Reader Reviews
The Woman in White (Palace Theatre, West End)
Back to Show Details| Score | Comment | Date |
 | I'm surprised this show is getting such bad reviews... And anyone who says Marry bloody poppins is better and then complains about WIW to be long, overdone and overdramatisised... needs to get a little more cultured. This show, although dosnt have little token tunes such as on my own for instance, it still has beautiful and chilling music throughout. Theres nothing like a good piece of gripping drama, who cares about the OTT ness of the nature, its what most theatre is about. Fantastic score and singing. Brilliant. - 81.131.41.237) | 02 Sep 06 |
| i saw alot of awful reviews for the woman in white, and when my sister bought me tickets to see the show, i was a litle worried. Even more so when i saw the set. However, once the screen set opened out, and the show began, i was cauht up in the eciting and involving chiller. The set was very clever, revolving and changing, more like a choreographed set than anything else! i thouruoghly enjoyed the show, the leads were especially fantastic, yvette robinson stood out especially. Her Marian was amazing, how could she have been an understudy?? - 84.64.133.110) | 17 Feb 06 |
| Right, I firstly must admit that I put off seing this show for over a year after reading the reviews. On New Years Eve wnet to London and TKTS and this show was the only thing that me and myfiends could really agree on. So that was it settled, so arrived at the theatre not really expecting much, but I was SO wrong!! I personally as did my friends thought it was fantastic!! Amitedly I wasn't sure at first but got so involved with it that didn't want it to end. The scenery takes some getting used to but at times its just wonderful. And I also think the music has some of ALW's best melodies!! The cast were also fantastic!! SO that was New Years Eve, and was shocked and dissapointed to read that it was closing. I just knew that my mum would love it as much as me so quickly booked up so she wouldn't miss it. And I wasn't wrong she adored it and was so engrossed in the story. There was no Ruthie Henshall who was just amazing the first time but her replacement was good just not as good. But the rest of the cast were just as amazing. So those who haven't seen it just get down to the Palace before you miss it!! - 80.3.0.44) | 11 Feb 06 |
| AFTER SEEING THIS SHOW FOR THE THIRD TIME I CAN ONLY SAY IT GETS BETTER AND BETTER. I MEAN LES MIS DIDN'T HAVE THE BEST OF STARTS AFTER ALL! I HAVE NOTICED MANY CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE WOMAN IN WHITE AND ALL HAVE BEEN FOR THE BETTER PARTICULARLY THE REMOVAL OF SIMON CALLOW...ABSOLUTELY DREADFUL. SOME OF THE LYRICS OF THIS SHOW ARE AT TIMES A BIT CHILD LIKE, WHERE CERTAIN SENTENCES ONLY SEEM TO HAVE BEEN PUT THERE BECAUSE THEY RHYME WITH THE LAST ONE, BUT THIS IS MY ONLY GRIPE. THE SCORE, THE SETS, AND ABOVE ALL THE PERFORMANCES ARE SECOND TO NONE. ITS A SHAME THIS SHOW HAS POSTED ITS CLOSING NOTICES BEFORE IT REALLY HAD TIME TO FIND ITS FEET. HURRY BACK. - 82.36.211.82) | 08 Feb 06 |
| Okay this a complex one but let's try.... I saw this at the Palace twice.. once in previews.. eek.. and then later with Mr Ball...and it grew on me.. Also saw it in New York over Christmas and .. well was amazed at the transformation.. Totally beautiful and so finely tuned...I felt all proud to be English and waited at the stage door to say a big stupid thanks to the cast......even Maria's understudy was totally stunning..... So it's a bit sad that it is bowing out of the West End.... But there's more. I am gutted that it is being replaced by the trashy and terrible 'Spamalot' show. And sadly yes.. I had the dreadful misfortune to see it on Broadway.. well 'mostly' see it that is from an over inflated $110 seat. I was so dreadfully embarrassed by this clumsy commercial crap that I had to leave at half time... and left angry and ripped off....and certainly not feeling proud to be English... The Americans clearly loved it and seemed intent on making it a cult before it's time...... A dreadful dreadful piece... sorry but it has to be said... - 86.128.56.15) | 30 Jan 06 |
| Proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Lloyd Webber is now in the same category as Woody Allen and Mel Brooks - i.e., men who ran out of ideas long ago but haven't stopped working. - 81.77.103.15) | 25 Jan 06 |
| My wife gave it two points, but I could only give it one. I found it too loud, too long and too depressing. Two people sitting in front of us didn't return after the interval. - 212.74.96.199) | 17 Jan 06 |
| Meal was good for the price -salmon is good choice.Show had good set changes but found story line a bit confusing and music not normal for ALW.But acting was v.good.Also had good seat. - 62.252.64.30) | 09 Jan 06 |
| I truly don't understand The really usefull company any more.Why they are intent apon ruining what was a very inovative and interesting evening in musical theatre God knows.They made a lot of nonsensical changes to the show when Ruthie Henshall took over. Not content with that they continue to destroy the fabric of the evening with rediculous casting decisions. As if it were not enough damage inflicted by the loss of the definative Count Fosco (Anthony Andrfews) They first cast Simon Callow who was embarassing in the part and now appear to have given it away to a perfectly good theatre artist who has for some reason best known to himself taken the character so far away from Wilkie Collins as to be totaly unrecognisable camp nonsense destroying the credibility of the show. - 64.12.117.9) | 07 Jan 06 |
| Right. I don't care if I sound like a pub bore, I just wanted to make another noise about this wonderful show. I saw it earlier this evening and I am increasingly convinced that it's ALW's best work. Indeed, after three viewings I'm not sure I put it all that far behind Les Mis in my all-time list. The current cast is magnificent; in particular the new Laura, Anne and Glyde who all surpass their predecessors. Ruthie Henshall appeared not to be in great voice (she sounded as though she had a sore throat) yet she covered it with prodigious technique and dramatic intensity. As Count Fosco, David Burt was almost as good as M*ch**l B*ll. Hell - even the rat was a star tonight. I even found myself grudgingly enjoying the Bill Dudley light show (something I've often scorned here previously), although I'd still rather see this play in a more traditional setting. That said, my wife and kids - all seeing it for the first time - think I'm completely wrong about that, so I'll lay off my hobby horse from now on. Anyone who's held back from seeing this show should think again. It's a masterpiece of musical theatre. Hats off. - 82.34.197.175) | 04 Jan 06 |
| Saw WiW last week. It was good. The visual set was different. Like a movie or a video game. You notice it, but it works well. The drop sets were the same. Sometimes they worked better than others. The songs were catchy and the acting good. Ruthie Henshall's singing overshadowed the rest, however. In short, a good show and worth going to see. - 206.48.228.26) | 21 Dec 05 |
| I went to this show not knowing quite what to expect...and was most pleasantly surprised. I found the storyline gripping, and the projected set interesting and rather effective. It did have its moments where cast members were being projected upon, but on the whole I found it worked very well. The cast were all wonderful, though I must give special mention to Ruthie Henshall, Elinor Collett, Alexandra Silber and Tim Walton (played Walter Hartright). Ms Henshall's portrayal of Marian Halcombe was fantastic, with a wonderful blend of humour, passion, strength and vulnerability. All three leading ladies demonstrated great vocal talent, with Elinor Collett successfully creating a distraught, desperate and perhaps slightly insane, Anne Catherick. I thoroughly enjoyed the score, with All For Laura, Trying Not To Notice, The Seduction and the eerie and powerful main theme being my favourites. I would definitely recommend seeing this show. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did! - 86.194.222.126) | 20 Dec 05 |
| An excellent piece of music with magical scenery and outstanding performances by Ruthie Henshall and Simon Callow. - 130.88.160.41) | 02 Dec 05 |
| I simply didn't enjoy it as a piece of theatre - it didn't engage me and the music is wholly unmemorable. The only relief was Simon Callow's Fosco, who's singing performance is not half as bad as the critics have said, although the "I can get away with anything" number was a bit too OTT. I don't know whether it was a one off but the night I was there the theatre was extremely cold - people kept putting coats on during the show and it was a relief to go out to the much warmer foyer - take a good coat with you. - 81.130.209.116) | 24 Nov 05 |
| I saw this for the first time a couple of weeks ago after a friend strongly suggested I do so. Have to confess being a little disapointed with Ruthie Henshall and I am not sure that 21st century scenery projections fit with the period of the story. Music not exactly memorable. - 195.93.21.101) | 06 Nov 05 |
| Saw it a year ago and thought it was okay. Just saw it again and wow, it's improved a lot! The new cast is great, with the exception of Simon Callow who is merely alright, and the changes are really superb, the whole thing is now very engaging and powerful and I have come to appreciate the gorgeous score much more now! I hope Broadway likes this accomplished but flawed show. - 86.136.131.246) | 15 Oct 05 |
| No matter how you revise the show and change the cast my advive is don't beat the dead horse. If this show is going to Broadway it will be the end of Webber's good name. No matter how the PR covers up the bad reviews I don't believe The Woman in White sells more tickets than Mary Poppins. The tickets buyers can only be fool once and the next time they might not even venture to go see another Webber's new show. I give my third viewing of this low budjet musical a 1 out of 10 marks only because of Michael Cormick. As for the main lead, the Count... I can only ask why??? - 86.129.168.46) | 15 Oct 05 |
| This is a fantastic, intelligent show! Beautiful music and amazing performances from the cast. Amelia - 88.105.227.188) | 14 Oct 05 |
| I saw this a couple of weeks ago and was appalled at how bad it was. The new set pieces (mainly some stylised trees) have been dumped in the middle of the stage with no thought as the wires holding them are projected everywhere over the set. This just looks really amateurish. Simon Callow can't sing a note and even has trouble sustaining an accent for more than a few words. I have never been a great fan (I've seen the show twice before), but this is the first time I have left at the interval as I was bored by the whole thing. Ruthie is very good. In fact I liked her more than Maria Friedman (she could actually sing it well and her acting was great). This show is very much an ensemble piece though and apart from michael McCormick, the rest of the cast seemed very poor. - 193.201.196.10) | 10 Oct 05 |
| absolute rubbish. What is ALW playing at? Boring and over acted. Spend your fifty quid on a nice meal instead. - 84.68.99.132) | 08 Oct 05 |
| I saw Ruthie Henshall in this piece for the second time recently. There is no doubt she was more 'reined in' on the second occasion. I understand that she had take time out because she strained her voice. Broadway are lucky to be getting the Friedman/Ball partnership - I felt that they were the best pairing in the London production. This is an intelligent piece; it takes a bit of effort to appreciate it but its worth it. The music needs more than one listen to appreciate its infectious qualities. - 82.108.138.196) | 26 Sep 05 |
| Returned to see this 11 months after my previous viewing and was intrigued to see how the cast changes and slight production changes would work. Firstly, got to say was a little dissapointed by Ruthie Henshaw. Havnt seen her on stage live before but have seen her on tv/dvd (noteably the Les Mis Concert Performance) and I think she could have given more. Her singing was good, but overshadowed by the new Laura. She is too good looking for the part and her one Big Song 'all for Laura' lacked the impact that Maria Freidman brought to it. Having said that if you havnt got Maria as a comparison then you wont mind but given Ruthie is proclaimed as one of our foremost West End Diva's I felt just a tad let down. Simon Callow was totally different to Michael Crawford but brought something more sinister to the role that Im led to believe was in the original book. He cant sing but acts the part superbly and still brings the house down with his main number. The guy now playing Sir Percival Glyde gives it his all and has an extemely strong voice and presence. The new Laura has a lovely voice but was a little too quiet in some of the sung dialogue parts for me- found myself craning to hear crucial plot points being voiced. There have been subtle changes to the production: some revised projections and sets and a slightly stronger ended which brings the piece full circle and works well. After seeing this the first time I came away enjoying it but couldnt remember the music much. Someone bought me the Cd for Christmas and I dont stop playing it. It really does grow on you. The melodies are lovely and the lyrics intelligent but I can understand that some people expect more showstoppers for their 50 quid. Im still not a fan of the projected images. A good idea but often they distract from the intimacy of the scene. Overall im a big fan of this. It is intelligent and grown up. Not an easy one to let wash over you as you need to get involved in the plot. Invest your time and stick with it and by the end you should feel the emotion resulting from the whole piece. The problem this has I think is that Theatre snobs think ALW shows are for the tourist crowds so stay away when in fact this is closer to Sondheim than much of ALWs work. On the other side of the coin Phantom and Sunset fans who love big numbers and lavish sets feel shortchanged and perhaps dont involve themselves sufficciently to get the most from this. - 84.66.46.188) | 24 Sep 05 |
| I have to admit that the only reason I went to see this show was for Michael Crawford, as I am a huge fan. I LOVED IT!. Yes, the computerised scenery takes some getting use to, but the actors were fantastic, and the songs were great. The story is a very dark one, but not every show can be hearts and flowers!. The story was portrayed wonderfully, and I congratulate the actors and ALW for more great music. Even though Michael Crawford is no longer in the show, which is a great shame, I would not hesitate to see this show again. - 193.115.70.42) | 16 Sep 05 |
| We know that Andrew Lloyd Webber is a good composer and because of that we expect more when he has a new show in town. Well, this is not Phantom, the man has really lost his magic. - 81.131.131.160) | 11 Sep 05 |
| Thank Heavens for shows like Billy Elliot and Mary Poppins. They both helped me to recover from the trauma of watching the worst show one can imagine. Yes, everything you've heard is true. Really awful. - 81.131.232.19) | 06 Sep 05 |
| I thought that The Woman in White was quite bad. It's a rather dark story which doesn't translate very well to the stage. It could have been a nice old fashioned musical but the tale has been made into as travestry. It's boring and dull. I wondered why they needed the awful projections which make you feel sick after 2 minutes. This cast is not particularly exciting apart maybe from Ruthie Henshall, who tries to save the day. I saw the understudy for Fosco and wasn't impressed. - 81.131.150.230) | 02 Sep 05 |
| I saw the Wednesday matinee of WIW. Having seen it when it first opened, and overall enjoying it (except Michael Crawford who was in my opinion a big let down and looked like a cartoon), I wanted to see what it was like with the new changes, and new cast. Unfortunately Simon Callow was off, but his understudy was excellent. although at first he was a little camp, he brought something both sinister and comical to Count Fosco, and the new wig etc was much better. His performance I thought was superior to Michael Crawfords, the role seemed more defined. Glyde was also very good. Now the changes to the production I admit were hard to spot, other than some trees that come down at certain scenes (bit like the Tree of Life in Lion King) and some new projections, there was just a better feel and movement to the show. For example during 'I believe my heart' (one of my favourite ALW songs) Laura and walter actually interact together, I always found it odd how they stood at either side of the stage away from eachother. I liked the new projections at the beginning, clever, and the new ending tied everything up nicely. Now Ruthie Hendshal, never seen her in anything before, but oh my god, she was excellent, a true star. Different to Maria Friedman, and I personally prefered her over Maria. The new Laura and Ann were also excellent, incredable voices for such little experience. The new Walter, although fantastic vocally, seemed a little more... umm cant put my finger on it, not geeky, but not as manly as Martin Crewes. But that worked as he was in some ways an unlikely hero. The people next to me loved it, and the theatre for a Weds matinee was very full. There is still the problem of people not knowing when to clap, but they had a standing ovation at the end. This is very different to anythign else out there, I think too many people expect another Phantom, but this is pure musical meladrama that gets better each time you see it. I would definately go again. I urge people who have never been, give it a try, and those who saw it when it opened, give it another try - there are so many deals about its worth it. This show does not deserve the flack it gets, especially when compared to SNF, Fame, Chicago etc. I have to say there is something very fishy about so many one star reviews, this show is not a one star show, even if you didnt like it, it doesnt come near one star grade. The audience for a midweek matinee were all buzzing about it, and on their feet at the end. If you like musical drama, beautiful melodies, and an INTERESTING story (not another film/catalogue style show)give it a try! - 213.122.80.39) | 02 Sep 05 |
| Best show i've seen in town by far. Great cast, love the music . Top marks. - 82.35.22.224) | 02 Sep 05 |
| You mustn't wasre your time seeing this appallingly awful and dull show - it is such boring stuff. I am sorry but after this Andrew lloyd Webber should really retire. - 213.122.32.10) | 01 Sep 05 |
| Why does you ALW keep pretending that he can still write good music? Time to retire. - 213.122.51.180) | 27 Aug 05 |
| Seriously awful I'm afraid. ALW must have churned this out in ten minutes, with a CD of Phantom playing in the background while he wrote it.He's just a victim of trying to write for what he thinks his audience wants - rather than writing something he genuinely thinks is pushing himself. He's tried to simply come up with a money-spinner and it shows. We can see through it. 'Your' public are not as stupid as you think, Lord LW! Or as cheap. Shame to see such talent turn in on itself and go to seed. - 195.200.139.69) | 26 Aug 05 |
| Shame the Palace is wasted with such a tedious show. You would think that Andrew Lloyd Webber could write a good score but he did not do it this time. I noticed he has just recycled prevoius compositions. The millions spent are nowhere to be seen as the awful projections seem quite cheap. I was bored most of the time and I was really glad when it was over. Thinking of Phantom makes one wonder whatever happenned to ALW. What was he thinking of? Pity that the Palace is so totally wasted. To add insult to injury Ruthie henshall was off on Saturday. - 213.122.103.249) | 24 Aug 05 |
| This is a wonderful show- definately Andrew Lloyd Webber's best score. The music is so beautiful, especially 'Evermore Without You' that makes me cry cause it's so beautiful! I liked both casts for different reasons, they all had their strengths. The lyrics are good, and I like the staging I think it works really well, but the music is the best part of this show - 80.43.42.151) | 23 Aug 05 |
| Saw the show again and it's supposed to have been 're-worked'. I didn't like WIW with the original cast but i thought I'd give it another try on 18/8. Awful new video; all new principals very weak; show even more boring than before. Clearly it can't be fixed. - 213.122.230.198) | 19 Aug 05 |
| Really disappointing. Whathever happened to great and original scores? Andrew Lloyd Webber has just recycled tunes From Phantom and other musicals to make us believe this is a new score. This show is beyond belief. Very cheaply staging with awful pprojections. Sorry Ruthie, but you shouldn't be there, you are toogood for this. - 213.122.96.72) | 14 Aug 05 |
| This was really a very disappointing show. Whathever happened to Andrew Lloyd Webber? He used to make such beautiful scores. This one is awful and the staging really cheap with the dreadful and nauseating projections. - 213.122.126.90) | 08 Aug 05 |
| Well it seems that opinions are very divided but I'm afraid I have to agree with the one star reviews. Didn't like the music at all and the projections are really nauseating. I pity the poor -competent- cast for having to put up with this mess night after night. - 213.122.217.248) | 04 Aug 05 |
| This show was good enough for an enjoyable 2 hours out of the house. It kept you entertained (as long as you didn't already know the story). The cast were pretty good. Unfortunately the music was kind of dreadful...and as it got on the tunes became more..well tuneless! I think dear ALW is running out of ideas. Oh and the set was very clever, but made me feel sick! - 62.252.0.10) | 04 Aug 05 |
| Have to agree this is very disappointing, the storyline should make this a great show however, the score is instantly forgetable. Ruthie was excellent, i have to say. I can see why the staging has been critized. Although very innovative, it did not work for me - 195.93.21.101) | 04 Aug 05 |
| Saw this show for the first time last night.Sorry, but I thought it was dreadful. I was sitting mid stalls, and the projections were making me feel quite nauseous.I could hear the motors moving the scenery and it was very distracting. There were a couple of songs in the second half that were quite good, but that's about it. Would have found it more convincing and enjoyable if the opening lines had been spoken , instead of warbled. I went with an open mind, despite all the reviews I have read, but didn't enjoy it. Normally I leave a show humming one of the tunes, but left humming Phantom tunes - one of the songs seemed very similar....The top two balconies looked practically empty. Sorry I can't recommend it. - 217.206.150.18) | 03 Aug 05 |
| I had the horrible misfortune of seeing the musical The Woman In White last Saturday as I was dragged by a friend. It is just as bad as everybody says. I'm not a fan of Lloyd Webber but I give him credit for Phantom and Evita, but this is just beyond belief. Awful projections, bad score and the cast lost not knowing what to do. - 213.122.131.141) | 01 Aug 05 |
| The Woman in White is a truly wonderful musical. I totally believe this is one of the best shows I've ever seen. Ruthie Henshall is totally brilliant and the music is wonderful. - 81.79.144.64) | 31 Jul 05 |
| The Woman in White is a truly dreadful musical. I totally believe that this is one of the worst shows I've ever seen. Ruthie Henshall is totally wasted and the music is terrible. - 213.122.122.41) | 31 Jul 05 |
| A total miss. Ruthie henshall was just ok, I guess there's not much she can do with the awful score. An usherette said to us that the show might close soon as it's not selling out anymore, not even on Saturdays! Well, after what we saw, we are not surprised. - 81.131.220.166) | 26 Jul 05 |
| I have to say that the performances in this show were excellent. From the deserved star names, Ruthie Henshall and Anthony Andrews, all the way down to whichever of the three girls was playing the Corn Dolly Girl on the night I saw it. They gave thoroughly convincing and committed performances. I never knew Anthony Andrews had such a great voice. It must be quite a difficult skill to sing in an accent not your own. Added to this, a score of such power and lyrics of clarity and purpose were supported by a book that kept the story flowing and never seemed to let the pace dip. In fact, the only minus in a show full of plus points was the set. I am sure this is a most terrifyingly complex operation and it did look very spectacular, but sometimes it did jar. As the wall was moving backwards and forwards between scenes, it sometimes broke the clear path of some of the projectors. This gave some superimposed images and threw some very nasty shadows. And then there were scenes where the background kept rotating. Distracting to say the least and I can see why some may have been made a little seasick. I found myself trying to work out if the actors, the stage or the background was moving. I have no doubt that this technology will be part of the future of theatre, but I do not think it was quite right for this. - 194.200.154.253) | 25 Jul 05 |
| FIRSTLY I DID SEE THE SHOW AND THIS IS MY HONEST OPINION OF IT!! I saw the new cast of The Woman in White last week and realised how much the original cast were carrying the show in my opinion, this new cast show up all the frailties of the piece as most dont have any passion or charisma or sing the songs with any sort of conviction and none of them apart from Michael Cormick I think are up to scratch. Anthony Andrews is awful and not sure if he was supposed to be Fosco or Charlie Chan at times. They have changed bits of the show not for the better I don't think either and use the gravestone now on two occasions and the show end now with a wedding. The whole thing just looks tatty,backdrops coming down at the wrong time and the revolve was making a shocking noise on Evermore without you and many bum notes from the orchestra. The balcony was closed and many empty seats all over the place and I am glad I saw the show in its original state last September as I just couldn't believe how bad it is now. I noticed Sonia Friedman before the show in a fancy restaurant over the road I would say her time would be better spent sorting out in my opinion this failing show. - 195.93.21.101) | 24 Jul 05 |
| Saw this on Wednesday night for the first time and really thought that it was quite bad. I normally like shows like this, but this one is ever so boring... - 81.131.143.57) | 22 Jul 05 |
| Was hugely disapponited when I saw this in preview but now I think they've got it right! It'll never be my favourite ALW but this revamp makes the story clearer and more involving. The projections take a while to get used to but are very atmospheric, a word I would also apply to the score which soars frequently but does sometimes sound like rehashes of earlier and stronger ALW scores. Trevor Nunn's use of a constantly revolving stage is masterly, and there were moments when I was genuinely moved. The refocusing of certain scenes is a huge improvement, as is the rousing yet ambiguous new ending. Biggest single strength of this new version though is Ruthie Henshall's powerhouse performance as Marian. True, she's far too good-looking for the role, but her stage presence, magnificent voice and thrilling acting obliterate memories of Ms Friedman. It's great to have her back on top form. Anthony Andrews is a charismatic, surprisingly well-sung Fosco. Elsewhere the new cast scores highly: Michael Cormick's villainous Glyde and Elinor Collett's distressed Anne are better than their predecessors. As the love interest Damian Humbley and Alexandra Silber give wonderful, vocally enthralling performances, although interestingly neither is as physically beautiful as the originals which, for me, added to their appeal and humanity. True, Act 2 still drags a bit, but this time I came out from the theatre on a big high and very glad that I gave the show another chance. - 195.82.123.181) | 21 Jul 05 |
| You know that ALW is a great composer and because of that you expect more when you see a new show by him. The last one star review defines what I feel also. This show is just one big miss and can't compare with great blockusters like Poppins or Producers. - 213.122.106.121) | 20 Jul 05 |
| Thank goodness for shows like The Producers and Mary Poppins as they both made me forget the awful Woman In White. It's true that I am not fan of ALW but I don't mind things like Phantom or Evita, but this is just plain bad. The show is boring and terrible. - 213.122.0.138) | 15 Jul 05 |
| I thought the WIW a rather dark and old-fashioned tale and wondered why this particular Wilkie Collins novel was considered good enough material to turn into a musical. The first half was very sombre, no great songs that stay in my mind, the second half was a lot more lively, more humuor. It was delightful to see Ruthie Henshall for real but her great stage presence puts most of the other leads in the shade. They just don't seem to have the necessary charisma. Anthony Andrews is the exception, he brought the touch of humour that the show desperately needed. The projections were very impressive but after a while I did get a bit seasick what with the constant movement of the film and the revolving stage, had to remind myself that I was in a theatre and not a cinema. My advice is, give this one a miss and go and see 'The Producers' instead. I saw both shows on Wed 13th July and I know which I prefer!!! - 82.1.91.86) | 15 Jul 05 |
| 'One star' reviewer please give it a rest. It is very obvious, even though you post under different names, all one star reviews are yours. I have seen "The Woman In White" so I know what I am talking about and this wonderful musical deserves five stars without any doubt. - 80.61.122.20) | 14 Jul 05 |
| After today's performance I have a clear idea why people are not liking this show! It is just so awful! Slightly better than the the previous Andrew Lloyd Webber's, but then that was the worst show ever. - 213.122.88.137) | 13 Jul 05 |
| You must see this heart felt and gripping show - it is fantastic stuff!!I am sorry but after taking a group of six to see this wonderful show and asking them all what they honestly thought at a bar after the performance NOT ONE said they disliked it. Every single one loved it!! Three of the group were moved to tears! Well worth a trip from New Zealand alone! Well done LLoyd Webber!! Ignore the very strange behaviour of a seemingly unstable individual. This deserves 5 stars!! Ignore the trash and see a quality drama put to wonderful music. This is new and fresh! You wikll love the staging - go open to new and fresh ideas - the whole show is great!!I havwe seen it 3 times now!! No doubt a one star review will follow this one unfirtunately. - 222.152.13.182) | 13 Jul 05 |
| Why do you bother to pretend to be different people. 'one star'? - 212.100.250.216) | 13 Jul 05 |
| There is no denying that this is the worst show I have seen in many years and the projected scenery is very annoying. However I did find myself going again because of Ruthie Henshall, having been a big fun for years. Unfortunately I was very disappointed with her performance. I know how bad the score is but I thought she would make it bereable but she actually sounded quite bad. But maybe it's not her fault as the music is so awful that not even the best singer could save the day - 213.122.198.25) | 13 Jul 05 |
