relocation to a modern household with banker husband and ‘yummy mummy’ was ‘built on sand’ (Telegraph). All (bar one) agreed that Romola Garai‘s performance as Nora was ‘stellar’ (Independent).

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

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

Tom Wicker for The Stage declared: ‘Garai is magnetically good as Nora, peeling back a sharp-edged brittleness that veers into monstrosity at times to reveal the damage and desperation beneath the surface gloss.’ He noted: ‘One of the most compelling aspects of this play is how nearly everyone, including Torvald, is corrupted by status, while engaging in the mental gymnastics of viewing themselves as the victim of the story.’

The Standard‘s Nick Curtis, too, was taken with the star: ‘Garai, an actress of great poise and focus, is here all a-jitter. Her Nora is fretful, nervy, prone to blurting out unwary truths and possessed of a billowy but self-conscious sensuality. It’s a wonderfully deep, layered performance and in the final speech where Nora is revealed to herself, it’s impossible to take your eyes off her.’ About the director, he commented: ‘Hill-Gibbins likes to keep his cast mostly barefoot and off-balance. He’s matured from a shock-tactic showman into a director of great perception, with a particular flair for awkward atmospheres.’ He ended with a thought on the ending: ‘the concluding showdown between Nora and Torvald is brutally compelling and the final image is a devastatingly powerful one.’

Regarding the adaptation, Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski explained: ‘Structurally, it’s a fairly faithful update of Ibsen’s original. But at the points where it needs to be updated – the original plot revolves around the illegality of women taking out bank loans – Reiss’s updates aren’t just a modish reskinning but an impressively incisive, white-knuckle engagement with contemporary anxieties.’ Of the star, he noted: ‘Garai marinates every line delivery, every gesture in compelling neuroticism: it’s entirely gripping, the 90-minute first half flying by.’

Rachel Halliburton for The Times was pleased with the adaptation: ‘it’s exhilarating to see this update sharpen the text’s incisors with cuttingly contemporary moral dilemmas.’ Romola Garai, she said, ‘delivers another riveting performance’.

WhatsOnStage’s Sarah Crompton agreed: ‘the adaptation, though radical, is both scintillating and intelligent, and gives Romola Garai a glorious opportunity to show once more just what a subtle and fascinating actress she is.’ She gave more detail: ‘Reiss’s writing is smart and sweary, entirely convincing in its depiction of Nora as a spoilt “yummy mummy”, who requires others to provide validation for her actions.’ She added a warning: ‘Controversially, Reiss veers away from Ibsen’s famous ending. It’s interesting, but it is also a rare false note in a clever and absorbing rethinking.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

Anya Ryan for LondonTheatre disagreed about the ending: ‘It is a reimagining that might have Ibsen turning in his grave, yet it feels like a powerful, conflicting closing image. Beyond this, Reiss keeps A Doll’s House largely intact. Indeed, it is remarkable that a play approaching its 150th anniversary continues to feel so resonant.’

The Independent’s Alice Saville, while complimenting ‘stellar’ Romola Garai, had some stern advice for Anya Reiss: ‘Joe Hill-Gibbins’s staging is provocative and fun, without bringing out the emotional depth of a story that feels like it’s torn between honouring the structure of A Doll’s House and demolishing it entirely. We’re in an era where playwrights are encouraged to toy with sellable existing texts instead of making new ones – maybe it’s time Reiss got some characters all of her own to play with.’

The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar’s opinion of the adaptation fell in the middle: ‘Anya Reiss does a heroic job of reimagining this story for modern times, and half pulls it off.’ She explained: ‘As an adaptation, it is inspired in its ideas’. However, ‘Her dream of feminist self-realisation gets slightly lost in the mix.’ There are consequences, she said: ‘There is some excellent acting from the accomplished cast to smooth over the stiffer bits – so much so that you can see the effort and art of it. The roles feel performed by them and maybe this is the point – the performance of marital roles, the concealment of true selves – but it brings awkwardness.’

