Spamalot

          I've been resisting seeing this as I'm a fan on Monty Python, though I'm not the biggest fan on the planet. Also the show has been on for a while, no big names perform in it anymore and I'd seen some pretty bad reviews. I went to see it on a total whim and I almost wish I hadn't.

          The show, maybe unsurprisingly, just regurgitates lots of old Python gags and infact I found it hard to find any new ones. As much as I like some of these jokes after years of listening to them I was wanting more. The sets are good as are the costumes, infact this was probably the best part of the show. The acting was fairly amateurish as well to be honest, and that is an injustice to some armature actors who I've felt were far superior compared to some of this cast. The show was quite simply a car crash, well maybe not a total car crash but it certainly hit a tree and put a bloody big dent in the bumper.

          There were people around me who absolutely loved it and were laughing almost continually. It was nice as well that there were a lot of foreign nationals in the audience and they were also laughing, showing that the jokes are universal. I think I only chuckled two or three times and was tempted to leave half way through.

          The show is on at the Playhouse Theatre, which is a little away from the main West End. Its smaller than most of the West End theatres with a capacity of just 786. This means there is a good view from the majority of the seating on all three levels, though this is only beneficial when there is a good show to see. This is a fairly short review, so I apologise but I was so appalled with the whole thing that I really am speechless on exactly what to write.

          It will be leaving the West End soon, thank god, and going on tour. I urge you DO NOT BUY TICKETS!!! I would save your money and buy the Monty Python box set. You'll hear all the jokes in the show, but me much more entertained. Tickets and Info

 

From Here To Eternity

          I will fully admit that I have never seen the 1953 film, which starred Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift, Deborah Kerr, Donna Reed and Frank Sinatra. I’ve also never read the 1951 book, by James Jones, on which the film was based. To a degree I’m glad I’ve never seen the film or read the book as I had no ideas on how the story should be told, or acted, and no expectations for the show which could lead to disappointment. The show hasn’t inspired me to read the book or, to a lesser degree, watch the film. Please don’t assume that’s because I didn’t like the show though.

          I’ll start by briefly talking about the sets. They were brilliant. With lots of interesting details they almost a character in themselves and you could easily spend the whole show just exploring the sets with your eyes. The set changes were also exceptionally good being smooth and without any noticeable hiccups. In fact I never really noticed them happening. They just did. That’s a sign of a good backstage team. Although the sets grabbed your attention they didn’t distract from the acting. They enhanced it. The only issue I had with the set wasn’t really to do with the set at all, but with the way the performers interacted with certain aspects of it. It was during the first musical number sung by the men in the army barracks. With the exceptions of shows such as Singing In the Rain and Top Hat, the dance is marginaly secondary to the musical performances. With this first number in the barracks, although I felt the singing was satisfactory, there was far to much emphasis on the dancing. In fact there was so much dancing, at one point I was looking at my watchnas it seemed to be going on for far too long. This is never a good thing so early on in the show. Whats this got to do with the sets though? During the number, movable parts of the set and props were used to ‘enhance’ the performance.

          One thing I was looking forward to was seeing Darius Campbell. He’s appearing in the role of Milt Warden, the role originated in the film by Burt Lancaster. I vaguely remember his performances as a contestant on the British talent shows Popstars and Pop Idol in 2001 and 2002 respectively. He has appeared in the West End before in Chicago, Guys And Dolls as well as Gone With The Wind. He also appeared as Escamillo in Brizet’s opera Carmen at the O2 Arena in London in 2010 (at the age of just 29). I unfortunately didn’t have the opportunity to see any of these performances so I was interested to see what I thought of tis singing voice live. His performance was, for me, the biggest surprise of the night. For some reason I went with the preconception that I would be disappointed with him. It was however the best vocal performance of the entire male cast. His acting wasn’t the best, but it was by no means shockingly bad and negatively impact the entire show. That really sounds bad. I should give him more credit. He’s a good actor and lovely to watch. I found him engaging and, to an extent, believable. There were however better actors than him.

          The other performances were perfectly good, though I must say nothing really outstanding. Believable? Well, almost. Captivating? Not really. The phrase ‘good enough’ sprigs to mind. Other than Darius the only other person to stand out to me was Ryan Sampson. He was the only other actor I was interested to see. I knew him from his appearances in television on the shows Plebs and Doctor Who. His live performance didn’t disappoint. He was a bit of comic relief in a relatively serious show. This wasn’t a criticism, in fact it was a really important thing as I felt it kept the audience engaged and quite frankly awake. A friend of mine who went to see the show the show before me didn’t like it at all. He tends to be a lot more critical than I, but I can see why he felt the way he did. Quite frankly there are far better shows out there to see for the money one pays for West End theatre. Not a bad show, but certainly nothing memorable. Tickets and Info

The Lion King

          I originally went to see the show in around 2001/2002 after only a few years of it being in the West End. All I remember is we were in the Stalls and sitting in the central section of seating about half way back and in the seats right next to the left hand isle. These are by far the best seats. Not the exact ones I sat in, I can't remember the exact row or seat number anyway, but any of the Stalls seating and most defiantly as close to an isle as you can. All will become clear when you see the show. This time when I went to see it, with a friend, we sat in the first row of the Dress Circle. These were also brilliant seats.

          The show has always been in the Lyceum Theatre and so it feels very at home and very natural being performed there. The areas around the stage, around some of the walls and the ceiling, are covered with beautiful wood carvings. I'm not sure if they're real wood but the effect is fantastic. Also before the show, there are a couple of bongo players and a few animal noises to entertain you. As soon as you enter the audatorium you are drawn in to the show, before its even begun, with all the sights and sounds that great you. Not necessarily a feeling of African, but it does its job. That feeling of Africa most definitely comes later.

          The show starts with The Circle Of Life, a song that is known by almost everyone and that has on ots own come to represent the 1994 film. The song helps with amercing you in Africa as it opens being sung in the Zulu language. The lyrics are as follows:

 

Nants ingonyama bagithi Baba [Here comes a lion, Father]
Sithi uhm ingonyama [Oh yes, it's a lion]

Nants ingonyama bagithi baba
Sithi uhhmm ingonyama
Ingonyama

Siyo Nqoba [We're going to conquer]
Ingonyama
Ingonyama nengw' enamabala [A lion and a leopard come to this open place]

 

          Talking of music, for the film and the show the music was written by Elton John and lyricist Tim Rice, with an original score by Hans Zimmer. The music in the show is very close to the original score of the film, with only a few slight changes. There are only a few minor changes. That is fantastic for children who are only just being introduced to The Lion King, but also for those, like me, who have known The Lion King for a number of years. You can almost sing along. Its always fun and happy, even to an extent in the sadder songs. They all have a slight pop feel, but they are all loaded full of emotion and meaning.

