ABSOLUTELY PHENOMENAL. most definately worth going to see and anyone who says otherwise obviously can not recoqnise talent and enjoy to listen to those who can do what they cant. the songs were all sung flawlessly and it is an extrememly gripping plot we thoroughly enjoyed it.. it had more than a few of our group sobbing their eyes out - Emily
28 Jul 11
I AM UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHY ANYONE WOULD THINK THAT LOVE NEVER DIES IS NOT GOOD. IVE SEEN IT WHEN IT FIRST CAME OUT AND AFTER THE REVAMP. BOTH EXCELLENT. AS FOR NO REAL STOREY...ARE YOU MAD... IT IS AS GOOD IF NOT BETTER THAN PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. THE STOREY IS EXCELLENT, THE MUSIC SPINE TINGELING, THE SINGERS SUPERB. RAMIN WHO PLAYS THE PHANTOM, I HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED IN MY LIFE A VOICE SO MOVING AND BEAUTIFUL. FOR ALL OUT THERE WHO HAVE NOT RAVED ABOUT THIS SHOW, LISTEN TO THE MUSIC AGAIN, LISTEN TO THE WORDS,THERE IS A CLEAR STRONG STOREY LINE, WITH LOTS OF EXCELLENT SONGS NOT JUST ONE OR TWO. I LOVE LOVE LOVE THIS SHOW AND WOULD RECOMMEND EVERYONE TO SEE IT.ALW YOU HAVE DONE IT AGAIN. A MASTERPIECE. - ARLENE EDGE
19 Jun 11
OK, any ALW musical is going to be far better than any other musical in town, but there's only 2 good songs, a lack of original music, weak story, and all abit boring. ALW should have worked with some new fresh young talent to produce a new show - Andrew
25 Feb 11
I saw this show 5th feb without having seen it before the revamp, I thought it was a great show with some really fantastic music! Most of the negative reviews are totally unjustified!!! This show is not the flop critics would have you believe, Andrew lloyd webber has done it again!! 5 stars! - Brist75
05 Feb 11
Back in April when I first saw Love Never Dies I was not in the right frame of mind to fully appreciate a musical but that only partly explains my 2-star rating. News that the show had been revamped by Bill Kenwright, amongst others, and a substantial discount persuaded me to give the show another chance. The most obvious change has been to open the show with the Phantom and his one big song, but the story now seems to have greater clarity and there are more echoes of melodies from the original show. What hasn't changed is the leaden pace of the first half, particularly the set-piece reunion of the Phantom and Christine which fully justifies the famous subriquet of Paint Never Dries. There is still a sense of relief from the audience when we finally reach the beautiful title song, even if it is 20 years old. Sadly the ending remains essentially unaltered which has upset so many Phantom fans and I think is a major mistake on Lloyd Webber's part. Being a Lloyd Webber show of course one of the principals was off - Sierra Boggess again. I usually appreaciate musicals more on a second viewing and Love Never Dies is no exception. It's not a bad show, just not the great one that so many had hoped for from Lloyd Webber. It's interesting to note how many of his shows since Phantom have been drastically improved following a revamp or re-imagining which must cast some doubt on his original vision or wilingness to listen to criticism. Perhaps, like Sunset Boulevard and Aspects of Love we will have to wait ten years or so for a version of Love Never Dies which is fit to stand alongsdie the original Phantom. - David Baxter
06 Jan 11
'Persuaded myself to see the enhanced version of LBW's PND tonight. The opening scene is no longer reminiscent of Titanic (Stevie’s review 17.7.2010), and the audience is attributed with a little more intelligence. There are less video instructions, (‘three months later’), a bad habit in UK shows perhaps lifted from a trend in the USA? A FOH staff member commented that there were noticeably less patrons leaving the theatre in tears since re-versioning; surprising since the ending was improved and more powerful; albeit editing a few seconds could hasten the pace to conclusion and final curtain. At least Meg no longer has to sit there twiddling her thumbs whilst her mate fades way.
Inevitably the show has become a production by committee; the latest being Kenwright putting his four penneth in. I didn’t know they were such chums, perhaps he’s agreed to underwrite some of the sure-to-be losses should LBW venture into Broadway. It’s not that this show doesn’t deserve to succeed in NY but the yanks will have already watched its roller-coaster development and are primed on how to shoot it down. Our special relationship with the USA is all but dead and welcoming anything Brit’ is only if on their terms – a big chunk of the profits. So LBW, if you really must risk Broadway make sure 51% of the show is owned by Americansus.
My best wishes to a talented and hard working team at the Adelphi, simply A1. Loved it once again, tissues required.
06 Jan 11
This was a terrible show before the 'revamps'. Now it is, without doubt, the worst piece of crap in the history of Musical theatre.
Bill Kenwright has 're-done' the show after the sacking of anyone who knew what they were doing. Yes Kenwright the producer coming in to 'direct' the show. WHAT!!!!
The revamp is this. The Phantoms 'song' and the hilarious kylie minogue gold thing scene is now the opening of the show (including christine with arms by her side moving as if to say 'i-am-a-robot'). This means that all the exposition is removed, so if you don't know phantom at all you're screwed. The formally quite good opening has become the worst staging in a musical to date, which includes awful new lyrics to the overture.
ALW has thrown in far more musical references to phantom (in a very hurried and clunky way) any reference to the phantom and Christine phucking on her wedding night taken out, and a reworking of 'bathing beauty'. However if you've seen the show before it was precisely 'bathing beauty' and the opening that didn't need any work. It was the terribly dull long LOOOOOOONG duets in act one that needed the fat cutting out, and the terribly expensive but pointless automatons in the 'beautiful' sequence (which still has the awful monkey skeleton hybrid playing rock piano) to name but two of HUNDREDS.
It's terrible. There is no story, plot or anything resembling dramatic writing or dramaturgy, rather it is just a steam of words between people on a stage that don't really seem to know what it's all about either. The best solution to this would be to stop it and take it away and start all over again.
22 Dec 10
Well I am new to this and sorry not sure what has been done but it is still a mess.
Paper thin story and two great numbers, one done in Act One/Scene One which leaves us where to go??
Looked great (sets and lighting 5 star)but then again we have seen enough shows where you come out singing the set.
