Player Kings Reviews

Patrivia Beales from London, England

FIRST TIME SHAKESPEARE

This is the first time I have seen Shakespeare performed live and wow does it bring The Bard to life. The whole caste were tremendous including Sir Ian Being lical in Wimbledon and our tickets being £13 gave us a fantastic opportunity to try

Sally from London, England

STUNNING!

The sets, the cast, the way the story weaves together, brilliant! .. wasn't looking forward to 4 hours, but wanted to see it again when it finished. Ian McKellen is such a generous actor, bringing out the star in all the cast. Outstanding in every way, loved it.

Sue Thompson from London, England

EXCELLENT. LOVED IT.

I lived the modern setting. It was clever and easy to follow the plot. Have never seen this before and Sir Ian was fabulous, and also the actor playing Hal. I was worried it was long but was brilliant.

Jane from Manchester, England

UNMISSABLE AND STUNNING PRODUCTION.

Seen in Manchester on 18th march. Very accessible clever production which engages throughout the three hours with marvellous performances and diction. The second half is somewhat different to the first half but that is the story. Visually arresting, superb caste with stand out performances all round. Sir Ian Mckellan is everything one would hope as falstaff but does not overwhelm the caste. The whole production including sound and lighting is packed with ideas that take you on an emotional journey. It is funny and sad, mixing the modern seamlessly with a Arcadia and without loosing the timeless ideas and messages in the play. Very glad to have seen it. An absolute highlight, entrancing. My feeling was the whole audience thought so too - with standing ovations. My first time at Manchester opera house. Offered scale and intimacy with great seats and accoustics. Would not have missed for the world.

John Paul Yates from Leigh, Lancashire

NOT A BAD EVENINGS ENTERTAINMENT

Went to see Player Kings at Manchester Opera House last night, after seeing Sir Ian mention it on Graham Norton’s show. Glad I took the plunge. Having studied Henry IV part one at O level, it was a welcome return to this school days, 40 years ago. Also ticked seeing Sir Ian in full flight. Excellent! What can I say otherwise? The whole set up of combining both parts of the play together, the staging and the cast were superb. Even if Shakespeare isn’t your normal thing or something you did at school, go revisit it with this play. I don’t think you will be disappointed. The Opera House is a splendid forum and always well worth a visit.

Katie K from London, England

ENCHANTING

We were concerned about the length of the play. But were thrilled by the quality of acting and actually felt it went In a flash… Sir Ian Mckellan was magnetic and remorselessly funny. Toheeb Jimoh Was outstanding as Hal and a wonderful foil to McKellan. If I could see this masterpiece again… I would. For all lovers of Shakespeare please love, laugh and enjoy this wonderful performance.

SJ Griffiths from London, England

AMAZING! GO SEE IT

Booked to watch Player Kings at the Noël Coward theatre very last minute. Very glad I did... It did not disappoint. Sir Ian was wonderful. Absolutely mesmerising. The energy, commitment and sheer charisma the man brought to the role were off the charts. One of our finest. Toheeb Jimoh was also stunning as Hal. Wonderful actor and really enjoyed their scenes together. All the actors and ensemble cast were brilliant and you could tell they had a great rapport and had a lot of fun making this. Thoroughly enjoyed the play as a whole. Interesting set pieces, visual and sound effects well thought out and kept the play moving seamlessly forward at a hearty pace. Well deserved standing ovation at the end. Thank you for a wonderful night. Go watch it! Even if you are not a Shakespeare fan, this will knock your socks off!

Miranda Broadhurst from South West, England

THE PLAYER KINGS

I took away an impression of a self-serving, malevolent and sinister, tempter, Falstaff and I worried for everyone held in his sway. The most moving scene, for me, was that of Hal recognising the Lord Chief Justice's efforts to keep him safe.

ALAN from Manchester, England

PLAYER KINGS

Completely disagree with John from Cheshire. Sir Ian McKellen has a great sense of humour: I remember his hilarious and brilliantly scripted performance in Coronation Street. He must be one of our most versatile actors ever. To witness his epic role as Falstaff in Player Kings was unmissable, despite the length of the production.

Andy from Hampshire

IMBALANCED

As Shakespeare fans we approached this with a mixture of excitement and trepidation. Who doesn’t want to see Sir Ian in one of the bard’s most comedic roles, but does it really take 4 hours?! In truth the outcome was the proverbial curate’s egg. Acting was good and the first half held together fine, with lots of comedic interludes to accelerate the pace. However, the desire for pace was almost too great for the second half with the plot becoming both confused and confusing. I realise it is a big ask to complete such a theatrical feast in one sitting - there is a reason even Shakespeare had it in 2 parts!