 

          With the brilliant set, which has moving aspects to it, and the fantastically ornate and interesting costumes, you know the show is going to keep your attention and always be a spectacle. The costumes represent animals and are fantastic. They don't just represent the animals, as after a while I found myself believing them to be animals. The large animals like the giraffes and elephants are exquisite, and the costumes that represent either the flocks of birds or herds of gazelle and full of movement. Another costume that caught my attention was that of the leopard. The woman who played it was fantastic at using all the moving parts to express the characteristics of a wild cat perfectly. In fact as a write this I'm watching the Planet Earth DVD and the way the actors and animal costumes move in the show is extremely close to real life. That is in no small way because of the mask and puppet designs of Julie Taymor and Michael Curry and the choreography of Garth Fagan

          Like the film, there is some comic light relief in the 'coming of age' story through the characters of Timon, played by Richard Frame, and Pumbaa, played by Keith Bookman. Both men have had extensive film and television roles to there names, though they aren't particularly well known. They play the roles brilliantly and in fact their voices are exceptionally close to those from the film. Another brilliant character in the show, and film, is Scar who in the current cast is being played by George Asprey. He manages to play the villain of the story fantastically but still makes you love him, just a little bit. His use of the moveable mask is also fantastic. My only disappointment was with the character of Zazo. Not because Ashley Artus plays him badly, but I just wasn't as fond of him in the show as I was of him in the film. I mean Ashley is a fantastic actor. His list of TV, film and theatre roles are testament that he has talent. It just hard for him though to beat the original performance of Rowan Atkinson in the film.

          Definitely a show which I am unable to fault. Unlike many West End shows, The Lion King never has reductions in the ticket price. Depending when you go, tickets range from £27.70 to £125. You will need to book fast to get the seats you want. Even after almost 15 years on stage its still as popular as ever. Even with these high prices I still recommend everyone to see this show at least once in their lives. Tickets and Info

Barking In Essex

          Fuckey, shitty, crap, cunt, fuck, shit and bugger!!!! If that has offended, insulted or disgusted you DO NOT SEE THIS SHOW. If on the other hand your ok so far, than by all means read on.

          Why did I start with such offensive and controversial language? Well this show is packed full of it. In fact I have never heard the word 'cunt' said so much in such a short space of time. however a lot of the time the swearing is a source of hilarity as its usually Sheila Hancock who's saying it. I know its meant to be a portrayal of a criminal Essex family, but the amount of swearing is over the top and after a while it was starting to annoy me. Not because I was offended by it, but because the amount of it was just unnecessary. Thankfully, the amount of swearing does reduce in the second act. I saw this show during previews, so there is every possibility the amount of swearing gets reduced.

          Unfortunately Sheila Hancock, Lee Evans and Keeley Hawes forgot or fumbled a few of their lines, but they have only been performing for a couple of days so I'm sure that will improve with time. Sheila Hancock is brilliant and well worth seeing just for her performance. with a great sassiness, sharpness and an over the top exaggerated 'Essex bird'. Lee Evans is also good, playing a bit of a stupid character. I find it hard though to forget his comedy acts and that is great. It stopped me getting to amerced into the show. Keeley Hawes was also good playing, like Sheila, an over the top, exaggerated 'Essex bird'. She played it well and I got the impression she was enjoying the character. Karl Johnson, who I know from Lark Rise To Candleford, is fantastic as the elderly next door neighbour. I completely forgot the character he played in the TV show. All of the costumes are ok, but nothing that really jumped out at me.

          The sets are also brilliant. The scene only changes once, but there is so much going in that the lack of scene changes hardly matter. The opening set in fantastic and, in my opinion, far better than the sent in the second act. Infancy there were a few claps from the audience, as well as a few laughs, as soon as the curtain went up. The laughs were only because of its over the top and exaggerated Essexness.

          I must again make it completely clear, if you are offended by, or just don't like, swearing, DO NOT SEE THIS SHOW. Saying that it is a relatively good show, though nowhere near as good as I had hoped given the acting talent that's in it. Obviously they are limited by the script, which reads more like a second rate tv soap opera, but I still thought someone like Sheila Hancock could do a lot better than she did. I'm not going to tell you to give this show a miss, but be prepared to be a little disappointed. I'm only giving 3 stars because I know with time it has the potential to improve, though that may take longer than the length of time its in the West End for. Tickets and Info

The Woman In Black

          I was very excited to see this. Its the second longest running non-musical show in the West End, having been performed in a West End theatre since 1989, and has seen a resurgence in bookings thanks to the Danial Radciffe 2012 film. I went to see this with two of my friends and we all loved this show. A good scare, but some of the scares actually make you laugh afterwards.

          The theatre is on the smaller side, but that makes for a much better experience. Be prepared for a wordy play, with not much action, not a lot of scenery and to be honest a script that really is a bit slow. Why after all theses do I still think the show is good? To be honest I don't know, but it IS good. Admittedly you need to go with the understanding its a serious play, though that should be obvious. Its not scary in the since of say a gory film, if you've seen the film you'll understand that, but its more suspenseful. Suspense is something I'm not the best fan off. Ill go hide behind the chair as soon as I can, but I really was strangely looking forward to seeing this. Not the best play I've seen, but its well worth seeing it simply because its the second longest running West End show.

          To be honest I don't want to say to much as I don't want to spoil the show for anyone who decides to see it and you should. All I will day is a lot of the scaring is done with lighting as a lot of the stage is either darkened or totally in the dark. the woman in the title of the show, is only one aspect of the show that causes the scares. One has to concentrate slightly, well I did, to follow the story and the plot so the scares make for a good break in that. I also think its good to go with a group of people as your emotions can bounce of one another and you will most defiantly want to talk about it afterwards.

          The acting is good, with only two actors, though they are constrained by the 1987 script. The scripts is based on the 1983 book which was written by Susan Hill, which to an extent dictated the path the script took. The woman unfortunately is unaccredited so as to add to the story of her being a ghost/apparition.

          Like I said before its a play that should be seen, but go with the understanding its not exactly a nights light entertainment. Tickets and Info

Charlie And The Chocolate Factory

          This musical can be summed up in just two letters. 'O' and 'K', for that's all this show was. OK. Don't get me wrong, the music was good and the performances were good, but the show as a whole was just not up to what I had hoped.

          I think before I can go into the show, Ill have to start with me experiences with the two films that have been adapted from the original book. I am a massive fan of the original film from 1971, though that was called Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, staring Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka. The film had the best mixture of Gene Wilder's slightly bonkers and scary Willy Wonka and Peter Ostrum's exceptionally lovable Charlie. The film was marketed with the tagline 'It's Scrumdidilyumptious!'. I think that is the perfect word for the film. The best scene of all is when they go into 'The Chocolate Room'. In the 2005 remake it doesn't have a name though its been called 'The Candy Land scene'. In the original 1971 film, and to an extent the 2005 Tim Burton remake, this scene is absolutely fantastic. To an extent, awe inspiring. You believe, to an extent, the edible grass and flowers, as well as the chocolate waterfall and river. The remake less so than the original surprisingly because of the computer graphics.