| Shame you did not notice the £7 million Robert Kime over of the interior of the Palace Theatre 'Tamsin'. What was it about Ruthie Henshall's excellent performance that disappointed you? Which parts of the revised show did not come up to scratch? - 212.100.250.218) | 12 Jul 05 |
| very disappointed to see the Palace not very different from when Les Miz was playing there. I was expecting a first rate five star performance from Ruthie and was quite disappointed. I saw her opening night and I don't think she was good at all. Mind you I found most of the cast quite weak and the music and staging quite awful. - 81.131.97.151) | 12 Jul 05 |
| Saw the 're-worked' WIW on 11/7. Great new video; all new principals very strong; particularly Alexandra Silber as Laura; new dialogue helps plot exposition; this production will wow Broadway in the Autumn. Our pathetic 'one-star spoiler' will now have to fork out another £50 to have anything new to say! This production has improved what was already a great show - go see it! - 212.100.250.218) | 11 Jul 05 |
| Really and truly disappointing. Whathever happened to Andrew Lloyd Webber is beyond anyone's understanding, there was a time were he used to compose beautiful scores like Phantom, Evita or Superstar but this show is just beyond belief. The cheap staging doesn't help either, but then what can one expect when Sonia Friedman is the producer? - 81.131.172.95) | 09 Jul 05 |
| Well said 'Anon'. I have taken a number of people to see 'WIW' - and without exception they have all loved it. The current cast have been great - looking forward to seeing the new line up next week. The best ALW show in years! - 82.108.138.196) | 08 Jul 05 |
| Well it seems our one star reviewer is not giving it a rest so I thought I'd just balance the score. I have seen The Woman In White several times and it is the best musical I have seen in years. Thanks to the current cast for their wonderful performances and and all the best to Ruthie Henshall and the new cast starting on Monday - 80.61.122.20) | 08 Jul 05 |
| This musical deserves no stars whatsoever, even only one is far too much. This is definitely the most dull and boring of all Andrew Lloyd Webber's shows. The projections are awful and the music almost unbereable. Not even maria Friedman can save it. - 81.131.94.172) | 07 Jul 05 |
| Wed Matinee 6th July. I saw this show for the first time this afternoon as I wanted to catch the original cast ( except Crawford) before they leave at the end of the week. ALW is usually served vey well by his productions - Cats, Phantom and Starlight spring to mind where the stageing was amazing. Here we have these much talked about CGI projections which although technically very clever - some "techie" must have ahd a field day - they result in being totally untrue to the period, very, very distracting and at times dizzy to behold with the screens moving, the projections moving , the revolve moving and the actors moving all at the same time. The poor cast have to rush around the stage in all directions, through doors and falling to the floor at an alarming rate. However, if you can actually focus on the music and the performances - it really is very good. I would love to see it simply staged - there really are only 7 principle parts ( the ensemble have very litte to do ) and then I think it would work better. The leads are superb - Maria Friedman especially - yes she was on for the Wed Mat!!! Anthony Andrews character slipped occasionally and his singing was only adequate, and they have obviously modified the padding and the make up from the pictures I saw of Crawford. Potentially a great show - it does have some spine tingling moments - spoiled by the staging - hence 3 stars. - 86.130.243.171) | 07 Jul 05 |
| I really think this is Andrew Lloyd Webbers's worst score since By Jeeves, and David Zippel's lyrics are definitely the worst I've ever heard. This plus a cheap and tacky production equals The Woman in White, the most pretentious and awful show in town. - 213.122.74.236) | 05 Jul 05 |
| I had the dreadful misfortune of seeing the musical The Woman In White last Friday. It was really bad, I nearly fall sleep. This is nowhere near Phanthom. Really the worst Lloyd Webber. - 213.122.108.201) | 30 Jun 05 |
| The performers are clearly the best part of this show. They try their best to make it work, but are let down by the awful material. Not surprisingly the theatre wasn't that busy and there were many empty seats in spite of being Saturday and of the millions of offeres around. - 81.131.185.18) | 25 Jun 05 |
| The Woman in White is an awful musical. I honestly believe this is one of the worst shows in in the history of musical theatre. Dull and boring and Maria Friedman wasn't performing, no that it would have made any difference since the music is so bad. - 213.122.69.65) | 21 Jun 05 |
| A massive miss. Maria Friedman was off, an usher sais she's only doing 3 shows a week. Her understudy, Nicky Adams, was just ok. This show is a real nightmare for any theatergoer. Dull, boring and you really get headaches with the stupid projections. - 213.122.223.54) | 17 Jun 05 |
| I've upped it from 4 to 5 stars after a second viewing. I found I was slightly less bothered by the videos this time - although I still don't like them. Two key understudies on tonight: Nicky Adams was a stunning Marion - for my money a street ahead of Maria Friedman - while the Ann Catherick (sorry - name escapes me) was far better than Angela Christian. Anthony Andrews, though... well, after M*ch**l B*ll, why on earth did they hire a non-singer for such a sing-y role? He was by no means the cat's pyjamas. - 82.34.194.62) | 16 Jun 05 |
| I saw this show yesterday afternoon and really liked it. Sadly Friedman was off but understudy Nicky Adams was superb - a perfectly played performance with some very thrilling vocals. The role of Marian is an enormous one and I am pleased to say she carried it off magnificently never giving way to the melodrama it could easily become. Performance plaudits also to Anthony Andrews - clearly having a ball as a mincing, moustache twirling Fosco and Jill Paice tugs the heartstrings magnificently as Laura her impassioned delivery brought out those much missed Lloyd Webber goosebumps. The show itself is curiously constructed piece - a dull and cliched start leads to heartstopping drama from the middle to end of act one which is then killed stone dead by Fosco's great show stopper which would surely better placed in act one as a great insight into Fosco's character. Marian's attempt at seduction of Fosco is played for laughs when she should really hate herself for doing this - Trevor you've slipped up on that bit! Then it's back to drama for a thrilling final 30 minutes. Nevertheless - I really liked it. The staging is great, costumes top notch and plenty of tickets at the half price booth...what more could you as for. Don't listen to those who have made such negative comments to this page - go and see for yourself...although it's not perfect there is much to admire and relish. - 62.255.64.10) | 16 Jun 05 |
| Saw this on Tuesday for the first time and had thought that it was quite bad. I normally like Andrew Lloyd Webber but this is the dullest thing I've seen on a stage. The projections were awful and ended up with a headache. - 81.135.6.141) | 15 Jun 05 |
| Really awful music. Andrew Lloyd Webber has totally lost his touch. After Phantom everything has been wrong with him. First Beautiful Game and now this rubbish? And it's really quite badly and cheaply staged. Terrible, truly, truly awful. - 213.122.144.112) | 10 Jun 05 |
| You know... The last one star review is one word away from being exactly like April 9 one star review... Hmmm... Wonder what person living in a trailer with a bunch of cats and no love life wrote that? The show is excellent. No question about that. And its on the top 10 selling list, so, I don't see everyone else hating. Just those select few ignorant people that would rather watch a show about puppets than see a show with heart and care... I LOVE THE SHOW! But hate the people that give it one star. - 66.213.168.75) | 09 Jun 05 |
| Thank you, Mark, for that. Its true. These jerks are blind. The show is thrilling and amazing. There is people out there that think its funny to write bad riviews. Those are the people that think the can "get away with anything because they have no shame!" This is a musical that is only exceeded by Wicked and Phantom... Its truly a piece of art. A beautiful piece. One that is not like many musicals these days. It has a heart! And care from the legendary Andrew Lloyd Webber - 66.213.168.75) | 09 Jun 05 |
| I really cannot understand why anyone who is interested in musical theatre keeps posting these 'one star reviews' for Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Woman In White. Have seen the show three times now, have played the CD to bits and I find it an amazing and moving musical masterpiece. The cast are fantastic and I hope to see it again very soon. - 80.61.122.20) | 08 Jun 05 |
| Truly dreadful, the worst Andrew Lloyd Webber I have ever seen. Very boring. Avoid. - 81.131.79.115) | 07 Jun 05 |
| I have no idea why people are not liking this show! It is fantastic! Better than the Producers. Better than Mary Poppins. Best Musical of the year BY FAR! People need to shut up and listen! Instead of coming here and writting bad reviews, trying on purose to bring the score down, they need to GET A LIFE! The show is a masterpiece, and to all you yahoos out there that think its funny to be purposely spoil this for everyone else, Andrew Lloyd Webber is musical theatre. Wether on The West End or Broadway, Andrew Lloyd Webber dominates the theatre. And this show will too. Wait until it wins Best Musical at the Tonys in America next year. Maybe we American theatre goers will take it in and embrace the show (no offense to the British. Just the ones who are writting bad reiveiws for a joke) I belive my heart that this is a masterpiece. And you're dead if you don't see it! - 66.213.168.88) | 06 Jun 05 |
| I didn't like this show at all. All of the cast were quite good but sadly wasted, and having been a fan of Phantom for years I am really disappointed with this new Andrew Lloyd Webber. The only good thing is that I bought a cheap Balcony ticket and was relocated to a fantastic seat in Stalls. It was not busy at all so they closed the balcony and upgraded everybody to better seats. - 81.131.20.145) | 06 Jun 05 |
| Wow! I live in America, and I just bought the Woman in White CD! It is one of Andrew Lloyd Webbers best! His most romantic score besides Phantom. He makes a superb return to the musical theatre! I'm so happy that the American premere is going to be in Chicago (I live close) then to Broadway! Webber has had two great success in one year (Phantom movie! Awesome!) The score is so moving... I love the Woman in White's theme... And "I believe me heart"... Wow! I love when Marian sings "I close my eyes and I still see his face" at the very end of the show! The music is 5 star, the show is 5 star, the singing is 5 star! Everything! Superb! - 66.213.168.49) | 05 Jun 05 |
| There is no denying that the projected scenery is very clever. However I did find myself feeling nauseas (especially during the first half when it seemed to be changing at a great rate of noughts). This aside it is a sad state of affairs when the best thing that can be said about a show is that the scenery is clever! The music harkened back to ALWs Phantom however the rhyming couplets were comical and reminded me of the material used in the improvisation show Whos Line Is It Anyway. The first half seemed very long, with very little actually happening in it. The cast sang well (Maria Friedman was not on during the show I endured) but couldnt redeem this weak production. I can not see this show running for a while, but please dont rush to catch it! - 80.3.64.12) | 02 Jun 05 |
| Just thought I'd like to add my own thoughts about The Woman In White. I saw it on Saturday. Maria Friedman wasn't there which was very disappointing. Her understudy wasn't so great. Anthony Andrews was nothing special as Fosco. The rest of the cast are simply wasted. Good performers having to endure the most dreadful score ever to be heard in a musical. The projections were also awful. - 213.122.213.181) | 31 May 05 |
| Thanks to all at The Palace for a first rate five star performance I saw last Saturday, May 28th. Nicky Adams as Marian Halcombe was brilliant, as was Anthony Andrews interpretation of Count Fosco. - 80.61.122.20) | 30 May 05 |
| Overall I didn't enjoyed this show. The music isn't ALW's best but he's done worst (remember Beautiful Game). What really makes the show so bad is the cheap and awful staging with the terrible projections. - 81.131.231.191) | 26 May 05 |
| Really disappointing. What on earth has happened to Andrew Lloyd Webber, there was a time when he could write really catchy tunes, and produce musicals that maybe weren't high art, but were entertaining escapism. This show hurt to sit through, the music was awful, the set was awful, the story was awful. I really felt I'd wasted an evening and the price of a ticket :-( - 80.46.145.244) | 19 May 05 |
| Very disappointing and totally forgetful show with a terrible and most awful score, the Andrew Lloyd Webber touch has definitely gone. - 81.131.23.142) | 14 May 05 |
| Not one doubts that this show will never be as memorable as Phantom of the Opera and the only reason is because is total rubish. Andrew Lloyd Webber has totally lost his touch. - 213.122.39.80) | 09 May 05 |
| This show deserves no stars, even one is far too much. This is the most dull and boring musical I have seen in years. Those projections give you a real headache and the music is a copy of other Lloyd Webber compositions. - 81.131.92.100) | 04 May 05 |
| I had tickets for next week but managed to get them exchanged so I could see Michael Ball before he leaves. Have really only just been able to struggle through the most boring show I've seen in years. The theatre was quite empty so I think it won't last. - 213.122.168.69) | 29 Apr 05 |
| I think this is ALW's best score since Evita, and David Zippel's lyrics are the best I've heard in a musical since his own City of Angels. Wonderful - brilliant - an instant classic. I can't give the show fewer than four stars, and I so wish I could give it five. Alas, I am so appalled by the grotesque CGI designs that I could weep. I kept imagining what John Napier could have done with this show - it's tailor-made for his talents. Some performances were ho-hum (even Maria Friedman) and Trevor Nunn's direction was surprisingly flat by his standards, but I thought Mihcael Ball was simply electric. He gave a true star performance (and I'm not even one of his hysterical fans). Roll on the first low-tech revival of this magnificent musical. - 82.34.195.197) | 28 Apr 05 |
| I had the terrible misfortune of seeing the show The Woman In White last Saturday. Already a lot has been said about its dullness and horrible projections. The only thing I can add is that everything is true. It's boring and cheap. - 81.131.44.235) | 28 Apr 05 |
| The performers are really the best part of this musical. They try their best to lift it, but at the end of the day they fail miserably because of the horrid score and the dreadful projections. - 213.122.77.245) | 22 Apr 05 |
| The Woman in White is an awful show. I honestly believe is one of the worst shows in London at the moment. I nearly fell asleep, nothing really happens during the first half hour. Everything looks cheap and tacky, and the score is dreadful. - 213.122.150.112) | 17 Apr 05 |
| A smash hit. Maria is a dream come true for any theatergoer. Enjoy her until she comes to NY! Michael Ball, you better do Broadway too! - 84.9.13.169) | 17 Apr 05 |
| Saw the Saturday evening peformance in row E and must say this is not the best ALW score but the Zippel lyrics are glorious. As for the physical production, the projections take time to get used to but the final effects really payoff and could not be done any other way with out costs rising and ticket prices as well. I must say that if you sit in the lower stalls the stage fog may burn your eyes as it did mine so site in the back of the stalls or in the front of the dress circle or most comfort. I give this a 5 soley for the performances including the rat! Maria you are a goddess of the theatre! Michael Ball this is your best work ever on stage! Angela I will dream of you this evening! GO or miss out on London's best musical theatre artists at there pinacle. - 193.122.47.178) | 17 Apr 05 |
| I saw the show last Thursday and really couldn't wait for it to be over as it was so boring. It has the most tedious beginning ever seen on a stage, it's like nothing really happens for nearly half an hour. After that you have lost any interst and the hoorible score doesn't help either. Michael Ball part is so small that fans might be disappointed. - 213.122.3.1) | 16 Apr 05 |
| Saw this on Wednesday for the second time and had thought that it would not be as good as I knew "the secret" in advance. Need not have worried as it is now possible to appreciate the good aspects of the show even more. The orchestration and staging are superb and even if there are only a few stand-out songs they are fit to be compared with most in the Lloyd Webber canon. Admitedly the opening scenes still suffer from daft rhyming couplets but soon the atmosphere takes over. We had a couple of understudies (the uncle and Glyde) but both were better than the originals and Michael Ball is a revelation as Fosco - suprisingly sinister and miles better than Michael Crawford. Previously I had thought of Fosco as a relatively minot character but in Michael Ball's performance he gains the prominence the role deserves. Above all though is Maria Friedman who again lives up to her reputation as the best this country has to offer for musical theatre. Wednesday's performance suffered from technical problems which disrupted the second act, but Miss friedman seemed to hold it all together single-handed and I hadly noticed any changes despite the problems. Incidentally if anyone reviews the show from Wednesday and does not mention the breakdown, it's probably a fake designed to reduce the star rating. Also, the theatre was almost full so ther's plenty of life in WIW yet, despite so many wanting it to fail. - 62.6.139.13) | 15 Apr 05 |
| Very weak music -ALW what's wrong with you?, really quite badly staged. Terrible, truly awful, the worst show I've seen in ages. - 213.122.9.28) | 14 Apr 05 |
| I think the bloke (can't believe a woman would be so peurile) who for months on end has been trotting out the pathetic repeated one star reviews should seriously have his head examined. OK you hate Andrew Lloyd Webber - we've got the point. He's still about £400 million better off than you are. Get a life. Go and see something else and let us know what you think about that! WIW is a good show which is worth seeing - the 'not as good as phantom' is wearing a bit thin. - 217.42.244.80) | 13 Apr 05 |
| I have to agree with the very poor reviews that have been posted not only on this site but also elsewhere. I have been looking forward to this show but this time I felt totally let down by the worst Andrew Lloyd Webber score to date and by a cheap and tacky set with auful projections. - 81.131.31.1) | 09 Apr 05 |
| I thought the set was awful,innoctive people say,cheap I say. Maria Friedman raved about by some too,screaching over rated plain woman I would say. Its a poor excuse of a show and best avoided in the smallest and most uncomfatble theatre in London - 195.93.21.101) | 09 Apr 05 |
| Dreadful, the worst Andrew Lloyd Webber I've seen. Boring. - 81.131.179.119) | 09 Apr 05 |
| Yes I think three will do. I hated the CD and the dreadful accents and was worried about the live performance.. So here are some genuine thoughts having seen the show last Wednesday mat. The score sounds much better in the show.. in context.. and did have the requisite tingly bits.. (The 'London' song though is shockingly poor and reminded me of all the bad bits in the terminal Jekyll&Hyde) Webber doesn't seem to rely on too many reprises.. although the 'I believe my heart' sequence nearly blew it!! Some of the singing is way too harsh and painfully loud.. I guess they have to belt ..so they can hit those idiotic notes..can't agree that it's his best since .. (insert show of your choice)however. I was totally knocked out by Maria Friedman she is magic to watch and has such range and 'passion'..and Michael Ball.. let's be honest if Crawford was better.. well that would have been value for money.. Ball was classy and witty and made his fat suit (please God let it be a fat suit!!) work with him to great comic effect.. he even managed to make his regualrly reprised signature tune.. 'Get away with anything' work.. nice one. Petherbridge was spot on. I'd forgotten how much I like him as a performer.. Noggs in a wheelchair!!!.. And as for the matinee myth .. everyone gave it the works.. even the understudy playing Hartwight..perfect. I thought the innovative, clever, comlpex, state of the art and technically outstanding design concept was dreadful though! It was a massive distraction and did little more than offer highly technical backdrops and because the action had to take place so far down stage to avoid lighting washing out the projections.. it just didn't allow any interaction with the so called environment at all..ok sometimes the cast managed to exit through almost real doors.. other times they had books and bricks projected on them... and made, in reality the show look really underlit. It also meant that any significant structural additions.. bed.. gambling table...church pews etc took too long to get on stage and became really clumsy intrusions.. Once or twice it was stunning.. the waterfall.. the train .. the autumnal scenes.. But for the rest it simply looked like top of the range game-box-cube graphics.. the whizzing around was ok .. and only really became a distraction in the church sequence.. when we really ought to have been concentrating on the menace and the ghostly screaming outside.. (Unless that really was the designer screaming.. or someone with their foot trapped in the revolve.. (How careless of those 'Les Misers' to have left that behind when they fled the Palace!!) I thought in the end the actors nearly won the battle and that made the content work for me..which sort of says it all.. I found I had to fight to care about them.. but did in the end.. and the wonderful/terrible isolation of Friedman in the end was staggeringly moving. It just seems that this show highlights the difference between a design concept being inspired, clever and effective and technically outstanding and emotionally cold. I hate so say this but 'Poppins' had less tech.. more construction .. and so much more visual heart. So .. in conclusion.. well done to them actors for winning the battle.. Jocelyn Herbert had a quote about what would happen if a van carrying the set (or in this instance the projectors..) to a theatre crashed, burst into flames and was destroyed??? The show could still go on... But if a similar van on the same journey carrying the actors had crashed burst into flames and was destroyed.. then ooops.. ok it would have to be a big van.. but the point is there somewhere.. Thanks for reading... - 81.154.222.215) | 08 Apr 05 |
| I didn't enjoy this show at all. All of the cast were quite strong but sadly wasted, and having seen the evening performance last Friday I can report that the reaction of the public was quite cold and they just gave a polite applause at the end. This is also the worst Lloyd Webber score I've heard. - 213.122.212.200) | 04 Apr 05 |
| I can't make my mind up about this show. Generally, the amazing set design and excellent perfomances were marred by a very boring score. The story itself holds your attention, if you aren't familiar with the book it keeps you guessing as to the outcome, and you really care about the "half-sisters" plight. Maria Friedman was excellent, however the star is Michael Ball, his performance is superb without being OTT, and his "comedy moment" with his furry friends is a Masterclass in playing to the audience without being hammy. He should be delighted with his achievement. The set design is outstanding, ingenious and detailed.It took my breath away without detracting from the performances. When Ball was on stage the cast's energy levels rose and which was a blessing. Trevor Nunn's staging and use of space was excellent, however I did become bored with the revolve, I wanted it to stop, I kept gettting flashbacks of Les Miserables (is there a clause in all contracts for The Palace Theatre that a revolve has to be used?) The downfall of the piece is unfortuately the score. None of the songs "grabed me" I found them to be rather monotonous and quite frankly boring. As I was watching I decided that I would have enjoyed it more as a play, that way we would have found out more about the characters and seen more plot development. It started very slowly, and when all the excitement and intrigue was happening in the second half it became rather rushed. Not a show I would re-visit, but there are too many positive things about it, for it not to be seen. I would go with an open mind, sit back and enjoy. I think I did! - 62.252.64.30) | 03 Apr 05 |
| I went to see the matinee show on Saturday 2nd April. I didn't enjoy the performance at all. So boring and such cheap staging. - 213.122.124.45) | 03 Apr 05 |
| Hello just thought I'd add my own little review of The Woman In White. I saw it yesterday, 30/3/05, and didn't know what to expect and I can honestly say I really enjoyed it! Michael Ball and Maria Friedman were FANTASTIC! (My mum was jealous I got to see Michael Ball!) In fact all the performers were great, the singing was just amazing! I thought the music was beautiful and I want to buy The Woman In White soundtrack now! The scenery was simple yet extremely clever I thought. Im only 17 and am mad about musicals! This is the third West End musical I've seen along with Blood Brothers and Les Mis which were, and still are, absolutely brilliant! Im making it my goal to come up to the West End again to see Phantom and the new Billy Elliot musical because I adore both these as films and I believe will be extraordinary on stage! Well Done again to all the performers from The Woman In White! You have been added to my list of favourites! From a beginner Theatre goer :) - 195.93.21.101) | 31 Mar 05 |
| Easily the worst thing in the West End at the present time. Saw it in the same week as The Producers and what a difference. I think Sonia Friedman must have spent about 50p in the sets. Done really cheaply, bad adaptation of the novel and terrible score. - 213.122.40.133) | 28 Mar 05 |
| Overall I really enjoyed this show. The music probably isn't ALW's best and only about four songs stood out but the rest of the score carried the story along nicely. I have never read the book but found the story quite enjoyable and gripping - most of all I cared about the characters which makes a huge difference. Maria Freidman delivered the goods as usual and Michael Ball was a revelation and quite brilliant. I failed to notice the back projections after a while as the story took hold and that's what counts. This may not be ALW's best but it is still a very good show and well worth seeing. - 62.254.76.49) | 27 Mar 05 |
| The Woman in White. Review of the performance 22/03/05. Firstly let me say that whatever you hear about this show, you should see it and make up your own mind. I thought it quite dull and boring, still I don't regret having seen it since it was one of the big three. Terrible adaptation of a great novel, wasted performers and the worst score Andrew Lloyd Webber ever wrote. - 213.122.44.174) | 23 Mar 05 |
| Very unmemorable and totally forgetful musical with a terrible and most horrid score, the worst Andrew Lloyd Webber I've seen - not so good performances either and Michael Ball wasn't that good either. Many empty seats in stalls which is not surprising at all. - 213.122.29.167) | 18 Mar 05 |
| Not one that will be as memorable as say Phantom of the Opera but an excellent one - but only if you do not compare it with the book. The ending was changed completely, Count Fosco was portrayed too much as a buffoon rather than a sinister, evil man and other details were changed too. That aside, the singing was beautiful especially from Marie Friedman who played the feisty heroine Marian Harcombe and Michael Ball's singing was wonderful, far more powerful than I had ever realised before. I especially loved the song Believe My Heart, the love duet, and Maria's song All For Laura and also, the comical song from Count Fosco I Can Do Anything (or something like that) The scenery was very technical and clever - images projected onto bare wrap around surfaces, so slickly and quickly changing from, say, the Gothic mansion to bright, sunny cornfields - I was fascinated. Two things negative about this aspect of the production - firstly, it got too 'busy' which distracted you from watching the action and listening to the music and secondly, felt it was not fitting for a Gothic Victorian melodramatoc thriller, more suited to a modern story, say, Starlight Express. In spite of that, I did enjoy watching it immensely. I also loved Michael Ball's appearance - his podgy face poking over his enormous body which apparently was a foam body suit causing Michael to lose a litre of body sweat during each performance and he has to drink three litres of liquid to overcome the effects of this. He was hilarious during his comical song I can Do Anything with a huge white rat running up and down his arms and around the back of his neck. I advise you to go and see this performance as it is a very pleasant way to spend an evening but remember two things - it is no way as classy as the book and will not linger in the memory as much as The Phantom of The Opera or Les Miserables. - 84.65.221.35) | 17 Mar 05 |
| no stars yet..the '3' were not mine... watch this space.. planning to see Poppins.. Acorn Antiques and Billy E and yer WIW over 2 days... - 81.154.216.237) | 15 Mar 05 |
| I have tickets for next week .. and have really only just been able to struggle through the dreadful CD!! Why are the accents so bad?????? Is it really going to be dreadful?? Does it really end with that terrible song by Crawford??? How on earth can they claim that this is the best since Phantom????. Can't wait!! - 81.154.216.237) | 15 Mar 05 |
| It has a extremely boring start - first 30 minutes are just so terrible, I can't work out why nothing seems to happen in so long but it drags and drags. By the end of the first half you are just so bored that you don't care so much for what happens next. The second half is a bit better but the score is so bad and the projections so sickening that one just feel like running away from this nightmare of a show. - 81.131.53.139) | 14 Mar 05 |
| I had the misfortune of seeing The Woman In White last week. Already a lot has been said so I will just join the people who dislike this show. I'm just glad that I got my ticket at reduced price. It wasn't very busy either in spite of the many offers around which speaks for itself. - 213.122.211.248) | 09 Mar 05 |