Keeping in mind one of the songs has already been used in another ALW show I say it's now time to put this away for good. - james tate
22 Dec 10
Poor show, Andrew, really disappointed. I'm told that the version of the show I saw recently had new changes put in - if this is supposed to be an improvement on what opened early this year, then I dread to think what the show was like beforehand. I just don't get it. What the hell has happened to all the characters? Why are they all so strange? Where did this insane storyline come from? Strangely enough the music is very disappointing as well. And the lyrics are atrocious, possibly the worst yet for a Lloyd Webber. Where's Tim Rice when you need him? - Kevin
06 Dec 10
Amazing amazing amazing. Ramin and Sierra are awesome. - B thomson
13 Nov 10
I heard the LND album and saw the show on Oct. 3rd 2010. I was quite perplexed in hearing and seeing a Phantom unlike the one we all know and love from the previous show. I was quite disappointed in seeing that even on stage, the MYTH had turned to a MAN, jinxed at that! After all, the "Phans" all love the mysterious man, half assassin, half passionate lover.
I think that LND would benefit from a change in the script and I hope ALW performs changes in this direction. I'm a musical author (currently working in Rome, Italy) and the changes I'd make would be as follows. I'd eliminate the first part of Scene 7 (ACT II) up until when Christine calls for Gustave. Then I would add the following, right after the song LOVE NEVER DIES:
(PHANTOM is alone backstage rejoicing for Christine's choice.)
PHANTOM: (Sung) Ah, Christine! My Christine! What a triumph you gave me tonight! My Christine! All the dark, silent years now set right! Ah, Christine!
RAOUL: I won't give her up to you.
PHANTOM: Is it your love or your pride that's talking?
RAOUL: Christine won't be won by a murderer. I will see to that. (Pulls out a gun)
PHANTOM: (Gestures and a magical lassoo ties itself around RAOUL's throat. Sung to the music of "Order your fine horses now..." from POTO) Dare to cross the Phantom now. Raise up your hand to the level of your eyes. No one will save you now, not even Christine!
(The music reaches its climax and RAOUL dies. PHANTOM realizes what he has done and collapses on the floor in despair. CHRISTINE arrives.)
CHRISTINE: Raoul! RAOUL!!!! (Runs to RAOUL. To PHANTOM) Why?
PHANTOM: I couldn't let him have you and Gustave again. (Sung to the music of "Let hopes pass, let dreams pass...") Forgive me, I beg you, if you can. Love awoke the beast I loathe...
CHRISTINE: ...how long 'till you decide to kill us all? All my love for you...has gone. (Talked, while crying) You've no beauty underneath.
(CHRISTINE turns to leave and calls for Gustave, who doesn't answer.)
The scene then continues from when PHANTOM says "What's wrong?", eliminating the part where he thinks it was RAOUL who kidnapped the boy.
During the last scene, when CHRISTINE is mortally wounded, just before PHANTOM sings "Once upon another time...", the following lines are added:
PHANTOM: (Singing) Christine I love you...
CHRISTINE: I know you do...
These few changes do the following to the show:
1) Raoul is no longer portrayed as a drunken coward that leaves just because he lost a bet, but is willing to fight and die for the woman he loves
2) The Phantom is still the virile, fascinating and passionate man we all know, willing to kill for Christine
3) There's a valid reason for Christine wanting to leave as soon as possible
4) There's a redemption at the end of the story.
Hope my rewiew helps the writers to rethink the ending of the show, which would benefit everyone, especially hardcore POTO fans like me. Cheers! :)
Robert Steiner - Robert Steiner
21 Oct 10
This was the cheesiest thing I've ever seen, and yet it took itself so seriously! ALW probably thinks he's written the next La Traviata, but this is downright awful. Don't get me wrong, I like a good bit of Lloyd Webber every now and then, but if he wanted to ruin one of his shows by destroying everything good about it, couldn't he have picked Jeeves instead? - Michael
27 Sep 10
Sorry, Sir Andrew, but you should have stuck with Phantom as a one-off. As a Phantom fan, having seen it 5 times over the years with different casts, I eagerly awaited "Love Never Dies". I have to say I found it quite cringeworthy with a bad story line. WhatI still can't figure out is in the original, the Phantom tells Christine that his condition has "denied him the pleasures of the flesh" and in the next breath (i.e. the sequel) it turns out he suddenly has a son...?!!!? Disappointment all round. - Jan
22 Sep 10
Dire and unnecessary. It tarnishes the original. - RS
20 Sep 10
Totally amazing. Exceptionally powerful score, awesome performances, amazing scenery & everything you expect from Andrew Lloyd Webber. Was even better the second time & already booked to go again! - Claire
11 Sep 10
Very poor, a complete waste of time and money. Save yourself the bother. If you want a big dramatic musical go and see the original Phantom show or Les Mis or Blood Brothers instead. - Nathan
05 Sep 10
Well I have to confess that I am no music expert and my taste varies massively, I am a fan of the original phantom and also a fan of love never dies. I went to see this a week ago today at the adelphi theatre and both my mother and myself were blown away by the atmosphere and the music. I have the CD and have had the music on my ipod for sometime now and I don't get these negative reviews I loved the show and the music in fact the only negative comment I have is that the CD does not do the show justice. I literally bought the score and the t shirt. As I said I am obviously completely ignorant here as I enjoyed the show, - Ben Vasey
30 Aug 10
I saw this show on saturday afternoon.
All i could say it was amazing,i had goosebumbs all the way through. The voices of the cast were incredible especially the Phantom's. I would seriously recommend.
Though you can't compare it with the original Phantom for they are two completely different shows.
I really believe that Webber has done an outstanding job with this new musical. - Natalie1990
30 Aug 10
In over 25 years of regular theatregoing in the West End I have never seen such a mess of a musical. How could the noble Lord get it so wrong?? Don't understand why this Karimloo guy is so lauded; anyone who saw Michael Crawford in the original would know that this Phantom is a mere shadow of his former self. And this isn't a patch on the original...Lloyd Webber should have stuck to his Master and Margarita idea. Stay away. - Mike
18 Aug 10
Saw this last night. The reviews are right, it's a laughable storyline with no logical connection to the original. The acting is hammy as hell and the score is a copy and paste job by Lloyd Webber. Thank God we only paid for Upper Circle tickets. Can't see this lasting very long, the audience reception was very muted. The kid on stage acted very well though, which is not something you see every day. I give the show 1 star just for that. - Carol
17 Aug 10
As someone who usually likes Andrew Lloyd Webber this came as something of a shock. Just what was he thinking?! There are some pretty tunes but they are spoilt by some terrible, terrible lyrics (the worst he's ever had) and the storyline is plain wrong. I assume it was Ben Elton's crazy idea to make the Phantom young and pretty and Raoul seemingly older and a drunk - isn't that completely opposite to how it was in the first Phantom?? I was disappointed with the staging too...the way the show was marketed made me expect at least some spectacle at the very least, but this is just dark and sparse, and I don't know why it should be for the price I paid (rip-off prices, by the way!). I did not like the cast; they did not portray the characters remotely appropriately. This Ramin Karimloo had none of the majesty of Phantoms past, including the original, Michael Crawford, and Sierra Boggess was singing songs that were just too high for her. Summer Strallen was simply annoying and seemed like she belonged in another show entirely. I also don't understand why people say this show is getting standing ovations every night - it certainly didn't when I went! A few people stood at the front but that was it. Also the staff at the Adelphi Theatre are extremely rude and ought to be fired! This show has arrogance stamped all over it - the arrogance to charge such a high price for such a poor show, the arrogance of the staff who work there and above all the arrogance of the producers to even dare think that as an audience member and Lloyd Webber fan I would be stupid enough to buy into this. I did wonder whether I should give this a second chance but I doubt I ever will if the prices remain as they are. I can only hope Lloyd Webber gets back together with Tim Rice and writes something truly original and new, and not some rehashed storyline as it is here (even Phantom's songs are reused!) or pointless reality-TV revivals. Really poor show and I'm sorry to say it. - Harriet O.