          The 'Chocolate Room' scene in the musical was the most disappointing thing of all. it was as though a school project was rolled out onto the stage. I know the producers, director and creative team are limited by the size of the stage and theatre and, to a greater extent than film, money. This scene however, which is arguably the most important visually, appeared to have very little spent on it or even thought into it kick starting children's imaginations. The waterfall looked like cheap plastic with a few lights and the flowers and grass looked no more edible than than a bright blue frog with yellow spots.

          The Oompa Loompas are one of the most iconic aspects of both the book and the films. The 2005 remake was disappointing as the Oompa Loompas were all played by the same actor and were basically just clones of the same person. Don't get me wrong though, the actor, Deep Roy, is very good. In the original film though each Oompa Loompa was played by a different actor and that made the back story of them being a tribe from a far off land a lot more believable. The musical is brilliant in portraying these mythical peoples. The costumes the actors were are brilliant and, among other things, give the show a bit of light comical relief. The other comical relief comes in the form of Augustus Gloop. His comical relief in both the 1971 and 2005 films is minimal to non-existent. In the musical however he is a fantastic character played brilliantly by Jenson Steele, who is making his West End debut in this show and who was also a replacement for a child who left the show before it had started. From the song in which he is introduced, with his over exaggerated German accent and stereotypical German characteristics, you know he's going to be funny. Its a shame that he is the first child to fall foul of the chocolate factory in The Chocolate Room.

          I'm sad to say that I was distinctly disappointed with Douglas Hodge as Willy Wonka. Douglas is a very versatile actor, having appeared in many films, theatre productions and television shows as well as directing a number of times. I feel he is good with drama as well as comedy. Because of this, I had high hopes for his portrayal of the slightly 'mad scientist' chocolatier. I was left rather flat however. not because he was bad, but because I expected so much more from the character. I'm not sure who else should have been cast, but I'm not sure Douglas Hodge was the right choice. He didn't seems as approachable as the Willy Wonka in both the original film or the later remake. He also didn't. to me have an element of madness. He just seemed a little rude at times. In places he was funny, but it didn't seems like a fully forced character.

          Definitely a show that young children will enjoy, but if you know and are a fan of the 1971 film or even, to a lesser degree, the 2005 remake, be prepared to be at least a little disappointed. Tickets and Info

**UPDATE** - It has recently been announced that from the 19 May 2014 Alex Jennings will take over the role of Willy Wonka.

The Cripple Of Inishmaan

       On the Delfont Mackintosh website they describe the play as follows:

 

 Cripple Billy, orphaned since birth, just might have found a way off the Isle of Aran and a route all the way to Hollywood if he can persuade a small community of Islanders how much he wants to realise his dream.

 

       Not the most appealing of descriptions and doesn't sound the most interesting of plays, but I thought id give it a go.

      

       As with most of the shows I seem to be seeing at the moment, I went to see this show because of who was in it rather than for the show itself. This time because of Daniel Radcliff. Before seeing this show, his acting left me rather deflated. It was nothing that really impressed me and in fact was, in my opinion, fairly average. A few of my friends however, having seen him on stage before, said that he was a brilliant stage actor. I felt I had to decide that for myself.

 

       I now totally agree with my friends. He was fan-bloody-tastic. I mean don't get me wrong, he isn't the best stage actor of all time, but he is certainly bloody good. I would even say he is one of the best actors of his generation and I am sure he will become one of the great stage actors. His Irish accent blended in perfectly with those in the play that are actually from Ireland. He is very good at pulling an hart strings and then in an instant making you laugh. A lot of people criticise the casting of an able bodied person in the role of someone with a disability, however when it comes down to the nitty gritty they need to pick the best actor for the job. Are people throwing their arms in the air because Daniel isn't Irish either?

 

       The play is very good at chopping and changing between comedy and highly emotional. This isn't just due to the story line, though that helps a great deal, but it is also strongly helped by the brilliant acting. This is well worth a see before is closure on the 31 August.

 

Viva Forever

       I'm as much a fan of the Spice Girls as anyone who grew up during the 90's, however I have resisted seeing this show for a long time. To me, all of the songs stood alone and I couldn't see any link between them that could be made into a show. However, when I heard the show was closing I thought 'well, lets give it a go'.

       The theatre, The Piccadilly Theatre, I lovely. The wide stage allows for a good view in nearly every seat. I was last at the theatre in around 2008 when I saw the production of Grease which, as a bit of a side note, wasn't a particularly good production. For Viva Forever I was in seat N15 of the Stalls. A good view but not really worth the asking price. I got it at a great price however thanks to Love Theatre. As normal, the theatre is drenched on red and gold, more than in any other I think. The seat was comfortable with a nice amount of leg room. Being one of only a few men felt odd, but not really a surprise.

       My fears of the show were ......................................... correct.

       The songs don't seem to like up at al well and the show appears to have just been thrown together. As good as the singers are, and I use good lightly, they ruin what are perfectly good pop songs. They in no way do the band justice. It's as though Judy Craymer ,the creator/producer of the show and the creator of MAMMA MIA!, is cashing in both on her success with MAMMA MIA! and of the renewed interest of the Spice Girls after they briefly reformed back in 2007. Its a shame that Jennifer Saunders is linked with the show. I find her to be a wonderful woman and a fantastic comedian, but the show is really a stain on an otherwise brilliant career. The story is exceptionally weak and seems to have been written without any thoughts towards songs and then the songs worked around it. With this sort of musical I feel it should most definitely be done with at least a little understanding of the songs.

       The staging for the show was great. Well I say great, but I mean great compared to the rest of the show. not that imaginative I thought though. I kept thinking of MAMMA MIA! As for the singing, like I said it was only just describable as good. Now I feel a bit bad talking about Hannah John-Kamen who plays the title character Viva, as this is her West End debut. I do feel however that her voice really isn't as strong as it should be. Her acting though was good and I need to commend her on that. She will, along with the rest of the cast, be continually compared to the Spice Girls and none of them come even a little close to the original versions of the songs. One would hope for this to be a bit of camp fun, but it felt more like an assault on my ears.

       I really wouldn't recommend seeing it as you probably guessed and to be honest I'm not surprised it hasn't even lasted 9 months. Saying all that however, my sister loved it. Oh well. Tickets and Info

Wicked

       I was really excited to see Wicked. I'm a massive fan of The Wizard Of Oz and so to find out about the witches of Oz before Dorothy, was something I found really interesting. The show has received rave reviews and has won 90 international awards. However upon seeing it, I'm sorry to say I was left disappointed. I'm sure there will be lots of people out there who will love it, so even though I didn't like it please don't take it as me saying "don't see it".

       Firstly, I'm not a big fan of the Apollo Victoria Theatre. The last time I went to the theatre was in the early/mid 90's when I went to see Starlight Express, which ran for over 7,400 performances at the theatre. Back then I was young, and actually I don't remember the theatre being that big. Now however I am much more aware of the fact that the theatre is massive. In fact it has the greatest capacity of any West End theatre, with seating for 2500. I was sat in seat X39 in the Stalls, which is 22 rows back. The seat is £65 and personally its the first time that I felt Id paid far to much.