| The performers are the best part of this show. They strove valiantly to lift it, but at the end of the day I'm afraid one word describes it: heavy-handed. Everything is *DRAMATIC*, the music, the lyrics, the staging, the direction. Every second line is preceded by a significant pause and a loud drum-roll, every half-decent melody sung with great emphasis and repeated several times just in case you missed it. Much of the blame for this lies at the director's door, with lighter-handed direction this might have been a considerably better show. Having said that, the lyricists and the composer are pretty culpable too. Actually, the lyrics are by far the worst part of the whole show. I'm pretty sure they were written by a 3rd former armed with a rhyming dictionary. When all is said and done though, the show does have some nice moments - just not enough. For a night out of the house, it's not bad, but I'm certainly glad I didn't pay full price for my ticket. - 193.129.26.1) | 08 Mar 05 |
| Woman in White, I really believe is one of the worst musicals in London at the moment. I first thought that I was at the Imax cinema with all the weird projections that makes you dizzy. Everything looks cheap in this production, but then it'sSonia Friedman producing, so what can you expect? - 213.122.94.148) | 05 Mar 05 |
| This musical conteins some of the worst songs I have ever heard on a West End stage. The cast are ok but the main parts are really bland. Not impressed with Michael Ball though. Before seeing the show I was surprised it didn't get any major Oliviers but now I can't see why. - 81.131.82.227) | 28 Feb 05 |
| The one-star review by Emma R on 27 Feb. appeared almost word-for-word on 12 Jan. by Carl (even the word "immediately" was misspelled the same way); before that, very similarly worded reviews appeared on 19 Dec. by Anne and on 21 Nov. by Julia. Even a cursory look at past reviews shows that many one-star ratings have been posted over and over under different names; in fact, a one-star review almost always appears on the day after someone gives the show four or five stars. Please do not be dissuaded from seeing this show by one person who seems to have a vendetta against it. I have seen the show three times and found the music lovely, the cast excellent, and the story gripping. - 12.74.74.145) | 28 Feb 05 |
| We saw the show last Friday and really couldn't wait to escape inmediately after the interval. I have always loved the great Wilkie Collins novel but I'm afraid could not feel any kind of enthusiasm for this dull production. Not even Michael Ball could save the day and everyone looked bored. The relentless amount of stupid an nonsensical projections and special effects make you really dizzy and feeling like you are in an IMAX cinema more than in a West End theatre. - 213.122.47.156) | 27 Feb 05 |
| Seen WIW 7 times now - great production. Michael Ball makes for a more menacing Fosco - he works so well with Maria Friedman. An intelligent and engrossing piece of theatre. - 84.68.65.225) | 26 Feb 05 |
| Very third class class musical, really quite badly cast. Terrible, truly awful, the worst Andrew Lloyd Webber production I've ever seen -with the exception of Beautiful Game which was even worst-. The stars of the show are miscast especially Michael Ball. Glad it didn't win any major awards at the Oliviers. - 81.131.224.252) | 21 Feb 05 |
| I have seen this show 5 times now and it is one of the best from andrew loydd webber and it is going the same why has phantom - 62.253.128.14) | 20 Feb 05 |
| I have to concur with the very poor reviews posted not only here but also elsewhere. I traveled to London just to see it because I“m an ALW fan but this time I was really disappointed. - 32.106.195.186) | 19 Feb 05 |
| The seconf time I've seen this one - first with Crawford who was superb and now with Ball who is surprisingly rather good as Count Fosco. The set is wonderful, the lyric beautiful and the performances outstanding. - 212.158.229.242) | 18 Feb 05 |
| To the previous poster - Crawford left the show ages ago, so you are a bit too late to review his performance, which was rubbish by the way. Overall I didn't enjoy the evening at all- apart from Michael Ball but I guess I'm bias since I'm a fan- but I was left with the sense that this show is just pretentious nonsense even more than when I saw it in previews. Wilkie Collins' story is really great (I greatly enjoyed the book) but it didn't translate well to the stage, and the music and songs added nothing to the story. There are no really memorable songs, and those that approach that description are just poor copies of those in Phantom. The show should have been produced by Cameron Mackintosh, he would have used real sets instead of cheap projections and maybe then it would have been less boring. - 213.122.22.178) | 15 Feb 05 |
| Crawford is sublime - 80.192.42.28) | 14 Feb 05 |
| I didn't like the show at all. All of the cast were strong but wasted, and having seen the show twice, I am not impressed as it hasn't improved much since previews. The show has a horrible combination of dull recitative music, Andrew Lloyd Webber ballads, boring "incidental" music, and weak off-beat numbers like "I Can Get Away with Anything." It's a melodramatic show which doesn't work very well. The second act number The Seduction looked silly and not funny with Micheal Crawford, it's a bit better with Michael Ball as he's more menacing than Crawford. Still this show is a miss. - 213.122.51.5) | 12 Feb 05 |
| So much potential, but in the end there is not enough here to encourage repeat viewing, its servival I think will be based on future castings. The cast are excellent (except Michael Crawford who is good, but for someone supposed to be bad, he doesnt play it very well and the voice is ok), Martin Crewes is a star to watch, and Maria Friedman is very talented. The set although original doesnt really suit this style of story. Well sung and performed, but only two really memorable numbers. I cant see this lasting more than a couple of years. - 81.174.228.177) | 11 Feb 05 |
| I went to see the matinee performance on Wednesday 9th February. I didn't like the performances very much, didn't enjoyed the music and that set made me feel very sick and I found myself really hating the show. Both Maria Friedman and Michael Crawford were off and their understudies weren't very good. - 81.131.14.151) | 11 Feb 05 |
| First of all, let's be aware that this is not a proper musical like Mary Poppins is or like The Producers is, or like even Mamma Mia is. But this is a kind of operatic show, and as such it will need to be compared with other operatic shows such as Les Miserables and Phantom of the Opera. And even in this category it's very third rate. One feels the need to divide Andrew Lloyd Webbers's musical career into pre- and post-Phantom. The pre-Phantom was of course, inventive, very original and ground-breaking. Post-Phantom is just extremely dull and boring and this show is the proof the his musical career is over, this is even worst than Beautiful Game. Now that Michael Crawford is gone is quite empty during the week, which proofs that the star name the main atraction to see this show. The star is gone, the show is going down the hill. - 213.122.175.4) | 06 Feb 05 |
| Easily the best thing in the West End right now. Saw it in the same week as The Producers and Mary Poppins and have to say that The Woman in White is a far more interesting, sophisticated and satisfying evening. An outstanding score and performances. I am delighted to see that it has won more WoS awards than any other production. Deservedly so. - 217.42.142.4) | 05 Feb 05 |
| The only good thing about this extremely pretentious musical is suppose to be the return to the West End stage of Michael Crawford but then he has a very small part plus I didn't get to see him as he left about 4 weeks ago . His understudy and the rest of the cast try to do whatever they can with the terrible material and songs given in this awfully dull and boring musical. It really is not even entertaining at all, and in fact is quite badly written, and needless to say, not worth the the £50 plus booking fee, transaction fee, delivery fee and so on, that they charge for a top price ticket. What a dreadful mistake, it was a totally wasted night. - 81.135.35.210) | 04 Feb 05 |
| The Woman in White Review of performance 14/9/04 Firstly let me say this whatever the reviews may say in the national press (and the two to have appeared so far were of the "Good-ish but " category) I personally believe this to be in very many ways the finest show Lloyd Webber has ever written. The plot is very strong, and as one might expect of a 600+ page novel condensed into 3 hours of stage time, there is plenty of drama to drive the show forward. The thinning out of the story has served the show well, providing a focus where at times the novel lacked this. However, the major reason why the drama of the piece is so urgent is that every song contributes to the thrust. Unlike, for example, "Red and Black" from Les Mis, which I always felt was simply a re-stating of the function of "Drink with me" (or is it vice versa a while now since I saw that show), or "Everybody loves a hero" from Aspects, every song without fail drives the plot and characterisation forward. I make no secret of the fact that I am an admirer of ALW's work, but as with most shows you can typically find at least one song per show which could be cut or at least shortened without losing anything from the drama; that is not true of this work. It is therefore his most dynamic and complete piece of drama perhaps since Superstar and Evita, reflecting the fact that in Charlotte Jones and David Zippel he may have finally found collaborators able to give him what Tim Rice contributed all those years ago. Musically, there is no doubt that this is by far Lloyd Webber's darkest score. From the first Britten-esque chords as Walter encounters the signalman to the chilling wedding scene, this is new territory for ALW. Unlike, for example, Phantom, where the chromatic sequences associated with the Phantom's compositions are a contrast to the hugely romantic score, here the moments of unabashed romance ("I believe my heart") are in stark contrast to and a real relief from the menace of the majority of the work. The railway cutting which serves as the location for the start of the show introduces us quickly to "The Woman" and gives her an opportunity to launch into the melody which will become hers throughout the show; it is not credited in the programme as it winds its way throughout the show rather than ever being a single piece of music, yet it is perhaps the single most memorable opening theme of any ALW musical including the likes of Love Changes Everything (Aspects) and the Overture from Sunset. Although I already knew the theme, hearing it in context with its full orchestration immediately stood the hairs up all down my back. As Walter starts his work at Limmeridge with Laura and Marion, the musical tone lightens with "I hope you'll like it here" and we are introduced to the girls' uncle, played with a deftly comic touch by Edward Petherbridge. He is perhaps not quite as sickly as I might have imagined from the novel, but having said that, the original would have no doubt simply collapsed never to speak again from the shock of being under stage lights!! Although the early part of the show is the lightest in tone, we are quickly introduced to the main dramatic tension the fact that Laura is to marry someone who may (or may not) have a dark past. Once again the character Sir Percival Glyde gets his own motif which recurs throughout the musical. It is not, however, a full melody but rather a chord progression which serves to identify him and act as a unifying feature for the show in the same way as Scarpia's theme in Tosca. "Lammastide" is a celebration of the harvest and is somewhat reminiscent of "The Wall" from Aspects of Love (not fully recorded on the CD, if you've not seen the show on stage), but much more fully and interestingly harmonised again we are treated to some wonderful discords as the show moves away from the light towards the darkness of the impending wedding. And what a wedding Forget the Marius / piece of fluff wedding in Les Mis. Forget John and Kim's "wedding" in Miss Saigon or John and Mary in Beautiful Game. This is one scary wedding. And I'm not using the word scary lightly played out against a largely monochrome realisation of the church, the wedding is performed to a chilling, hugely threatening setting of "The Holly and The Ivy". But forget the well-loved carol this is one version that won't be sung this Christmas. Absolutely stunning both musically and dramatically, this alone was worth the ticket price. As, indeed was the next major song. "All For Laura" expresses Marion's fear that she has acted out of her own self-interest rather than for the good of her sister, but turns into her vow that she will right the wrong she may have helped to perpetrate. It is without a doubt the finest song in the show, and for my money is probably the finest thing ALW has ever written. Heart-rendingly sung by Maria Friedman, this is an aria that would stand up against anything I have ever seen in the theatre be it musical or opera. Not simply a beautiful piece of writing for its melody, it serves as the dramatic fulcrum for the whole show. My one regret was that the first act did not end here. It's not that the material that followed wasn't also extremely good, and didn't belong here, but I simply wanted to have a 20 minute break to digest what I'd just heard. Typically, Lloyd Webber's shows open the second act on a brighter note. The wedding, as mentioned, in The Beautiful Game. "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" in Evita. "Masquerade" in Phantom. But not here. We are plunged once again into the despair that has become the sisters' lives. Marion is drugged and we are treated to a (once again, highly discordant) nightmare sequence which is very good, although I would have enjoyed seeing it extended a little more. The action moves to London, and more precisely to the streets of London, among the dregs of life. Walter has sold everything he holds dear, and has hit the bottle while living in a dingy attic room. Trying to find him, Marion encounters the less salubrious elements of London's night life in "Lost Souls". This is a far more realistic picture of the prostitutes territory than we get in, for example, Les Mis there are no "tarts with an eart" here. It is much closer to Sondheim's Sweeney Todd. Realised in an energetic and threatening 7/8 time signature, our heroine is taken in, robbed, beaten and spat out at the other end. Finally finding Walter again, Marion pleads with him to help and together they hatch a plan to get their revenge on Glyde and his friend Fosco. So it is that we end up with the overblown (physically) Fosco, played to comic perfection by Michael Crawford. He has featured through the first act, but he is here given what is almost a 10 minute cabaret slot. "You can get away with anything" is his chance to shine, and he does. Witty, original and memorable, it's like a sparkling diamond in an increasingly black sky. With only assorted mice and birds to accompany him (running along his arms, around his neck, and on one memorable occasion almost into his mouth) Crawford milks this part for all he's worth. Yet it never becomes a Michael Crawford performance we are always watching Fosco. The producers of the show have made a definite decision to make Fosco the comic element of the production, perhaps at the expense of his menace. Where the novel makes him the real brains in the partnership, here Glyde is infinitely more menacing. In some ways this is a pity, but with all the darkness we are treated to, the dramatic need for comic relief is palpable and this is not in the same league as the high camp Herod from Superstar. A concern must surely be whether Crawford's undoubted mastery of comic timing can be replicated once he has left the show. But that is a question for the future I have tried to be careful not to give away too much of the plot, but I must mention that the scene labelled "The Seduction" rather came as a surprise. I had heard that there was a seduction between Marion and Fosco, but had never imagined that Marion would be doing the seducing! The music a very seductive waltz and the lyrics fit perfectly together here, at once witty and threatening. And so finally we move back to Limmeridge initially to an asylum, where the plot takes an almighty twist, and then back to the same railway siding where we began the show, as "the secret" is finally unveiled. To a certain extent, the actual secret was a bit of an anti-climax, having built it up for 3 hours by that point, but that's almost an irrelevance. The manor of its revelation, the journey we have taken to get to this point and the twists in the plot until this point mean that the secret is not the focus of the plot, simply one more marker along its way. Well, that's about it for this review. I have mentioned a couple of the performaces, but it's fair to say that there was not a weak cast member, right down to the Corn Dolly Girl who led the wedding scene. Special mention must go to Angela Christian as Anne Catherick (the Woman of the title) who was scary, pathetic, haunting and beautiful. Her performance and voice stood out for me no mean achievement in a cast like this. For what it's worth, she reminded me a little of Samantha Morton as the psychic character in Minority Report simply in the way she was able to capture the "other-worldliness" of the character. Much has been made of the set for this show. Remarkably, it was actually extremely simple it could almost be peformed in blacks as was The Beautiful Game but constantly shifting was a series of projected images on all sides. This meant that our empty stage was one moment among the hills of the lake district, seconds later within a library. Truly inventive, and a nice way of achieving a realistic feel without the need for such a heavy set as required for the likes of Sunset Boulevard. In conclusion, I would rate this as being as good as anything ALW has ever written, and as good as anything written for the theatre in the past 25 years. I look forward to getting the CD, as I suspect that with a little more study, this will indeed reveal itself to be Lloyd Webber's finest score. Andrew Richards - 212.135.212.250) | 02 Feb 05 |
| Most unmemorable and totally forgetful production with a terrobly horrid score - not so good or even average performances perhaps with the possible exception of Maria Friedman - please don't bother to spend your any of your money on this! The awful music is just a very strange mixture of other Andrew Lloyd Webber compositions. I don't believe it will ever have a succesful Broadway engagement. I went with four friends and we all felt terribly disappointed. Michael Crawford was of course off so I can't judge his performance but didn't care much for his understudy, but then I didn't care much for anybody else. It wasn't a full house either, which is not surprising. - 81.131.55.30) | 30 Jan 05 |
| saw this cople of months back anf I was really dissapointed with it. The Set, although clever, was totally overused and should have been used in conjunction with a real set for proper effect. The performers did what they could with a rather thin script. I found the second half far more enjoyabe than the first but still ont worth more than 2 star review. The songs were not memorable and i came out humming songs from Phantom! whats that about?! Big shame... - 81.131.194.254) | 29 Jan 05 |
| Really bad. A extremely big let down! The worst things for me are the terribly nauseating projections, which make you feel really sick, and the very dull and boring music. Pity as the performers are actually very good but really wasted. Maria Friedman does what she can with her character which is quite one dimensional and doesn't have much to offer to start with, really boring. - 213.122.130.12) | 26 Jan 05 |
| Summarising all the negative and positive reviews on this site. Please don’t go and see this expecting to be entertained. You wont come out humming any of the songs. This is much more an operetta than anything else, so if you are into that kind of thing maybe you will think it ok. However not being an operetta fan myself I found most of the songs boring and not melodic and they don't convey the story very well. I probably disliked the lyrics more than in any other ALW show and that’s probably because this one has a more intricate story and the boring words don't help to its development. - 213.122.0.241) | 21 Jan 05 |
| It has quite a boring start - first 25 minutes are terrible, I can't work out why nthing seems to happen in such a long time - it should be really engaging! I think that Andrew Lloyd Webber goes into the operatic too early on, in the very first scene - I think it should be much more eerie, but then as soon as the cast start singing, he immediately gives the audience that high ex pected in any of his shows, but then it becomes incredibly boring again until the end- he certainly needs to re-work it an awful for Broadway to make it a success there. - 213.122.23.236) | 16 Jan 05 |
| I had the pleasure of seeing The Woman In White twice last December. Already a lot has been said about this musical and people seem either to love it or hate it. The Woman In White deserves a fair chance as it is in my opinion by far the most moving and memorable musical I have seen in the last decade. I cannot recall being so blown away by a piece of musical theatre. Webber's score is thrilling, Dudley's innovative design, the orchestra played brilliantly and all of the cast were just superb. To all at The Palace, thank you for two magnificent theatre nights I will never forget !! - 80.61.122.20) | 15 Jan 05 |
| Absolutely awful! All the actors were wasted, there wasn't anything you could save in this really dull and boring production. - 81.131.25.168) | 15 Jan 05 |
| Woman in White, I beleive is one of the best musicals in London at the moment. I first when to see it around the middle of December and I could not beleive how good it was.I went again on the 14th Jan I think Sir ALW has still got it and I hope he continuees to delight West End/Broadway theatre Goers with his delightful musicals. A big congratulations to the entire cast and crew for making this such an enjoyable evening for me. I have not enjoyed a stage musical for nearly 5 years. 10 out of 10 Keep it up. - 62.253.64.18) | 14 Jan 05 |
| Some of the worst new songs ever heard on the West End stage, a cast with mainly understudies and a conductor who really feels embarrased by the music. Last Saturday it was for me the one of the worst shows I've ever seen. - 213.122.152.187) | 14 Jan 05 |
| .....so many people keep commenting that ALW hasnt written anything good since Phantom.....what about Sunset Boulevard??? A superb show, with loads of the hummable songs many people keep (wrongly) resting their judgement of a show on. Beautiful Game also had some lovely songs. It wasnt sung throughout but had seperate memorably songs. If all people want is to go and see a Phantom copy then go back and see that again or see the film. Actually, when you compare the scores, Phantom has as many 'operatic' bits in between songs that many seem to object as Woman In White. Cant people appreciate that Musicals take different forms as do all Arts. - 62.253.64.18) | 13 Jan 05 |
| We saw the show last Saturday and couldn't wait to escape inmediately after the interval. I've always love the Wilkie Collins novel but I'm afraid couldn't feel any kind of enthusiasm for this production. Two of the leads including Michael Crawford were off and everyone looked bored. The relentless amount of stupid projections and special effects make you dizzy and feeling like you are more in an IMAX cinema than in a West End theatre. - 213.122.161.216) | 12 Jan 05 |
| Apart from some brief moments of light relief, I found this show over long and rather tedious. Its such a shame that this wonderful story has been turned into such a dull production. As the ad's say it will 'Haunt You Forever', because doubtless, like me, you will never forget how foolish you were to pay £50 for a ticket to see it. - 195.92.67.66) | 11 Jan 05 |
| Very third class class effort, quite badly cast. Terrible, the worst Andrew Lloyd Webber production I've see -well maybe Beautiful Game was worst-. The stars of the show are miscast especially Michael Crawford. - 81.131.245.137) | 09 Jan 05 |
| Oh well, can't please all of the people all of the time. I've seen WIW a number of times and think its a wonderful show. Too many people think they can draw direct comparisons with other works by the same composer. Why must a musical have 'pop' songs in it? Think of this piece as a musical play - the music augments the dramatic action. It is not a collection of songs strung together by a thin story, e.g. 'Mamma Mia'. Don't expect disfigured phantoms, faded movie stars or religious icons - WIW is different but it is not a bad production. Unusually for an ALW piece, it makes some social comment. The vulnerability of women in Victorian society is highlighted while telling a compelling story. If you don't want to have to think about it a bit - go to 'Producers' and 'Mamma Mia'. - 217.43.235.149) | 08 Jan 05 |
| I have to concur with the poor reviews posted here and elsewhere. I traveled to London from New Jersey last week MAINLY to see TWIW, along with a friend who is a big fan of the novel (which I haven't read). We were both majorly disappointed. Myself and my companion are both performers as well as being HUGE fans of musicals in general and ALW in particular. This show was unfortunately not one of the better ones we have seen. Where to start? The set, while technologically impressive, came across as somewhat gimmicky; I found myself thinking about the mechanics involved rather than losing myself in the reality it was meant to evoke. The main reasons for my being so easily distracted from the show itself were the plot, the characterizations, and the songs. The first half felt interminable, largely due to the fact that most of the characters are barely fleshed out; the plot itself doesn't fare much better until near to intermission. What story there was could have been compressed into a half hour act and still got the salient points across, rather than being stretched out over more than an hour. And even in the somewhat more well-paced second act, there are far too many minor tangents and unnecessary vocal interludes to keep things interesting. Speaking of vocals, the singing by all the cast memebers was excellent (which is why I am not giving this show a 1). Ironically, Mr. Crawford was sick at the matinee I attended, so I saw his understudy perform. He, like the female lead, had the same problem; the material did not give them much to work with. The acting was very uneven; some of the performers were not much better than numerous community theater actors I've seen. Webber's score is nothing special. It is certainly devoid of the kind of memorable pop melodies which he is known for (and which, arguably, are the reasons for his popularity) and certain melodic/thematic "hooks" lacked the strength to carry their own weight (like the repeated lyric motif "I will right this wrong"). The bottom line was, even if this is one of Webber's more restrained and understated scores, it was still too grand, sweeping and even bombastic to be a good match for the thin storyline. Being sung through did not help much either, as again, the scale of the music rarely fit the emotional stature of events playing out onstage. The lyrics can be faulted as well, for not doing anything to enrich the music and/or story. They were merely functional; not a lot of poetry here. As for the reviews I've read here which seem to be intimating that only people who "understand" what ALW is doing with this show can appreciate it, I have to say this: nonsense. I went into this show with no preconceived notions, no expectations of any kind, and I was STILL disappointed. Regardless of ticket prices, regardless of source material, regardless of who was sick or who wasn't sick or this or that or anything, the only thing I expect is an enjoyable, entertaining, well done show. I don't expect musical/lyrical sophistication on par with Sondheim from ALW. But I was hoping for something at least comprable to Superstar, Joseph or Phantom. This wasn't it. And no, I'm not a purist, nor am I an envious performer who enjoys knocking other people's shows. I am a theategoer, and I was let down by TWIW. The show in its present form is dull, uninspired (except for the set design, however flawed) and far too long for what it has to say. Although I will say that the church sequence with the disonnant, minor key version of "the Holly and the Ivy" was deliciously perverse. More of such stylizations could have made this a much more interesting show. I was also shocked to hear that Trevor Nunn (I think) directed the show; perhaps he, like ALW, is losing his touch, because much fault lies in the direction (or lack thereof) of the actors. If this review irritates or angers anyone, I'm sorry, but two hours of watching people sing wonderfully while doing a mediocre acting job while accompanied by uninspiring music is not a lot of fun. And as far as this show being "eerie"? Forget it. The evening before TWIW, I saw another show titled "The Woman in Black", at the Virginia theatre. Two man show, mostly sound effects and some lighting cues. And yhou konw what? IT was genuinely scary, and kept the audience on the edge of their seats. THAT show I highly recommend...two hours felt like twenty minutes. The bottom line is, some people will go to the theater and enjoy a show simply because they're watching people singing and acting and telling a story on stage, regardless of how poorly any of the above are done. That's not enough for me, and given the price of theater tickets these days, it's not worth it. Mr. Webber struck out with this one. - 24.228.84.145) | 08 Jan 05 |
| Came from France to see The Woman In White and was very disappointed. I've seen Phantom 5 times, and I love it, but this show is just so bad that I thought Andrew Lloyd Webber has lost his touch. I thought everyone was brilliant. Martin Crewes was totally wasted, as were Jill and Angela. Maria Friedman was trying her best but her character doesn't have much substance. I saw her last year in Ragtime and she was spectacular. Michael Crawford, fat suit and all, was awful playing the character for the laughs and forgetting that Fosco is a very sinister and manacing character. - 81.131.210.50) | 08 Jan 05 |
| Overall I enjoyed the evening - that is, if I ignore the irritating obstruction caused by the balcony railings - but I was left with a puzzle. Wilkie Collins' story is great (I greatly enjoyed the book) and that is what carries the evening, but why the music and song, as it added nothing? There are no really memorable tunes, and those that approach that description are poor copies of those in Phantom. The play should have been produced as a good old-fashioned drama, with real acting, complementing The Woman in Black across London. And yes, like others here, I cannot see the point of Michael Crawford's farcical dressing up. Had I spent £50 I would be more than a little cross. - 62.137.152.147) | 07 Jan 05 |