16 Aug 10
Not sure what the reviewer below me is going on about - better character development than the original?! Hardly. The Phantom has none of the mystery or complex genius that he had in the original, Christine is reduced to sleeping around, and the dashing viscount has become a drunken wreck! I cannot believe that I flew all the way from America to see this show. Fortunately, I had a ticket for the original Phantom and saw that again after Love Never Dies to wash this show from my mind. If Webber seriously wants to bring this to Broadway, he is out of his mind. Avoid this if you have any respect for the work that went into the original show. - Disappointed
16 Aug 10
This show is amazing. And don't listen to the nay sayers. Most of them have never even seen the show. It has Webbers best score in years and better character development than the original. It truly lives up to the original! Go see it! - Alex K
16 Aug 10
When the last notes of the overture died, I sat in the almost silence of the theatre wondering - "So, what the hell I spend my afternoon doing, again?" I will admit that Phantom of the Opera was a thin plot, taking a few liberties here and there with the original story, but its design, memorable music, and casts always seem to draw audiences (couples, singles, young and old) to the theatre. This. What in the world did this have to draw anybody into? Infidelity at its finest? The characterizations are weak. I'll admit, the circus acts were pretty good, but that has NOTHING to do with the show at all! There was one song in particular that stood out to me, "Beneath a Moonless Night". Not that it was good, though. Had to be one of the worst written songs in the whole thing! All this 'touching, grabbing, holding' ... one would think it was once a rap song! And, what is with that 'Beauty Underneath'? I felt so embarassed and confused. I think it was trying to envoke the 'title song' from the original, but I felt as though it was highly disturbing - there is a ten year old boy on all fours crawling around on the stage! Raoul and Christine had a gorgeous song in the first musical, they don't even get anything in this! Just a bunch of bickering and abuse.
What happened to musical theatre? Is there a reason why we need sequels? Have we run out of classic literature books, or better yet, ORIGINAL ideas to adapt to stage? Apparently.
Bravo Webber, keep it classy. - Clarisse McClellan
16 Aug 10
What the hell happened here? A sequel to Phantom this was not, this was like Phantom on an acid trip with lots of sugary sprinkles of trite sentimentality. The storyline makes no sense given the events of the far superior original show, the performances are second-rate and the direction is next to non-existent. I won't even mention Lloyd Webber's score which rehashes everything from Sunset Blvd to the Woman in White and cannibalises the original Phantom as well. If this is the best that our most famous musical theatre composer can achieve, we may as well give up now. If I could give this no stars, I would. - Jenny
16 Aug 10
DISASTROUS. A tragedy from beginning to end. So badly put together it actually hurts to watch. There was only one moment I enjoyed it - when it finished! - E Marioks
15 Aug 10
Can anybody on this planet explain to me why these guys might have thought this atrocious show was a good idea??? It's not exactly like any of them are short on money so why? I need to ask again - WHY? - jack from Milton Keynes
11 Aug 10
What a complete joke. So rotten it stinks before you even get into the theatre. - Alex F
11 Aug 10
What a mess! Although we did laugh out loud at how bad it was - so I guess for all the wrong reasons we got a night of entertainment! Don't attend unless you wish to see theatrical suicide from all involved... - Mia Rebkis
10 Aug 10
A shocker. Can only add to what the fair majority of critics and online punters seem to think - RUBBISH. It really is as trite and cheesy as you can get. The director needs to take most of the blame, but also the lyricist. Truly GCSE-style drama on display throughout. A number of scenes made me gag! This is really really really bad theatre. - Jane Watkins
10 Aug 10
NO STARS... This will be the last musical I attend - if they can be as bad as this I'm quitting theatre altogether. This made me feel desperate to escape so I left at the interval. Why the hell was it like a kids version of the phantom of the opera? Everything was laid thick with sentiment and dripping with bad acting, crap irrevelant sets and lamentable direction. IF THIS CLOSES SOON IT WILL DO LONDON A FAVOUR. - Brad Jennings
09 Aug 10
Incredibly awful from beginning to end. This really is theatre at it's worst! A truly awful cut and paste job by Lloyd Webber with NOTHING to compensate for the sledgehammer approach. This is camp and cheesey in all the wrong ways. I absolutely hated it, as did my party of six friends who were there with me. Just terrible! - R Rackham
06 Aug 10
Went last week with three musical theatre fans. (All hated it)
This is the single worst thing I have ever seen excepting 'Nation' at the National Theatre.
It is high camp from start to end, and the characters are laughable.
Every cheesy harmony is squeezed out of the orchestra with gut-wrenching naffness.
The costumes are part drag-act/part pantomime and the set is just plain weird.
Nobody except Raoul can act and the chorus look like extras from a Carry-on film for most of this. There are too many bad scenes to describe - they just keep coming!
Who is this contemptible director????
Has he ever directed a show before - I saw no evidence that he had the slightest idea how to get anything out of the show. There is clumsiness written on every corner of this show. I found myself laughing during the death scene because it was just so badly done. The child is clinging to a railing while his mother lies dying! Ridiculous. And the end of Act One is trite beyond trite - it is lacking in any drama. To be honest my group all agreed by the interval we couldn't give a damn about any of the characters or any of their situations.
And as for the book - Ben Elton - hang your sorry head in shame. You clearly have an ego bigger than you deserve for even contemplating coming up with this sort of plot. Get back to what you used to be able to do - stand-up!