       For me, when I go tot see a show, I like it to feel that they aren't using microphones, like they are singing with just the power of their voice. For me most shows in the West End do this, however in the Apollo Victoria it is beyond obvious that microphones are being used. This for me stops me getting involved with the story and the characters involved. It automatically disconnects me from the show. The sets and costumes however, created by Eugene Lee and Susan Hilferty, are fantastic and are in fact probably the best part of the whole show. They were really the only reason I enjoyed watching. I probably would have left otherwise.

       As for the performances, well they were good. Not outstanding but good. Maybe the fact that I could always hear a bit of reverberation due to the microphones, but the voices were really not as good as I had been expecting. Don't get me wrong, Louise Dearman as Elphaba ad Gina Beck as Glinda are perfectly good singers, but they didn't blow me away. Saying that, I loves Gina's performance of the song Popular. Comically perfect both in timing and the cuteness of how she sings it.

       As I said before, I am a massive fan of The Wizard Of Oz and so the most disappointing aspect of the show was the story. Not that its badly written, though its not great, its that some of it completely contradicts The Wizard Of Oz. I cant really say what exactly, as if you go and see Wicked I don't want to ruin the story, but the whole dream like state that Dorothy appeared to have been in in The Wizard Of Oz is completely thrown out of the water. I know that for the show they stay true to the book on which its based, Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West written by Gregory Maguire and published in 1995, so I blame that totally on Mr Maguire for ruining a perfectly good story. Now if the book had been written before the original The Wonderful Wizard of Oz written by L. Frank Baum and published in 1900, or before the popular 1902 Broadway musical and the well-known 1939 film adaptation (both titled The Wizard Of Oz), then I would reconsider my dislike. However when he wrote the story both the book, musical and film had all been released and were all well loved. So why on earth did he change the story? Why ruin a good thing? I don't get it.

       As you have probably gathered I'm not a fan of the show. I can almost see why its a popular show and I'm not going to say don't go and see it. It just wasn't for me. Tickets and Info

Relatively Speaking

 

       I often don't go to see plays in London for the actual play itself. I go to see them more for the people that are in them. This was definitely the case for Relatively Speaking. Simply, Felicity Kendal. Like most people she came to my attention is The Good Life, a British TV show which ran from 1975 to 1978 with four series and 30 episodes (including a Christmas Special and a Royal Command Performance). She had done a few TV shows before that, but The Good Life shot her to stardom. I wasn't around during the original broadcasts, but I discovered them in the early 2000s when the were repeated on television. I found, and still find, them to have aged very little. Obviously some of the jokes relate to events that happened at the time and therefor go right over my head, but it hasn't lost any of its charm and is relevant to the climate change debate and the enthusiasm in allotments and self efficiency that has seen a revival recently.

       Relatively Speaking is showing at the Wyndham's Theatre where I went to see Quartermaine's Terms (My review of the show). Its a wonderful theatre. For Quartermaine I was sat on the top balcony in the second row to the back. For this performance of Relatively Speaking however I was sat in seat J4 of the Stalls. Although this was right on the end of the row, I still had a fantastic view, as the action all takes place on the centre of the stage. The Stalls seating at the Wyndham's isn't particularly big, only going back to row P (with a few extra seats forming rows Q and R). Certan websights say that this seat isn't good and not worth what you pay. However for this production is was a perfectly good seat.

       Alan Ayckbourn wrote the play, in fact Relatively Speaking was his first big hit in the West End. It had it West End premier in March 1967 at the Duke Of York Theatre, almost two years after its first ever performance at the Library Theatre in Scarborough. In fact all but four of his plays have had their first ever performances at the Library Theatre. Interestingly, the original London cast of Relatively Speaking contained an actor for whom the role massively helped his carer. His name was Richard Briers. Richard shot to TV fame playing Tom Good in The Good Life. His Wife in the TV show was played by Felicity Kendal, who plays Sheila in the current production on Relatively Speaking.

       As with most of Ayckbourn's plays, Relatively Speaking shows real life, all be it in the extremes. Max Bennett, Kara Tointon, Jonathan Coy and Felicity Kendal all play reality (if that makes sense) exceptionally well. They were all totally believable and that helped draw me, and the rest of the audience, deep into the story. The sets are brilliant and really portray the setting of the play well. Actually, the set of the opening scene reminded me of the University room of one of my friends which really drew me into the lives of the characters.

       Kara Tointon is absolutely sublime as Ginny, just as she has been in all her stage roles. She makes such a believable character and I was hooked to following how her character progressed and reacted throughout the show. I felt she stole almost every scene. Max Bennett is also brilliant as Greg. Without being detrimental to his ability, he plays the fool extremely well. He also makes a believable couple with Kara's Ginny. His comic timing is wonderful and he just fits the role perfectly.

       Unfortunately however I was disappointed by Jonathan Koy as he was, quite frankly, average. This was a surprise as he has been involved in so many theatre and TV projects. Don't get me wrong, he wasn't terrible, but I expected so much more. I was also disappointed be Felicity Kendal. She was better than Jonathan Koy, however she wasn't as good as I had been expecting. for the first half of the show, Felicity's character, Sheila, got steadily more and more drunk. She played this exceptionally well. The interval cam mid-conversation. Upon returning after the interval only a few moments of time is meant to have passed. Felicity however had seems to have 'sobered up' as it were, and never got back to a similar state in inebriation that shed had got to before. This made her character slightly less believable. I hate to say it, but just like Jonathan Koy, Felicity was unfortunately just average.

       This is a comedy for the serious theatre goers as well as the first timers. It's subtle and over the top at the same time. Not one for the younger members of the family, but definitely a good night out. A staple of the London theatre scene that I'm sure will keep coming back onto the stage and will please audiences every time that is does. A good thing to note is that including the interval it only lasted two hours so you can get home at a much more reasonable time than with a lot on West End shows. Tickets and Info

Liza (On An E)

        This is a show that at first you think not everyone will love. NOT TRUE. Trevor Ashley, who is an Australian musical theatre star, makes his West End debut as the iconic Liza Minnelli. Bringing this larger than life woman to the London stage Trevor both laughs AT her life, but shows a true love and affection for the lady he is impersonating.

       The show is playing at The Vaudeville Theatre. Certainly from the stalls this feels like a very intimate theatre, which suits the show perfectly. With the obligatory London theatre red seats, but magnificent white and gold walls, you could almost be at an opera house. It certainly feels a lot more special and upmarket than many other theatres in the West End. The stall seating nearer the front if quite flat, so ones view can be obstructed slightly be the people in front. I was in seat F15 and had a lovely view. With an audience made up of a lot at Liza fans, it was a wonderfully entertaining and memorable evening. There was also a lovely atmosphere before the show with people talking and chatting, about Liza and about looking forward to seeing the show.

       It was slightly disappointing, but not totally unexpected, that there was no programme for the show. There was a free A4 printout of people involved in the show, but nothing one would consider a programme. I would have like something with a bit about Trevor's career and past shows he's done. You can buy a CD of him performing the show live in Melbourne, which is only £12. With the hit songs you'd expect teamed with some that you wouldn't think of. The live band on stage really adds to the atmosphere and makes it much more of a concert than a show.