The Telegraph‘s Dominic Cavendish had a similar view: ‘Romola Garai transfixes beautifully as the desperate housewife, but Anya Reiss’s modernised A Doll’s House is a halfway house; what begins forcefully, fails to land fully.’ He concluded: ‘There’s a crudely topical allusion to war in the Middle East that lets Tom Mothersdale’s initially likeable, suddenly intemperate and finally implausible Torvald off the hook. Nora speaks her “truth” to a mere type; decent points are made but lack dramatic weight. As for the famous, climactic door-slamming departure, there’s a twist in the tale here, too. Some may judge it richly ambiguous; I found it a disappointing cop-out that robs Garai of her big moment and suggests Reiss’s rethink, like Nora’s life, has rather been built on sand.’

2 stars ⭑⭑

Gary Naylor reviewing for BroadwayWorld had a dreadful time: ‘Adapter, Anya Reiss and director, Joe Hill-Gibbins, update the Norwegian’s text with swear words (the baddest ones too!!!) and Ubers that turn up within two minutes on Christmas Eve. Far from making the play relevant for 2026, it reminded me more of the satires of Yuppie culture that Channel Four rejoiced in back in the 80s. But this is no Serious Money.’ He proceeded to demolish many aspects of the story and characters including Romola Garai’s Nora: ‘It was all so gauche that, in the second act, I could only think of Truly Scrumptious “turning around on a music box that’s wound by a key”, which undercut the vibe somewhat.’

Critics’ average rating 3.4⭑

A Doll’s House can be seen at the Almeida Theatre until 23 May 2026. Buy tickets directly from the theatre.

If you’ve seen Romola Garai in A Doll’s House, please leave your review and/or rating below

Funny but messy look at the legacy of slavery

Dorfman Theatre at the National Theatre

After great success with Rockets and Blue Lights, Winsome Pinnock returns to the National Theatre’s Dorfman Theatre with a play that looks at ‘the legacy of enslavement for both those who were responsible and those who are descendants of the enslaved’ (WhatsOnStage). Most of the critics thought it was amusing, but messy.

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

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar summed up: ‘It all courses along with a lightness of touch that works. What a disarming way to serve up important contemporary questions around investigating histories, facing up to toxic legacies and atoning – or at the very least apologising – for them.’

Franco Milazzo for BroadwayWorld noted: ‘The real electricity comes from the triangular combat between Fenella, Marva and Abi, each circling the others with intellectual vanity, professional insecurity and something far more primal beneath.’ He pointed out: ‘This is not quite the gothic thriller it promises. But as a tense, talky, quietly incendiary three-hander about race, legacy and intellectual power, it cuts deeper than any jump scare.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

WhatsOnStage’s Sarah Crompton called it ‘a pacy and surprisingly witty three-hander which explores the legacy of enslavement for both those who were responsible and those who are descendants of the enslaved.’ She concluded: ‘Billed as a “gothic psychological thriller”, there are moments of comedy, drama and real pathos, alongside some investigative scenes that feel a bit Scooby Doo in tone. There’s much to enjoy in this production, but it needs to be more focused to authenticate its own identity.’

Holly O’Mahony for LondonTheatre opined: ‘Pinnock confronts the politics of racial identity head on. But is laughter the best medicine for tackling troubling ghosts of the past? I’m not so sure.’

Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski was convinced that: ‘whatever contrivances there may be to get there, the questions The Authenticator asks are salient enough to justify it all, and it’s an enjoyable – if bumpy – ride to get some answers.’

2 stars ⭑⭑

Although Fiona Mountford is still billed by The i as their Chief Theatre Critic Telegraph, lately she has been doing more reviews for The Telegraph.  She was critical of the play: ‘The 90-minute running time of Miranda Cromwell’s traverse production is too short to explore adequately everyone’s motivations and to explain away plot implausibilities, yet wearyingly long enough for trite dialogue and a few half-hearted haunted-house-style jump scares.’ She thought: ‘As one might expect from this type of dramatic set-up, secrets are (sort of) unearthed and conclusions (sort of) reached, yet there remains the unmistakable whiff of a script that has been continually and unsatisfactorily edited.’

The Times’ Clive Davis was damning: ‘Is it a satire, a polemic, a detective story or a pseudo-gothic thriller? Winsome Pinnock’s play about researchers wandering a stately home seems to shift directions every ten minutes. The three actors, Rakie Ayola, Cherrelle Skeete and Sylvestra Le Touzel, do their very best to keep The Authenticator on course…but in the end it’s a lost cause.’