Musically this show is a mess. The references to the original show are the worst bits from that, and the new songs are as hammy as you get. This is a man who has forgotten how to give us anything but total sentimentality of the worst kind. He thinks he can evoke emotion in an audience by playing loud chords and having a bad singer screech, but he is very misguided here.
This show should never have seen the light of day, and I can only hope it closes quickly sparing further misery to audiences.
And don't get me started on the price of tickets!!! VERY ANGRY! This team should pay EVERYBODY brave enough to attempt to sit through it. I'm going to join the 'LOVE SHOULD DIE' website right now.
This should close after the first two minutes.
- T. White
06 Aug 10
Just come back from performance and can't quite get over what I endured.
The french couple translating throughout were far more interesting than anything I witnessed on the stage.
This is quite simply the campest piece of cheese in the world. It lacks any sort of narrative. It is totally and utterly devoid of any sense of direction. The singing is by and large pretty dire (particularly the two leads!) and the set is just brash. This sort of 'entertainment' belongs in a theme park as a side-show attraction. It is tacky throughout. The set is clearly lavish but so what!!! Without a story to speak of and actors to believe in there isn't any point to an all sparkling all magical set.
This is cynical of me I know, but I really feel depressed if people aren't able to see through this show. It really is soulless trash and just doesn't deserve to be on. It has not been properly thought through and has gaping holes around every corner. The action stutters along clumsily and the audience even giggled in the final death scene as Christine manages to gasp her way through just about all the big hits of the show before her last tragic breath. I only wished she died sooner and spared us all the hassle.
- Freddie J
Crap utter crap.
Can not say it enough.
Let's get this show off. It is just plain dishonest for this to be clogging up one of our theatres.
- Derek Smith
05 Aug 10
DISASTER DISASTER DISASTER.
None of them can sing. The story is utter trash, and the direction is non-existent. - jan wiecidksi
05 Aug 10
Well do we compare Love Never Dies with Phantom or with what else is on offer in London's West End? Virgin viewed on consecutive nights last week I’m going to have to see them both again.
When the curtain went up I thought it was the wrong theatre; but then remembered that Titanic never made it to NY. Perhaps it’s the crashing waves, seagulls, night scenes and promenades; alas Ms. Dion didn’t turn up. Funny how one remembers Céline and not Kate. Not a sniff of Blackpool in LND, no dazzling carousels of light bulbs, no stench of hot dogs, no big dippers: that’s real Coney Island. A few spooky-gloomy projections and a sign saying ‘Three Months Later’ – never underestimate the intelligence of an audience, even if they’re all tourists from over the pond. The best bit of the whole evening was getting home to read WestEndWhingers pizza takeaway on the threesome round-a-bout scene: that did look cheap. Morecombe & Wise did it four decades ago, I’m still struggling to stay on my seat, going to the doc’ in the morning with a suspected hernia. I laughed so much.
Agreed with other crit's; after getting his leg over on the eve of her wedding you wouldn’t expect the besotted Phantom to buzz off, and his murderous past does cause character development and cred’ problems in this sequel. An uncomfortable few minutes (there’s a few of those) for Meg towards the final curtain didn’t work; her time would be better spent stalking, and shooting, the director and producer – now that would be a something for Fred’ Forsyth to pen.
The Adelphi FOH staff admitted there had been revisions and empty seats since opening night, there’s still some tweaking to do. It will only come together with a fresh overseer, a play doctor. Two of the most successful musicals of all time, Les Mis’ and Phantom, are based on established French works; Les Mis’ is a Hugo classic. This sequel is based on a treatment by a lad from Catford. It appears LBW fell out with Forsyth: get him back as a consultant and throw another £500k at the show, you can afford it. To sum up a pre-prod’ budget of millions: some good songs and tunes, clumsy storyline, A1 cast, staging highs and lows. Let’s hope it doesn’t end up like the Titanic but makes it to NY, tissues required. - Stevie
20 Jul 10
Well you have to, don’t you? Go and see something that divides people. Make your own mind up. Well, I’m not with the phans and I’m not with the whingers. I actually don’t regret going though I wouldn’t go again. The show’s the problem; the production is the reason to go. The truth is there isn’t much of a story and it's spun out for 2.5 hours with another one of Ben Elton’s pathetic books, undistinguished lyrics from Glenn Slater and another dose of ALW’s mushy pop-opera music BUT the production and performances really are good, so there’s stuff to look and wonder at and singing and acting to admire. I wasn’t impressed by Sierra Boggess (the title song was the lowspot of the evening for me) but was hugely impressed by the Phantom’s understudy, Tam Mutu. The boy – Harry Child at the performance I saw – was terrific. Summer Strallen almost steals the show with her quick-change-almost-strip number. A big talent like Joseph Milsom is rather wasted in the rather underwritten role of Raoul. The orchestrations are great and the 27-piece orchestra really does sound good. There is some nice music, though not enough – but it’s a lot better than Woman In White. Bob Crowley’s design with Jon Driscoll’s projections, Scott Penrose’s special effects and Paule Constable’s lighting are highly effective. The sound is amongst the best I’ve experienced in a musical. Director Jack O’Brien and choreographer Jerry Mitchell do their best with the material they’re given.