       You can see throughout the show, that Trevor has an obvious love for and admiration towards Liza herself. With wonderful comic timing and exuberant characterisation, he makes a lovable personality even more lovable. At times the whole theatre were in fits of laughter. As someone who isn't a major Liza fan, I have now fallen in love thanks to him. Trevor is a little bigger than Liza and he doesn't look exactly like her, but that soon gets forgotten with his ability to capture Liza's mannerisms perfectly. His voice is also exceptionally close to the real thing. He spoke in his natural voice at the end of the show, and I was shocked at just how strong his Australian accent was. It was amazing how well he was ably to subdue it and in fact make it completely disappear for the show. During the short interval and after the show, I overheard a lot of people say that they were big fans of Liza and that the show was fantastic. You cant get much better than true fans of Liz loving the show.

       You need to be quick at its only on for a limited time. First night was yesterday and it finishes on the 18th May. There are only 5 more shows. With prices from just £17.50 to £38.50 its well within the budget of most people. The only thing is that the theatre only accepts cash, so go prepared. If you can get a ticket, GET IT!! Tickets and Info

Matilda

 

       I really do have to start this review by saying Matilda is probably one of the best, if not the best, musical in the West End I've seen. It's in close contention for the top spot with Pricilla Queen Of The Desert (which, by the way, is now on a tour in the UK and North America and is showing in Italy and Stockholm - Info)

       Matilda is showing in the Cambridge Theatre, which I feel is one of the best theatres in the West End. With a wonderful blue shell-like ceiling and wide swathes of seating, you get a brilliant view wherever you sit, even from the seats on the top level right at the back ,which for Matilda are £25, (you do miss some of the performance that takes place near the front of the stage). The red seating and blue surroundings of the theatre give a relaxing feeling and suite the performance which, being true to the book, is very much orientated to children and the young at heart. The theatre has most recently played host to productions including Chicago, Grease and Jerry Springer The Opera. All wonderful productions, and the theatre suited all of them.

       As you enter the theatre you are greeted by an empty stage, surrounded by books and illuminated letters covering the walls and ceiling of the stage and coming part way out into the auditorium. As soon I entered I was in awe. From the offset, with the opening number Miracle, you know your going to be in for a good time. The production team have made it wonderfully accessible to the whole family, but understandably its geared to a slightly younger audience. Some of the jokes throughout the show are infantile, juvenile or childish. It felt a bit stupid at first, but after a while I accepted its silliness and fell in love. It's what makes the show.

       There are 9 child roles in the show, which are shared by 29 performers. All of them are absolutely mind-blowing and I was in awe of all of them. I am sure they will all have brilliant careers in theatre. The role of Matilda is shared between 4 fantastic young ladies and when I went it was played by Lara Wollington. She was brilliant in her comedic timing and gave a wonderful childishness to the role that I don't think was present in the film Matilda, released in 1996 and staring Mara Wilson in the title role. The film, by the way, is one of my all-time favourites. The musical is, in my opinion 100% better. Lara is completely wonderful, though doesn't quite steel the show. That is done by David Leonard as Miss Trunchball. He adds a whole new femininity to the role that wasn't present in the film, which makes her much more of a human and realistic character. I'd go so far as to say even lovable. Of course, David still makes her a horrid and mean character who, as it says in the book has 'never been little'. Although every seat in the house has a good view, if you want to get the best experience with Miss Trunchball, and don't worry you wont be put in Chokey, you will need to sit in the stalls as close to the central isle as you can.

       In the 1996 film the two roles of Matilda's parents, Mr and Mrs Wormwood, were played brilliantly by Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman. In this production they are played by Steve Furst and Annette McLaughlin. Steve was brilliant and really added something to the role. He's had much character acting experience both on TV and on stage as he has, so I'm not surprised as to how good he was. I felt almost as though he was performing just to me. That is the sign of a good actor. Annette on the other hand I found disappointing. The mother is a wonderfully idiotic character with a mean streak running through her core. I actually found the performance rather lacklustre.

       As I stared off this post, this is one of the best shows I've ever seen in the West End and it is one that I would recommend the whole family seeing. Due to the cast of 29 children playing just 9 roles I'm definitely going to see it again, making sure it's someone different as Matilda. Who knows, it might be even better next time (though I find that hard to believe). Tickets and Info

If I could I'd give it more than 5. Oh screw it ..........

Billy Elliot

       Billy Elliot has been entertaining audiences in London since 2005, but I've only just got around to seeing it. Its also currently touring in the US. There was one reason for this. Well two. Firstly, I've always felt that there has been something better to see when I went to see a show. Secondly I am a massive fan of the film made in 2000 and so, as with Singin' In The Rain or Beautiful Thing, I didn't want my love of the film to be spoilt. It wasn't, and I am so glad I went.

       The theatre, The Victoria Palace Theatre, has been the home of Billy Elliot from the beginning, and is a theatre I have never visited. AS with most London theatres is decorated opulently with red and gold. The seats a comfortable, but the leg room was a little lacking. I was sat in seat K7 in the Dress Circle, second row from the back. A reasonable view, though I would have liked to be a little closer. The view was brilliant, with only a few areas blocked (though this wasn't really important for the show). Normally I would advise you to sit as close to the middle as you can, but not here. Obviously the extreme edges of the seating and being to far back in The Grand Circle will affect you view and block areas of the stage. Any where else will be fine. The seats were mainly full of older people and teenagers, though there were a few families. This didn't surprise me and actually made for a nice atmosphere before the show.

       Billy Elliot is set in Britain during the miners strike of 1984/5, in a northern coal mining town. The story follows a young boy, Billy Elliot, as he discovers a love for ballet. We follow his struggles growing up as young boy with a love for dance, against the wishes of his widowed father and domineering brother. I wont go to into the story to much, as if you haven't seen the film (or the show) I wouldn't want to spoil it for you.

       For me the film was 10 times better. Not that the show was at all bad. The film had, in 2000, a budget of around £3million and the crew had the ability to use brilliant locations and studio sets. This obviously cant compare, no matter the budget, with a stage in a London theatre. The set is, however, fantastic, in fact shockingly good in places. The wonderful design by Ian MacNeil, transports you back to the 80's, helped wonderfully be Nicky Gillibrand's costume design and the lighting of Rick Fisher. It could quite as easily however be confused with a story taking place now as the sets and costumes seem to transcend any specific time and year. The main set piece doesn't really change, however parts of it move around, up, down, appear and disappear. It all happens with such fluidity that it doesn't interfere with any of the action going on around it. I'm sure that's due to the show running for 7 years. I just hope that it doesn't end up like Phantom where the team behind it appear to get complacent.