| A very bad theatrical event, a nonsensical play/thriller with music. Poor Maria Freidman, a fantastic performer totally wasted. Michael Crawford is also wasted, presence on stage is anybody's guess under all the ridiculous make up and fat suite. Young lead from Australia, Martin Crewes, puts on a brave as the lover but doesn't believe in what he's doing. And I better don't get started on the IMAX type projections. - 81.131.66.101) | 07 Jan 05 |
| I liked the show very much. All of the cast were strong, and having seen the show twice, I *am* humming some of the songs. The show has a nice combination of recitative music, ALW ballads, interesting "incidental" music, and off-beat numbers like Michael Crawford's "I Can Get Away with Anything." It's a melodramatic show, and I had tears in my eyes a couple of times at emotional moments. Crawford's second act numbers, The Seduction scene with Maria Friedman and his star turn with the rat brought a good comic break from the tense, emotional stuff. The audiences the nights I saw the show were very responsive and as far as I could tell, enjoyed the show. I had no trouble with the projections---found myself watching them too much the first few minutes, but as I got into the show and the characters, the "scenery" moved to the background in my mind where it belongs. WiW is not the best show I have ever seen, but I found it quite enjoyable. - 67.184.148.250) | 07 Jan 05 |
| 4 January 05 (evening) - I hated the show. It is not even an average musical. The music and songs are terrible, the performances are unconvincing, the storyline is complex and boring, and the set is very nauseating - I simply understand why people are experiencing all kinds of motion sickness - I was 6th row centre in the stalls and just felt really dizzy. - 81.131.194.98) | 06 Jan 05 |
| Went to see the matinee performance yesterday. I loved the performances, enjoyed the music but that set made me feel sick and I found myself hating the show. - 81.129.193.146) | 06 Jan 05 |
| First of all, lets be aware that this is not a musical. Mary Poppins is a musical. The Producers is a musical. Even Mamma Mia is a musical. But this is a kind of pop opera, and as such it will have to be compared with other pop operas like Les Miserables and such. And even in that category it's very third rate. One has to divide Andrew Lloyd Webbers's career into pre- and post-Phantom. Pre-Phantom was inventive, original and ground-breaking. Post-Phantom is just dull and boring and this shows gets in that respect a bigger crown than Whistle or Beautiful Game. - 213.122.218.65) | 06 Jan 05 |
| In reading the reviews on this site, I noticed that people either loved it or totally hated it. That seems odd to me. There is absolutely no middle ground. And it seems IMHO, that there is a concerted effort by some to trash it. I saw the show nearly three times in November. I say "nearly" because the first night the set broke about three-quarters of the way through. We were offered sincere appolgies from Mr. Crawford and Miss Friedman and either a full refund or other tickets. It seemed like the audience was having a great time and they were very disappointed at its premature ending. I was curious so I asked all of the people seated near me and listened to the comments being made as we exited the theatre. NOT ONE person said they were not coming back. On the contrary they couldn't wait to come back and find out the ending. Maybe I was in a rare audience that night, but subsequently I have seen it two more times and the audiences were equally enthralled. The story is complex and does take some effort to keep it all straight. So I would suggest to those who are unused to thinking, that they stay home or go to a show that has no real story follow like the afore mentioned Mama Mia. I had read the book and found the changes made for the stage both tightened and enhanced the tale. I think it is the best music Lloyd Webber has done since Phantom. It has both lush orchestrations and hummable tunes that you literally cannot get out of your head. Michael Crawford's delightfully decadent "I Can Get Away With Anything" is a show stopper. From his first appearance, he enhances if not completely steals, every scene he is in. And he lives up to his parting shot, .."As long as one is leaving anyway,leave them wanting more!" Maria Friedman is wonderful as the heroine caught up and forever changed by the events that overtake her. Angela Christian, as the title character, is both ethereal and earthy as she teeters on the brink of sanity. Her voice displays the full range of her emotions. She is a star ascending. I loved this show and will gladly see it again, with or without the current cast. - 65.201.114.118) | 05 Jan 05 |
| The only good thing to this extremely pretentious show is the return to the West End stage of Michael Crawford but then he has a very tiny part. The rest of the cast do whatever they can with the awful material and songs given in this extremely dull and boring show. It really is not even entertaining at all, in fact is quite badly written, and definitely not worth the the £50 plus booking fee, transaction fee and so on, for a top price ticket. What a terrible mistake, it was a totally wasted night. - 81.131.198.62) | 02 Jan 05 |
| amazing and astonishing both in performance, score and set - 195.93.34.9) | 01 Jan 05 |
| Most unmemorable production with a very horrid score - not good or even average performances with the possible exception of Maria Friedman - don't bother to spend your money on this! The music is just a strange mixture of other Andrew Lloyd Webber compositions. Don't believe it will have a succesful Broadway engagement. I went with 3 friends and we all felt very disappointed. - 213.122.94.175) | 31 Dec 04 |
| Enjoyable and beautiful, with a lovely score and fantastic performances from Maria Friedman and Michael Crawford, as well as an adequately compelling story, make this an extremely entertaining evening - it's not exactly Phantom, though, is it? - 81.156.178.164) | 31 Dec 04 |
| A extremely big let down! The worst things are the terrible projections, which make you feel sick, and the boring music. Pity as the performers are actually quite good but totally wasted. Maria Friedman does what she can with a character who doesn't have much to offer to start with, just one dimensional. Michael Crawford sings well but his Italian accent is quite awful. - 81.131.118.69) | 31 Dec 04 |
| Summarising all the negative reviews on this site. Please dont go and see this expecting Chitty or Mamma Mia. You wont come out humming the songs. This is much more an operetta than Phantom or Sunset, however not being an opera fan myself I found even the song through links melodic and they conveyed the story very well. I probably noticed the lyrics more than in any show and thats probably because this has a more intricate story to tell than many musicals. There are many melodies which appear throughout that caught my ear and the soundtrack album is wearing out on my CD player. To dissect the show would be a shame. What I can say is that as a whole I thoroughly enjoyed it. The staging was fresh and imaginative and rather than detract from the action on stage it set the many scenes well and without the 3d projection style I cannot imagine how this could have been staged. What I did leave the theatre with was the memory of a very good story. Quite detailed to follow but not as much as Les Mis first time round. The sense of mystery is developed well and makes this one of the most atmospheric musicals Ive seen. True Michael Crawford isnt centre stage throughout however his role is perfectly pitched between comic and slightly sinister and his voice was a surprise to me based on hearing some of his recordings and his holding of the long notes whilst the mouse does its tricks is one of the highlights. However, star names apart, this works superbly as an ensemble piece with no weak link. There are so many good parts well acted and sung. Angela Christian does a superb job as the slightly mad, northern accented Woman in White and Maria Friedman is as excellent as ever. Maybe the one common factor which is exacerbating some peoples disappointment is the ticket price. £50 is far too high, particularly given that the Palace has so many poor seating areas, even at this top price. (Recommend you look at www.theatremonkey.com for advise on where to sit when booking your ticket and dont just accept the first thing on offer.) This high price raises peoples expectations far too high. - 62.253.64.18) | 30 Dec 04 |
| It is quite a boring start - first 20 minutes are awful, but I can't work out why - it should be really gripping! I think that Andrew Lloyd Webber goes into his 'opera thing' too early on in the first scene - I think it should be more eerie, but then as soon as they start singing operatically, he immediately gives the audience that slumping in the seat feeling but then it becomes boring again - he certainly needs to re-work it for Broadway and make it spookier and more thrilling. - 81.131.105.173) | 29 Dec 04 |
| After reading all the negative and positive comments on this site I was not sure as to what to expect. People seem to either love it or hate. I'm afraid I didn't like this show at all and not even the fantstic Maria Friedman could save me from boredom. - 213.122.194.101) | 24 Dec 04 |
| absolutely amazing! all the actors were brilliant, there wasn't a weak link in the entire cast. - 80.43.22.152) | 23 Dec 04 |
| Performers are not fully engaged with their characters, it's like they don't really believe what they are doing with their parts; the music is the worst Andrew Lloyd Webber I've ever heard; the set design doesn't work and makes you dizzy and nauseating. A total miss. - 81.131.219.82) | 21 Dec 04 |
| Some perfect new songs, a cast with only good actors and a conductor who really feels the music. Last saturday it was for me the perfect show. The score is in my opinion more connected with the songs of the Beautiful Game (ex. Every more without you) than with Phantom, but that's no problem at all. Webber and Nunn have done all the possible to create an original musical setting and that's a big relief after all the foot stamping, hand clapping rubbish performed these days in the West-End. - 80.201.174.3) | 20 Dec 04 |
| I went to see this show on Saturday evening. Having previously read the views on this site I can honestly say that I was a little apprehensive because of it. I have to say that my wife and I thoroughly enjoyed it. After all, we were 5 rows away from the awesome Maria Friedman singing! And she really is awesome. Martin Crewes (powerful and great range voice) and Jill Paice gave me goose bumps during a couple of scenes. Oliver Darley and Angela Christian were perfect for their parts and quite rightly good enough for a show of this stature. The man himself, Michael Crawford playing Count Fosco, for me truly stole the show. I dont want to take anything away from Maria Friedman but the part he played is a comical character and he executes it perfectly. He injects just the right amount of humour so as not to make him farcical or unbelievable but enough to bring a bit of light relief to what is after all a dark and mysterious sad story. And more importantly for me he gave me a little nod of gratitude at the end when I stood up to applaud. As for the stage settings, I honestly thought they were amazing. I could be wrong and of course this is just my opinion but I do not think people have given justice to the foresight and execution of such a brilliant piece of stage engineering. I am a Design Engineer and even I was truly blown away by how the stage/set designers were able to visualise something so new and then be able to bring it to fruition so masterly. As I said at the beginning, I was a little apprehensive but I left very happy in the knowledge that I had just experienced something so different with such fantastic performers. I would definitely go again! Thanks again to Michael Crawford for the nod .made my night. - 82.196.32.4) | 20 Dec 04 |
| We saw the show last week and couldn't wait to escape after the interval. I love the Wilkie Collins novel but couldn't feel any enthusiasm for Michael Crawford in a horrible fat suit or the relentless amount of special effects which made you dizzy and feeling like you are in an IMAX cinema. - 213.122.155.132) | 19 Dec 04 |
| Very disappointing. The best thing about this show is Michael Crawford - but even though he is good, his (brief) performance is not worth the ticket price, and is not enough to save this dismal production. I should imagine it will close swiftly after the lead actors move on, and cannot see it making a successful transfer to Broadway, in fact, I am amazed that anyone should be thinking of it! I sincerely hope that Michael Crawford stays home and puts his talents to better use. I found tickets very easy to obtain (in any price range) and expect there will be even greater strain on this show now The Producers has settled into the West End with Mary Poppins snapping at its heels. With hindsight, I would say my money would have been better spent, and more enjoyed in another theatre. This show has too limited an appeal to be a 'stayer'. Rose. - 81.130.193.61) | 16 Dec 04 |
| first class effort, very well cast. perfect best a.l.w production in years. the stars of the show michael crawford and his mouse - 62.31.216.246) | 15 Dec 04 |
| the only decent performer was the white rat perhaps she was the real woman in white and the rest were but an hallucination. a terrible decline and come down from phantom and even Michael Crawford was disappointing. to think I wasted more than 600 rand on a ticket. and came all the way from johannesburg to see the show. But such is life even the good guys slip up! - 193.195.130.5) | 15 Dec 04 |
| Really bad - Didn't lived up to all expectations at all. Terrible musical score, badly performed. If in doubt, see it for yourself but you will regret having forked out £50 for a ticket. - 81.131.247.90) | 15 Dec 04 |
| Came from the US to see WIW in previews. Saw it 5 times, each one better than the last. I thought everyone was brilliant. Martin Crewes was dazzling, as were Jill and Angela, especially the latter, since she had to project a "deranged" person. Maria Friedman was a revelation to me..I was not familiar with her work, but would now see her perform in anything. She was spectacular. Michael Crawford, fat suit and all, was terrific. I laughed out loud at his big 2nd act number with Maria Friedman. The music soars and just bring you along with it. A wonderful experience at the theater. I cannot wait for it to come to New York! - 151.202.119.19) | 14 Dec 04 |
| I was excited at the beginning but the effects of the set were awful and the tuneless and repetitive songs soon had me bored to tears. There were no good songs in the show, no melodies that you could easily listen to and remember, the set was clever at first but the novelty soon wore off when you start feeling dizzy, and the supposedly funny elements of the show completely ruined for me the whole atmosphere of the story. The show should be billed as a Victorian Comedy rather than a Victorian thriller! And a really bad one as well. Don't waste your money. - 81.131.199.147) | 14 Dec 04 |
| A very good theatrical event, a play/thrilla with music. Hats off to Maria, fantastic performance. Michael Crawford is a star, presence on stage is fantastic, even under all the make up and fat suite. Young lead from Australia, Martin Crewes put in a magical performance as the lover and should have a long career in the west end. I loved the "projection" scernery and thought it was extreamly effective and unique - something new, well done to the stage designers. A good night out at the theatre and a pleasent score by Lord ALW - Go to see Maria & Michael and his little Rat!! - 82.44.98.162) | 13 Dec 04 |
| Music is absolutely dreadful, a total and shameless recycling of previous Andrew Lloyd Webber songs from different shows. I don't believe it will last much longer than a year. As soon as Michael Crawford finishes his contract it will have to close. Forget about The Woman In White and get tickets for The Producers which is going to get all the awards this year. - 213.122.11.93) | 13 Dec 04 |
| 11 Dec 04 (mat) - I loved the show. It is not the greatest musical but lets look at the positives. The music and songs are good, the performances are fantastic, the storyline is complex (very unusual for a musical)and the set is very effective - I simply don't understand why people are experiencing motion sickness - I was 5th row centre in the stalls and just think that there must be a load of soft nancy's out there! The show is virtually sung-through and the story very sinister so there are virtually no light-hearted moments in which case it could be compared to Les Miz. As it is sung-through there are very few opportunities to applaude so in some people's minds I think they think that others aren't enjoying it. The voices of the leads are fantastic and I am certain Martin Crewes has a very secure musical future as a leading man! Michael Crawford is superb and has a show-stopping number towards the end - he is just pure class! A very enjoyable 3 hours and I would highly recommend people to go see this lovely and moving show! - 62.6.139.13) | 13 Dec 04 |
| Saw the show last week and I was surprised at how easy was to get the tickets; just went on the day to the box office and they had plenty available so it's not obviously sold out for months. This show can just be dismissed as 'boring', there's not better word to define it. The score is one of ALW's worst. A terrible show! It should be called The Woman In S***e - 213.122.138.153) | 13 Dec 04 |
| First of all, lets be clear - this is not a musical. The Producers is a musical. Anything Goes is a musical. Even Mamma Mia is a musical. This is a pop opera, and as such should be compared with other pop operas like Les Miserables and Miss Saigon, and in that company it's third rate. One has to split ALW's career into pre- and post-Phantom. Pre-Phantom was inventive, original and ground-breaking. Phantom was a great show, despite the questionable origin of some of its music. Everything since Phantom has been ALW-by-numbers. He has been re-working the same formula, though it has never worked anywhere near as well. Here the story is third rate victorian melodrama and the music is MUSH. Never has so much talent been wasted on unworthy material. Michael Crawford's second act comic routine steals the show. The wonderful Maria Friedman has banal lines and dull songs. This show proves that the pop opera is now dead. Lets get back to musicals, please. Don't waste your hard-earned cash making him even richer for producing tosh. - 81.134.81.210) | 08 Dec 04 |
| Well; just seen my sixth performance of WIW and can't believe that I am seeing the same show as some of the people who have commented here. The grafting of Dickens' 'The Signalman' onto the piece works well. The adaptation of the story from the novel gives it pace and staying power as a work for the theatre. The score is ALW's richest and most thought-provoking for years; the performances are all good; the set must win awards. If people cannot be bothered to think about what is happening on stage and just profess to be 'bored' -why don't they just stay at home and watch the television or go to see Producers/Mamma Mia/We Will Rock You etc etc? - 84.65.213.123) | 08 Dec 04 |
| The only good thing to this very pretentious show is the comeback to the West End of Michael Crawford but then he has a very small part. The rest of the cast do what they can with the awful material given in this extremely dull and boring musical. It really is not very good at all, in fact is quite terrible, and definitely not worth the the £50+ for a top price ticket. What a pity, it was a totally wasted night. - 213.122.129.187) | 04 Dec 04 |
| I think it is absolutely dreadful. But at the same time I think it is absolutely fantastic. I am confused. The comments on this site aren't helping me much either. Bye. - 213.120.56.37) | 04 Dec 04 |
| Very unmemorable production with a very bad score - not good or even adequate performances - don't bother to see it! The music is just a remix of other Lloyd Webber compositions. Don't think it will have a succesful Broadway run. I went with 2 friends and we all felt very let down. - 213.122.200.71) | 01 Dec 04 |
| went to see show last night and everyone I was with loved it even my friends who were not expecting to like it that much, I cant believe the negative omments i have read at something so original and new, it was breathtaking and beautiful and I especially like Maria Friedman and the For Laura song. I would totally recommend it and please please please just ignore the negative commentscoz the people that put them are deaf and blind!! - 195.173.213.98) | 01 Dec 04 |
| A very big let down! The worst things are the terrible projections and boring music. Pity as the cast is quite good but totally wasted. Maria Friedman does her best with a character who doesn't have much substance to start with. - 213.122.136.141) | 01 Dec 04 |
| I saw the last of the previews and will be coming back, from the USA, to see it again, after the holidays. Need I say more? - 68.219.104.141) | 30 Nov 04 |
| It is quite a boring first 20 minutes, but I can't work out why it should be - it should be really gripping! I think that Lloyd Webber goes into his 'opera mode' too early on in the first scene - it should be more eerie, but as soon as they start talking operatically (never mind singing), he immediately gives much of the audience that slumping in the seat feeling - he certainly needs to re-work if for Broadway and make it spookier and play down the amatuer dramatics in the first scene. Then the next main song is the one which really directs the way people will feel about the show - and sadly, it's a stinker 'I hope you'll like it hear' is only actually about 5 or 6 minutes long but it seems to go on for hours. It is not a great tune, the lyrics are only OK and it is one of those ones where just when you think it is over, another character comes on stage - and starts singing the same tune all over again! Another seat slumping moment. I think he certainly needs to re-work these two scenes, as they set the mood, set the pace and set expectations for the rest of the show. However, aside from these problems, the rest of the show has some of Lloyd Webber's best work. I don't agree that this has been 'recycled' and I think that 'Ever more without You' is one of his best ever songs. Funny isn't it that some composers can affectionately be billed as having 'that unique sound...' whereas with Lloyd Webber, everyone has to say 'same old sound'! And this is despite having some of the most varied styles of any composer around (JCS sounds so much like Sunset!). I'd recommend anyone to see it - but fifty quid is pushing it for a decent seat (and you have to have decent seats for this because of the staging). - 194.60.38.10) | 30 Nov 04 |
| After reading all the comments on this site I was unsure as to what to expect. People seem to love it or hate. I'm afraid I didn't like it at all and not even the great maria Friedman could save the day. - 213.122.195.146) | 28 Nov 04 |
| Took a group of 20 and everyone was unanimous in their praise. I saw the show during its first week, but the performances are even stronger now and the use of projections more fluid. Having heard the recording, the music is much more penetrating. It is a masterful score, beautifully crafted and wedded to the drama probably more than any other ALW score. The whole production has a sense of quality and class that is missing in other shows. The general consensus is that this is ALW's best. Indeed, easily the best show London has seen in years (and that includes The Producers!) - 217.42.141.242) | 28 Nov 04 |
| Actors are not fully engaged with their roles, it's like they don't really believe their parts; music is the worst Andrew Lloyd Webber; set design doesn't work and makes you dizzy. A miss. - 213.122.64.59) | 27 Nov 04 |
| ABSOLUTELY WONDERFULL!!!! This is a real drama with really stirring music which is the work of genius. The cast are all very strong and Crawford and Freidman are not the only stars. Excellent performances come from Martin Crewes - who has a rich, strong voice filled with conviction and feeling; the woman in white is also very strong and needs to be congratulated for such a chillling and disturbing portrayal of her character. This is a gutsy show that is way different from anything else you will have ssen. This show should be seen but do not expect something from the past. Be prepared for something innovative and quite gripping and very moving. The set and the use of projections enhances the whole production quite appropriately and magically transports us from scene to scene - stunning in my view. The wonderful, emotive score, the brilliant moody lighting, the conviction of each of the strong performers and the excellence of the technical aspects of the show create a whole that is wonderfully believable and atmospheric. I know a lot of people have complained about Michael Crawford in a fat suit - but he is not being himself - he is portraying a character - and I might add he is fantastic. Do remember that he became famous for his role as the phantom where his whole face was either covered in mask or made up with disfiguring prosthetics and he wore a wig too!! Lloyd Webber has presented us with something new, exciting and worthy to grace the stage for a very long time. Go and see for yourself and enjoy a satisfying and delectable feast of the senses. - 81.2.90.76) | 26 Nov 04 |
| Frankly Julia, who gives a toss what your cousin thinks? Go see it yourself and give us your opinion, you stupid tart. - 81.77.153.25) | 26 Nov 04 |
| My cousin saw the show last week and couldn't wait to escape at the interval. She loves the Wilkie Collins novel but couldn't muster any enthusiasm for Michael Crawford in a fat suit or the relentless barrage of special effects... - 195.92.168.166) | 21 Nov 04 |
| This new idea of projected scenery is very impressive but the disadvantage of this is that any lighting spoils the scenery. You end up with a dark gloomy performance. It seemed that the cast were acting on an empty stage but with an impressive backdrop. What was missing was the bright colour and spectacle associated with showbusiness. - 83.151.196.46) | 20 Nov 04 |
| It reminded me of Aspects of Love and it didn't very last long - extremely boring first half and slightly better second half. Awful computer game graphics. Cast seem to enjoy a bit more the second half and it seemed a little bit more engaging but not one song you could consider memorable, just recicled versions of other lloyd Webber's songs. - 81.135.36.175) | 18 Nov 04 |
| I saw the show in preview and have only just happened upon this site, so sorry for the delay! Shows will change over time but I felt The Woman In White was not quite as good as it should be given the time energy and expense of the production, the main problem is the staging which in a theatre the size of THE PALACE doesn't fully involve the whole audience. The score shows flashes of the 80's theatrical brilliance of ALW, but too often resorts to re-styled arrangements of his old favourtites (the main "Joe Gillis" theme from Sunset Blvd, Half A Moment and nice little choice cuts from The Phantom of The Opera and Whistle Down The Wind). That said ALW should be applauded for trying something different in the West End, he is obviously influenced by Britten's PETER GRIMES in sections and this works well, it's only when the lamentable book by Charlotte Jones mangles the last half of Act Two that things fall apart and it's left for a bravura Michael Crawford to sing up a crowd pleasing storm. It struck me that the only innovative people on the creative team were ALW, Mick Potter and a truly awesome sound design and a great piece of Musical Supervision from Simon Lee. It may be an idea to do what Sunset did for LA and re-think the staging and aspects of the book in the second act, but I hope this one gets to Broadway, it's a serious piece of musical theatre, and trying to do something worthy, it may leave some cold but go and try it - it's wroth supporting new work that is original and not based on POP songs from the 70's and 80's. The west end needed this show and more like them. - 195.194.244.220) | 18 Nov 04 |
| Excellenmt - Lived up to all my expectations. Great musical score, well performed. If in doubt, see it for yourself! - 80.42.174.207) | 17 Nov 04 |
| I was really very excited about seeing this new piece of musical theatre. It should have been perfect: Andrew Lloyd Webber and Trevor Nunn together being the driving forces; and Maria Friedman and Michael Crawford performing together for the first time. However, it is definitely the biggest let-down of all my theatre visits. Awful projections, dull music and a very boring night out. - 213.122.64.207) | 17 Nov 04 |
| I was captivated in the beginning but the effects of the set and the tuneless songs soon had me bored to tears. There were no songs in the show that you could easily listen to, the set was good at first but the novelty soon wore off, and the "comedy" elements of the show completely ruined the whole atmosphere of the story. It should be billed as a Victorian Comedy rather than a thriller!! And a bad one at that! - 213.86.144.25) | 15 Nov 04 |
| Well, you can all hear the 'terrible' score again; cast album released today. I think a few without an ear for music will have egg on their faces! - 62.49.41.19) | 15 Nov 04 |
| Music is absolutely terrible, a total recycling of previous Andrew Lloyd Webber compositions. I don't believe it will last very long. As soon as Michael Crawford leaves it will close. Forget about The Woman In White and go see The Producers. - 213.122.183.193) | 13 Nov 04 |
| The staging is excellent, but the show itself is boring without any memorable music. Most of the cast, in particular Michael Crawford and the femail lead, were good but the overall production was uninteresting and certainly not worth the £50 ticket! - 208.49.85.114) | 12 Nov 04 |
| Seen the show 5 times now; don't know how it can be dismissed as 'boring'. he score is one of ALW's best. A MASTERPIECE! - 81.79.43.244) | 12 Nov 04 |
| Terrible production, I was horrified from beginning to end. Martin Crewes is good but wasted. The worst Andrew Lloyd Webber's score to date. - 213.122.174.5) | 10 Nov 04 |
| I loved this. A great score with a memorable theme and some nice songs. Crawford is easily recognisable through the makeup and has his thunder stolen by the Gerbil(?) which last Tuesday refused to run the entire length of his arm. The let downs are the casting of the two minor female leads who seem to have been told that emoting is better than clear diction. The sets are fantastic and you'll be humming this for weeks afterwards. - 62.254.189.98) | 08 Nov 04 |
| The only good thing to this show is the return of Michael Crawford but then he has a tiny part. The rest of the cast try to do their best in a otherwise extremely boring musical. It really is not very good, in fact is quite mediocre, and definitely not worth the the £50 for a top price ticket. What a shame, a totally wasted night. - 213.122.10.233) | 08 Nov 04 |
| Only so-so. The show belongs to Maria Friedman, Michael Crawford and the set design, certainly not to ALW's overblown score. - 66.32.107.163) | 07 Nov 04 |