In the end, it proves yet again that ALW really does need a collaborator as good as Tim Rice; chairing a committee with Elton, Slater and Frederick Forsyth (!) just doesn’t produce a good show. So, a great production in search of a good show. You’re left to admire the talent on and off stage and in the orchestra pit. - gargar
08 Jul 10
I have three times tried to leave five-star reviews for this extraordinary show. This is the best show ALW has written since Phantom. If I have had this problem how many others have? Many of the reviews that are published are negative. It is giving this show an undeserved bad reputation. This is very unfair to a great show, its superb actors, a wonderful score and those of us who loved it. What's going on?? If you have not seen it, DO NOT judge whether or not to go by the reviews here. They are clearly biased against it. Read the professional critic's review at the top. He's spot on. - Katie Ryan
20 Jun 10
Absolutely hated this. Music was okish but you have the feeling that you heard it all before. The cast did a decent job considering the awful material. At the end I couldn't wait for Christine to die to end both her agony and mine. Couldn't wait to leave the theatre. Sad to think that those were a couple of hours of my life wasted that i'll never get back - Sarah
18 Jun 10
utter tosh - grace
09 Jun 10
The staging deserves more than two stars, but even the talents of Bob Crowley cannot help to lift this crass, trite and tedious musical above the level of the mediocre. Obviously no one had the courage to tell Lloyd-Webber that this was a god awful pale imitation of Phantom of The Opera and not worthy of him - perhaps everyone involved was getting such a good cut they thought "what the hell!"? I haven't cringed so much in the theatre for a long while. Sure there are one or two numbers which are rousing, but believe me that's about it. The sung through dialogue is excruciating! So why did the Lord do it? We all have to accept the fact that there are times when we make big mistakes - it seems the Lord still has to learn that lesson. Having said that, the audience last night were up on there feet at the curtain call. Maybe that was due to genuine delight...or possibly a rush for the exit, but whatever the reasons a lot of people seemed genuinely delighted by the show? - rds
05 Jun 10
Stalls row G 21. Wed 27th May 2010. What can I say. Absolutely astounding. I am still thinking of it now. Both Sierra and Ramin (forgive me if the spellings are incorrect) were on and wow can sing AND act. THIS is what I pay my hard earned £70.00 for. I want to hear the most amazing voices AS WELL AS ACTING, I can not stand going to see a musical when the acting is good but singing is average...ref to Ashleigh Gray in Wicked or Anna Maxwell Martin in Cabaret..Graham Norton in La Cage....oh the thought still sends shivers down my spine! The orchestra-conducted by a very enthusiastic guy-good to see he loves his job-was spot on.Each and every member of the LND cast is excellence in motion. I bought the CD before so knew the score. The staging, the effects, the story...just fantastic. Tears rolled down my eyes at the end. Lord Webber deserves some accolade for this. I could not believe there were empty seats. Will it run, I do hope so, this is musical theatre as it was meant to be...musical story telling, not a story around a load of songs...although I do like Priscilla! I shall be going again, and again. Words fail me on this one, one of the best things I have seen in my entire 35 years, BUT BUY THE CD before, otherwise you'll not be familiar with the songs or story. If any of the cast or production team see this....THANKYOU SO MUCH! - Dave Woolrich
27 May 10
After seeing "The Phantom" four times I did not expect too much of this new show but luckily I was wrong. Mr Webber has done it again. I am happy he finally released the score for all that loves the musicals.
The ensemble was superb with Ramin in the lead. What a night to visit London.
I will gladly come back and see this again and again and again..... - RistoP
21 May 10
Third time last night. This show just seems to get better and better! - D
13 May 10
4 of us saw the show on 28 April and loved it - the understudies were playing Phantom and Christine and were superb. The sets and effects were amazing and the music was beaufiful. Cannot believe the reviewers who only awarded one star saw the same show! Have got the CD and the music sounds better each time I listen. - Patricia
10 May 10
What an amazing show. After reading all of the mixed reviews, went on Sat(1/5) not expecting too much.All in my party completely enjoyed the show from beginning to end and I actually prefer this to POTO.Really looking forward to going to see this show again. Christine was played by the understudy whow was absolutely outstanding, can't imagine what kind of performance Sierra must give to oustshine.
Standing ovation was indeed deserved. - Marie
03 May 10
WoW, what a great show, all 4 in my party loved the show, will definately go again. We saw Phantom a couple of weeks ago, and we all enjoyed the sequel more than the first show. Just reassures me there is no review like your own. What a great night out! Peter - Peter
30 Apr 10
I'm definitely not one of those people who instinctively slaughter any Lloyd Webber show (sometimes without even seeing it), but rather desperately hoped that this would be a return to form after so many disappointments. It gives me no pleasure at all to say that Love Never Dies is a crushing let down. My mood was not helped at all to find that not one but both the Phantom and Christine were played by understudies. This shows an utter contempt for the audience and should not be acceptable. To be fair Celia Graham provides continuity from the orginal show and is believable as the mother of a ten year-old. There are so many things wrong with the show: the story is poor, the transformation of some of the chracters, especially Meg and Raoul, make little sense but most damagingly the score is mostly woeful. The Phantom is given one half-decent song and although the title song is genuinely beautiful the audience ovation is partly relief at finally having something to applaud. Finally the ending is a blatant Miss Saigon rip-off. Sadly Love Never Dies proved to be a hugely deflating experience and I just wish Lloyd Webber had left well alone and not attempted to repeat his greatest success, instaed he has indeed tarnished the origianl. - David Baxter
28 Apr 10
Loved Phantom and absolutely loved this. Music was beautiful and all the cast gave a brilliant performance. I had a lump in my throat at the end. My husband has never seen Phantom and wasn't sure if this would be his cup of tea but he thought it was really good. - Gillian Fenton
23 Apr 10
Knowing full well this would NOT be Phantom 2, I cleared my mind and was prepared to be surprised. I'm glad it was not a repeat of Phantom (saw it twice with Michael Crawford...beyond perfection), and I felt the leads were all magnificent. I wept like a baby...Sierra's emotion whilst singing "Love Never Dies" moved me beyond belief. I was only mad I'd forgotten to bring Kleenex! Summer as Meg was brilliant...Ramin as the Phantom commands his "new" and different Phantom extremely well. It is a slow build to a tragic, yet heartfelt end, one that I felt honored to have seen. After the show I was having a bite to eat and sat next to a guy who had already seen the show three times and was planning to see it "well into the double digits." Not sure why the mixed reviews, but I left humming "Love Never Dies" all the way to Barcelona and back home to LA. Have warped the CD and when it comes to LA, I will be there. I also thought the sets and costumes were marvelous. Loved the carriage entrance...revolving stage was also effective. The boy who played Gustave made me sad I never studied singing as a child. What a talent. All in all, I was swept away by it's haunting, mature and unique story. I, for one, loved it. Date of performance: March 25th at the Adelphi Theatre. - Jill
15 Apr 10
Just back from the Adelphi. Firstly let me say I'm not a 'Phan'. Have seen Phantom 1 and it was OK but not a fanatic.
Despite the mixed reviews went with an open mind but found the show frankly dull. No romance, no tension and no drama until the title song 2 hours in.
This is one show in need of a complete rewrite. Ramin was off and his understundy did a good job as did the Mdme Giry understudy but I found Christine a bit of a let down. - Glen
06 Apr 10
Absolutely fantastic! Saw it on Saturday night and want to go and see it again. Have seen the original Phantom and this equally as wonderful.
Do not understand some of the criticism here but everyone is entitled to their opinion. ALW is a genius there is nothing more for me to say other than Bravo! - Glynis Hemmings
06 Apr 10
Absolutely dreadful. Decent score but recycled from all his other musicals. Really terrible script, makes Carrie look like a masterpiece. This musical is so awful that will erase all the good memories of POTO. My ticket was heavily discounted and even so I feel that I´ve been ripped off. - Fern
04 Apr 10
On the plus side, Lloyd Webber has come up with a decent score on the whole (the awful rock number one of the exceptions); but the dialogue/lyrics are truly appalling.