       For me, Billy will always be represented by the actor that played him in the film, Jamie Bell. Billy Elliot was Jamie's first film, and he has gone on to become a brilliant actor, being in films such as King Kong, Jumper and Tintin. With the stage production the role of Billy is shared between four young actors. When I went to see it I had the privilege of seeing Redmand Rance, a young 12 year old performer form Portsmouth. I must say he was exceptionally good, and was very close to being on an equal par to Jamie Bell. In the movie the role of Billy's best friend, Michael, was played by Stuart Wells. Unfortunately, due to enrolling in the army soon after the film was released, and only leaving it in 2008, we heard very little from him in the way of acting roles (mainly small TV roles and one film in 2003). On the stage the role is wonderfully played by Thomas Moore. At such a young age he is taking on a role that deals with homosexuality and cross dressing, but plays it with respect, wonderful comedic timing and a sense of playfulness.

       Although I would recommend seeing the film over the show, it isn't one to rule out. With wonderful musical numbers, written be the one and only Elton John, and a story line that is hart breaking and upbeat at the same time, its a show the family will love. Just be aware that there is a lot of swearing both by the adults and by the children. Tickets and Info

 

Singin' In The Rain

       I fell in love with Singin' In The Rain about 5 years ago when I first watched the 1952 MGM film, starring Gene Kelly, Donald O'Connor and Debbie Reynolds. The performances of all three in the film I still find spellbinding. What I wasn't aware of until recently is that Gene Kelly was also the co-director as well as the choreographer on the film, and therefore one of the main driving forces behind it. For me the film has most definitely stood the test of time, as its one of the few films made before 1980 that I can actually watch and enjoy. Even in the modern age of HD, 3D and soon (if the rumours are true) 4D, it is still as fresh and interesting as it’s always been.

       Because of my love for the film, I was hesitant to see this production. My friend recommended it to me however last week, when I told him of my hesitation. I trust his judgement, so decided to bight the bullet and go. I'm so glad I did. I must say however that if you’re going thinking it’s going to outshine the film, you'll be disappointed. The production is great, but it could never compare to the large sets, sweeping camera shots and location shooting of the film.

       The Palace Theatre, where the show is on, has had an exceptional history with the shows it has housed. It has played host to, most notably, Jesus Christ Superstar, Les Mis and Spamalot. The last time I went however was in 2011 for one of the last performances of Priscilla Queen Of The Desert. The theatre, unlike most in London, the amount of gold in the decoration is almost non-existent. The main colours are grown and blue/green with the seats in what can only be called burgundy. This colour combination makes for a welcome change from the other theatres and gives a more relaxed atmosphere.

       When I went to see Priscilla I was in 15G of the Dress Circle. This time I was in 26F of the stalls. Both seats had great views though, as with most shows, sitting more towards the centre is always best. This is especially true for this production as action does occur on the edges of the stage. I would recommend being in the stalls and, if you want to be 'included' into the show a bit more sit as near to the front as you feel able. I was six roes back, but still got 'included' and it really added to my experience.

       The production is sublime, and stays exceptionally close to the film. Staying as true to the film as they did, means that it hasn't spoilt my love for the film. In fact I immediately wanted to watch the film as soon as I got home. The set is great, and although the main backdrop of the stage doesn't actually change, you still get transported to the different locations in which the show is set. The smoothness of scene changes was great, and the design of it overall and the ingenuity of some pieces must earn Simon Higlett the set designer, some congratulations.

       Adam Cooper and Louise Bowden as Don Lockwood and Kathy Selden were good, but the show was most definitely stolen by Stephane Anelli as Cosmo Brown and Zara Warren as Lina Lamont. As soon as Stephane started singing Make 'Em Laugh the whole audience loved him. Singing it brilliantly and having such wonderful comic timing, while performing a difficult routine is defiantly something that shouldn't be overlooked. All I could hear was people gasping and talking to each other every time he moved. You could tell it was tricky for him as he was extremely out of breath at the end. Lina Lamont is usually played by Jennifer Ellison, however she was unable to perform when I went to see it so her understudy, Zara Warren, took the role. Zara was phenomenal. How she is only an understudy I will  never know. Her performance was well constructed and her voice was, in its own was, sublime. Her rendition on What's Wrong With Me was one of the best I've heard, and had the audience in fits of laughter.

 

       The rain effect used during the title song, if your not sure the title of which is Singin' In The Rain, was fantastic. With over 7000 litres of water being used during the song, of which 2500 has to travel through a quarter of a mile of piping to fall from above, the scene was captivating. Yes, the rain starts rather suddenly and the noise of the rain machine starting did spoil the feel a little, but the overall visual effect is something that has to be seen.

 

       My initial reservations where totally unfounded and going to see the show proved that. If your not sure, GO! It is a great show for all ages. You need to hurry though, as it closes on 8th June. But don't fear. It then goes on a tour around the UK and Ireland, stopping in 16 different cities all the way until October 2014. Tickets and Info

 

 

 

Beautiful Thing

       This production marks the 20th anniversary of the plays first performance on the 20th July 1993. The original production had a fantastic reception from audiences and critics and so, like this production, went on a UK tour. The play made its West End debut in 1994 and then in 1996 the Beautiful Thing film was released. It was only intended to be seen on television, but the outstanding response it meant the film was shown in cinemas and has since gained cult status.

       This new production is going back close to the shows beginnings by not appearing in a massive West End theatre. In 1993 it was shown in The Bush Theatre which only holds around 80 people. The current production is in The Art Theatre, an independent commercial theatre providing unique and innovative entertainment which seats just 350 people. Not as small as The Bush Theatre, but certainly not as big as the other West End theatres. This intimacy in the theatre works well for the show. The theatre itself feels very 'underground' with totally black walls and faded red seating. With this production its best to sit either in the balcony or at least half way up the stalls. I was in B3 in the stalls and found myself looking slightly up for the whole production. Not terrible, but not brilliant.

       This is a fantastic production. With laughs throughout, with emotional and serious moments dotted in at the perfect points. Admittedly the storyline of two boys in a rundown Thamesmead council estate falling in love through the various trials and tribulations of their lives, isn't for everyone, but it is a play that has spoken for a generation of the gay community and is a fantastic story. The majority of the audience were older members of the gay community, though it wasn't exclusively confined to them. The play doesn't really have mass appeal to a wide audience anymore and that's a shame. The set has been brilliantly executed by Colin Richmond who has also created the wonderful costumes.

       The production is propelled forward by the brilliant performances of Jake Davies and Danny-Boy Hatchard as the two main characters Jamie and Ste. The only negative I have about either performance, is that sometimes Jake can be a little over the top when laughing. Suranne Jones, who plays Jamie's mum Sandra, is, as one might expect, brilliant. She by far steals the show and its well worth seeing the show just to see her performance.

       If your not in London, don't panic. The show is going on a UK tour.