Critics’ average rating: 3.0⭑

The Authenticator can be seen at the National Theatre until 9 May 2026. Buy tickets directly from the theatre.

If you’ve seen The Authenticator at the National Theatre, please leave a review and/or rating below

Strictly star shines in dull musical

London Coliseum

The critics agreed that Strictly star Johannes Radebe is a success as drag queen Lola in this revival of Cyndi Lauper’s musical. While reviewers complimented co-star Matt Cardle’s singing, most were critical of his acting. Opinions varied on the quality of Harvey Fierstein’s book but it was agreed that Nikolai Foster‘s production was spectacular.

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

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

Tom Wicker for TimeOut had plenty of good things to say about the show: ‘Foster’s staging is gorgeous…Leah Hill’s choreography is playfully breathless…(Radebe) brings an intensity to this larger-than-life character that’s operatic in pitch and disco-fabulous in tone‘. The only weakness was Matt Cardle ‘whose stiff and hesitant performance turns Charlie from everyman into nowhere man’.

Paul Vale at The Stage commented; ‘In Foster’s production, Lola is a goddess of defiance and rebellion. Radebe amps up the dance and doubles down on fabulous. That could imbalance the piece, but it actually brings cohesion to a musical that’s always struggled with its own identity.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

Lindsey Winship’s review for The Guardian starts on a high with praise for Johannes Radebe, saying he is: ‘utterly magnetic on stage, and when he’s dancing you can’t take your eyes off him.’ But ends on a more downbeat note: ‘It’s an enjoyable night out, and a brilliantly unlikely story, but in terms of the craft of musical theatre, Kinky Boots leans towards the pedestrian.’

The Times’ Clive Davis reported : ‘As you’d expect, the physically imposing Radebe nails all the moves in Leah Hill’s high-energy choreography and brings a winning vulnerability to a character who has had to come to terms with being an outsider. Cyndi Lauper’s songs have stood the test of time. What a Woman Wants, with its echoes of Gotan Project techno beats, delivers crisp tango flourishes.’

The Telegraph’s film critic Tim Robey praised Johannes Radebe: ‘This is stage presence: anyone who has paid purely to come and see him dance will be mesmerised.’ But he noted: The problems come down more to Harvey Fierstein’s book, based on the 2005 film. For the man behind such landmark gay writing for the theatre as Torch Song Trilogy and La Cage aux Folles, he did a weirdly nervous job all round here.’

Theo Bosanquet at LondonTheatre was happy: ‘there’s plenty to enjoy from this latest popular musical to play theatreland’s largest venue…However well-worn those red boots may now be, there’s an undeniably nostalgic enjoyment about slipping into them one more time.’

BroadwayWorld’s Aliya Al-Hassan found it ‘fails to capture the energy and vigour of its previous iteration.’ There were aspects that pleased her: about Radebe, she noted: ‘Leah Hill’s choreography allows him to shine throughout, with rapid-fire footwork and pirouettes off stage.’ And ‘Matt Cardle shows off some nice vocals’. However, she was not alone in reporting: ‘The main issue with this show is the sound, which is tinny and echoing throughout.’

2 stars

The Standard’s Nick Curtis was blunt: ‘A fierce, fabulous performance from Strictly star Johannes Radebe is the unlikely saving grace in this misconceived revival of the 2012 musical about footwear and self-acceptance. Despite winning a Tony, Olivier and Grammy award, Kinky Boots has always been a small and deeply mediocre show, and an oddball, hybrid work.’

Critics’ average rating 3.1⭑

Value rating 31 (Value Rating is a combination of the critics’ rating and the typical ticket price)

Kinky Boots can be seen at the London Coliseum until 11 July 2026 . Buy tickets directly from the theatre

If you have seen Kinky Boots with Johannes Radebe, please leave a review and/or rating below

Does this classic play work in the age of #MeToo?