The whole first hour consists of very clunky exposition with various characters telling each other things they already know entirely for the audience's benefit. (Why not actually show us what happened instead?)
Performances are variable, with Joseph Millson coming off best in the thankless role of Raoul. Ramin Karimloo sings nicely but just isn't remotely threatening or imposing; Sierra Boggess is a better singer than she is an actress; and Liz Robertson - admittedly lumbered with the worst of the dire dialogue/lyrics - is just plain awful.
The "plot" is so thin, it could have taken place in about 20 minutes; the characterisation is weak and inconsistent; and there's no real spectacle other than a couple of nice effects.
Both acts end in anti-climaxes and I left the theatre feeling "So what?"
Disappointing and a bit pointless really...
30 Mar 10
Have seen "Love Never Dies" 3 times already which includes one preview and l have to say it is fantastic...on speaking to other theatre goers in the break everyone loved it...
If you want a great night at the theatre go see this show. Had front row seats last week... stage quite high so had to strain neck and still couldn't see the bottom half of the person performing! best to be seated a little further back... my next seat will be front row dress circle.. yep l'll be going again! just love it. - Caz
29 Mar 10
Absolutely amazing. Exceptionally powerful score, outstanding performances, amazing scenery. Wow! In my view this musical is much better than POTO in so many ways. Already booked to go and see it again. - Andy
29 Mar 10
It was watchable and better than I expected having read some of the dire reviews. It had 2 to 3 well composed & memorable songs, my favourite being Til I Hear You Sing Again sung by the Phantom. Loved the gothic feel /skeletons etc in the Phantom's workshop. Worth seeing but I would not go out of my way to see it again or buy the cast recording. nce you've seen Phantom of the Opera and shows on a par you get a bit spoilt really. I cannot see this show running for years. I think it will ultimatelygo the way of The Woman in White but may get more punters in out of curiosity or loyalty to Lord ALW. - TERESA WILSON
25 Mar 10
oh dear, I so wanted to like this show, having previously watched Phantom three or four times. It started well, with a nod to Phantom, with a present-day catch up scene that suggested the faded and gaudy glories of Coney Island, but then once it got past the projections (which i actually quite liked - i was worried they might be as seasick-inducing as the ones in The Woman in White, but thankfully they were far superior) and started the story proper, it was downhill all the way. There were barely any really big or hummable numbers - "Beneath a Moonless Sky" was beautiful, and there was a certain jauntiness to "Devil Take the Hindmost", but the title song sounded like a mishmash of various ALW songs rather than an original number. Too many of the other songs kept doing that strange thing where notes jumped around all over the place, making the song difficult to hum or just plain ugly. It's strange to think that ALW came up with such fantastic music for Sunset, Evita and the original Phantom, tunes that had real melody and which weren't afraid to be hummable. Interestingly, when flashes of the old Phantom tunes were reprised in LND, it really showed up how poor the current songs were. The second half was particularly bad - lots of repeat plays of songs heard in the first act, while the final half hour seemed to do away with songs altogether for some dreadfully dull sungthrough lines, leading to the most preposterous and understated and barely-staged ending I have seen in a long time. Just awful. As previous people have said, the sets were not a patch on the original phantom, the art nouveau styling (not art deco as Michael Coveney states in his review) looked cheap rather than flamboyant and decadent as true art nouveau does, and while the leads handled their roles well and sung them brilliantly, I yawned throughout and couldn't wait for the whole thing to be over. I certainly don't intend to see the show again. - Iqbal
24 Mar 10
Saw it. Sets were fantastic, acting was good, but music unmemorable, story line weak, contrived and leaden with plot devices, and a overall stupid ending. It was that. Stupid. PLAIN STUPID. - red
24 Mar 10
I suspect this will be a very big flop. Last week there were many empty seats which it's quite bad for a show that just opened. ALW's score is just a cut and paste trick from all his previous shows. The story is awful and badly written. Overall very dull and boring. Stay away - Claire
24 Mar 10
Despite the naysayers, I suspect this will be a very big hit. Last night's (packed, paying) audience were spellbound and gave the show a standing ovation. ALW's score recalls his work on Aspects and Sunset as much as on the original Phantom (although quotes from that classic score are used to spinetingling effect). Visually, Jack O'Brien's glossy production is a lavish feast, and features some truly jaw-dropping special effects; Paule Constable's lighting is particularly gorgeous, and the exhilarating use of projected images is the most exciting and genuinely theatrical I've ever seen. On the down side, the lyrics are mediocre and the ending isn't entirely convincing (I still cried though!) The cast are magnificent, with Ramin Karimloo delivering a passionate, thrillingly sung Phantom that equals Crawford's triumph in the original show. Sierra Boggess' Christine is lovely, and downright enthralling while delivering the title tune. Raoul is, for me, a much more interesting, well rounded character in LND than in POTO, and Joseph Millson is utterly superb. Liz Robertson's Mme Giry is eerily convincing and Summer Strallen delivers another creditable musical theatre turn as Meg, although the script should be fine tuned to make the changes in her character as Act 2 progresses more believeable. She is a very talented performer nonetheless. All in all, this is almost vintage Lloyd Webber; there is spectacle aplenty, a gripping story, great tunes, some tears and no small sense of excitement. I will certainly be going again..... - ajh
24 Mar 10
Not an expert on musicals but always liked Phantom. Went expecting to be disappointed, and indeed there are a few naff moments in terms of plot and lyrics, but I honestly cant understand the criticism here and elseqhere. The music is simply gorgeous, the staging spectacular and the performances of both orchestra and cast stirring and powerful.
I'm sure most theatre-goers will love it. A really great night out, and tunes you will be humming for days. - Phil
22 Mar 10
I agree with Lara. The rock number was truly awful. I just didn't get the whole thing. The book and lyrics were poor and the whole show just plodded along. You can't fault the two main performers but i couldn't wait for it to end. The final scene needed it's own interval! There is something very amiss here and I'm surprised that it wasn't spotted before being allowed onto the west end stage. - mikey
20 Mar 10
I saw this show last week and can not believe how bad it was, the performers were ok, the music decent in parts but the lyrics truly awful, the special effects very average, and the story just so bad that you can't stop laughing at it. - Jane
20 Mar 10
Was willing this to work ... but it doesn't. Why has Raoul turned into a drunken bully? I had no empathy for any of the characters because they were so weakly drawn. Some of the staging is clever and some is laughable - what will New York make of it? The quality of the singing was good but not great. One terrific thing about the production is Liz Robertson's diction - good to see her on stage again. - Nicky W
19 Mar 10
Awfull. Make it stop..
the New York Times has already dammed it... so it hasn't a hope in HELL on Broadway!
this is crap of the HIGHEST order!