13 April – 25 May

ARTS THEATRE | London West End

28 May – 1 June

LIVERPOOL PLAYHOUSE | Liverpool

3 – 8 June

WEST YORKSHIRE PLAYHOUSE | Leeds

10 – 15 June

THEATRE ROYAL | Brighton

 

 

       This show is defiantly one for avid theatre goers looking for something a little off the beaten track. Tickets and Info









Les Miserables

       I last went to see Les Miserables in, I think, 2005. I have always had fond memories of the show and was looking forward to seeing the show again. Like a lot of people, I'm sure, I went to see the 2012 film in the cinema. The film was fantastic, though the show had made a bigger impression on me. Immediately after coming out of the film, I was determined to see the show again.

       The show is now in its 28th year and has been in its current home, The Queen's Theatre, since 2004. Before this it was in The Palace Theatre, where it had been for 18 years. The Palace Theatre is, from what I remember (I was last there over a year ago when I went to see Priscilla), a lovely big theatre, with swathes of seating and huge stage. The Queens theatre is a lot smaller and therefore feels a lot mot intimate. This is a good thing but if, like me, you are off to the edge of the seating (I was B3 in the Dress Circle) you can see into the wings of the stage. This is very off putting when you can see all of the scenery, and sometimes actors, getting into position. If you are only two or three seats nearer the centre, your view would be massively improved.

       The theatre is lovely, with a brilliant lobby area and some great merchandise. The seats have a good amount of leg room though they feel a little to close to the ground and are a bit hard, so I was slightly uncomfortable for most of the show. My view of the far right of the stage was blocked slightly by a guard rail and this did interfere for some parts of the show. On the whole though the view was good. The theatre, like a lot in London, is almost drowned in red. though this works well with the show.

       Like Phantom the show has been running for a long time however, unlike Phantom, Les Mis has lost none of its quality or charm. The cast is immaculate in both quality of acting and in singing. The sets are brilliant, and the forming of the barricade will always be something I look forward to. If I were to be picky, and I will be, I had a slight issue with Samantha Dorsey as Cosette. Its her professional debut and so I want to be as nice as I can, but you can tell she hasn't had much experience. She was a little to Disney. This really isn't that good for this role or for the show. I couldn't help but continually notice her top row of gleaming white teeth and the strange facial expressions she was pulling, which I can only assume were meant to be anguish. The show also has a young talent in Danielle Hope as Eponine. People in the UK will know her for winning the BBC show Over The Rainbow, which meant she was cast as Dorothy in Andrew Lloyd Webber’s production of The Wizard Of Oz in 2011. She left the role of Dorothy almost a year after her first performance, and has played Eponine since June 2012. She is a good performer in Les Mis and holds the role well. She has made a good transition between these two roles that, I'm sure you will agree, are complete opposites of each other.

       Unfortunately for the performance I went to see there were two cast changes. Instead of Geronimo Rauch playing Jean Valjean it was played by Chris Holland and instead of Vicky Entwistle playing Madame Thenardier it was played by Nicky Swift. Both were brilliant in their roles, but I was looking forward to seeing Vicky Entwistle, known for playing Janice Battersby in Coronation Street for 14 years, as this role marked her West End debut. Saying that however, Nicky Swift was brilliant, however she is slim and for me Madame Thenardier is a large lady, mainly because I think of Jenny Galloway when I think of the character as she played it brilliantly for a number of years. As I am on the subject of Thenardier, I would just like to say that Cameron Blakely plays the man himself fantastically, though he does look a little like Sacha Baron Cohen from the 2012 film.

       I would love to give the show 5 stars, however I feel it wasn't as polished or as good as I feel it can be. Like with Phantom I could here the staging move, though only occasionally and not as loud. Also in some of Samantha Dorsey's scenes her Disney style detracted from the feel of the show. However Jamie Ward as Marius completely lifted the whole show, as his acting and singing are brilliant, with his rendition of Empty Chairs At Empty Tables pulling at the heart strings of the whole audience.

       This is defiantly a show you should go and see, and long may it continue in the West End. Tickets and Info

A Chorus Line

       I wasn't sure if I should see this or not as to be honest my only experience of the show was the 1985 film with Michael Douglas, which I wasn't that keen on. This show is a classic of the stage and can be credited with changing the world of Broadway and all musical theatre from the 'Hello Dolly' style into the style of musical theatre we know today. Due to the long history of this show, having started in 1975, and after a friend calling it a 'must see', I decided I would be stupid not to book a ticket.

       The show is playing at The London Palladium which has a long and interesting history. Having been opened on Boxing Day 1910 it started life as a variety theatre. Its probably most famous for playing host to the TV show Sunday Night At The London Palladium, which ran from 1955 to 1967. In 1930 it hosted its first Royal Variety Performance and has so far played host to 36 of them, the most out of any other venue used for the performance. Its history in the theatre life of London is unsurpassed and its worth seeing the show, just to be part of the theatres magical history.

       The opulent surroundings of the theatre were amazing, with vast amounts of gold on every wall. The auditorium has more seats than I imagined, though not all the seats were full. My seat, B37 in the Royal Circle, was lovely. Wonderfully comfortable though the back was a little hard. It also had more leg room than at any other production I've seen in a while. The only negative was that it was slightly to far to the side, although that wasn't really an issue for this production. A bonus was that I was sitting directly opposite The Royal Box, although sadly The Queen wasn't in attendance (or any member of royalty for that matter. lol)

       The staff of the theatre were fantastic. They did like to talk to each other though rather than to people. saying that, they were however talking about various theatre productions all over the world. You could tell that everyone that worked there loved their job and loved the world of theatre.

       The set was simpler than anything I have seen, or am likely to see in the future. In has been described in the past, and accurately I might add, as a black box. Totally black, with two chairs, a few bags, a white line across the stage and occasionally mirrors across the back wall. That's it. Like a stage before its been set before a production. This of course suits the show which, makes it brilliantly simple but affective. Its a gritty and real portrayal of theatre life, which is something not often shown. Although it is fantastic, part of me still wonders 'surely you don't have to go through all that just to be in the chorus'.

       The fact that this 2 hour production has no interval goes totally unnoticed, as one is captivated by the superb acting, dancing and storytelling of the whole cast. Although the whole cast were fantastic, the audience defiantly fell in love with Harry Francis and Gary Wood as they both got louder applause than anyone else. I'm not surprized to be honest, as their performances were brilliant. Harry is also a hugely talented dancer and singer. I have to say, most of the cheers were from younger, and some older, woman. I was really excited to see John Partridge, as he is one of the best musical performers we have in the UK, but was disappointed. He was, as you would expect, brilliant in his role, but I felt in was wrong for him. It didn't show off the talent that I know he has. I mean just look at him as The Rum Tum Tugger in Cats.

       Due to the important role its played in the history of musical theatre, the fantastic musical score and the brilliant cast, you MUST go to see this show.  Tickets and Info

Quartermaine's Terms

       I didn't do much research into this play but was determined to see Rowan Atkinson. As far as I was concerned this was a serious play and I was going to be bored but dam it, I was going to see Atkinson. Because of my general lack of interest in the overall production I decided not to spend the sort of money I normally do when going to a show. In the end I spent just £37 and was sat in seat B15 in the top balcony.