Lyttelton at the National Theatre

Christopher Hampton wrote his play Les Liaisons Dangereuses, based on a scandalous 1782 novel, back in 1985 when it came across has a rebuke to Thatcherism. He adapted it into a film in 1988 which starred Glenn Close and John Malkovich. Quite a few critics didn’t feel comfortable with the play and the production, despite both author Christopher Hampton and director Marianne Elliott trying to make it acceptable to a modern audience more sensitive to men’s behaviour towards women, than when it was written.
The reviews were full of praise for Lesley Manville as Marquise de Merteuil and, to a slightly lesser extent, Aidan Turner (surprising to find at least three misspellings of his name among the reviews) as the Vicomte de Valmont, who play a nasty game in which the female victims are seduced and humiliated.

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

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

LondonTheatre‘s Marianka Swain liked the actors, describing Lesley Manville as ‘magnificent’ and Aidan Turner as ‘a comic force … (he) also has a good line in wolfish lust, though stops short of convincing as a truly sociopathic predator, and is deeply affecting in the story’s latter stages as Valmont succumbs to heartbreak and despair’.  She also liked the play: ‘Hampton’s tweaked script gives the women slightly more agency, while maintaining the queasiness of the exploitation and continuing cycle of abuse. Valmont and Merteuil operating as a coercive double act brings to mind vile contemporary examples like Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Beneath the play’s Wildean bon mots, champagne and glamour, there lurks a dark heart and all-consuming destructive devastation.’

The Standard’s Nick Curtis was disappointed in both the play and the production: ‘In this precise, stately, sometimes ponderous revival by Marianne Elliott, the script is more self-consciously aphoristic than I remember. Many of the lines sound like they’re designed to be quoted rather than just spoken.‘ Fortunately he loved the acting: ‘As the Marquise de Merteuil, a widow who breaks hearts and ruins reputations for her own wicked pleasure in 1780s French society, the implacable, raptor-ish Manville absolutely owns this show. She has strong support from an amusedly saturnine Aidan Turner’.

Aliya Al-Hassan at BroadwayWorld commented on the stars: ‘Manville is magnificent and really gets her teeth into the woman who is both cruel and highly manipulative, but also keenly senses her own fading youth and allure…Aidan Turner…treads a fine line between a flirtatious lothario and a darkly sinister rake as Valmont. Keeping his own Irish accent seems to add to his charm and persuasiveness, which is slightly problematic, as it lessens the character’s biting cruelty. However, the chemistry between him and Manville crackles with authenticity; both palpable and powerful, treading that ever-fine line between love and hate.’

Unlike some reviewers, WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton felt ‘Marianne Elliott’s production subtly reconfigures Christopher Hampton’s Les Liaisons Dangereuses for the MeToo generation. In a world where love is a battle of single combat, a hand-to-hand struggle for survival, women are constantly melding themselves to the shapes and behaviour demanded by the men, who still hold all the cards’. She continued: ‘There’s no doubt that its themes have become more troubling as time has gone on. But Manville and Turner are simply superb, their performances deep and thoughtful. They make the characters fallibly human, and Elliott makes the evening sing.’

The Independent’s Alice Saville declared: ‘the greatest strength of Hampton’s reworking is also the biggest triumph of this production: the icy brilliance of Merteuil, powered by Manville’s wonderful performance. It’s terrifying to watch her scrutinise her corseted, black-lace clad body in the mirror, assessing her sexual effect like an engineer checking over an instrument of war. And it’s impossible not to root for her, especially when her campaign of destruction claims her as its final victim.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar compared Aidan Turner with John Malkovich who played the part in the movie: ‘Turner as Valmont is an Irish-accented serial seducer, louche and playful rather than truly dangerous: an affable rake who does not summon Malkovich’s snake-like menace. His seduction scenes do gather in power, though’. She noted that when he is forced by the Marquise to give up someone he loves, ‘he finally drops his playfulness and becomes truly tragic.’

The Times’ Clive Davis was critical: ‘What’s often missing, though, is the sense of abject cruelty that ought to lie at the heart of this story of cold-blooded seduction.’ In particular, he felt Aidan Turner was too comical: ‘By the very end, the marquise and Valmont both face retribution for their sins. Her anguish is palpable. Do we care as much about Valmont? No. The dandy has outstayed his welcome.’