19 Mar 10
I saw this show yesterday, 17th MARCH and can not praise it enough, the performers, the music, the special effects, and the story just SUPERB!I had booked my ticket as soon as I herd about it and it is everything I expected AND MORE!I will go as far as saying that I think it is better than Phantom of the opera as its more exciting and gripping as to what happens!can't wait to go again and again... - Jill Clark.
18 Mar 10
I loved, loved, loved it. Amazing music and a pretty gripping story too, beautifully staged throughout. Can't wait to see it again. - pedro
17 Mar 10
Didn't like the music, the opening and the ending were quite dull, set was ok in parts. The characters are more caricatures than real people and the plot like a stupid soap opera. The worst musical I've seen in years. - Yvonne
17 Mar 10
Liked the tunes, opening was fantastic, stage very bare in the second half. The characters are completely unlike the original. With a little tweaking it could have featured non-Phantom characters/story and still have worked as a musical. - Vincent
16 Mar 10
Reading and reading comments on this Musical I have to once again say WELL DONE LORD WEBBER a great show. I go to theatre around 5 to 6 + times a month so see all the top musicals and plays etc. Though only one song that one comes out singing--the title song, the score nevertheless is brilliant and songs superb within the story. Keep on producing your fine shows Lord Webber--they are inspirational and classy and can't wait for you next one. - Joe Spiteri
16 Mar 10
If you are expecting a repeat of a the original Phantom you will be disappointed. I was there on the Whats on stage organised outing and ALW was in the audience. He and the rest of us gave the cast a standing ovation, so the show might be worth a visit if you haven't seen it yet. This is 10 years on in Coney Island and some new characters including Christine's son Gustave. The only fault I can find is the child's voice was not strong enough to get over some of the louder music. The tune everyone will be humming will be 'Devil Take The Hindmost'. The effects were fantastic especially the golden moving faces suspended from the roof of Phantom's lair. Ramin Karimloo and Sierra Bogess are great in the lead roles. - Andrew
15 Mar 10
Over the years I have seen over 120 musicals so I think I've a reasonable idea about what's good and what's not. Love Never Dies definately falls into the category of what's not good. In fact it's terrible. Where shall I begin? The sound of waves crashing against the Coney Island shore as it drowns the voices in the opening scene, so you have no idea what is being said. Coney Island, why? One of Ben Elton's suggestions, no doubt. The flimsy storyline that takes a drunken husband, their 10 year old son and a singer across half the world to sing a song for money to pay of the husband's debts! Add to that the farcical character with a face mask and a toupee supposedly endearing himself to a beautiful women. Hello, is that not Beauty & the Beast? The story is so weak it's supposedly held together by a series of self- indulgent scenes of strange looking people, including a farcical half woman, half skeleton parading across the stage and a steel monkey trying to play rock music. Yes, the musical does have two good songs but wasn't it the same song in Beautiful Game, only with different words. And what an ending! Add to all this the wooden dialogue with wooden performances all capsulated in a final death scene so bizarre it was laughable. How long did she take to die? Sorry Lord Lloyd Webber, hype it may have had, style, class, energy, quality it certainly doesn't have. Can I have a refund please? - Grant Winston
15 Mar 10
This is a superb piece of theatre. The music is wholly delightful played by the best orchestra I have ever heard in a west end theatre and the voices of all the principals are just amazing. There is a beautiful fluidity about the production and though on a grand scale it also registers the delicate intimacy of the characters. It's a show that deserves multiple viewings and I certainly will be seeing it again and again. - lesco
13 Mar 10
I saw one of the last preview performances and it exceeded all expectations. The star roles were fantastic, the music was excellent and in many places the drama and emotion of the scenes gave me goosebumps. The production was incredible. I can't understand some of the negative reviews, except to say it's a shame that politics have even crept in to our theatre world, such that a review can destroy the success of a production. Let's not let it happen to this one, it's absolutely superb and worth seeing several times over. - Sue McAinsh
13 Mar 10
For the last time, writing a musical on the Phantom of the Opera does not make it ALW's private property. Loving the Phantom of the Opera does not make it the Phans' private property. As much as I enjoyed the original musical, I would hasten to remind the writer of this article and everybody who reads it that the original story was written long before Webber was twinkle in anybody's eye. In fact his parents may not have been twinkles in anybody's eye in 1910 when Leroux shot a pistol off his balcony celebrating the completion of his most recent novel. It seems that everyone has forgotten this.
Andrew Lloyd Webber (I am sorry, I have too little respect for him to give him his title at the moment) does not own the rights to the Phantom of the Opera. Therefore he does not have the right to throw his own diva-sized tantrums when his "precious masterpiece" (you see, I can use quotation marks in a vaguely insulting manner as well) is lambasted by those who genuinely care about the original characters. - A. Yount
11 Mar 10
As a Phantom fan I too wish Love Never Dies can be a hit. And yes it does matter if the story got some facts right/logical.The sudden change of the characters to a drunk and a slapper it's really unacceptable. Ramin's voice was at his best much better than the performance I saw him in Her Majesty's Theatre. But really an older Phantom is more suitable the part after all it's so many years afterwards and Ramin looks so young on the stage. The over head projection is more effective than The Woman in White. For the first half of the show the scenery is stunning but the second half the stage is rather empty. Should we pay the full ticket price for for so many mistakes / apologies on previews? But no matter what we or the critics say Love never Dies will be a box office hit because we fans will at least see it once and how much money will that be. The Phantom wins again and pls don't let him die or no one will entertain us.
