Reader Reviews
The UN Inspector (Olivier (National Theatre), West End)
Back to Show Details| Score | Comment | Date |
 | Not worthy of the National. Wonderful actors wasted on poor writing. Also, much much too long. - 80.177.231.164) | 07 Sep 05 |
| The UN Inspector is tawdry and tedious. The woeful jokes are delivered with sledghammer sublety. That's bad enough, but then these 'punchlines' are repeated with minor changes again and again. If an army wanted to torture its opponents into submission it should broadcast this play non-stop into the enemy's camp and it would take less than the excruciating 2hours 45 minutes I spent there for the white flag to be raised! It is also tiresome to see age-old stereotypes taken from the bin and presented as fresh wit; yes Eastern European countries are poor, some of their leaders corrupt, and politicians everywhere are money-grabbing power-seekers. But relaying these truisms to an audience doesn't make a play funny or farcical. Only Michael Sheen emerges with any credit (he is occasionally maniacally funny) but you have to question his sense in getting involved with this turkey. - 217.33.207.242) | 07 Sep 05 |
| If only it were possible to give this a 'zero' score. OH MY GOD, this is a BAD play and David Farr is a very, very bad man. For the love of god, save yourselves and DON'T GO SEE THIS PLAY! - 86.134.99.246) | 29 Aug 05 |
| Absolutely dreadful production - how on earth did this badly adapted, dreadfully acted, overblown damp squib ever end up at the National Theatre? I left at the interval - as did several others. - 81.79.129.213) | 30 Jul 05 |
| Dire. V. disappointing to see such a badly written (requires drastic editing) and over-acted performance (less shouting please) at the National which can usually be relied on for its high quality productions. Only 2nd time in my theatre-going life that have not returned for the 2nd half. - 160.79.17.132) | 01 Jul 05 |
| Just how bad this production is cannot be underestimated. The Director seems to think that making the actors - good actors - shout every line makes for comedy (political or otherwise). It doesn't. As the first act wore on (I left at the interval), it got worse and worse, veering from bad to just plain offensive - the Asian Satsuma!! The desparation in the Actors eyes was there for all to see - I couldn't wait to get out. AVOID! - 212.135.3.102) | 29 Jun 05 |
| I don't entirely understand why this doesn't work. The re-setting is a superb idea. The cast is wonderful. The design excellent. There are some great lines and some great comedy moments.....but the OTT acting becomes relentless, the evening very long and and it just doesn't sustain its length. Shame, really, because cut and toned down, it could have been a treat. - 81.134.71.192) | 28 Jun 05 |
| Not as bad as many have made out, it's entertaining, some really funny lines and great acting and design, but too long and extremely flawed in tone and content. You'll still be entertained, but a bad taste lingers. - 81.156.176.119) | 26 Jun 05 |
| Some good moments, but lacking in cohesion and subtlety. Whilst the central character is a grotesque, one never quite believes that HE believes in what he is saying, as is paramount to the original Gogol. Bringing in the Soviet dissidents was fine, but to then follow it up with yet another 'farsical' scene seemed trivialising and, to be honest, not in particularly good taste. We weren't laughing at ourselves, in that we weren't really laughing that much at all. Misjudged and a wasted opportunity. Nice set though and some of the supporting actors good. - 62.252.0.10) | 23 Jun 05 |
| “You're laughing at yourselves,” snarls Kenneth Cranham. I was quite tempted to shout snarl back "I've not laughed once". Oh dear !! - 193.128.25.20) | 23 Jun 05 |
| dreadful schlock, the critics which have given this a good review are a disgrace, sending innocent theatregoers into this dreary morass. As to those who claim that the 1 star ratings are all by a single reviewer, all i can say is the person who gave this a four star rating -- stand up David Farr. - 86.135.14.79) | 20 Jun 05 |
| It's the acting, the writing and directing. You know its a farce because everyone always shouts at each other portentiously. You know its a farce because people are jumping up on beds, tables, pedestals, whatever. We know it is a farce because one character falls from a table after having consumed over 20 glasses and two bottles of brandy or vodka. (Don't worry he sleeps it off in an hour or so). But don't be misled, the writer really is a deep, thoughtful, significant writer-- we know because just after having spent two minutes watching a character silently and deperately devour a tongue cut from a journalist (and all the audience can do is feel sorry for the actor), we have the journalist's mother and collegue show the signs of their torture. We have a wonderfully chilling backlit scene of the "prisoners" outside trying to get in. So it is not a farce? Don't worry, the actors return to shouting and charging about the stage again. Subtlety is not one of the weaknesses of this play. It was in the National Theatre Bookstore that I found a long sought copy of Green's "The Art of Coarse Acting" after the play. Appropriate. - 66.183.116.28) | 18 Jun 05 |
| A serious blot on Nicholas Hytners almost total success rate, he clearly took his eye off the ball by allowing the writer to also direct,I fail to understand how an actor of the calibre of Michael Sheen allowed himself to get involved in such an overlong, self indulgent piece.Yet there may just be a good play in there somewhere if another director can be brought in to trim it up.Hugely disappointing - 81.76.106.140) | 18 Jun 05 |
| This is one of those strange showa where there is so much that you can say is excellent - performances by Michael Sheen, Kenneth Cranham, Geraldine James, a fast paced production, many laugh out loud moments, but some how many fine things do not quite gell to make the evening a total success. Its certainly not a one star as listed by many contributions below but it it is not a resounding success.At £10 a ticket - it is a bargain - I suspect you will be well entaitned but not totally satified. - 80.42.144.65) | 17 Jun 05 |