Hannah from London, England

TOO LONG BUT SAVED BY THE ACTING

First off, all the acting was excellent! However, the first 40 minutes of the play could have been condensed .

Tom from Manchester, England

GREAT - BUT LONG!

Wonderful to see the great man on stage and yes amazing-relishing his best lines, but he doesn’t overwhelm the show. Star for me was Hal, a youthful energetic performance. Second half more satisfying than the first tying everything together and setting the scene for Henry V. Great staging too! Love the curtain device Well worth it

Carrie from London, England

WORTH THE RUN TIME

Judging from audience reactions most were there to see Sir Ian McKellen and they weren't disappointed. The show is staged to showcase him and Sir Ian thrives in the spotlight and hamming up the jokes. But there were scenes in Act I where I was left thinking it felt a bit like posh panto. There is far more emotional resonance in Act II and I was surprised by my response to some scenes which hit harder then the lighter tone of the first half. Richard Coyle was very good as King Henry but the true star was Toheeb Jimoh as Prince Hal, who was a revelation. I look forward to seeing much more of him on future. Also special mention to James Garnon as Worceste,r his impassioned monologue in Act I was excellent. I liked the modernism of the staging, costumes and music, and I thought the use of regional dialects was wonderful. The play is long which I maybe noticed more due to an uncomfortable seat, but the physical pain was worth it.

Sarah from London, England

LEAVE AT THE INTERVAL

The first half may be long but it is engaging and funny, and the time passes quickly. Falstaff and the Prince of Wales are both brilliant. However…..the second half is a random selection of scenes, no cohesion and little to recommend it.

John from London, England

CURATES EGG

Player Kings had some fine moments but with a set that restricted the view from the upper circle along with some weak directorial decisions took away from McKellen's performance. Editing and direction of part 2 disappointing and Hal's dismissal of Falstaff at the end lost all poignancy.

Lindsay from Leyland, Lancashire

MORE PANTO THAN SHAKESPEARE

Excellent acting and effective staging. However, it is very much a McKellen vehicle, and he hams it up like panto . What Shakespeare has to say in these plays about honour and father/son relationships is not examined in any meaningful way. There is no sense of pathos as Falstaff is banished at the end. I've recently seen Richard, My Richard which was a far more moving and thought-provoking production.

Bill from Manchester. England

PLAYER KING - CURATE’S EGG

We were at the same performance as Jane from Manchester and I’m not sure we watched the same production. The play was far too long, repetitive and the setting in modern dress did not make sense. The attempts at writing dialogue that Shakespeare would have been proud of misfired. Falstaff is a minor character and yet his role was blown out of proportion. Sir Ian McKellern was, as expected, superb in the role but generally the acting was patchy. Notwithstanding what Jane says, the conversations amongst the audience leaving at the end with us accorded very much with our viewsz

Stve S from Manchester, England

AVERAGE PLAYER KING

Trying not to be over critical as my first live Shakespeare so just a few observations.... Enjoyable and one of the bucket list..... BUT is the venue to large Sound quality very in and out is that technical or a mixture of strong or weak delivery.... There are a few edge of seat moments but on the other hand some uninspiring sections. In conclusion we all view things differently and that's good would I revisit The bard absolutely!!!

Andrew from Manchester, England

FIRST HALF SUBLIME ,SECOND HALF FLAT AND SPRAWLING

We loved the first half. Energetic, immersive, fun, superb acting and not just Ian McKellan. Hal was fantastic to pick one other. But the second part found a huge change in energy to the point where it was just dull. This was the play's fault I think, not the cast.

Richard from Manchester, England

WAY TOO LONG

I thought the actors involved were all excellent and performed their roles incredibly well. I thought the modern take was also good, with the initial bar scene being good fun, but in terms of modern and shock factor, it peaked at that point, 5 minutes in. Some scenes seemed a bit contrived and pointless, the orchard scene stood out for this and just felt it lost its way at times. If you were not aware of the play previously then you would have no idea what was going on. The main issue though, was that it was too flipping long. After about three hours you were willing it to end and charge to the exit for air. There was a partial standing ovation at the end, but most had lost the feeling in their legs by that point.

Sue from Leeds

SECOND HALF HURTS THE FIRST

Just seen in Manchester. The first half was good but the second half felt meandering. Truly excellent performances from all.

Hugh from Herts, England

LONG

Some stand out performances and the first half was engaging if a little slow at times. The second half lost its way and was somewhat flat. It couldn’t end soon enough for me, though my date enjoyed every minute, so what do I know!

