Reader Reviews
Ring Round the Moon (Playhouse Theatre, West End)
Back to Show Details| Score | Comment | Date |
 | Actors not knowing lines, a set which is frankly embarrassing, music which does not fit the show and horrendous dancing combine to make this one of the worst shows I've ever seen. - PWH1980 | 23 Feb 08 |
| I loved it enough to see 3 times so far. The cast is outstanding, the music and dance routines just wonderful and the whole production just lifts you to another magical, glamorous and elegant world. Dont miss it, it's fabulous. - kls | 22 Feb 08 |
| Fair comments perhaps from other reviewers here, but even so it still has a spring in it's step - and a slide to the foot, you have to see it to know! With such a talented cast it would have had to be dire not to succeed and this avoids that sorry fate altogether. 2½ hours flew around. I am tired tonight so can't be arsed to write much more other than to say if you want a light, bright yet thought provoking fun evening out go and see it you won't be disappointed! - rds | 20 Feb 08 |
| incredubly poor production of an incredibly boring play, a shame really i dont think the west end really need this - bob | 20 Feb 08 |
| I found this revival of limited interest. I had good memories of previous productions. The world has moved on however and to move the play into the post world war II period didn't help and why that austere conservatory set? It surely needed something delicate and frothy. Belinda Lang was excellent and I loved the dances but time hasn't treated this well. - Stuart | 20 Feb 08 |
| Sure the production has style, but overall it's a lengthy, overcomplicated play with unstimulating attempts at acting - Eve | 15 Feb 08 |
| I really love this play and was pleased to see it was being performed. The production was not bad, but I had one major gripe with it. Some bright spark moved the setting of the play from the early 1910s to 1947, and the only reason given for this was that the clothes in 1947 were nice. This seems to me a major mistake. The play is set very specifically pre-war. It is an era where social ettiquette, class and reputation are still important and the rich enjoy 'scandals' whilst trying to avoid being part of them. 1947 on the other hand was after two world wars, when France had been under occupation. The frivolity and innocence of the past is forgotten. By moving the play forward around 35 years it has made it look silly and if it was set in 1947, the character's attitudes would all be incredibly old fashioned, when in fact they are largely young, fashionable types. The era of the play is part of its charm, and vital to the way the characters behave. That said, there were good performances, especially Emily Bruni as Lady India who got the biggest laughs. Belinda Lang also gives a good performance as Isabelle's mother. I enjoyed the production, but would have loved to see it in the correct context. - T Rivers | 15 Feb 08 |