The one star is for the fantastic song - Til'I Hear You Sing ( Love Never Dies doesn't count because It has been used so many times before ). - from a fan
11 Mar 10
It is fabulous. Lloyd-Webber's music is very good, every bit as good as Phantom. The two leads are terrific and the staging is just amazing. I will be going again and again! - dew
11 Mar 10
Not quite sure what show some critics saw but it can't have been Love Never Dies. Everybody around me got the giggles when the gorilla started playing the organ and the skeloton with female legs started walking. What was that all about? And that was the best part. The rest is just the most stupid plot you can imagine. I mean Close To The Sun was a masterpiece compare to this. Good performers but so what if the material is so awful - Janice
10 Mar 10
If I hadn't seen Phantom, I wouldn't have had a frickin clue what was going on. I have seen Phantom and I didn't like what was going on. It's a catch-22, not to mention a real shame for what's supposedly a 'stand-alone' piece with a couple of nice tunes... - Lanie
10 Mar 10
Terrible show. I give up on all the critics (certainly in terms of their views on musicals) after not reading uniformaly abysmal reviews of this pointless waste of money and time. There's some pretty music (though it's mostly derivative, lacking in wit and hamstrung by some bland, predictable lyrics) but the story is just insulting to the intelligence of theatregoers. Such a bland, boring heroine who we're somehow asked to care about when she chooses between a weird stalker who keeps a clockwork doll of her, and an alcoholic brute who tells her to shut up and that he'll 'deal with her later'. The whole of the second act is a cliffhanger on whether she will sing the title song of the show or not. Hmm.. edge of your seat stuff. Please don't waste your money on this nonsense, and seek out some more interesting musicals that actually have some ambition musically, lyrically and in their subject matter. - Alice Rothfield
10 Mar 10
design and score alone deserve top marks. Performances excellent. Plot and lyrics do let the production down slightly. - NellyB
10 Mar 10
Fantastic - enough said! ALW's best ever" - AA
10 Mar 10
Tedious. Takes forever to get going, the lyrics are shocking, the book laughably bad and the ending one of the longest, most drawn out bit of twaddle ever.
Quite how ALW gets away with using a song from another show is beyond me. Were anyone else to do it, they would be laughed out of the West End.
I feel sorry for the two leads. Their performances are excellent and Christine at times a sensation. But given they are asked to work with a story that the producers of Eastenders would reject one wonders how they drag themselves out of bed each morning with the thought of having to do it all over again.
As for the rest of the cast,one can only hope that they don't lose the will to live and throw themselves off Coney Island pier and find a better production to work for once their contract ends.
Save you money and go see something else! - Darren Anderson
10 Mar 10
Not quite sure what show all these other reviewers went to see but it can't have been Love Never Dies. I hate the Phantom of the Opera and was in two minds whether to even bother with this but am so glad I did. Have seen it twice already and would go again tomorrow! It is a great show, with fantastic performances and so what if music is re-invented from other shows. It makes it all the more recognisable and instantly connects with you. Go judge for yourself! - Jackie
10 Mar 10
well, it's NOT phantom.
It's Phantom meets Vaudeville, but in a bad sort of way. And MASSIVELY half-hearted.
I like the direction it's taken. I like the vaudeville route, however, it lacks the mix of drama mixed with the high art (or low art in this case).
To be honest, it's a load of crap. It's no where near as beautiful as the original. It's all a bit superficial. and no one has a proper narrative. If you thought you were confused at the end of phantom, you'll be ULTRA confused by the end of this. The show is a rip off of 'Tosca', the best bits of 'Whistle down the wind' and 'REPO: the genetic opera' ..... which is the Paris Hilton and Anthony Head 'Rock Opera'. I and the 8 people surrounded me, laughed MASSIVLY beofre the end of act 1 by the unintentionaly hilarious shit that presented itself. The set is NOTHING to write home about. It's dull and ill thought out. I found myself longing for 'Maria' to be alive again and to be rectifying all the minimalism that seeped through in this projected nightmare.
The title song (as sung by Kiri de Kanawa 10 years ago (amazingly, and with better lyrics), then by the woefully neglected Hannah Waddingham in 'The Beautiful Game') is dull, and the only time Christine does anything of note. Summer Strallen (as Meg Giry) is great. In fact the ONLY thing that makes this show worth while. I'm sorry that she doesn't get more to do!
The opening is fantastic, truly truly amazing, but then it stops and becomes a monkey throwing it's own excrement about the stage in a rather beautiful, but shit way.
I saw Phantom in the pm, and 'love never dies' in the PPm... don't bother. Just see Phantom.
03 Mar 10
A very disappointing show. Maybe the main problem is that I love the original Phantom and this didn't live up to my expectations. Decent cast but nothing extraordinary. Found very difficult to feel any emotion and didn't care much about the characters. The rock number was awful, totally out of place, what are they thinking? The audience gave a very lukewarm reception at the end which says it all. - Lara
01 Mar 10
Saw the show last night and loved it. It may not be as visually impressive as Phantom but i found the story very moving and true to the time. Ramin was excellent as the Phantom with an outstanding performance of To hear you sing once more. Sierra singing the title song song also was amazing. If i had one criticism it would be the lack of scenery in the final scene but the emotion more than makes up for it. I found the simplicity of some scenes refreshing allowing us tp appreciate the sentiment. - Charlotte
27 Feb 10
I booked my tickets 5 months ago was really looking forward to this. Thought it was really poor, the plot is just like the worst soap opera ever. Also the fact the there are no discounts for previews suggested me that everything was going to be flawless at this stage which it wasn't as many parts were clearly undereharsed. Didn't care much for the projections either. - Vic
24 Feb 10
Very disappointed. Story is predictable and there are several unintentionally funny moments. The Phantom singing is impresive but that's about it. Boring music, all recycled from other Lloyd Webber shows. The Adelphi staff lived up to their bad reputation once more. Why they are so rude I'll never understand. - Tania
24 Feb 10
I found it very dull. I agree with the previous post that R Karimloo is great but everybody else is just average. The set looks cheap, the make up looked quite good. the whole thing had no atmosphere - Shane
23 Feb 10
What a disappointment. Unlike the original, this seems to have very little going for it. Gone are the expensive looking sets (think more flat pack from Ikea), the amazing atmosphere, the good songs and passion. What I saw on stage was 1 great performance amongst a mess of ideas not fully formed.
Ramin Karimloo develops the Phantom's character brilliantly and has a great voice. I thought Sierra Bogess and the rest of the cast were pretty average though. I didn't like the music mostly (Love Nver Dies was sung better by Hannah Waddingham and had better lyrics in Beautiful Game). The Vaudeville songs were pretty awful and the rest borrowed heavily from Sunset I thought. I did like the re-use of a couple of themes from the original.
The flow of the story seemed to follow very similar plot points to the original. Opening, Phantom's lair with big song, through the looking glass, an equivalent of the Notes song, ...
The staging, set and projections were pretty awful and disappointing throughout. The music swelled to reveal the Phantom's new lair and it was a pair of cardboard eyes at the back and a piano at the front. That's pretty much as good as it got too.
If there's ever an offer for cheap tickets (I thought £30 was a rip off for the back of the Upper Circle as the view was very limited!) then I may give it another go and see if it's improved during previews, but I'm in no hurry. - Steve
Whatsonstage.com - Discount London theatre tickets, theatre news and reviews, Theatre videos, Theatre discussion, National Theatre Listings. Covering London's West End, all of Theatreland and all UK theatre. The best
for London Theatre Ticket Discounts.