The Stage‘s Sam Marlowe liked the stars: ‘Manville is formidable. Turner’s Valmont is hardly less lethal, relentlessly performative, ruthlessly switching from romantic lovesick swain to boyish to bully as tactics demand. But it simply doesn’t feel as if there’s enough at stake here.’ She explained: ‘This revival by Marianne Elliott…lacks bite and atmosphere, the intricate symmetrical plotting of its torments, temptations and scandals less shocking than mechanical.’ She concluded: ‘Elliott’s production never really makes a convincing case for the play’s importance in the here and now. As a drama, it emerges as elegant and divertingly nasty; it needs to matter more.’

Claire Allfree in The Telegraph asked: ‘How to stage Christopher Hampton’s glittering adaptation of Les Liaisons Dangereuses about the nihilistic sex wars of the French fin de siecle aristocracy in the post Me Too era?’ She wasn’t satsified that Marianne Elliott had the answer: ‘Elliot’s insistence on turning the play into a spectacle of irredeemable decay doesn’t always reap dividends. Those allergic to the use of interpretative ballet (several scenes are choreographed, as though every character is trapped in a dance they can’t stop) won’t find their prejudices allayed. Hampton’s play demands a lightness of touch, not the whiff of heavy melodrama. I admired this production but I can’t say I enjoyed it.’

While praising the cast, Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski had serious reservations about the play: ‘Hampton’s play has endured in large part because it’s titillating – a rare quality in theatre – and some of it now feels wildly out of step with the times. I think if you were to adapt De Laclos today, you’d interrogate the treatment of women rather more probingly. What can I say: it’s a really good production with two sensational leads, of a play that has long stopped being a sexy novelty and now kind of sits as a guilty pleasure. I don’t want to preach, I just question whether Les Liaisons really has enough going for it to justify this sort of lavish revival at our flagship theatre.’

Demetrios Matheou at The Arts Desk got to the heart of the problem with reviving this work: ‘The amorality at play is positively delicious, not least when the culprits feast on each other. But how does that appeal work, as entertainment, at a time when real-life morality is under more constant, and more rigid scrutiny? Will Christopher Hampton’s celebrated stage adaptation become darker, more powerful, or simply leave a bad taste? … it’s led to a bit of a muddle, a determined dressing up of the play that has simply diluted its drama – a liaison lite, if you will.’

2 stars ★★

The Sunday Times’ Dominic Maxwell rated the chemistry between the two stars: ‘Well, I won’t quite say they look as if they only just met at a break-the-ice brunch for the company earlier that day. Yet the mutual heat is strictly gas mark 3.‘ He ended his review: ‘ it should all be so much funnier, sexier, nastier and zippier than this.’

Critics’ average rating 3.5⭑

Value rating 38 (Value rating combines critics’ average rating with typical ticket price)

Les Liaisons Dangereuses can be seen at the National Theatre until 6 June 2026. Buy tickets directly from the theatre

If you’ve seen Les Liaisons Dangereuses at the National Theatre, please leave a review and/or rating below

Sadie Sink and Noah Jupe bring passion to Robert Icke’s Sliding Doors Shakespeare

Harold Pinter Theatre

Romeo & Juliet is a play in which the lovers race to their tragic end . Radical director Robert Icke has fixed on time and timing being crucial to story and tells it in what a number of critics referred to as a Sliding Doors style, showing what might have happened to the lovers alongside what did. Mostly the critics liked this, although some thought it didn’t always work and some found it over-the-top. The reviews all praised Sadie Sink (famous for Stranger Things) and Noah Jupe (last seen in Hamnet).

5 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑

Brooke Ivy Johnson for The Metro noted: ‘to watch the audience — many of whom might more readily identify as fans of Stranger Things than of Shakespeare — sit rapt, laughing, weeping, blushing, and generally utterly absorbed, is to understand exactly what this show achieves. This Romeo and Juliet captures something essential about the play’s emotional core: that its tragedy lies not only in its ending, but in the beautiful, reckless, funny intensity of youth that drives it there.’ She explained: ‘what is most striking about his Romeo and Juliet is its emotional accessibility. This is a production that understands that the tragedy only works if you believe, wholeheartedly, in the reckless sincerity of young love’.