Paul and Veronica Talbot from Stratford upon Avon

AN INTERESTING BUT LESS THAN REWARDING PRODUCTIO

This seemed to be a platform for Sir Ian to showcase his interpretation of Sir John Falstaff, which did not work for us. At times, his dialogue was hard to understand because of what seemed a persistent bout of dyspepsia. His performance did not reveal the true relationship between Hal and Sir John. This production for us was a letdown for that reason. At times, it was disjointed and, because of that, seemed repetitive, a mishmash. It had its rare ‘laugh moments’, but it also had its fair share of boring bits, particularly after Falstaff’s final, memorable, words. Everyone seemed to be going through their lines, but there was little acting to each other. If somebody was using this as an introduction to Shakespeare, they would probably come away feeling the whole thing was a tremendous success and would have given it a standing ovation. Still, as lovers of Shakespeare and having seen IV-1 and IV-2 many times, this is a pale reflection of the real thing. All told, it was an overly long performance, trying to cram to much into one play, which did not hit the mark for us.

Paul and Veronica Talbot from Stratford upon Avon

AN INTERESTING BUT LESS THAN REWARDING PRODUCTION

This was clearly a platform to showcase Sir Ian’s interpretation of Sir John Falstaff. At times, his dialogue was hard to grasp due to what seemed a persistent bout of dyspepsia. The two key performers did little to impart the complex relationship between Hal and Sir John. At times, the production seemed disjointed, repetitive, a mishmash. It had its rare humorous moments. but it also had its boring drawn-out bits, particularly after Falstaff’s final, memorable words. And then being subjected to ten minutes of padding to stretch it out. Everyone seemed to be going through their lines well enough, but there was little acting (magic) to each other. As admirers of Shakespeare and having seen IV-1 and IV-2 many times, this is a pale reflection of the real thing. All told, it was an overly long performance, and did not work for us

Phil from London, England

TRIES TOO HARD

A disappointing production. By no means my first Shakespeare (or my first Ian McKellen) and went with high hopes. Left in the interval having failed to be engaged for a moment. A desperate grasp for style over substance with not one performance to retrieve it.

Mary C from London, England

VERY DISAPPOINTING

This was not my first time to see these plays, and I have seen Sir Ian many times, but this was an extremely disappointing production. The staging is chaotic and messy. They really needed a choreographer. There is no chemistry among the actors at all. Sir Ian is always good to see, but in the first hour it sounded as if he had a mouthful of marbles. His Falstaff veered between sad and pathetic and just silly. Toheeb Jimoh is good as Hal but inconsistent. Samuel Edward-Cook is terrible as Hotspur: just an angry man who yells a lot. His scene with his wife made no sense at all. Richard Coyle was good as Henry IV, but none of the other players were engaging to any degree. Claire Perkins' Mistress Quickly was totally forgettable. The gratuitous drug use and nudity in the opening scene was, well, gratuitous. Dull and boring sets: all those curtains became very tedious. Unless you just want to see Sir Ian, don't go. It's a waste of time and money.

Aliya from London, England

DON’T WASTE A PRECIOUS EVENING

Just came back from watching the play. Too long and repetitive. It seems characters and scenes were written for the sole purpose of supporting the character of Sir John played by Ian Mclellan. Average set, average acting, irrelevant scenes and characters. And lasted 3 hours 50 minutes. It was downhill after the first scene. Don’t waste a precious evening.

Debbie Hughes from Cheshire. UK

VERY DISAPPOINTING IN EVERY ASPECT.

This mish mash of Henry IV part one and two simply does not work. There is very little narrative thread in this vehicle geared for Ian Mckelllen which makes the overall production confusing, unbalanced and at times, tedious. It lacked energy and pace and there was little feel that the cast was working together. The staging was poor and dull both in the use of grey brown curtains throughout and dim lighting . Mckellen raised some laughs but he achieved little of the pathos we should feel for Falstaff and the important relationship between Falstaff and Prince Harry was in sufficiently explored. Don’t waste your money( this is an expensive production ) our seats were at the back of the stalls and were £50 and we had a poor view.

John from Cheshire from London, England

EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES

Am I the only person to say that Ian McKellen is not right for the role of Falstaff? He doesn’t have a comedic bone in his body. This mish mash of two plays was so obviously a vehicle for a superstar actor, and it simply does not work. It was tedious. No energy. None of the pathos we should feel for Falstaff. His dismissal by Prince Hal in the second play had no depth, and because of the interminable length of the two plays I’d lost interest anyway. Four hours I’ll never get back, and a waste of £96. Don’t bother.

Page:12345All