| Extremely unmemorable production - not a very good score - not great or even adequate performances - don't bother to go and see it! The music is just a recicle of other Lloyd Webber musicals. Don't think it will have a Broadway opening. - 81.131.212.88) | 06 Nov 04 |
| Fantastic. I loved it. The score is wonderful, the projections perfect and the cast outstanding. I think this has to rate as one of the best yet for ALW and I wish it a long life in the West End. - 212.158.229.242) | 05 Nov 04 |
| A big let down! The worst things are the dreadful projections and boring music. Pity as the cast is good but wasted. - 80.58.39.170) | 31 Oct 04 |
| Saw the Saturday matinee and despite the mixed responses on here was really looking forward to it. Well it wasnt what I expected, its very different to anything else about at the moment, but I have to say it is worth seeing. This isnt going to be a long running classic in my opnion, it will be very interesting to see how it survives when its 'stars' move on. The thing that lets it down is for me it lacks that something special. Its close, but not close enough. Apart from I beleive my heart there are no songs that you come out humming. The music is good, just not that memorable and a bit repetive (i did like the WIW theme tho). Its not especially eerie, despite the 'shell haunt you forever' slogan. The set I thought worked well, and although I wouldnt want this type of staging to be common in the West End (im bit traditional), as a one off it works well, especially the end at the station. The only time it doesnt work is when they were running upstairs. That part needs to be axed its terrible, completely stupid and degrades the whole show at that point. As for performers, all exceptional, including the ensemble who are fantasic. Maria friedman was very good, although not quite as amazing as I expected her to be. Martin Crewes and the lady playing Marians sister (cant remember her name now!) were for me the stars of the show. Michael Crawford for me is highly overrated, he is good but I think there are many people out there who could play that role and it was off putting when you heard brief phantom and Frank Spencer come through his voice (which is natural I suppose). I did get the impression the audience werent always sure when to clap or not at times. Overall I really enjoyed my time in the theatre and do want to see it again, however just these few little things took the shine off it. Also a really petty thing but I was surprised no souvenir brochure was available yet a calander and tapistry kit were! PS - Thought the Palace Theatre looked good. - 213.122.128.225) | 31 Oct 04 |
| Went to see it on Monday, was boring and some scenes were far too long. Also not so much spectacle which I think is a must for a musical of this kind, the projection was a good idea but also made you feel so dizzy after a while. Definitely not Lloyd Webber`s best! In fact the music is not very goodat all, just a remix of his previous compositions. - 80.58.39.170) | 29 Oct 04 |
| After reading all the comments on here I was unsure as to what to expect. After the dire Beautiful Game ALW needed to reassert himself and I think he has acheived it. There is a lot to cram in to a musical show but its all there and kept me hooked till the end. I thought the set was very clever and really helped the show move along avoiding any large scene changes which can often distract from the show. Maria Friedman was excellent as were all the cast. Some really nice songs as well especially the one currently riding high in the charts I Believe My Heart. Only 2 things niggled me - 1) Michael Crawford was great but you wouldn't know it was him - could have been anybody in that suit and with that accent and 2) The character Ann Catterick constant mention of 'I have a seeeecrett' got on my wick!!!!! - 212.161.95.133) | 25 Oct 04 |
| The computerized set made me dizzy, the songs were just awful, the worst Andrew Lloyd Webber. Maria Friedman is wasted and Michael Crawford has a tiny part, you wouldn't recognize him anyway with all the padding and make up, it could perfectly be someone else. - 213.122.143.213) | 24 Oct 04 |
| I've seen this show 4 times now; it really does get better and better! Actors are now fully engaged with their roles; music is superb; set design works superbly. A hit. - 81.154.219.249) | 23 Oct 04 |
| Dan's October 24th review was first posted on October 4. - 24.14.87.187) | 23 Oct 04 |
| The initial thrill of a new Webber musical lasted only until a few minutes into the opening scene. As the show developed it was obvious that some of the score was both moving and exciting however the anticipated joy was quickly diminished by the somewhat amatuerish and scholastic lyrics and the equally amatuerish performance by the title role. The changing scenery, whilst at times spectacular, was in danger of causing advanced motion sickness and at times even the cast had trouble keeping up. Overall a very disappointing evening where the highlights were in the wonderful pre-show Thai meal, acccompanied by a nice Sauvignon blanc and wonderful company. - 213.122.88.211) | 23 Oct 04 |
| Plods in places, but otherwise a fantastic score, cast, scenery! - 193.195.200.234) | 22 Oct 04 |
| Loved it. I will be going again. I was a bit worried about the back projections at first but they work and are very clever. - 212.100.251.149) | 19 Oct 04 |
| It reminded me of Martin Guerre and it didn't last long - boring first half, late 90's style computer game graphics (CGI is surely more advanced in terms of texture - the countryside was like Lara Croft's mansion.) Cast seem to enjoy second half and it seemed more engaging but not one song you could hum along to. The whole thing needs a good edit and a rethink of the first half hour - the start is as flat as a pancake - need a train stopping moment like the end to kick off the begininng. - 62.253.251.74) | 19 Oct 04 |
| Saw it for the 3rd time on Saturday - it just gets better! - 81.130.193.61) | 18 Oct 04 |
| A memorable show but for the right reasons.The first scene was slow but after that the plot really held one. The staging was imaginative and the train scene at the end was spectacular. Maybe the rhyming is in some places somewhwt forced but these were played for laughs so what is the issue. On the evening I attended all the principals were excellent and received a standing ovation. I think some of the earlier critics were only reflecting the London ones who had wanted to knock the show from the start. I would ask people to go with an open mind and I can throughly recommend the show. - 82.34.101.90) | 17 Oct 04 |
| I was really excited about seeing this NEW piece of theatre. It should be perfect: Andrew Lloyd Webber and Trevor Nunn being the driving force; and Maria Friedman and Michael Crawford performing. However, it is the biggest let-down of my numerous theatre visits. I was sitting in the Upper Circle of the theatre and found the whole stage so bare to watch; not to mention the awful, and certainly not descrete, positioning of tape all over the stage, for the set pieces to be place. It was an absolute eye-sore. I found the skill behind the set quite good - the use of doors in the three revolving screes worked well; and the train scene was magnificent. Yet, the set for Count Fosco's house was terrible. I liked how pieces came up through the floor. From the view of direction the show was good. This relied totally on the timing of the actors and the set for it to be so creditable. Yet the running up the stars was terrible. However, I did not enjoy the music at all. Out of the whole score, I only really enjoyed 'I Belive My Hart'; and the repeted 'The Woman in White' chords. All the rest was absolute tedium; rather repetitive. If it was from a new composer I think it would be OK; just that you expect something a little extra special from Lloyd Webber. Maria Friedman gave her worst performance ever. I love her usually; but I had no feelings for her rather 2D interpration of the role. Her song, 'All For Laura' is the worst song Lloyd Webber has ever written, in my opinion. Furthermore, Friedman was not too comfortable with the high notes. Michael Crawford was not too impressive either. His vocals were breathy and his accent hammy. Yet I liked his make-up. The worst performance was Jill Paice as Laura - she was so bad, vocals were terrible; she couldn't get the high notes. Yet I rather liked the rest of the principals. Not the worst show I have ever seen; but not impressive enough to save the West End. - 194.105.168.6) | 16 Oct 04 |
| From the opening to the ending, Lloyd Webber's new musical is the most boring thing I've seen in the West End in years. - 81.135.13.78) | 16 Oct 04 |
| Very disappointing! Went with a very open mind as I have not been struck by Lloyd-Webber's recent scores. However, dull opening developed into boring first half, with wandering melodies. I felt the video screens were a cop-out and spent the majority of the time looking at a relatively empty stage. I have no quarms about the actual performers, just the quality of the material! - 82.37.196.220) | 16 Oct 04 |
| Music is terrible, a total rework of previous Lloyd Webber compositions. I don't see it lasting very long. As soon as Michael Crawford leaves it will close. - 81.135.134.160) | 16 Oct 04 |
| Go to show's website to hear some of the great score - 62.49.41.19) | 15 Oct 04 |
| A refreshingly different approach from with breathtaking animations. I was hooked from beginning to end. Lloyd Webber has come up with a score thats quite different from anything before. I will go again. - 212.36.39.106) | 15 Oct 04 |
| Wonderful production, I was hooked from beginning to end. Martin Crewes is gorgeous! - 81.130.193.61) | 15 Oct 04 |
| Gorgeous, lush, poetic score, fantastic performances from all concerned. Wonderful! - 81.130.193.61) | 13 Oct 04 |
| The only asset to this show is the return of Micheal Crawford. The rest of the cast do their best in a otherwise very boring musical. It really is not very good and definately not worth the the £50 a ticket. What a shame. - 80.94.32.80) | 12 Oct 04 |
| Loved the show. I thought the projections worked better in the second act than the first but that the music and the effects were stunning. It is good to see Michael Crawford back too. He was great. - 212.100.251.149) | 12 Oct 04 |
| Truly unmemorable production - not a great score - not great performances - don't bother to see it! The music is just a rework of other Lloyd Webber compositions. Not surrisingly the New York Times has given it a terrible review jeopardising its chances of a Broadway opening. - 213.122.176.158) | 12 Oct 04 |
| Beautiful show! - 12.15.20.37) | 11 Oct 04 |
| A big let down! - 81.174.137.77) | 11 Oct 04 |
| I realise one should give objective appraisals in a review so the only thing to say about Woman In White is that it is astonishingly good. The were many upsides and, after being initially sceptical about the idea of a projected set, it grew on me and worked as a new style and moving the genre forward. But, after all this is a musical, the music seemed to me like 3 hours of poetry with many songs. It is, in many ways a great triumph that Lloyd-Webber who, like him or not, has held up the West End for the best part of 30 years has arrived at this. He is compeletely a genius and hoping that he can write one last hit. It seems now that the reign of King Andrew is NOT over. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.92.67.75) | 11 Oct 04 |
| Went to see it on Saturday, was ok but some scenes were too long. Also not much spectacle which I think is a must for a musical, the projection was a good idea but also made you feel dizzy after a while. Not Lloyd Webbers best! In fact the music is not very good. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.131.208.38) | 11 Oct 04 |
| Fantastic, beautiful, moving. So impressed with this one. I didnt expect to like it, but it was the best thing I have seen so far this year - and the sell out audience who lept to their feet to applaud at the end of the performance, obviously agreed with me! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.130.193.61) | 11 Oct 04 |
| The computerized set didnt make me dizzy, the songs were just fantastic, and Michael Crawford had such a big part that I felt elated. Martin Crewes was excellent. Michael Crawford looked fantastic - very good to look at. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.130.193.61) | 11 Oct 04 |
| Beeautiful production.I loved the sets, and the music was lush and wonderful. Great production. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (12.15.20.37) | 10 Oct 04 |
| "Whistling"? Do you actually go to the theatre!? - USER: Whatsonstage.com (217.44.52.88) | 10 Oct 04 |
| The initial thrill of a new Webber musical lasted only until a few minutes into the opening scene. As the show developed it was obvious that some of the score was both moving and exciting however the anticipated joy was quickly diminished by the somewhat amatuerish and scholastic lyrics and the equally amatuerish performance by the title role. The changing scenery, whilst at times spectacular, was in danger of causing advanced motion sickness and at times even the cast had trouble keeping up. Overall a very disappointing evening where the highlights were in the wonderful pre-show Thai meal, acccompanied by a nice Sauvignon blanc and wonderful company. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.168.22) | 10 Oct 04 |
| I thoroughly enjoyed the show, like the charming fellow below, although slightly more than he did - I was sitting in the stalls and so had an absolutely FABULOUS view of the stage. The projections were on the whole spectacular, although there were moments when it looked awfully like one of those thoroughly modern video games. The music was wonderful, only slightly reminiscent of ALW's previous work, and we came out humming the spiffing tunes. Maria Friedman was FANTABULOUS, and Michael Crawford was rather hilarious, though maybe a tad crude for my liking. Lots of pretty young American girls, yes. Highly recommended! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.156.183.99) | 10 Oct 04 |
| I thoroughly enjoyed the show but thought the projections did not quite work. Having sat in the balcony I felt quite disconnected and that it had not quite been designed for this part of the theatre. Climatic moments were ruined due to being able to see behind the moving set and thus lost its edge and impact on me. Maybe it is more effective in the stalls where you are more involved. However, the score was excellent (even if parts of it sounded like other ALW music) and the acting superb. This show would have worked much better as a play on a smaller scale I believe but it is definetly worth seeing. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (217.44.92.237) | 10 Oct 04 |
| Outstandingly bad. Total wate of time and money. Don't understand the 5 star reviews, unless they are from someone workinf for Andrew Lloyd Webber. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.36.116) | 10 Oct 04 |
| This show has only one slightly memorable tune and interesting staging. It is boring and the plot line convoluted to the point of absurdity. If you liked Whistling Down The Wind this is the show for you. It almost makes you feel sorry for ALW. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.157.225.98) | 10 Oct 04 |
| Cast album to be released on 15 November apparently; have seen show 3 times and fourth booked; album will be cheaper but WIW is well worth it! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (217.42.244.84) | 09 Oct 04 |
| Without doubt the best show in town and a perfect antidote to those who are bored with flying cars, flying nannies and tedious compilation shows. The score is demanding and intelligent, but if you're only interested in vacuous entertainment then this show is not for you! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (217.42.62.181) | 09 Oct 04 |
| From the breathtaking opening to the profoundly moving ending, Lloyd Webber's score captivates. Constantly eschewing the show biz elements that characterize most of the other, lesser shows in London, the score is delicate, beautiful and sophisticated. As with most great works, it is difficult to take in on one hearing and so many people may benefit from familiarity with the music before they see the show. The performances and direction are perfection. Quite simply, the best show London has seen in years and years. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (217.42.62.181) | 09 Oct 04 |
| this show is so bad it hurts. banal in the extreme. It gives musicals a bad name. I wish they would take it off so that so that the palace theatre could be freed up so something else bound to be better. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.179.163) | 09 Oct 04 |
| Music is wonderful, not a rework of previous Lloyd Webber compositions. I see it lasting very long. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (80.61.122.20) | 09 Oct 04 |
| Truly memorable production - a great score - great performances - Go see it! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (80.61.122.20) | 09 Oct 04 |
| Truly unmemorable production - not a great score - not great performances - don't bother to see it! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.157.225.98) | 09 Oct 04 |
| Truly memorable production - great score - great performances - see it! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.79.189.102) | 09 Oct 04 |
| the one star reviles! seem to be in the style and manner of that old dress circle queen dozey dave!!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.93.34.14) | 08 Oct 04 |
| I saw the show on Saturday and greatly enjoyed the poetic and beautiful score. Great show, excellent performances, a must for any visitor to London. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.130.193.61) | 08 Oct 04 |
| Oh and actually your wrong - WIW did not get a total thumbs down from the critics - ever heard of the Sunday Times? No, silly me, the Beano is about your level isnt it? - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.130.193.61) | 08 Oct 04 |
| The one star comment posted directly below was previously submitted on 30th September - please ignore it and the sad person who keeps on repeating him/herself. Clearly a case of Mad Cow disease, poor love. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.130.193.61) | 08 Oct 04 |
| I would definately advise theatre types to see this simply to be stunned that a group of leading theatrical creatives can be spend several months cooped up together in a rehearsal room without anyone pointing out how shockingly awful this show actually is. However, shocking it may be but irrelavent it is not. This marks a long overdue death toll for ALW who, after being the leading composer and driver of the industry with excellent music through the 1980's has lost his touch. As for the folks with the 5 star reviews, I can't help noticing that you either launch a spleen venting diatribe at those who have written interesting albeit critical 1 star reviews or you dig out a theasuraus, write a one word, five star critique, add a few exclamation marks in a delusional attempt to appear as authentic in the tradgic hope that ramping up the user average will save this show (and, dare I say it, your jobs!?!) - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.183.85) | 08 Oct 04 |
| Oh PLEASE! Mr./Ms. One Star! Stop re-posting your inept comments. This last one star 'review' was previously posted word for word on the 16th Sept. We've read them okay!!! We dont need to see them twice!!! Please go find some other board to haunt - this is all becoming very boring. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.130.193.61) | 08 Oct 04 |
| This is truly laughably awful. Or at least the first act is - by the end of the second act it had lost the laughable part and was just plain, agonising, get-me-out-of-here awful. There's not a tune in there. It is supposedly through-sung, but without tunes it becomes one long monotonous wail, occasionally punctuated when someone falls to their knees and shouts. Andrew Lloyd-Webber should be ashamed of himself. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.47.7) | 08 Oct 04 |
| Who is this odd bod who keeps on posting, and reposting the same one star reviews over and over again? What is your point? I'd credit you with some slight intelligence if you just changed the wording even - but no, your lifting the same 'review' from weeks ago and re-posting it as something current. Do you honestly think that no one scans down and quickly realises what you are doing?Okay, so you didnt like the show - thank you for your input - you've had your say, now please go away. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.130.193.61) | 08 Oct 04 |
| What a bad show. I don't understand the casting of Michael Crawford. Terrible production, very ugly sets, awful songs, dull performances, and the worst night at the theatre I've had in ages.Very strange. Didn't know the story at all and didn't read any reviews on purpose. No outstanding songs and music very dark. Not too fond of the projected scenery. Don't think I will rush to see it again. Tickets were a present and I think I would have been very disappointed if I had paid the full price.What a shame - it should never have been turned into a musical. They find the missing Woman in the asylum, and instead of rushing off with her...pause to sing a slow ballad! The sets were interesting and impressionistic - giving no sense of reality. The characters on stage seemed to be in a second-rate musical, not in distress, as the story would have us believe. The mad bad doctor was camped up, losing all tension. What a sad waste of an evening. Pity.There is much to dislike in this show, some awful performances, some dreadful music, terrible projections, I could go on and on. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.181.124) | 08 Oct 04 |
| Here, Here! Part of the same party. We were taken in by the whole thing from the very beginning. Awesome really and so moving. A roller coaster of tension, laughter and tears and that was us in the audience. An intelligent show this one. We stood spontaneously at the end like the rest of the audience giving rapturous applause and feeling quite choked up actually. Prepare to be moved. Loved every moment. And my hat goes off to the brilliant talent on display - wonderful singing by all leads and chorus. Want to see it again! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.2.90.76) | 08 Oct 04 |
| Glad to say this show did not disapoint. It is a thrill to experience. Me and my friends enjoyed it so much that i have booked agsin to see it in 2 weeks time and this time 3 other good friends are joining me. It really is a treat for those who love theatre and are ready for something intriguing and new. What disapoints me is the introduction I had to this site tonight by a friend and I was sickened by the very strange behaviour of someone who keeps deliberatley re-pasting their own reviews not only once but several times.I really do question their stability of mind as well as what they do with their time.Please - you ahve had your say. Maybe you could write to The really useful group if you want to get your point across. I give this show and honest 5 and plead with reviewers to give their honest review be it 1 to 5 stars ONCE. Thw Woman In White is ine of the best things to happen to the West End for a long time - but it is not the usual and you really must see it with an open mind. I loved it and so did the others in my party. Go and see it. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.2.90.76) | 08 Oct 04 |
| Great show, but my joy was short lived after a visit to the stage door. Michael Crawford was awfully rude - it ruined the whole experience for me. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.130.193.61) | 07 Oct 04 |
| fab show the door sceanery takes too much room of stage area - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.8.175.33) | 07 Oct 04 |
| it was one night at the theatre i wished i had stayed at home DONT waste your money on this mess. As a lover of the book expected to be great but I was very disappointed. This is truly laughably awful. Or at least the first act is - by the end of the second act it had lost the laughable part and was just plain, agonising, get-me-out-of-here awful. There's not a tune in there. It is supposedly through-sung, but without tunes it becomes one long monotonous wail, occasionally punctuated when someone falls to their knees and shouts. Andrew Lloyd-Webber should be ashamed of himself. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.76.37) | 07 Oct 04 |
| The computerized set made me so dizzy, the songs were just okay, and Michael Crawford had such a little part that I felt cheated. Martin Crewes was excellent. Michael Crawford looked awful - very hard to look at. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (66.229.124.142) | 07 Oct 04 |
| This show has only one slightly memorable tune and interesting staging. It is boring and the plot line convoluted to the point of absurdity. If you liked Whistling Down The Wind this is the show for you. It almost makes you feel sorry for ALW. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (12.222.19.133) | 06 Oct 04 |
| It really is pathetic. Our 'one star reviewer' re-submitted the same 3 reviews of September 28th on October 6th. Please take your anger towards ALW and/or TWIW elsewhere. Thank you - USER: Whatsonstage.com (80.61.122.20) | 06 Oct 04 |
| Great performance from Angela Christian as the 'Woman in White' great portrayal of the tortured and pathetic soul. Up for an award no doubt. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.49.41.19) | 06 Oct 04 |
| Best show in town! The 'one star' bloke who keeps repeating himself is bonkers. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.49.41.19) | 06 Oct 04 |
| The initial thrill of a new Webber musical lasted only until a few minutes into the opening scene. As the show developed it was obvious that some of the score was both moving and exciting however the anticipated joy was quickly diminished by the somewhat amatuerish and scholastic lyrics and the equally amatuerish performance by the title role. The changing scenery, whilst at times spectacular, was in danger of causing advanced motion sickness and at times even the cast had trouble keeping up. Overall a very disappointing evening where the highlights were in the wonderful pre-show Thai meal, acccompanied by a nice Sauvignon blanc and wonderful company. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.41.62) | 06 Oct 04 |
| Quite an awful show - the music will not improve with repeated listenings like other ALW's. The train effect is the only interesting bit in a very dull show. Maria Friedman deserves a better vehicle to showcase her talents. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.131.214.35) | 06 Oct 04 |
| Do we really have to take the "1 star ratings" here seriously ? I just find it very odd that a reviewer who saw the show on Sept 21st and said "I think it is really terrible. I hated the bit with the rat" went to see the show again on Oct 5th and submitted the same "review". - USER: Whatsonstage.com (80.61.122.20) | 06 Oct 04 |
| Very poor show with awful music. Andrew Lloyd Webber keeps recycling his own music. The projections can give you a bad headache. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.149.82) | 06 Oct 04 |
| Great evening! Why keep comparing something new and innovative to 'Phantom'? It's dramatic and moving. Very grown up ALW! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.77.32.31) | 06 Oct 04 |
| One of Andrew Lloyd Webber's best scores; it fits the piece perfectly. "I believe my heart", Evermore without you", All for Laura" are powerful ballads. The projected sets add a filmic quality that brings a new atmosphere to musical theatre. Great performances from all principals esp. Maria Friedman and Martin Crewes. Michael Crawford's Fosco steals every scene he's in. Don't listen to the unimaginative who were 'bored' - go see it! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.77.32.31) | 06 Oct 04 |
| The first five minutes at the railway station produced the required atmosphere, but the next half hour or so was dire. The movement of the projected set made me feel quite sick! Maria Friedman skipped around like "Anne of Green Gables" and is about twenty years too old for the part(Shame, as I thought she was great in "Passion","Ragtime" and "Lady in the Dark). The score was quite lush in parts, but was let down by the trite lyrics....I spent most of the show guessing correctly what the ryhme was going to be at the end of the next line..it was so predictable! I found I did not care for any of the characters or their fates. The villagers dancing scenes were straight out of Martin Guerre and sounded recorded. The revolving bed/nightmare scene was straight out of Steven Sondheim's "Passion"....and reminders of a host of other musicals thrown in for good measure. By the end of the show I could not remember a single melody. Michael Crawford was wasted in his part and his big song spoilt for me by the rat( I HATE rats)! At the end of the show, when the train appeared(clever but too late to save the show) I felt tempted to burst into "Starlight Express"! There is definately no light at the end of this tunnel! A very disappointing evening and one show I would not reccommend to anyone. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.131.234.46) | 06 Oct 04 |
| I finally got to see the show, and was very impressed with the whole production. Loved the music and thought that the preformers were outstanding. Story was a little slow, but still the best new show so far this year. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (12.15.20.37) | 05 Oct 04 |
| My god ive never seen so many mixed reviews for a new show! I saw this on the first preview (sat 28th Aug), and i had waited so long for it, but have to say this just is not as good as everyone is making out. Ok it's not phantom, there will never be another show like that ever again, but this just does not give you anything memorable at all!! It's just been put together all wrong, when you leave the theatre after seeing a show it should grab you and make you want to go back again, sorry but this does not. Hardly any of the songs stand out as ballards or anthems. Come on people four and five stars?, please!! give me a break. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.174.137.77) | 05 Oct 04 |
| Wasted evening and not a musical I need to see again or to buy the cd as the music is dreadful. Not interesting at all. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.135.122.88) | 05 Oct 04 |
| I wish this one star idiot with peurile brain would clear off - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.49.41.19) | 05 Oct 04 |
| Outstandingly bad. Total wate of time and money. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.194.160) | 05 Oct 04 |