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

‘It’s a richly rewarding evening’ declared Claire Allfree in the Telegraph.  She said the production ‘has a near metaphysical preoccupation with the vagaries of time that lends this most callow of stories a rare gravitas.’

The Standard‘s Nick Curtis weighed straight in with his assessment of the stars and the production: ‘Sadie Sink…is a magnificent Juliet in Robert Icke’s powerful revival of Shakespeare’s tragedy, physically delicate but with a steely passion. She is matched by Noah Jupe, the young British screen talent making an assured stage debut as an impetuous, boyish Romeo. Rarely has the brutal speed of the play’s events, and its juxtaposition of sudden violence and bombshell love, seemed as clear as it does in Icke’s staging.’

WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton explained: ‘Noticing that the play is built on coincidence and is full of “what if”s that could have turned tragedy into comedy, Icke creates a sequence of sliding door moments, marked by blinding flashes of light, that actually show an alternate version of the play.’ She commented: ‘Sink is at her best when she’s at her stillest and most earnest, gazing into her lover’s eyes with feverish excitement and determination; Jupe has moments when his boyish exuberance is tempered by a growing wonder. But the chemistry between them seems to dissipate as the mood grows darker.’ She also picked out other members of the cast: ‘Clare Perkins is magnificent as the Nurse, bustling and full of self-importance, but also of wisdom and warmth.’

The Stage‘s Sam Marlowe described how ‘With Sadie Sink and Noah Jupe as the impassioned teenage couple gleaming with youthful potential and poignantly vulnerable, it’s moving to imagine how their story might have ended under different circumstances. Icke’s concept agonisingly points up how precarious their fate is – how cruelly close they come to contentment, together or apart. A sharp new spin on the familiar tale, it’s a reminder of what a lottery life and love are for us all.’

Cindy Marcolina at BroadwayWorld noted: ‘This is an investigation of fate, and definitely not your traditional Romeo and Juliet. Though he punctuates the mise en scène with huge digital clocks that tick relentlessly towards the lovers’ demise, Icke feverishly tries to rewrite the narrative. Just as the story starts diverging from its natural path, blinding flashes à la Men in Black “Neuralyzer” rewind the scenes, bringing it back to its fatal route. It’s clever and original, making this an utterly thrilling vision.’ Of the lovers, she said: ‘Sink and Jupe are simply tremendous. The Broadway veteran conquers her first Shakespeare with sophistication, introducing a Juliet who’s far from being a wilting flower. She’s in charge, bubbly, and headstrong; she knows what she wants and she knows how to get it.’

At LondonTheatre, Olivia Rook described Sadie Sink: ‘(She) is luminous as Juliet, capturing the headiness of first love, as well as its ability to make you impulsive and awkward. Sink finds the humour in the balcony scene, navigating the new relationship with fluttering, hesitant speech and interrupting Romeo as he makes grand proclamations. She also knows how to plumb the depths of despair, appearing half mad as the Friar’s potion slips down her throat.’

The Independent‘s Alice Saville concluded: ‘This is a richly emotional, brilliantly intelligent take on a classic – one that’ll plunge a knife into your heart so skilfully that you hardly notice the pain.’

Referring to what he called the Sliding Doors moments, Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski noted: ‘you can easily imagine a world where things worked out better for them, and in acknowledging this Icke elevates the plot’s sillier moments. However,…he overplays his hand in a final scene that teeters on the mawkish. It would have made for a more elegant production if he’d left it be, but auteurs are gonna auteur.’ He jokingly ended: ‘But much as I am a fan, I can’t help but think there’s a parallel universe out there where he didn’t try the Sliding Doors thing (or reined it in a bit) and that that led to an all-timer Romeo & Juliet. In our branch of the multiverse, we’ll have to settle for one that’s merely very good.’

CityAM‘s Adam Bloodworth said Icke ‘delivers a technically cool, youthfully exuberant production that comes with a shocking twist.’ He went on: ‘It’s solid stuff, but everything pales by comparison to the finale, which dares to rethink everything you know. Who on earth would rethink the finale of Romeo and Juliet? Robert Icke, a man who has a good enough grasp of subtlety to know when to come out all guns blazing. It’s a risk, and blimey, every hair on both of my arms stood up.’