       The entrance/foyer is deceptively small, as the theatre itself is massive (at least it felt like it was). After climbing a mass of stairs I arrived at the balcony level. As I walked along the back of the seats to find my B15, I was taken aback by the height at which I was sat. It almost felt like  a vertical drop and I would spend the whole time with my head bent down. As I sat down next to a rather nice American lady, hello Jan, I was bitterly disappointed to find my seat about as comfortable as being poked in the eye with a sharp stick. In fact on a number of occasions throughout the play my bum went numb.

       Although high, the seat had a relatively good view. The perspective of the stage did seem a little odd, but after a while I got used to it. Also as the seats are at such a steep angle (my feet were the same height as the shoulders of the people in the row in front of me, I had no obstructions to my view.

       The show itself is so witty and brilliantly acted. Its a masterclass in acting with its comic and tragic elements intertwined effortlessly by the whole cast, creating totally believable characters and relationships. Although set in the 1960's it most defiantly could be modern times. Although the subject matter, following the lives of seven teachers at a English language school over several years, doesn't sound exciting, its in fact a brilliantly observational piece of theatre. I feel this play is more suited to an older audience, or theatre/acting students, It still worth going if your a theatre fan.

       The set was fantastic. Such a realistic indoor space. The only other indoor space i remember being this realistic on stage was when I went to see Abigail's Party in 2003. The colors in the set a rather muted, all with a brown, green or orange undertone. This not only gives slight warmth to the set, but also is a true representation of the 1960s as this is when the play is set. Although I was sat high up, i still had a good view of most of the stage and so was able to appreciate the hours of work that must have gone into creating it.

       The only real issue I had was with Rowan Atkinson. Don't misunderstand me. He is a fantastical gifted and talented actor and is on top form in this production, however one this annoys me. Bean. Mr Bean to be precise. Rowan has become plagued my Mr Bean, even though he has done so much more during his career. There are points during the play were certain mannerisms of Rowan's acting just scream Mr Bean. I could feel the whole audience react to it.

Defiantly one to see, but you need to be quick as it ends on 13 April and not many seats available. Tickets and Info

Phantom Of The Opera

       My sister and I have been wanting to see this show for a long time, but for one reason or another neither of us have found the time until now. We went with high hopes seeing as it has had brilliant reviews and has now been going for over 25 years. Both of us however were left disappointed and deflated.

       The theater, although nice, isn't as grand or as opulent as some of the others in London. Our seats would have been fantastic (Seats B16 and B17 of the Royal Circle), apart from the fact that the seats were only slightly higher than the row in front. This meant that both my view and that of my sister were blocked by the people in front of us. The staff of the theatre were nice, but seemed very disconnected from their jobs or the people they were dealing with.

       Some of the actors microphones didn't seem to be that loud throughout the production and were sometimes completely drowned out by the orchestra. Also, during scene changes I was able to hear the scenery bumping along the stage as it was being pushed into position. I was in the second row of the Royal Circle. I should NOT be able to hear the scenery moving, especially when there is something happening on the stage that I'm trying to listen to.

       As its now been going for so long, all the performers that are currently in the production are not widely known. Although all of them were competent singers and performers, I did fell that they were average at every point throughout the show. With Phantom Of The Opera, I am of the belief that all of the cast should be shockingly good singers. The best performer of the night for me was Jeremy Secomb as Ubaldo Piangi, however his part was exceptionally small for someone with his acting ability and voice quality. Most disappointing for me however was the Phantom himself. Don't get me wrong, Marcus Lovett did an acceptable job. However he has been in a number of musicals in his career, including the original Broadway production of Les Miserables, and i would have expected his singing and acting ability to blow me away. In the end however, it left me feeling rather flat.

       In in current state and with its current lineup of performers, I have to admit that I wouldn't recommend seeing the production. If however you cant afford the theater prices and don't want to wait for a new cast to materialise, Warner Brothers made a fantastic film in 2004. With an estimated budget of $70,000,000 and a fantastic cast (including Gerard Butler, Patrick Wilson, Minnie Driver, and Simon Callow) its needles to say it is a fantastic film that is well worth watching.

Tickets and Info

 

The Audience

I will fully admit that when reading about this play it didn't seem the most appealing to me. The official website describes it thus:

(The Audience) imagines a series of pivotal meetings between the Downing Street incumbents and their Queen. From Churchill to Cameron, each Prime Minister has used these private conversations as a sounding board and a confessional – sometimes intimate, sometimes explosive. From young mother to grandmother, these private audiences chart the arc of the second Elizabethan Age. Politicians come and go through the revolving door of electoral politics, while she remains constant, waiting to welcome her next Prime Minister

Politics has never been a subject that i find particularly thrilling, and so I really wasn't sure if I would enjoy this. Helen Mirren, once again portraying Queen Elizabeth II, is a fantastically talented actress, but is obviously limited be the script and subject matter. While sitting at my desk one day, I had a realisation. I absolutely loved The Queen (2006) and lets face it, that was a very political film. If I loved that film, what would stop me loving this play. Why also would I deny myself the opportunity of seeing Dame Helen perform. After all she has won an Academy Award, four BAFTAs, three Golden Globes, four Emmy Awards and two Cannes Film Festival Best Actress Awards. I would be a fool NOT to go. I booked my ticket at the end of January, for seat 7C in the balcony.

Last night I went to see the production and it was, in a word, AMAZING. I ended up sitting in seat 5C, for reasons I wont go into, and this had a slightly restricted view due to a handrail on the front of the balcony. I also was unable to see the far right of the stage. This didn't however ruin the play at all. I would have had a better all round view by sitting more towards the centre, so if you go I would recommend sitting as close to the centre of the seating as you can.

The theatre itself, The Gielgud Theatre on Shaftesbury Avenue, is great. It is a big theatre but, certainly from where I was, it felt quite intimate. The seats weren't the most comfortable and didn't have much leg room. The decor is amazing, with vast amounts of peach and gold adorning every wall. The staff are exceptionally friendly and very well presented. They were always asking if everything was OK, wishing me a good journey home and just generally making sure I was having a pleasant evening. I know that staff at other theatres do this, but I noticed it a lot more here. That isn't a bad thing.

The set for the play was simple, with two chairs and the occasional table or desk (and a two bar electric heater). There are just two back drops throughout the play ,due to it being set in just two locations. The backdrop used in the Buckingham Palace scenes has a fantastic illusion of depth and has an opulent appearance. The minimal changes made to the set during scene changes, more time changes really, allowed for a more flowing and immersive production. It also allowed for much more emphasis to be placed on the acting. The creative team behind this need to be congratulated.

The creative team behind the fantastic costumes and hair also need to be congratulated. The changes of hair and costume for Dame Helen mainly took part on stage. They took a matter a seconds and the transformative effects were fantastic. Helen Mirren goes from 2012 to 1952 to 2002 in the blink of an eye. The acting of the whole cast though I was left unimpressed, unfortunately, by Edward Fox.

Definitely one I'm going to try and see again. BOOK YOUR TICKETS NOW! You wont be disappointed. Tickets and Info