| A great night out. I was pleasantly surprised by this new and different productiion which is breaking new ground in many of its vital aspects. If you are going and expecting to see all the same things you see in other shows you will possibly not enjoy this much. You need to throw out comparisons with other productions and be prepared for intense drama, brilliantly supported by an innovative and expressive score that blends well with the shows many technical parts. I went along expecting to see something different - even to be challenged. It was great. Very well worth seeing and totally absorbing due to careful and intelligent blend of the wonderful projected scenery, the haunting and moving score, the fabulous costumes and the lighting. The cast are superb and handle the challenging score with power and sensitivity, intensity and conviction. Martin Crewes and Laura sing beautifully as does Maria and Michael. Crawfords Fosco deceives us all into thinking that he is on our side and then we find he is rotten through and through. I liked the way his evil is masked behind a veneer of humnour and feigned concern in his role as friend and doctor. Why should we have the stock villain with the black cape who is obviously nasty. This show does not spoon feed the audience with all that they feel safe with or with stock representations of characters and the true revelation of who they are.His is an angel of light deceiver - the best there is - who would have thouhgt - no better guise for a villain I say. You have to think, to follow the story carefully. Make eure you sit in the stalls or the dress circle. i think that yhese seats give you the better perspective as the whoole thing is sumptuous and you do not want to have a skewed view from the balcony or side back. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (212.85.6.26) | 05 Oct 04 |
| Seen it for the 3rd time - it gets better and better! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.49.41.19) | 05 Oct 04 |
| Absolutely terrible. Performances by all the lead characters were ok but it was just plain boring. Awful!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.135.132.7) | 05 Oct 04 |
| Its hauntingly beautiful so I dont know what all the one star fuss is about! I loved it, and am looking forward to going again. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.130.193.61) | 05 Oct 04 |
| Can't believe how bad this was. With London filled with musicals featuring songs from Pop groups etc, I was so looking forward to a new exciting musical. I was so bored. The score was appalling. A great idea with the digital set but it got so tired quickly. The whole thing took on a patomimesque feeling as Michael Crawford paraded through "you can get away with anything". Great performance but what was it doing in this show it seemed so out of place. Fosco is supposed to be cold and sinister. I found him too laughable. I appreciate all aspects of musical theatre but can honestly say "What a Waste" Ditch this one and quick!!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.212.44) | 05 Oct 04 |
| this show is so bad it hurts. banal in the extreme. It gives musicals a bad name. I wish they would take it off so that so that the palace theatre could be freed up so something else bound to be better. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.135.122.249) | 05 Oct 04 |
| Did not hold out much hope after reading some of the reviews, but was stunned at how good a show it was. I will see this one again! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (12.15.20.37) | 04 Oct 04 |
| I was dragged to this show by my wife, and tried very hard to hate the music, the sets, Michael Crawford and also to find it deadly dull - all to no avail. Its an excellent, intelligent piece of theatre for the 'grown ups' and not to be missed. I'll go again, but next time I wont need to be dragged. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.130.193.61) | 04 Oct 04 |
| I saw this show on Saturday from the second row of the stalls, having previously seen it once before from the Balcony. I found it was much better on second viewing and sitting closer, I felt more involved with the plot and was totally caught up in it. It seems to me that where you sit, definitely affects your enjoyment, so go and see it, but DONT sit at the back! Incidentally, for both performances the 'sold out' sign was out front! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.130.193.61) | 04 Oct 04 |
| I loved it! Not for everybody I will admit, but much better then we got with The Beautiful Game. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (12.15.20.37) | 03 Oct 04 |
| Just read some of these reviews: let's all stop comparing it to other musicals; if I wanted to see Les Mis I'd have gone down the road to see that instead! I thought Woman in White is terrific although on first seeing and hearing I felt it did labour the use of 'recitative' a bit too much in Act 1. An early palate-warmer of a song would not go amiss! (Or maybe it needs an overture?) Act 2, I felt, is a lot stronger. I enjoyed the 'reworked' book and was thoroughly gripped by the story. The score - is this a new more mature operatic Lloyd Webber we are now hearing? I can see why the score maybe not to everyone's liking but I thought it was very strong. I do hope the show succeeds and continues to find an audience: it deserves to. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.112.138.189) | 03 Oct 04 |
| Flew over from the states to see this show, and was NOT disapointed! The music was very vintage ALW. Lush melodies and many still stick with me after a week. I really think that with a bitof tighting up this could be one of his best shows. The sets, or lack there of, was unique but very well done. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (12.15.20.37) | 03 Oct 04 |
| Beautiful!! I stil have chills from seeing the woman!!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (12.15.20.37) | 03 Oct 04 |
| ALW is finally back to what he does best. Haunting score, and wonderful staging - USER: Whatsonstage.com (12.15.20.37) | 03 Oct 04 |
| Good , not great, but very enjoyable - USER: Whatsonstage.com (12.15.20.37) | 03 Oct 04 |
| Just saw if for my second time, and still think it's the best show playing the West End - USER: Whatsonstage.com (12.15.20.37) | 03 Oct 04 |
| Not the be all end all all of the season, but well, well worth the ticket price. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (12.15.20.37) | 03 Oct 04 |
| Don't know what everyone below was complaining about I thought the staging was amazing and very fitting. I would not sit any where else, but the main floor when seeing it. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (12.15.20.37) | 03 Oct 04 |
| Saw it with a few friends last night, and we all loved it. The music is beautiful, and Michael is just wonderful in the show - USER: Whatsonstage.com (12.15.20.37) | 03 Oct 04 |
| Good show. A little slow in parts, but very effective and well worth taking a look at. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (12.15.20.37) | 03 Oct 04 |
| I can't wait for the cast recording on this one! Sir Webber's best score since Sunset - USER: Whatsonstage.com (12.15.20.37) | 03 Oct 04 |
| Wonderful score and an amazing cast! I loved it. The projections did get a little getting used to, but very very cool!!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (12.15.20.37) | 03 Oct 04 |
| I was quite surprised at how little I enjoyed this. The cast is good bot that's about it. I'm a great fan of Andrew Lloyd Webber and I even like Beautiful Game in spite of the awful Ben Elton lyrics. But this time I am hugely disappointed. The set is rubbish and the music unmemorable. A waste of time and money. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.40.127) | 03 Oct 04 |
| This is a great show - but don't see it from 'up high' in the theatre - I've seen it from the stalls and the balcony - most of the 'bored' comments come from the audience members who see it from high up. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.154.26.208) | 03 Oct 04 |
| This is a great show - but don't see it from 'up high' in the theatre - I've seen it from the stalls and the balcony - most of the 'bored' comments come from the audience members who see it from high up. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.154.26.208) | 03 Oct 04 |
| "It's a funny one really this one. One can't help feeling it was a bad idea from the start, the book just wasn't suitable for translation into a West End show. But then who would have imagined you could make a hit show out of Les Miserables! For me, one of the biggest problems with it was that it was taking over in the Les Mis theater...." This person posted the same review farther down the board and didn't even change a word this time.I've had young students in class that were more clever cheaters. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (205.188.117.22) | 03 Oct 04 |
| Went to see it on Friday and I thought it was ok in technical terms but some scenes were really long and boring. Music is awful, just a rework of previous Lloyd Webber compositions. Don't see it lasting very long. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.131.208.229) | 03 Oct 04 |
| alw had no musical language, as he had in phantom. i dont understand all the others who say that this is his best score for years. it was boring. the one tune is a five minute invention. it was no good matinee out. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.84.160.126) | 02 Oct 04 |
| Like the last reviewer, I saw the show last night and was captivated by it. Performances, set, score - all excellent. Go see it. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (217.43.235.157) | 02 Oct 04 |
| Went to see the show last night and was absolutely gripped by it. I thought that the music was eerily moody ,(and I can't wait to get the recording)and so appropriate for a story like this. I sense that LLoyd Webber is purposefully pulling away from the old formula to present us with something deliberately unsettling but very engrossing and very moving. How else could thid piece be presented?This is something everyone should see as it is,in my view, wonderful theatre. If you are expecting the old style of musical with loads of stand alone hits then you will not be satisfied - this is so much more than that. You need to think -It draws you in so easily and you feel like you are there with the characters who are expertly portrayed. I think it transcends the usual and gives us something which is very new and exciting. Great drama with dramatic music, fantastic lighting and amazing visual effects which are such a vital and valid part of any show. Fantastic scenery too. (Wont give anything away)Again not the usual but extremely effective. The cast are wonderful. No weak links - not like Les Mis a few which I saw a months ago. I think this show will be around for many years.I certainly wish the cast, Lloyd Webber and the technical team every success as they deserve. A wonderful night out at the theatre. I was shocked to see so many 1 star reviews. Please wade through them and read some of the other higher star reviews. I think they are a more accurate appraisal of this wonderful production. Enjoy. Philip. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.2.90.76) | 02 Oct 04 |
| A bobby-dazzler of a show - and I haven't liked all that many of Lloyd-Webber's pieces - a luscious score, first rate performances, dazzling visuals. A splendid evening out. What more do you moaners want? - USER: Whatsonstage.com (217.158.132.50) | 02 Oct 04 |
| I'm afraid I'm another who really hated it. I was gnawing my own arms off by the end. For me it kind of felt like they'd started with a good idea but got a bit bored and just said "oh - that'll do." It needs to be taken off for a bit - given a major overhaul, new shorter, more compelling book, new design etc, and re-launched in a few months. Not without potential, but it's a bad night at the theatre in its current form. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.134.36) | 02 Oct 04 |
| It's a funny one really this one. One can't help feeling it was a bad idea from the start, the book just wasn't suitable for translation into a West End show. But then who would have imagined you could make a hit show out of Les Miserables! For me, one of the biggest problems with it was that it was taking over in the Les Mis theater. Both are similar shows in that they are both semi-operatic adaptions of complicated classic novels. However Les Mis is clearly the superior show. There was nothing in WIW which made me care about any of the characters. It seemed to be a sketchy ill-thought-through adaption, which was also plodding and over-long - quite an acheivement. For all it's faults for my money the biggest problem is the score. It didn't move me, it didn't inspire me. There wasn't a single song that lifted above the generic background hum of recicitative. On a personal note, I was very sorry to discover David Zippel had written the lyrics. He wrote City of Angels - imo some of the finest musical theater songs ever written. I had found the lyrics in WIW so appalling I had rushed to buy a programme in the interval to find out who was responsible. It was gutting. The whole thing is just a dreadful shame. So much great talent involved, and yet they seem to have combined to create a wishy-washy mess. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.60.66) | 02 Oct 04 |
| I realise one should usually give objective appraisals in a review but I'm afraid the only thing to say about Woman In White is that it is astonishingly bad. The were some upsides and, after being initially sceptical about the idea of a projected set, it grew on me and worked as a new style and moving the genre forward. But, and after all this is a musical, the music seemed to me like 3 hours of recetetive with no apparant songs at all. It is, in many ways a terrible shame that Lloyd-Webber who, like him or not, has held up the West End for the best part of 30 years has arrived at this. He is either compeletely delusional or just desperately clinging to the hope that he can write one last hit. It seems now that the reign of King Andrew is finally over. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.60.66) | 02 Oct 04 |
| I am not a theatrical pure-ist, I go and see shows that I think I'll like and I hope view them with an open mind. This said, I am very disappointed at some of the comments on this board about the WIW. I am the average Joe on the street, who goes only to see the 'big' shows, not everything and anything, and I can honestly say I really enjoyed this one. I thought the staging and 'sets' were brilliant, very different from anything I have seen before and so what if its projected? Its good, really clever, and I hope this idea will be picked up by other productions in the future - it opens up an endless list of possibilities. I liked all the cast except the chap who plays Glyde, I thought he was a bit wooden. The music was beautiful to my ears, especially 'I Believe My Heart' and I cant wait to buy it on CD. Oh and Michael Crawford who never seems to fail to delight, is really funny in this - I was laughing out loud. My major complaint was with the venue itself, I thought they were supposed to have done it up but it was still as grubby and cramped as it was when I saw Les Mis there. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.130.193.61) | 01 Oct 04 |
| Isn't it interesting that the very recent bad reviews look very similar to the ones at the bottom of the page? Someone needs to grow up a bit. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (155.198.43.191) | 01 Oct 04 |
| I went with my daughter to see this show last night, mainly because Maria Friedman is in it - and my daughter is a big fan (I am not). I dont think it turned out to be the best thing I have ever seen, but neither is it the worst - hence the 3 stars. I did come out having felt 'entertained' and for me, it was worth the ticket price. I would agree that the young lady who plays the 'Woman in White' is miscast and let the side down for what is otherwise a very good ensemble. Michael Crawford is particularly good, but I feel his talents are a bit wasted on this one. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.130.193.61) | 01 Oct 04 |
| I dont understand how anyone could critisie Michael Crawford's performance in this show. I am not a fan of his, not by a long chalk, but even I have to say that he is brilliant in this. His cameo of Fosco is a highlight of the show which brought the house down the night I saw it. His representation is not true to the book (less sinister) - but then neither is this show. Fans of Wilkie Collins need to note that when they say 'freely adapted' they certainly mean it! That aside, its a great piece of theatre. I would heartily recommend it. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.130.193.61) | 01 Oct 04 |
| I saw the first preview and was none too impressed, it was over long and I didnt find the music very memorable. But its come a long way since then. This show will do better when the music is out there. It needs to be heard a couple of times before you can appreciate it. I thought it was good, not excellent, but still much better than a lot of things on in the West End at the moment. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.130.193.61) | 01 Oct 04 |
| I saw it last night and am surprised that someone seems to have a vendetta against such a wonderful show! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (84.65.55.96) | 01 Oct 04 |
| Michael Crawford looks like Eddie Large, or was it Eddie large? C'mon folks be honest. Great musicals include Carousel, Anything Goes and Chicago. Good musicals include My Fair lady and - at a push - Les Mis. Average musicals include all of Andrew Lloyd Webbers' and Woman in White is no Phantom. Go with a good friend to see just how grim it is and then dinner afterwards for a good bitch about it. But go soon. The palace theatre is too big for this turkey.Very disappointed - started very slowly and couldn't see or hear what was going on - needed great persuasion that it was in fact Michael Crawford ! Balcony seats dreadful, especially with the revolving stage. Sorry but don't see it will last. Needs a bit more "clout". I was bored most of the time. The train effect was ok but some scenes were really long and you get sick of the projections. Music is boring, Lloyd Webber copying himself and recicling material from his previous shows. Very disappointing indeed. did the WOS review see the show?, well all the papers are a total thumbs down-I am pleased to say! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.119.116) | 01 Oct 04 |
| Well, obviously, from the wide disparity of opinions regarding this show - either five stars or one, with nothing in between - it's a safe bet that you're either going to love it, or hate it. I loved it!!! The entire cast is top-notch - especially Maria and Michael. The score is rich, complex, and compelling. And the staging is new, exciting, dazzling!!! What amazing effects!!! I can hardly wait to see it again... and again. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (208.195.10.137) | 30 Sep 04 |
| What a shame this site has become a battleground. It turns the whole thing into a farce. My advice to What's On Stage would be to close this review section down. My own personal opinion of WIW is that it was brilliant! I loved it and will be going again. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.93.34.14) | 30 Sep 04 |
| This is a great piece of musical theatre. I think those that express boredom have no ability or desire to engage with what's going on on the stage. Why not explore innovative set design? The projections allow the story to move quickly from location to location - in that respect it is fast-moving; although I find it difficult to see how it induces nausea. I loved it - I'm pleased to see that it is provoking much comment. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.77.154.20) | 30 Sep 04 |
| Fantastic - simply the best thing in London at the moment. Michael Crawford and Maria Friedman at their best. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.130.193.61) | 30 Sep 04 |
| If you had asked me at the interval what i thought, then i'd have said, "ok, but not very exciting", but by the end i was truly bored. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (194.60.38.11) | 30 Sep 04 |
| I disagree - this is a very bad show. The story is gripping but badly adapted from the novel. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (194.60.38.11) | 30 Sep 04 |
| I would definately advise theatre types to see this simply to be stunned that a group of leading theatrical creatives can be spend several months cooped up together in a rehearsal room without anyone pointing out how shockingly awful this show actually is. However, shocking it may be but irrelavent it is not. This marks a long overdue death toll for ALW who, after being the leading composer and driver of the industry with excellent music through the 1980's has lost his touch. As for the folks with the 5 star reviews, I can't help noticing that you either launch a spleen venting diatribe at those who have written interesting albeit critical 1 star reviews or you dig out a theasuraus, write a one word, five star critique, add a few exclamation marks in a delusional attempt to appear as authentic in the tradgic hope that ramping up the user average will save this show (and, dare I say it, your jobs!?!) - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.138.40.163) | 30 Sep 04 |
| This is truly laughably awful. Or at least the first act is - by the end of the second act it had lost the laughable part and was just plain, agonising, get-me-out-of-here awful. There's not a tune in there. It is supposedly through-sung, but without tunes it becomes one long monotonous wail, occasionally punctuated when someone falls to their knees and shouts. Andrew Lloyd-Webber should be ashamed of himself. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.135.31.143) | 30 Sep 04 |
| Having read the reviews on this site, it was with some hesitation that I went to see this show. However, all fears were unfounded - my friends and I enjoyed a wonderful night in the theatre. Its fantastic - go and see it! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.130.193.61) | 30 Sep 04 |
| It is very unfortunate that someone in here has something against ALW. His or her obvious intention is to get this show a star rating of one. How very sad. How very sad that they have nothing better to do. What a sorry sad little meaningless existence they must have. I have some advice for Mr and Mrs Saddo - whatever you write will not put people off going to see this show. The critics reviews are in and it is apparent that the show is fantastic. Oversees visitors alone will flock to the show. Why do what you are doing - what is the point. All the general public do now is look at all your one stars and think "SAD"! In fact what you have now achieved is that no one with any common sense will stay and read your one star criticisms and consequently will probably not leave a review themselves, no matter how much or how little they enjoy the show! There is obviously no reasoning with you - what I would suggest you do is to continue to take your medication because you don't want to end up back in that straight jacket and drooling!!!! Glenn in Lancashire!!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.6.139.13) | 30 Sep 04 |
| What a bad show. I don't understand the casting of Michael Crawford. Terrible production, very ugly sets, awful songs, dull performances, and the worst night at the theatre I've had in ages.Very strange. Didn't know the story at all and didn't read any reviews on purpose. No outstanding songs and music very dark. Not too fond of the projected scenery. Don't think I will rush to see it again. Tickets were a present and I think I would have been very disappointed if I had paid the full price.What a shame - it should never have been turned into a musical. They find the missing Woman in the asylum, and instead of rushing off with her...pause to sing a slow ballad! The sets were interesting and impressionistic - giving no sense of reality. The characters on stage seemed to be in a second-rate musical, not in distress, as the story would have us believe. The mad bad doctor was camped up, losing all tension. What a sad waste of an evening. Pity.There is much to dislike in this show, some awful performances, some dreadful music, terrible projections, I could go on and on. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.131.248.9) | 30 Sep 04 |
| Think - compex superb story, musical by ALW, Nunn directing, Crawford and Friedman starring, the besting lighting, the best sound, ground breaking projection/sets - all this alone amounts to 4 stars - ignore all one star comments - its the same person just repeating themselves constantly!!!This show has set the standard for modern musical theatre - ground breaking stuff! I was gob-smacked! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.6.139.13) | 30 Sep 04 |
| it was one night at the theatre i wished i had stayed at home DONT waste your money on this mess. As a lover of the book expected to be great but I was very disappointed. This is truly laughably awful. Or at least the first act is - by the end of the second act it had lost the laughable part and was just plain, agonising, get-me-out-of-here awful. There's not a tune in there. It is supposedly through-sung, but without tunes it becomes one long monotonous wail, occasionally punctuated when someone falls to their knees and shouts. Andrew Lloyd-Webber should be ashamed of himself. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.135.31.143) | 30 Sep 04 |
| New,original,dramatic,touching,funny... great! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (193.82.16.58) | 29 Sep 04 |
| Lovely scenery, talented cast, beautiful music. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (12.74.74.69) | 29 Sep 04 |
| Michael Crawford and Maria Friedman are fantastic! The use of 3D projection is wonderful, but it can be a little busy and distracting at times. Overall, I loved the show. Well worth seeing! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (24.191.9.210) | 29 Sep 04 |
| The best words I heard all night were when my date said at the interval: "let's go and have dinner now, eh?" - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.174.157.89) | 29 Sep 04 |
| A close friend told me about his site and I was pleased to be able to type my opinion and let others know what I thought. I thought the whole show was just fantastic and I do not understand what all of the horrid feeling expressed by some people is about. I loved this show and was swept up in it from beginning to end. Wonderful performances from all of the leads and a set that made you feel in the centre of it all made for a special nights entertainment - so different from many other shows I have seen - and I have seen a lot over the years. Just fanatstical and believable I say. Please give this show a look it is a great and moving night out.John. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.2.90.76) | 28 Sep 04 |
| Now, old 2 star reviews are being reprinted as 1 star reviews...clever... - USER: Whatsonstage.com (69.53.8.147) | 28 Sep 04 |
| Go see this show - you will regret it if you don't!!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.6.139.13) | 28 Sep 04 |
| Well I dont know what I was expecting but I came away very disappointed. The sets, while different with the 3D projection, didn't quite work for me, the train at the end the only exception. For the victorian age it just looked out of place. I came away with only one musical tune that was repeated and repeated. Plus so many times I was half expecting the cast to start singing a song from Phantom or Aspects of Love!! The big numbers were dull and if the music climaxed one more time with the singer belting out the end of a number I was going to scream (just like 'the woman in white' did every time she came on!!) Michael Crawford while a great performer just looked silly in the make up for the fat Count Fosco. Maria Friedman who was great in ragtime, over acted for most of this show but was in fine voice. Martin Crewes was a great singer and good looking, a new star I think. The two American females in the other leads were competant if not exciting. Overall I dont give this show much time. The story just didn't work as a musical for me and the sets and music just left me feeling flat. It was the same feeling for my partner and the people sitting around us who we discussed the show with at interval. The applause at the end was very muted with a few standing who obviously loved it!! Not for me though. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.131.242.207) | 28 Sep 04 |
| Looked forward to this for a long time - a New ALW and Michael Crawford- but I was bitterly disappointed. Too long, too boring. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.131.242.207) | 28 Sep 04 |
| Will someone stop taking their partner who experiences motion sickness to see this show and using the same ONE STAR review - don't you realise people just dismiss your review. Everyone skips over the one liners to read something with a bit more depth - go pick on another show. surely if you hate ALW that much there are other places for you to go !!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.6.139.13) | 28 Sep 04 |
| poor - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.93.34.14) | 28 Sep 04 |
| Wonderful and really amazing music. Mr Lloyd Webber should NEVER retire!!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.6.139.13) | 27 Sep 04 |
| Fascinating, interesting and wonderful on the eye!!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.6.139.13) | 27 Sep 04 |
| 7 of us saw this show - all thought it was fantastic!!!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.6.139.13) | 27 Sep 04 |
| I have seen the Woman in White last week. I was pleasantly surprised - it was fantastic. I hope it does well at the box office it deserves to. I was moved to tears many times by the wonderful performances, the score and the whole mood created so effectively by the amazing scenery, moody and clever lighting and of course ALW's sweeping and unsettling score. He is a clever man. A music teacher friend of mine was leaving London and managed to see this before she left. She rang me and said you have to go and see it it is brilliant, passionate and so moving. I have to concede - I was really absorbed in the story and the whole mood of the piece. Awonderful night out. PLease go and see this but go expecting soemthing different, new, innovative and unlike anything alse on the Westend at the moment. Brilliant. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.92.67.79) | 27 Sep 04 |
| Did the last 5 one star reviewers really see the same show as I did? If so they need their ears syringed! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (80.45.177.249) | 27 Sep 04 |
| terrible, and really dreadful music. Mr A.L.Webber should retire. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.52.45) | 26 Sep 04 |
| Did not really know what to expect. Did not know the story, nor anything about the staging but I was pleasantly surprised.The show works I feel and as a total package - score, lighting, imaginative scenery and a talented cast it is very well worth seeing. I paid £50 for a great seat and do not regret a penny. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.2.90.76) | 24 Sep 04 |