The Financial Times’ Sarah Hemming said:’ It’s a production charged with adolescent passion and buzzing with fresh insights. Icke overplays his hand on occasion, but he brings a raging, compassionate eye to this awful tale of wasted life.’

Matt Wolf at The Arts Desk said, as if anticipating the review in The Times: ‘Some may reisist the apparent tricksiness of devices that include repetitions or reprises of scenes, as often as not accompanied by searing flashes of light separating out what might have happened (if, say, Friar Laurence’s letter had not gone AWOL) as opposed to what in fact does. But … Icke makes clear that time waits for no one. Small wonder that Juliet famously exhorts nightfall to “gallop apace” so that she can be with Romeo once again: this is a play whose title characters are undone by a velocity of feeling they can’t control’.

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

The Times’ Clive Davis warned: ‘assured though she is, Sink can’t quite redeem a production which is overrun with distracting tics, from that ever-bleeping clock to painful explosions of light that burn their way into your retina. Slab-like sliding doors on Hildegard Bechtler’s austere set trundle back and forth, hinting at paths and decisions left untaken.’ He got through it but: ‘By the end, you find yourself hoping that Sink will try her hand at more Shakespeare, only with a different director.’

The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar declared`: ‘What makes the production effective, ultimately, in spite of the overbearing directorial stamp, are the two central performances. Sink makes for an intense teenager, quirkily neurotic, who brings comedy to the balcony scene. She is so strong a presence that Juliet at times seems the play’s central protagonist. Jupe’s Romeo is dramatically mopey in his unrequited love for Rosaline at the start, and earnest in his passion for Juliet. They have a sweet, pure chemistry that encapsulates the urgent and uncompromising nature of first love, so absolute in its adolescent ardour that it is worth dying for. Both speak the verse without straining for effect, too.’

Critics’ average rating 3.9⭑

Value Rating 40 (Value Rating is a combination of the Average star rating and the typical ticket price)

Romeo & Juliet can be seen at the Harold Pinter Theatre until 20 June 2026. Buy tickets directly from the theatre 

If you’ve seen this production of Romeo & Juliet, please leave a review and/or rating below

Vivid play about reaching adulthood

Royal Court theatre

Kimberly Belflower’s 2022 play John  Proctor is the Villain was a sensation on Broadway and looks like being one over here. The same production directed by Danya Taymor, but with a British cast, has arrived at the Royal Court theatre to an exceptional three 5 star reviews and four 4 stars. This gives it the second highest average rating for Limited Run Shows, at the time of writing. The critics liked the portrait of teenage schoolgirls in a strict religious community discovering adulthood at the same time as the #MeToo movement broke. Some loved it (‘joyous, blazingly intelligent’ FT) while others liked it but found it too obvious. They all praised the young women in the cast.

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

5 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑

Sarah Hemming wrote a detailed, insightful review in The Financial Times (such a shame her reviews are hidden behind a very expensive paywall). She declared: ‘what a joyous, blazingly intelligent play this is: at once a restless interrogation of the role of art in defining and expressing who we are; a compassionate, funny portrayal of what it means to be a teenage girl; and a furious appraisal of the way power games repeat across generations. It’s staged with irrepressible energy by Danya Taymor and her terrific young cast.’
‘What really makes the play is its vivid and touching depiction of young women trying to navigate their way to adulthood against this roiling backdrop. They’re played with great affection and aching authenticity here.’

Marianka Swain at LondonTheatre declared: ‘if there is any justice, it will soon bring its whip-smart, potent, gloriously funny and remarkably affecting drama to the West End.’ She remarked: ‘Belflower beautifully captures the way that adolescent girls (and especially those in a small, insular, religious community) are simultaneously knowing and innocent, playing out fantasies of adulthood but still, heartbreakingly, just children.’ She ended: ‘It all culminates in the most extraordinary, heart-pounding, viscerally cathartic climax I’ve ever experienced, brilliantly utilising Lorde’s song “Green Light” along with an interpretive dance that moves from kooky to joyful to a full-on rebellion. This play likewise makes me want to scream, laugh, cry, and dance. It’s not just a drama: it’s a revolution.’