| Am amazed by the vitriol poured on what I found to be a mildly enjoyable, if overlong, show. On the plus side, there are some fine actors (Geraldine James, Kenneth Cranham, Sam Cox, Elizabeth Bell, a woefully underused Nicolas Tennant),a terrific set, some very funny moments, and a satisfyingly chilling kick to the second half. On the other hand, it is at least half hour too long, and, for me anyway, Michael Sheen's posturing, deeply unfunny performance. He is just not a natural clown and leaves a bit of a void where the middle of the show should be. - 195.82.123.181) | 17 Jun 05 |
| I have more than a sneaking suspicion that all eight of the previous one-star reviews were written by the same vitriolic (for whatever insidious reason) individual. I saw the final preview last night with a group of 28, and without exception we found it a smart, sharp, expertly judged and paced production. Sure, the bit with the tongue is alarming, but this is satire, folks: it's MEANT to disturb your comfortable sensibilities. Farr's version of Gogol is up-to-the-minute fresh, full of great jokes, and laugh-out-loud hilarious. It's very broad, with more than a touch of Blackadder (Michael Sheen's knockout, no-holds-barred performance in particular), so it may not be to everyone's taste. But to dismiss is with one star is simply ridiculous: it's another important Hytner achievement, and should pack the sudiences in all summer. - 82.35.42.48) | 16 Jun 05 |
| Unfortunately I cannot comment on the second half as I had enough by the interval. This play is either seriously under-rehearsed or atrociously directed. Previous comments are pretty accurate generally. Quite the worst thing I have seen at the National (and I saw Iphigenia at Aulis, which was fairly bad). - 217.36.28.3) | 15 Jun 05 |
| I was still defending this at the interval as I thought the first act was quite funny and still had overtones of the atmosphere of the original Gogol piece. However by the end of the (ridiculously long) second act even I had to agree with my friends. Every time a joke was made I prayed that they wouldn't feel it necessary to string it out and explain it at length - but they did. Every single time. I feel sorry for the actors having to go on every night knowing that the second half will be such a struggle. Also agree with many of the other comments, the unfunny gag about the tongue and especially how it is disposed of was pretty vile and actually made me feel sick. I wish I could say that three hours felt like value for money but I was itching to get out! - 212.139.47.107) | 12 Jun 05 |
| Like the bastard love child of Are You Being Served and Minder, the UN Inspector was the most execrable thing I have ever witnessed on the London stage. And if either John Inman or Dennis Waterman had produced such a monstrosity then to have knock it on the head at birth wouldn't have been both quicker, and more merciful than what David Farr and a world of public subsidies have concocted. Offensively staged, tiringly acted (what else can the poor cast do but ham it up), miserably directed, and, most of all, in such shockingly bad tate it is almost worth seeing for the rarity of such amateurism on the London stage. Take my advice, if you have a ticket either drink plenty of vodka on the way in and treat it as an exercise in schadenfreude (the poor cast die on their feet). Or cut and run. Simply asking Kenneth Cranham to read aloud the dreary UN Charter would have been preferable. - 158.143.134.183) | 12 Jun 05 |
| Occasionally I come away from the theatre disappointed, rarely do I leave at the interval feeling angry that my time and money could have been put to better use. Micheal Sheen is an extraodinary actor and we wondered why after reading the script he would still choose to be involved with this production. Bad Panto. - 82.35.78.96) | 12 Jun 05 |
| I would agree with the large comment below. However, I would add, if you would be made upset by a narrative which portrays the IMF as soley interested in building schools, hospitals and new houses for the poor, then you should probably not see this play. Furthermore, if you would be made upset by a play whose core theme is the IMF stands for freedom, and this goal is only foiled by corrupt regimes, then you should probably not see this play. Of course if you want to have a laugh, then you should probably not see this play either. - 217.41.11.190) | 12 Jun 05 |
| I agree totally with the previous two comments. I was so disappointed as the NT hardly ever get it wrong (the first time in my 23 years as a NT audience member, so I should be grateful.) Just surprised that the script got as far as the stage. The actors did as well as could be expected with some dubious directing and an irrepairable text. - 86.129.196.104) | 11 Jun 05 |
| Very very disappointing. Stereotypes abound in humour that is tired, sloppy and unsophisticated. - 134.83.1.225) | 10 Jun 05 |
| I have never overheard so many disparaging remarks from an NT audience. One reason could be that the author's streak of masochism - and apparent innocence of what works as comedy and parody -impels him to insult the audience very rudely face to face - and it's not funny. He is also the director and so obsessed with his scatological script that nearly 3 hours could be cut by an hour or two - and then it just might raise a chuckle or two. There are so many stale jokes and so much familiar appropriated repetitive fooling that the disgruntled audience's scattered laughter soon became merely an occasional titter . It's the most disappointing dumbing-down in NT history. Not a trace of Gogol's invention or wit, and a bedroom scene between the con-man and his dull sidekick is unbelievably tedious and should be cut entirely.They repeatedly screamed that they are hungry - and so yearned the starved audience for something fresh and inventive. Michael Sheen hysterically reprises various men behaving badly from the telly ;he is untiringly energetic, but the material demeans his punchy performance with witless trashy lines. The over use of waving about a severed tongue ( chopped - oh how funny - from a political 'agitator') is obscene and nauseating. The sudden switch to a serious message at the finale where the President arranges the ' fatal and unfortunate accident' in a helicopter crash involving his daughter with the undesirable boy-friend is intended to be poignant, but is so shockingly off-key with this repetitive silly imitation farce that we are just left with a feeling of confused relief when it's all over. Geraldine James, Geoffrey Beevers and Penelope McGhie work hard but the mixed styles and standards of performance are rendered unavoidable by the dazed dialogue and wayward direction. A depressing disaster unless firmly sharpened up by press night. - 81.132.237.169) | 08 Jun 05 |