| Went to see this show last week. The music takes a bit of getting used to, but it is good to see ALW developing his style. Funny how he is accused when being overly melodic and then accused again when he writes tunes of a more subtle nature. Still, great performaces from everyone and I loved the design. Like another reveiwer on this page, I've listened to the tunes again on BBC online and they are now 'locked in'! All For Laura is beautiful. On the whole 'one star' issue, it is pretty obvious that there is one sadster who is trying to jeapordise this show. There is no understanding some people, it is sad and pointless. I can't bring myself to give this show higher than a 3 but hopefully it will go on to be a big hit. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (194.60.38.11) | 24 Sep 04 |
| throw out the 5 and 1 ratings, you get about 3.5 average -- probably would be a higher true average as i suspect there are more legitimate 5s than 1s. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (69.148.70.209) | 24 Sep 04 |
| And if whatonstage.com can stop people voting more than once in polls, surely the software can stop saddos posting more than once in this User Review section. Neither hatred nor adulation can count as a review, merely self important exhibitionism. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.43.168.250) | 24 Sep 04 |
| It seems that someone is quite happy about coming in here and giving one star for no apparent reason. OK they "seem" to indicate they have seen the show but with so much hatred towards ALW the question must be asked - WHY did they go to see the show? The only answer I can provide is that it is someone from a neighbouring musical who has felt the impact on this new show opening, or they have auditioned for an AWL show and been disguarded without ever appearing in one of his shows! What a sad, sorry state of affairs and what a sad, sorry person this really is. For every one star review that provides no sensible feedback then I intend to post a 5 star rating, not having even seen the show yet - roll on December!!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.6.139.13) | 24 Sep 04 |
| One must wonder why someone who was apparently already fed up with Andrew Lloyd Webber would have spent money to see his latest musical. Or perhaps they didn't. A one-line review lacking any details or constructive criticism would suggest the latter. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (24.27.135.88) | 23 Sep 04 |
| I'm fed up of ALW and his pretentious fart-arsing. Go away and leave the West End to breathe, please? This production is just dire. Not good for the future! Don't waste your money. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.92.194.17) | 23 Sep 04 |
| I saw the Woman In White Friday, Sept 10, in Previews. I felt the music was good, and Michael Crawford and Maria Friedman lived up to their reputations. I felt the first act was a bit uneven, the scenery changes were not always smooth, and I felt the timing was a bit off, but the second act was just about flawless. I understand they had to simplify the book, but I wish they had kept Marian a bit stronger and made Fosco less endearing (he's definitely not the "oily" arch villian he is in the book). If they could improve the first act to the quality of the second, I'd move my score up to a 5. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (129.93.128.35) | 23 Sep 04 |
| My wife and I had eagerly anticipated seeing this show since it was first announced that ALW was planning a new musical. We read and enjoyed the novel last summer while traveling in England (including Cumbria no less!), and we impatiently waited until September 10, when we were fortunate enough to be in London and able to attend a preview. I believe we were simply overwhelmed by all that was happening in the first act. I found the computer-generated projections and the constant movement of the backdrops to be quite distracting, and I believe the frantic pace of the scene changes didn't give the audience a chance to catch its breathe. By the second act, the pace seemed to have slowed down a bit, and we became less distracted by the rolling backdrops. Michael Crawford was brilliant, and Maria Friedman was also very good although she tended to belt out her songs a bit much. In general, the casting was great. I found the music to be effective but not particularly memorable after one listen. Now that I am home, I have had the chance to hear bits of the songs on BBC radio, and I am haunted by them. I can't wait to purchase the cast album or to see the show again. If this show can hang on for a year, it may well become a classic. (From Lincoln, Nebraska, USA). - USER: Whatsonstage.com (129.93.233.157) | 23 Sep 04 |
| My coach party (who came neither from Hull or hell) enjoyed it hugely. They are also people who enjoy going to the Donmar and the National, so you 'superior' loners do not have any extra street cred by looking down your nose at groups. However, I shall not distort the rating by posting 50 x five stars!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.43.168.250) | 23 Sep 04 |
| Well, the old pendulum is swinging from side to side, but it's nice to have confirmation from a one-star poster (poser?) that s/he is indeed trying to spin the user rating. It seems it deserves only one star from anyone who doesn't like rats - so unfair to the talented rats involved, though maybe it takes one to jeer one! Audience reaction (on the two evenings I have been) certainly support Mark Shenton's four star review, so if you prefer Sondheim or Tonight's the Night, your low rating for this one is certainly not representative of general opinion and therefore neither is the User Star rating. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.43.168.250) | 23 Sep 04 |
| I saw the Woman in White last night and it give it three stars not one or five because it was OK. It just wasn't good enough to get too worked up either way. The projections worked for the first 10 minutes and then they became tedious. Everyone sang well but there were no tunes to speak of. "I believe my Heart" isn't memeorable although the orchestra drums it into you by the end. I'm sure when the bloke from Blue releases it it will be a hit but this score is nothing to write home about. Michael Crawford in a fat suit is just a joke. It's absurd and totally out of place with the tone of the rest of the musical. As is his terrible song "you can get away with anything". Andrew Lloyd Webber may find that title coming back to haunt him - no pun intended. As for all the 5* reviews trying to come over all intellectual - give me a break. If you want high culture get to the Royal Opera House. This is very average musical fare for Americans and coach parties from Hull who would undoubtedly prefer Chicago or Mamma Mia. See it for curiosity's sake if you must but don't say you weren't warned. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.3.119.218) | 23 Sep 04 |
| What and you five star reviewers aren't up to the same game? - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.93.34.14) | 23 Sep 04 |
| Really brilliant. I am disappointed though to see that after all of the reviews praising the show as it it deserves there always seems to be a spate of one star reviews following. Seems suspicious to me and I feel places the validity of this sight in question. The night I went everyone around me stood spontaneously to applaud enthusiatically. Several people had tears rolling down there faces and i even saw a few handkerchieves out! All od the people I know that have seen the show have rated it highly. Well done everyone involved in this fantasic innovative production. It is a winner. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.2.90.76) | 22 Sep 04 |
| Not wanting to give a star but to comment that it looks odd that all the one star comments are so short -are they from the person thus distorting the star rating? - USER: Whatsonstage.com (212.85.1.1) | 22 Sep 04 |
| I went to see this production - as I have to admit I am a big fan of ALW. I love the sweeping scores of all his shows - though also admit that some of the songs are a little trite - but hey ho - thats the same with most musicals. The Woman in White - was no exception! Some terrifice melodies - wonderful performances (I actually forgot that Crawford was in the production - as he was so well disguised!) and a typical storyline with lots of "oddities" thrown in here and there. On a less positive note - I really disliked the "set" - a term I use loosely! I always feel cheated when I see images projected on screens whilst at the theatre! I feel those images are great for TV & Film - but theatre? Not good enough!! We are slowly discarding the magnificent sets of the past - look at Phantom, Les Mis, Martin Guerre, Miss Saigon etc etc etc - all fantastic sets - though the best musical set has got to go to Sunset Boulevard!! Stunning - but they still managed to cheat with the screen car chase!! But I digress! Back to Woman in WHite - I would like to see it again - as I did enoy it thoroughly - though would love to see it with a different (even simpler) set ie: Beautiful Game & Aspects - both worked with simple sets! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.157.5.94) | 22 Sep 04 |
| The first five minutes at the railway station produced the required atmosphere, but the next half hour or so was dire. The movement of the projected set made me feel quite sick! Maria Friedman skipped around like "Anne of Green Gables" and is about twenty years too old for the part(Shame, as I thought she was great in "Passion","Ragtime" and "Lady in the Dark). The score was quite lush in parts, but was let down by the trite lyrics....I spent most of the show guessing correctly what the ryhme was going to be at the end of the next line..it was so predictable! I found I did not care for any of the characters or their fates. The villagers dancing scenes were straight out of Martin Guerre and sounded recorded. The revolving bed/nightmare scene was straight out of Steven Sondheim's "Passion"....and reminders of a host of other musicals thrown in for good measure. By the end of the show I could not remember a single melody. Michael Crawford was wasted in his part and his big song spoilt for me by the rat( I HATE rats)! At the end of the show, when the train appeared(clever but too late to save the show) I felt tempted to burst into "Starlight Express"! There is definately no light at the end of this tunnel! A very disappointing evening and one show I would not reccommend to anyone. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (217.137.80.16) | 22 Sep 04 |
| Not very interesting. A horrible show that could do with being cut by 30mins and maybe then it would have been a bit less boring. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.27.84) | 22 Sep 04 |
| Absolutely terrible. Performances by all the lead characters were ok but it was just plain boring. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.27.84) | 22 Sep 04 |
| Simply amazing....Lloyd Webber's best musical. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (200.38.208.194) | 21 Sep 04 |
| A well deserved standing ovation. The music is fab and the performanes are amazing. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (217.42.139.20) | 21 Sep 04 |
| Masterpiece. Such a good score and wonderful performances. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (217.42.139.20) | 21 Sep 04 |
| Without doubt the best show that London has seen in years and years and years. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (217.42.139.20) | 21 Sep 04 |
| Can't believe how bad this was. With London filled with musiclas featuring songs from Pop groups etc, I was so looking forward to a new exciting musical. I was so bored. The score was appalling. A great idea with the digital set but it got so tired quickly. The whole thing took on a patomimesque feeling as Michael Crawford paraded through "you can get away with anything". Great performance but what was it doing in this show it seemed so out of place. Fosco is supposed to be cold and sinister. I found him too laughable. I appreciate all aspects of musical theatre but can honestly say "What a Waste" Ditch this one and quick!!!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.40.107.118) | 21 Sep 04 |
| Why are people who gave this show one stars copying their reviews from 3 weeks ago and pasting them back to the top of this review page in order to once again give it one star? One of the ones below was originally posted on this site on the 4th of September. I think people should remember that this is a review page and not a 'forum'. Many people from all over the world will look to places such as this for an informed and mature opinion. It is not fair for trolls to deliberately distort the star ratings in order to give the impression that the show is getting more negative than positive reactions. It's not fair on readers who want to decide how to spend their money and it is certainly not fair on the non senior creatives who put the show together and who are currently relying on it for their living. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (194.60.38.11) | 21 Sep 04 |
| Went to see the show extremely excited and I was so disappointed! Although a a couple of songs are ok, the show is so boring. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.148.193) | 21 Sep 04 |
| I think the one stars do seem to be coming from the same person. Sadly, there are some people - many people actually - who despise Lloyd Webber and hate him for the sake of it. This score is very different to his previous ones. It has some truly great moments and two or three of his best tunes in years. Funny that when other composers produce scores which you need to work for, that is seen as somehow as sophistication and maturity. When Lloyd Webber does it, it's seen as a criticism with the implication being that he's lost his touch! Well worth going to see this - great music, lyrics, performances and design. Just make sure you go there knowing you're about to see nearly 3 hours of original, modern operetta, rather than the best of abba/bee gees/elvis/beach boys/queen/rod stewart etc etc.... - USER: Whatsonstage.com (194.60.38.11) | 21 Sep 04 |
| this show is so bad it hurts. banal in the extreme. it gives musicals a bad name. i wish they would take it off so that so that the palace theatre could be freed up so something else bound to be better. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.93.34.14) | 20 Sep 04 |
| I agree about the rash of 1-star reviews. That person was probably in the Balcony where the view is terrible. We saw it on Saturday from the Dress Circle and I enjoyed it far more than I thought I would based on the reviews. It's best not to read the book in advance or try to forget if you have because the strength of the story is the key to this show. Although there are not too many stand-out songs the orchestration is superb and the projections are extremely effective, even if you lose one side of the screen if you are not sitting in the middle. Maria Friedman is exceptional and Michael Crawford is excellent, albeit in an under-written role. The show deserves to be a great success although I wonder how many people will go back and see it again once they learn the secret of the Woman in White. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.6.139.13) | 20 Sep 04 |
| The rash of one-star markings, each containing little more than a sentence and all made on the same day, indicates that they are almost certainly posted by the same person so I shouldn't take too much notice of them...a very sad character. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.34.177.231) | 20 Sep 04 |
| The people who have given this show 1 or 2 stars either need to get their hearing and sight tested or have not yet seen the show. This is without doubt Lloydd Webbers most accomplihed score to date. It is much more operatic in nature than anything he has written before. The whole cast are pitch perfect and the staging has to be seen to be belived. This is without doubt the best musical currently in the west end and deserves to be massive hit. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (194.60.106.9) | 20 Sep 04 |
| Having neither read the book nor seen any of the filmed versions of the story, I was pleasantly surprised. Right from the off I found the show engaging and the staging innovative and effective in smoothing a path for the narrative. The score is full of trademark Lloyd-Webberisms, and can hardly be described as forgettable - sitting here I can readily call to mind several of the main themes. My key criticism here is that one of the big love themes leans very heavily in it's main phrasing on "On My Own" from Les Miserables (the irony of the theatre I was sitting in did not escape me). From a performance point of view, Maria Friedman is very good and easily strong enough a performer to carry the bulk of the continuity of the story. Her voice sounded somewhat tired last night - she is human for goodness sake and her role demanding - but it didn't stop her hitting all the notes bang on the money every time. Lesser mortals would have perhaps cried off and the let the understudy carry the can. What surprised me is just how funny the show is - the humour is woven into both performance and the lib throughout. I was worried that it was going to be a very "serious" show, but the converse was true. As for Michael Crawford, well... I have never been a fan of his, but he is quite superb. Last night, his timing was faultless and hilarious. He was superb throughout. This is a vintage performance from him and should be seen forthwith. He even dealt with one of the canaries escaping very well... On the whole, The Woman In White is not without flaws (it could certainly do with a bit of trimming timewise) but is by no means the horror the doom-mongers have been proclaiming. I found it very enjoyable and deserves to be a hit. I hope it does well. As alluded to in a previous posting, the West End needs big hits at the moment. I was glad I saw it. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.92.67.77) | 20 Sep 04 |
| A stinker but a star for the rodent. The humans tried valiantly but in vain. Just one tune would've be nice. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.3.119.218) | 20 Sep 04 |
| A stinker but a star for the rodent. The humans tried valiantly but in vain. Just one tune would've be nice. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.3.119.218) | 20 Sep 04 |
| The first 15 mins were slow and dodgy so I thought it had to get better but then it doesn't and you get even more bored. The fact that the seats are very uncomfortable even in Stalls doesn't help. I thought the Palace had been refurbish but it hasn't. Everything is the same, same old seats, just much more expensive. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.131.206.67) | 20 Sep 04 |
| Petherbridge phones in his performance, as usual. Friedman's voice is strained, again, and the 'girlie' acting is excrutiating, she's almost as bad as she was in 'Passion'. As for Crawford! What is that fat suit and make-up all about? Why didn't they save themselves the bother and just cast Michael Ball? - USER: Whatsonstage.com (205.188.117.22) | 20 Sep 04 |
| The score repays concentration. It ultimately has a hypnotic power, but is sophisticated and demanding. the set-piece songs are outstanding, as are the performances, direction and design. A very welcome addition to the West End. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.155.232.157) | 19 Sep 04 |
| The most sophisticated lloyd webber score to date. Great production values. Although the book adaptation has been criticized I think it was neat and engrossing. Crawford was good as fosco and all the others were good too - with one exception Sir Percival Glyde. But the star of the evening is undoubtably Maria Friedman. She is the heart of the piece and gives a strong, weighty performance. Her voice is on top form and the highlight of the show is her act one song All for Laura. She has once again proved that she is this country's leading musical actress. A truely finely moulded performance - Olivier Award number four on it's way!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.35.105.90) | 19 Sep 04 |
| I knew nothing of the show and attended the last preview as frequent West End attendee and Group Organiser of a 50+ party. Sitting in the Dress Circle, I was enthralled by the whole evening. Never once did I look at my watch, always a good sign and by 10.30 when the show ended, I wanted to stay and see it again. When you have a powerful story, coupled with at times the sinister mood of the music and lyrics and the superb performances of all the main characters, you surely have a hit for many years. I loved the way the scenery changed! It did not make me giddy, although a couple of elderly colleagues in the stalls did suffer a little, maybe a health warning should be offered. Concentration was the key, I was tired the next day, with the mental effort, of listening to every lyric to follow the story. Forget what some of the cynical critics are saying, they were wrong with Les Mis and they will be wrong with WIW. Was that really Michael Crawford? it was his voice, but if you didn't know it could have been anyone. Super though and great to see him back and I loved his scene! I followed the story, but did not see any of the sub plots as they hit us and was totally amazed at the whole tale. I don't want to give away any surprises or the 'Secret'. Go and see WIW with an open mind, it's worth it, but don't allow your mind to wander outside the theatre. Roll on the CD issue, I need to listen again as there was some lovely music. Michael (Schult), Reading - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.253.96.44) | 19 Sep 04 |
| Based on last night's prolonged, heartfelt and rapturous standing ovation, the show is clearly hitting the spot. Masterpiece. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.155.232.157) | 19 Sep 04 |
| It is clear that Andrew Lloyd Webber polarises opinion. It is equally clear that he is not judged on an equal basis with other composers. I cannot imagine anyone else receiving anything but outstanding reviews for what is a beautiful, interesting, exquisite score. In all, the production is the best thing London has seen in years. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.155.232.157) | 19 Sep 04 |
| I loved this show. It was almost as good as Bernadette and Which Witch. I think it will run forever. It's a particularly good idea as gifts for a newlywed or a blind person. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.3.119.218) | 19 Sep 04 |
| One star for the rat and one for the location of the theatre. Dire. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.3.119.218) | 19 Sep 04 |
| Anyone who says this is brilliant dosn't go to the theatre very often. The projected set is a disgrace and there are no songs you can remember. I would've left in the interval but I thought it would improve. it didn't. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.3.119.218) | 19 Sep 04 |
| An totally uninteresting piece of theatre. Not worth seeingif you have to pay £50, and I don't think it'll last. As soon as Michael Crawford leaves hoses will be completely empty. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.82.217) | 19 Sep 04 |
| I was quite surprised at how little I enjoyed this. The cast is good bot that's about it. I'm a great fan of Andrew Lloyd Webber and I even like Beautiful Game in spite of the awful Ben Elton lyrics. But this time I am hugely disappointed. The set is rubbish and the music unmemorable. A waste of time and money. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.82.217) | 19 Sep 04 |
| Brilliant - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.182.157.182) | 18 Sep 04 |
| Went to see it on Friday and I thought it was ok in technical terms but some scenes were really long and boring. Music is awful, just a rework of previous Lloyd Webber compositions. Don't see it lasting very long. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.135.13.24) | 18 Sep 04 |
| I thought this was a truly terrible evening. Rubbish. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.7.150.93) | 17 Sep 04 |
| This is the best show I have ever seen. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.7.150.93) | 17 Sep 04 |
| Seems fascinating that that everyone rates this as either * or *****. Could it be that people with considerable conflicts of interest are present on this message board?!?!? - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.134.11.151) | 17 Sep 04 |
| A great musical and a true spectacle. Michael Crawford - an outstanding performance. Maria Friedman - excellent. Martin Crewes - a star is born. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.6.139.13) | 17 Sep 04 |
| A complete misfire. Deadly dull. No heart or soul. Good performers are wasted. What a shame. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.138.161.145) | 17 Sep 04 |
| "poetic lyrics"? youre all that I know, someone I cant let go, life is so unfair, such a cross to bear. Rhymes such as; voice, choice, you, true. I don't think so. Zippel? Zippy from Rainbow could have done better. Dull. I give it a year. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (152.163.101.13) | 17 Sep 04 |
| I'm afraid I'm another who really hated it. I was gnawing my own arms off by the end. For me it kind of felt like they'd started with a good idea but got a bit bored and just said "oh - that'll do." It needs to be taken off for a bit - given a major overhaul, new shorter, more compelling book, new design etc, and re-launched in a few months. Not without potential, but it's a bad night at the theatre in its current form. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (80.43.89.184) | 17 Sep 04 |
| Having seen the show twice - I can assure you it improves. It is subtle and it needs you to work at it. There are some truly memorable songs "I Believe My Heart" and "Evermore Without You" (Walter) "All For Laura" (Marian) and "You Can Get Away With Anything" - the Rossini-esque vehicle for Fosco. Its a bit like the opera - you have to work at it to 'get' it. I think this will become one of Lloyd-Webber's best scores. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.77.38.134) | 16 Sep 04 |
| After reading sharply divided comments and opinions based on the previews of this show I attended press night with an open mind. First the music - this did not disappoint me. The score was dramatic and unlike many comments I did find the music memorable. The cast were all solid - I have to say I especially liked Maria Friedman and Michael Crawford. The direction production design are my biggest sticking point with this show. On the one hand, the projected images annoyed me and it looked as if there was little if any direction; all songs seemed to be performed from the front of the stage (especially stage left). I think however I would have a totally different view had I been in the dress circle or stalls as opposed to the balcony. Sitting in the balcony was just too high and too far away to be properly involved in the show. Perhaps many of the negative comments on this page come from people who sat in the balcony. Overall I think the show has a good score, cast and story with the biggest problem being the projected set. I look forward to seeing the show again in the stalls or dress circle to see if this makes a difference! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.134.102.97) | 16 Sep 04 |
| Judging by your reviews people either love it or hate it. Don'y be put off athis mis ju8st whart London needs a real new musical not a compilation show.Ita a musical Treat - USER: Whatsonstage.com (80.43.169.79) | 16 Sep 04 |
| Definitely not one of ALW's best but I did enjoy some of the music, it was quite powerful. I cannot understand why he does not create characters that one actually cares about. Josephs been killed,Christines been taken by the phantom-----who cares? Michael Crawford and Maria Friedman were excellent and in fine voice. The set became a bore in the first half but in the second was used to better effect. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.252.0.10) | 16 Sep 04 |
| great show - the music and lyrics are very clever - singing is great especially Marian and Laura. i cried at the end so it must be good!!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.133.18.193) | 16 Sep 04 |
| It's a funny one really this one. One can't help feeling it was a bad idea from the start, the book just wasn't suitable for translation into a West End show. But then who would have imagined you could make a hit show out of Les Miserables! For me, one of the biggest problems with it was that it was taking over in the Les Mis theater. Both are similar shows in that they are both semi-operatic adaptions of complicated classic novels. However Les Mis is clearly the superior show. There was nothing in WIW which made me care about any of the characters. It seemed to be a sketchy ill-thought-through adaption, which was also plodding and over-long - quite an acheivement. For all it's faults for my money the biggest problem is the score. It didn't move me, it didn't inspire me. There wasn't a single song that lifted above the generic background hum of recicitative. On a personal note, I was very sorry to discover David Zippel had written the lyrics. He wrote City of Angels - imo some of the finest musical theater songs ever written. I had found the lyrics in WIW so appalling I had rushed to buy a programme in the interval to find out who was responsible. It was gutting. The whole thing is just a dreadful shame. So much great talent involved, and yet they seem to have combined to create a wishy-washy mess. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (132.185.144.122) | 16 Sep 04 |
| I thought this musical was compelling. The acting is superb, the singing wonderful and understandable - which is vital if you are to follow the plot. The scenery is quite different to anything I've seen before and although I found the projected background some what nausiating when moving, it still made a better backdrop than traditional scenery. I did work out some of the plot prior to it happening but that is not unusual with a 'whodunwhat' plot which this is. I think that its a step away from traditional musicals and not having read any reviews prior to going, it was not what I expected but very enjoyable nevertheless! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.68.83.102) | 16 Sep 04 |
| Dull; dull; dull! This is the most boring musical I have ever had to endure and at almost 3 hours it certainly felt like an endurance test - I couldn't wait for the end and an escape from the dour music, slow storyline and painful lyrics! Absolute rubbish! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.92.109.226) | 16 Sep 04 |
| If it was possible, I would give this rubbish no stars at all. Thought it was terrible, with a plodding plot, awful score and hardly any uptempo tunes/chorus to break the monotony. Total agreement with other comments about the dire state of the balcony - do yourselves a favour and STAY AWAY! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.92.109.226) | 16 Sep 04 |