Cindy Marcolina at BroadwayWorld couldn’t fault it: ‘Belflower’s work is perfectly plugged into the rippling effects that cause societal disruption. The script is as emotionally intelligent as it is fun and casual, but it also reveals a proclivity for fostering debate. She questions the nature of authority, debating the need for it and addressing the abuse of power. Her characters are smart, provocative, proactive, and unapologetically proud of who they are. Most of anything, they feel real.’ She concluded with a call to action: ‘The production is relatable, accessible, poignant, and bursting with ideas. Beg, borrow, steal, but get yourself into this utterly galvanising room!’

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

An underlying anger pulses through Alice Saville’s review in The Independent: ‘if you want to really understand the millions of small, hidden dramas that erupted in the wake of #MeToo, plays like this one are the way to do it. And its frenzied, Lorde-fuelled dancefloor climax is the perfect outlet for anyone who feels a bit crazy thinking about everything we’ve forgotten, as the world’s brief mass feminist awakening is replaced by deadening silence.’

Claire Allfree at the Telegraph praised ‘a gifted young British cast’, noting ‘Miya James is both unshowy and mesmeric as Raelynn; Saltburn’s Sadie Soverall is horribly compelling as the wild and glowering Shelby.’ She admitted: ‘There are quibbles. Modern readings of The Crucible already cast doubt on Proctor’s behaviour; he’s no longer quite the fully paid-up canonical hero Belflower needs him to be. The play feels a little thin, too. It relies on an emotional charge rather than a thorny argument… But it nails absolutely the timeless fury of female adolescence.’

The Standard’s Nick Curtis described it as ‘a terrific piece of provocative entertainment.’ He wrote: ‘Though the play is mechanical in the way it works through #MeToo issues, with some scenes straining credibility, Belflower is acute on the way women and girls are manipulated and gaslit. And on victim-blaming and the excuses people make for predators.’

Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski explained: ‘what Belflower does do brilliantly is nail the intersection between the relatively brief apex of the #MeToo movement and a generation of smart, naive school girls who would have been the right age to absorb its rhetoric at the precise moment they’re discovering what it was a reaction to’. He reported: ‘Danya Taymor’s production…is an absolute blast, the many serious issues raised all of a piece with its breathless ebullience and Belflower’s endlessly witty text. As much as anything else, it’s a wholehearted celebration of teen girl dorkiness and a rebuttal to the idea their lives should be viewed through a sexual lens, even in sympathy.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

The Stage‘s Sam Marlowe said the play was ‘at pains to spell out its themes and subtext, sometimes to a declamatory, over-explicit fault. But, in a tenderly handled production by Danya Taymor, it has a huge, pulsing heart and captures something of the thrilling, almost unbearable intensity of adolescent girlhood, building to a wildly emotional conclusion of mingled defiance, joy, rage and hope.’ She concluded: ‘Belflower’s play is, in many ways, one familiar story wrapped in another; but it’s done with wit and leaves us, with its final, glorious act of rebellion, on a high of irrepressible optimism.’

The Times’ Clive Davis questioned whether the play is the ‘modern classic’ some claim; ‘There’s certainly plenty to savour in Danya Taymor’s high-energy production, recast for London audiences, which burrows deep inside the overheated psyches of teenagers. At its sharpest, the dialogue generates waves of laughter too.’  Unlike some other reviewers, he found the ending a letdown: ‘Belflower can’t quite resist forcing home her message in the closing scenes. Ambiguity goes out of the window’.

The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar called it ‘a moving play… (that) catches the mood of 2018 for a bewildered generation of girls growing into womanhood in the shadow of Weinstein.’ She liked the way: ‘Belflower’s dialogue captures the way girls talk to each other with humour and pathos, as well as how they internalise the world’s micro-aggressions towards women.’ But she had reservations, one of which was: ‘the relationships here are flattened by their cuteness, rather than sharp-edged and gritty, as this cusp of girlhood and adulthood so often tends to be.’

Critics’ average rating 4.0⭑

John Proctor Is The Villain can be seen at the Royal Court Theatre until 25 April 2026. Buy tickets directly from the theatre

Read Paul’s review of John Proctor is the Villain here

If you’ve seen John Proctor Is The Villain at the Royal Court Theatre, please leave a review and/or rating below