| I realise one should usually give objective appraisals in a review but I'm afraid the only thing to say about Woman In White is that it is astonishingly bad. The were some upsides and, after being initially sceptical about the idea of a projected set, it grew on me and worked as a new style and moving the genre forward. But, and after all this is a musical, the music seemed to me like 3 hours of recetetive with no apparant songs at all. It is, in many ways a terrible shame that Lloyd-Webber who, like him or not, has held up the West End for the best part of 30 years has arrived at this. He is either compeletely delusional or just desperately clinging to the hope that he can write one last hit. It seems now that the reign of King Andrew is finally over. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.134.11.151) | 16 Sep 04 |
| How can Trevor Nunn direct an absolutely corker like Anything Goes, and then a total Turkey like Woman in White. The direction is inadequate at best, non-existent at worst. The music is painfully dull. The cast were mostly adequate. Notable exception was Anne Catherick, who was terrible. I'm astonished by the reviews praising Crawford. I would say he made a nondescript job of a part that could possibly have been the saving grace of this gloom-fest. He seemed to be just going through the motions rather than flying. Maybe he was trying desperately to be dull enough not to upstage the rest of the show. The 'sets' are abysmal. The reviewer who likened them to an episode of Knightmare was right on track. I can honestly say this is one of the worst things I have ever seen in a West End theatre. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (132.185.240.121) | 16 Sep 04 |
| Michael Crawford looks like Eddie Large, or was it Eddie large? - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.78.206.63) | 16 Sep 04 |
| C'mon folks be honest. Great musicals include Carousel, Anything Goes and Chicago. Good musicals include My Fair lady and - at a push - Les Mis. Average musicals include all of Andrew Lloyd Webbers' and Woman in White is no Phantom. Go with a good friend to see just how grim it is and then dinner afterwards for a good bitch about it. But go soon. The palace theatre is too big for this turkey. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.3.119.218) | 16 Sep 04 |
| Very disappointed - started very slowly and couldn't see or hear what was going on - needed great persuasion that it was in fact Michael Crawford ! Balcony seats dreadful, especially with the revolving stage. Sorry but don't see it will last. Needs a bit more "clout". RM - USER: Whatsonstage.com (212.93.67.106) | 16 Sep 04 |
| Went to see it on Tuesday and I was bored most of the time. The train effect was ok but some scenes were really long and you get sick of the projections. Music is boring, Lloyd Webber copying himself and recicling material from his previous shows. Very disappointing indeed. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.135.120.39) | 16 Sep 04 |
| Not true to say all the papers gave a thumbs down to this show...there were plenty of favourable comments. I suspect that some of the one star remarks for September 16 came from the same source...how small-minded. I found the show innovative and refreshing...and something I will go to see again. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.166.17.214) | 16 Sep 04 |
| Michael Crawford in a fat suit was very ill advised. I know he's put a bit of weight on but to add to it was most unflattering. The projections were interesting for a few minutes but left me quite dizzy by the interval. The woman in White had a Swedish accent - was that intentional? The star of the show was undoubtedly the rat. Amazing. No tunes. No set. No future. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.3.119.218) | 16 Sep 04 |
| Great show. I agree with below, don't book balcony seats. Absolute disgrace. Thanks for respecting your audience comfort, ALW. Agree with teaching audiences to behave. Too much chatting/texting. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.109.216.14) | 16 Sep 04 |
| did the WOS review see the show?, well all the papers are a total thumbs down-I am pleased to say! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (217.13.129.151) | 16 Sep 04 |
| Have to disagree with the review below. This isn't the same as all the Andrew Lloyd Webber's you've seen before - it's far far far worse. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (132.185.240.121) | 16 Sep 04 |
| I intend to spend as little time writing this as they have writing/designing/staging this big mess of a show. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.93.34.14) | 16 Sep 04 |
| A huge dissapointment. I never thought the brilliant novel could come across on stage so boring and dull. A disaster. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.93.34.14) | 16 Sep 04 |
| Terrible. Like all the other lloyd webber shows and music youve ever heard before. The design is intrusive and ugly. The direction messy and the cast struggle. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.93.34.14) | 16 Sep 04 |
| it was one night at the theatre i wished i had stayed at home DONT waste your money on this mess - USER: Whatsonstage.com (80.3.64.5) | 16 Sep 04 |
| As a lover of the book expected to be disappointed, but was enchanted by it. The projected scenery was magnificent - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.151.244.42) | 16 Sep 04 |
| This is truly laughably awful. Or at least the first act is - by the end of the second act it had lost the laughable part and was just plain, agonising, get-me-out-of-here awful. There's not a tune in there. It is supposedly through-sung, but without tunes it becomes one long monotonous wail, occasionally punctuated when someone falls to their knees and shouts. Andrew Lloyd-Webber should be ashamed of himself. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (132.185.240.120) | 16 Sep 04 |
| If you had asked me at the interval what i thought, then i'd have said, "laboured, taking too long to establish the plot and characters", but as it turns out, this is necessary to ensure that that the correct base is set for the overall show. Strong performances from the entire cast, with Maria Friedman rightly taking centre stage. Michael Crawford as Count Fosco whilst an amusing comedy character is unnecessary. Maybe an ALW insurance policy to get the tourist US $. It worked, as on the press night we were surrounded by ladies of a certain age from the US who were extatic when he walked on stage. The projected sets take a while to accept, but work well for me with the exception of the London scenes, which are a little lack-lustre. The chorus has a pretty easy time, but when called on sing and dance with gusto. Do not go thinking you will see a musical version of the book - it is FREELY based on novel. The atmosphere that the show creates is magical. I'd love to see this pared down with no big set and chorus etc., at the Donmar to see it could stand up on its own without all the technical wizardry so derigeur today. Overall not a great musical, but a good show with a strong story and a cast that works so hard and music that is grand and magnificent if a little too thematic for me. David Zippel's lyrics are refreshing and cleaver, and this collaboration should continue. One BIG gripe - The Balcony at the Palace is a disgrace, £22.50 to sit on ripped seats with dirty carpet - what happened to the re-furb? My advice - Go see it, it won't be there for 18 years as was Les Mis. (BH) - USER: Whatsonstage.com (168.230.192.250) | 16 Sep 04 |
| Show was just Brilliant. Sets were outstanding. I only ask that Andrew, as landlord, have you ever been to the balcony. It is disgusting. The chairs are not even thredbare any more, they are devoid of material and full of enormous holes. Also can we start a campaign to teach people that you do not chat during the performance, do not rustle sweet papers in the quiet bits. Do not take and recieve texts. Keep still. Do not lean forward. And why do theatres have to allow drinks in now. Another annoying factor. Anyway great show. Michael and Maria just Brilliant. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.109.216.14) | 16 Sep 04 |
| Fantastic - very special. Story line great, scenery amazing - I just wish i could remember the main song - USER: Whatsonstage.com (194.176.223.193) | 15 Sep 04 |
| Brilliant! Worth seeing if only for Michael Crawford. He is a genius! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (80.3.32.6) | 15 Sep 04 |
| Wonderful music and great performances, especially from Maria Friedman and Michael Crawford. Very good voices too, Maria“s isn“t as strong as the other“s IMO but her interpretation is perfect. As a fan of the novel I was afraid I wouldn“t like the free adaptation but after seeing the show myself I think that for a modern audience it works very well, even better than an exact adaptation. They sharpened the ideas of the book without totally changing them. I“ll definitely see the show again! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (217.185.160.223) | 14 Sep 04 |
| I think this show has great potential. The back projection made it very filmic which gave it an interesting edge - a cross between a period drama on TV but it's live on stage! I sat in the front row so would like to go again as feel I didn't get the full benefit of the projections. Maria Friedman was absolutely outstanding, as good, if not better than she was in Ragtime (shame that closed so quickly). Not really been an ALW since Jesus Christ Superstar (which is him at his absolute best!) as his musicals all follow a very similar formula. This had alot of un -ALW music in it which was a refreshing change. The girl who played Laura was also excellent and Michael Crawford of course...although I agree with other comments that his fat-face/suit did make him look like a Spitting Image puppet. I love a good story and felt it really kept my interest and am a bit fed-up with all the tribute musicals. I think it would benefit however if it was at least 15min if not 30min shorter. I'm not sure whether it'll be a huge hit but applaud ALW and Trevor Nunn for daring to be different and wish the cast every success for their opening night and I hope it has a good run! Go see it and decide for yourself. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.86.30.2) | 14 Sep 04 |
| Amazing!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.93.34.14) | 14 Sep 04 |
| I'm really sorry...but this really sucked!...I could write an extremely intelligent diatribe why, but it really isn't worth the effort of picking up the pen. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.252.64.15) | 14 Sep 04 |
| I agree - this is a very good show. The story is gripping, brilliaintly adapted from the novel, and the cast superb - especially Maria Friedman and Michael Crawford (making a sensational comeback). The score is not very memorable, but it has plenty of variety which keeps it interesting, and it is beautifully scored and played. I can't imagine anyone not enjoying it. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.7.166.101) | 11 Sep 04 |
| What a great show. I don't understand the negative reviews. Maybe wanted to see something they'd already been convinced was good? Dunno. But this is a strong show with interesting sets and great singers. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (57.66.10.36) | 11 Sep 04 |
| Superb production, very interesting sets, strong songs, great performances, and an intricate, fast-moving storyline. Well done! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (57.66.10.36) | 11 Sep 04 |
| Very strange. Didn't know the story at all and didn't read any reviews on purpose. No outstanding songs and music very dark. Not too fond of the projected scenery. Don't think I will rush to see it again. Tickets were a present and I think I would have been very disappointed if I had paid the full price. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (80.6.156.233) | 11 Sep 04 |
| What a shame - it should never have been turned into a musical. They find the missing Woman in the asylum, and instead of rushing off with her...pause to sing a slow ballad! The sets were interesting and impressionistic - giving no sense of reality. The characters on stage seemed to be in a second-rate musical, not in distress, as the story would have us believe. The mad bad doctor was camped up, losing all tension. What a sad waste of an evening. Pity. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.35.40.150) | 10 Sep 04 |
| There is much to recomend this show, some great performances, some good dramatic music, a strong and exciting story, startling designs - but at the interval I was not sure that this would be a hit, much work needs to be done to trim the first half and prevent the designs overwhelming the story and actors. The secod half was much stronger and the collective talents involved seemed to come together to create an impressive show. I hope they succeed in the next few days and it all really comes together but if they don't it could be rather similar to Matin Gurre afew years back which was impressive in so many areas but just did not click as a colective whole.A good show at present but not yet a great one. Really enjoyed the WOS outing first I had attended but will not be the last - Thanks - USER: Whatsonstage.com (80.43.189.209) | 10 Sep 04 |
| I actually enjoyed the show - less than I'd hoped, but more than I thought I would from comments on the internet. THe cast are uniformly excellent, although the Woman In White needs a little work to make her accent 'singable'. Maria Freidman gave her usual strong performance, and Michael Crawford managed well with a rather strange role. The music, whilst not catchy, served the action well, and the projections worked well most of the time. An usual show, but still one worth seeing - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.188.176.200) | 10 Sep 04 |
| We went with the outing last night, and didn't stay for the second half. The music was dull, the lyrics most strange - everything rhymed and rhymed. It was not always possible to hear what the Woman in White said/sang. As for Michael Crawford's make-up - how do we know it was him inside? All in all very disappointing. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (212.100.251.149) | 10 Sep 04 |
| Fantastic, can't wait to see it again. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.93.34.14) | 10 Sep 04 |
| Fantastic, can't wait to see it again. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.93.34.14) | 10 Sep 04 |
| Well it got off to a truly dire start. Awful sung dialogue to start with, terrible wandering accents by the signalman and far, far too much dry ice (I know it creates atmosphere, but you do have to see what is going on.) However, it did improve dramatically, especially in the second half. The set is impressive, but the computer graphics are not quite good enough (reminded me of 90's kids show Knightmare at times). There are times when it works wonderfully however, the scene in the church for example. What I did feel was lacking in the sets, particuarly in the first half was motion and some kind of physical element. They did do this more later with the moving people in the tavern and the light in the casino, but mor qas required to create a proper sense of place. The music is a bit of a mixed bag, some very forgetful, some all too familiar. The performances on the whole are tremendous. Maria is spectacular, and Michael is great in something of a strange part (and ditch the terrible, terrible make up...he looks like something out of a Disney villains parade.) I may sound overly critical in this review, but by the end I had really enjoyed the show...and even forgot about the dreadful discomfort from the tiny amount of legroom. Recommended then. Some will hate it, and it is by no means an all time classic but very enjoyable none the less. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (132.185.144.120) | 10 Sep 04 |
| Well I dont know what I was expecting but I came away very disappointed. The sets, while different with the 3D projection, didn't quite work for me, the train at the end the only exception. For the victorian age it just looked out of place. I came away with only one musical tune that was repeated and repeated. Plus so many times I was half expecting the cast to start singing a song from Phantom or Aspects of Love!! The big numbers were dull and if the music climaxed one more time with the singer belting out the end of a number I was going to scream (just like 'the woman in white' did every time she came on!!) Michael Crawford while a great performer just looked silly in the make up for the fat Count Fosco. Maria Friedman who was great in ragtime, over acted for most of this show but was in fine voice. Martin Crewes was a great singer and good looking, a new star I think. The two American females in the other leads were competant if not exciting. Overall I dont give this show much time. The story just didn't work as a musical for me and the sets and music just left me feeling flat. It was the same feeling for my partner and the people sitting around us who we discussed the show with at interval. The applause at the end was very muted with a few standing who obviously loved it!! Not for me though. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (217.35.141.121) | 10 Sep 04 |
| Looked forward to the WOS outing for a long time - a New ALW AND Michael Crawford = bonus! The night wasn't off to the best of starts for me when the first lines of dialogue came out singing .. Personal choice, but I much prefer my musicals to have their separate songs without the need for the connecting lines to have a melody too. .. but once I kind of managed to get past that I'd definitely have to recommend this show. The cast are strong and the story pulls you in. As a piece of theatre I enjoyed it - having read the novel at school 25 years ago, the plot had long since departed from my memory and the mystery and suspense were well captured and maintained ... up until the point in the second half when my father leaned in to inform me how he'd "got it" - tsktsk cheers Dad! But as a musical it's not one I'll be clamouring to re-see nor will I be interested in buying the CD. The songs were not memorable or singalongable enough for that which was disappointing, though Fosco's hilarious "getting away with it" number was a highpoint! Michael Crawford is amazing - but I'd have to give a thumbs down to the full prosthetic mask .. expressionless and over comical - reminding me of a a Spitting Image puppet! With regard to the projections - comments from my party ranged from - "they make me feel sick".. to - "it's the best thing I've ever seen on stage!" I lean more towards the later view - extremely effective and clever 3D effects - and the train at the end especially. .. but when the cast are running round in circles and the scenery is spinning - it can overwhelm. Thank you Michael for coming to say hi to the WOSers at the bar afterwards - much appreciated !! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (192.18.1.9) | 10 Sep 04 |
| The initial thrill of a new Webber musical lasted only until a few minutes into the opening scene. As the show developed it was obvious that some of the score was both moving and exciting however the anticipated joy was quickly diminished by the somewhat amatuerish and scholastic lyrics and the equally amatuerish performance by the title role. The changing scenery, whilst at times spectacular, was in danger of causing advanced motion sickness and at times even the cast had trouble keeping up. Overall a very disappointing evening where the highlights were in the wonderful pre-show Thai meal, acccompanied by a nice Sauvignon blanc and wonderful company. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.144.220.5) | 10 Sep 04 |
| Background movement almost made my partner feel sick. Whilst singing on an accent is difficult the 'lady in white'really could not sing. The lyrics were at best childlike and not at all adult as in 'Ascot'. A very poor show with a Disney like ending.Very disappointing as we had both been really looking forward to it. I will however noe read the book as the story was interesting. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.144.220.5) | 10 Sep 04 |
| Quite a strange one this - but ultimately very exciting, interesting and genuinely new. At least you have to think and then you can be transported by the shows magic. Maria F is fab!!!!!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.136.217.139) | 09 Sep 04 |
| I saw the show last night and loved it.The music is beautiful, moving and intelligent and the hugely talented cast do it much justice. Yes the lyrics are, at times, appaling and the show does get off to a very slow start, but the show as a whole is first rate and original - so much more interesting than compilation shows such as We Will Rock You etc. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.93.34.14) | 09 Sep 04 |
| Quite an enjoyable show - the music will I think improve with repeated listenings as it contains only five or six stand alone songs. Maria Freidman and Michael Crawford were both on top form, as were all of the cast, although the ensemble are underused. The much derided projections worked extremely effectivly at times, although it was like watching a National Trust video through Act One. Was moderatly well received by the audience, but those going expecting the Phantom of the Opera will be disappointed - USER: Whatsonstage.com (217.205.174.222) | 08 Sep 04 |
| Fantastic, and really excellent music. Best wishes, Mr A.L.Webber. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (194.60.38.11) | 08 Sep 04 |
| Dull and uninteresting. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.86.60.3) | 08 Sep 04 |
| Absolute garbage. Went with high expectations but sadly disappointed. Have never heard more muted applause at the end of a musical, once the audience had realised it had finished. Crawford not bad but cannot hold up a show with lousy music and awful libretto. Do not see this as the next great thing. Audience comment on the way out very much in the same vein. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.171.132.162) | 08 Sep 04 |
| Loved this show. The music was charming. All the cast were well chosen and Michael Crawford superb as Fosco. I'd certainly see this show again. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.93.34.14) | 07 Sep 04 |
| 8 of us saw this on Saturday night and we had a very mixed reaction. I thoroughly enjoyed it. The test of an original musical for me is whether I can remember any songs the next day and hey we got 3! If you are above stalls level though it is somewhat spoilt by seeing all of the shuffling about. Highs Michael Crawford and Maria Friedman singing 'All for Laura' lows the constant running around that takes place. Go see it though - USER: Whatsonstage.com (217.137.94.92) | 07 Sep 04 |
| Interesting. A grand show that could do with being cut by 30mins from the first act. Crawford relishes his part with comic effect, and on several occasions the show places a few nods to phantom. Don't be fooled by the critics of the projected scenes, hey its just a modern version of painted canvass backdrop, but motion sickness nearly set in by the end of the first act. I think this one will have to grow on you, as the score does not immediately engage you emotionally. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (217.33.209.253) | 07 Sep 04 |
| Enjoyable evening but not a musical I need to see again or to buy the soundtrack to. All the performers were superb although I would have preferred Michael Crawford not to have so much costume. He is a superbly expressive performer and I felt that was lost behind the costume. Staging and sets were very clever, almost too clever as there doesn't need to be so much movement of the screens and films. Music was lovely while some of the lyrics were a bit corny with simplistic rhyming. Lines such as "A Mystery to be solved..." "But first let us take advantage of this light" didn't really create a smooth transition into scene changes. Hopefully they will take advantage of the preview period to tighten up the story as with fabulous music, cast, sets and orchestra it has the potential to be a superb theatrical experience. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.102.142.238) | 07 Sep 04 |
| outstanding - USER: Whatsonstage.com (69.148.104.85) | 06 Sep 04 |
| awful - USER: Whatsonstage.com (68.97.27.78) | 06 Sep 04 |
| Absolutely Superb performance by all the lead characters. Those worried if Michael Crawford doesn't appear need not be - his understudy was excellent. A must watch - and must confess to finding it more enjoyable than Phantom - a real compliment!! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.224.121.238) | 06 Sep 04 |
| Loved the design of the show...all those stunning projections. Evocative score by Lloyd Webber and impressive performances from all the cast. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.34.177.231) | 05 Sep 04 |
| I think this is a brillant show, I hope it succeeds. The music, though not in all parts typical for him, belongs to Webber's best IMO. It might not be a show for everybody, you have to listen to the words closely to follow the development of the story and the relationships. The projections are unusual at first sight but very beautiful and impressive. I saw the show 3 times, it's gettig better and better every night, the audience is getting more and more enthusiastic. The singing and acting is great. Maria Friedman's performance is very emotional and touching. Michael Crawford is hilarious as Fosco, getting explosive laughs and big applause. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (193.82.16.50) | 04 Sep 04 |
| Saw a preview showing of this and I have to say I am stunned. What were they thinking? The story is brilliant, but evidently not suited to the medium of musical, which reduces it to a superficial series of stereotypes and a mass of exposition in what has to be the biggest anti-climax of any musical in London. The man sitting next to me left at interval and saved himself the pain of this. As for the staging itself, the encroachment of computer technology in theatre has never been so evident, and so poorly done. The projection of backdrop seems like a good idea on paper, but somewhere along the line you think somebody would have said: 'Hey, guys, this looks ridiculous.' I may as well have spent three hours sitting in front of my television. At least then I would have saved myself 20 quid. Absolutely horrific. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.194.86.1) | 04 Sep 04 |
| I think it is goodie. I like the bit with the rat, - USER: Whatsonstage.com (212.140.127.129) | 03 Sep 04 |
| Went to see the show throughly excited and I was not disappointed! Although a few scenes were more boring than they should have been, the overall show was amazing. The cast were superb, especially Martin Crewes who is an asset to the West End. Will be going again definately! The show will not last as long as say Phantom or Les Mis but I reckon it has a few healthy years running for it! Go see it! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (172.188.219.254) | 01 Sep 04 |
| Michael Crawford as Count Fosco is brilliant!!! Can't wait to see it again! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.43.129.28) | 31 Aug 04 |
| Don't even bother with this one, what a disappointment !! Sorry Andrew :-( - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.153.106.119) | 31 Aug 04 |
| Well I went to see the 1st night of the preview and was very excited to this ALW's newest production. I have to say for me it was disappointing. You cannot compare this production to any other that ALW has delivered. The cast were without doubt superb througout, and there were times i laughed. But overall the projected sets (although very original)did not suit the production and made me feel dizzy at times. As for the music i felt let down as not one tune stood out apart from the jolly medieval dance song (merrily , merrily !!) only because it brightened up the dull storyline. I feel so bad writing this review but felt I had to air my opinion. This show will not last for long and is not a touch on Les Mis, Phantom, Sunset and even Whistle down the Wind !! Hope you enjoy and make your own descisions. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.153.106.119) | 31 Aug 04 |
| Maria Freidman for Queen she is amazing, and I loved the projections especially with the water. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.130.124.40) | 31 Aug 04 |
| The first 10 mins were a bit dodgy but then after Walter reaches the 2 sisters,it gripped me till the very end,so emotional and heart breaking story and what going to the theatre is all about,Simon Lee lead the orchestra so well and I loved the music and Crawfords I can get away with everything was a classic performed as only MC can do. A great show and what going to the theatre is all about,the legroom in the stalls is dreadful though and Chita Rivera at the first preview near me look very uncomfortabvle too. All in all I LOVED 99% of iT! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.130.124.40) | 31 Aug 04 |
| An interesting piece of theatre. Definitely worth seeing, but I don't think it'll last like Phantom or even Sunset Blvd did. The programme said it should be 2 hours 45 mins, but this performance (2nd preview) was about 3 hours. There were some sections that dragged a bit, so they could do with shaving off that 15-20 mins. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.78.149.11) | 30 Aug 04 |
| I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed this. The cast is great throughout, especially Martin Crewes. The set takes some getting used to, but with the aid of motion sickness tablets you should be ok. I'm sure it sounded like a good idea on paper, although in the theatre I felt it didn't quite work. Lloyd Webber has finally found a lyricist to replace Tim Rice. After the awful Don Black and dire Ben Elton, David Zippel is a breath of fresh air. The main love song (you can tell it's the main one as it's rammed down your throat every few minutes in true ALW style!) is really nice and sure to be recorded as a pop song. It's no Les Miz, but it sure beats having yet another show of a pop group's greatest hits. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.78.149.11) | 30 Aug 04 |
| I saw it from the Balcony, and although I was worried about not being able to see, I needn't have been. The whole thing was a marvellous journey - tears, laughter (Michael Crawford is brilliant) and thrills. I recommend it to all fans of good musical theatre. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.188.152.12) | 30 Aug 04 |
| Amazing!! Wierd and exciting! Great music . A must see! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (193.82.16.50) | 30 Aug 04 |
| I thought it was great. The sets were innovative, the story was exciting and the cast were brilliant in delivering some of the best Lloyd Webber songs I have heard in a very long time. Can't wait to see it again. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.188.152.12) | 30 Aug 04 |
| Went to see the first preview on 28th August, was ok but some scenes were long. Also not much spectacle which i think is a must for a musical, the projection was a good idea but also made you feel dizzy after a while. Not Lloyd webbers best! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.174.137.77) | 28 Aug 04 |
