The Wizard of Oz Reviews

Danielle Whitmore from Suffolk

NOT THE DOROTHY I RELATED TO, MECHANICAL DOG WAS A LET DOWN BUT THE LION MADE IT FOR ME

As an avid repeat childhood viewer I did just that….I grew up watching W.O.O over and over. It was a timeless fantasy film where as a small child, most girls I knew loved and wanted to be Dorothy and have a dog named Toto. My take on this play is they wanted to modernise it-making it politically correct and culturally neutral to a point where the film was lost for me. The mechanical dog was a let down-the puppeteer left me confused and distracted and what’s more- What happened to health and safety? Running about with a dog on a stick left me feeling sorry for him the whole play. Some of the singing was good and in parts fantastic and the lion was outstanding. He brought the familiarity back-would I recommend it? If you’ve not watched the film then yes…you get the story line and a fun panto like play but for those of us that wanted to be the original Dorothy? Sadly you’ll be disappointed and who would have named their dog after a dog on a stick?

Joan Morgan from London, England

FELT LIKE IT WAS DONE ON THE CHEAP, BUT GOOD PERFORMERS

way too many videos in lieu of theatrical special effects which was v disappointing. Felt like it was done on the cheap - assumed there would be flying monkeys but nothing. Costumes good. Jason Manford excellent. Literally about 10 munchkins - too tight to pay for more actors and costumes I guess. Below par, though not wholly unenjoyable. Save yourself £70 and see the movie

MUMof1 from London, England

“DEFINITELY NOT IN KANSAS NOW, TOTO!”

I’ve no idea which were the munchkins either. No-one was munchkin-esque and I didn’t hear any of the classic munchkins songs. The puppet version of Toto didn’t work, completely lacked the cuteness factor and the person operating it, leaping all over the stage to make the puppet come to life, was maddeningly distracting. The flying monkeys NOT flying, was disappointing and totally missed a trick. The background videos of a New York skyline (with strange rockets and space-ships) while Dorothy was supposed to be in Oz was definitely puzzling. Most characters were so poorly developed that it was difficult to care about them at all. I would put Dorothy, firmly in this category, along with the straw-man, tin-man and the aunt and uncle. A bit like biting into a cheese sandwich to find that it contains only a tiny shred of day-old lettuce… I can understand why traditionalists could be outraged by all this. HOWEVER, I personally, embrace change and I’m excited by unusual takes on traditional productions. Some of the quirky updates here were amusing, such as the good witch entering and exiting the stage on a bright pink Vespa instead of appearing in the classic puff of smoke. I also liked the tin-man doing a bit of body-popping. The singing by the cast who appeared in Wimbledon was generally strong, with Dorothy’s voice and that of the good witch surprisingly impressive. Overall, despite being confused even now about whether I saw a musical or a pantomime (in March!) and about whether we should have been quiet or shouting out “He’s BEHIND you” at the appropriate points, I actually enjoyed the show and admired the huge amounts of energy that the cast put in right till the very end. It’s just a shame that we spent most of the show constantly pining for the real stars - the endearingly sweet Lion and the seething evil witch - to come back on stage. They were both fantastic and, along, with the great music, carried the entire show.

Ersan kara from London, England

BIG DISAPPOINTMENT

Terrible show. Low profile and low budget. Just waste of time and money

Stuart Palmer from London, England

WAS THE SET UPSCALED FROM A SCHOOL PRODUCTION?

Flying monkeys, the wicked witch zooming in from above, pitch perfect singing and memorable songs . . . are just a few of the things you would expect - but will not find in this production. Gary Wilmot and Dianne Pilkington are stand out performers with almost all the cast being at the very least competent. Unfortunately both the big names brought in for star appeal fail to hold a single note. If their parts were just cameos then it might have been fine, but as central characters it rather marred the whole show. The tickets were cheap, bought at release, and my wife says it is no worse than many of the 10 week fillers we have seen at the Palladium. If you are thinking of buying some cheap tickets - do so, just keep your expectations like the cast, firmly on the ground.

Julie Harding from Cheltenham,, England

THANK WIZARD FOR JASON

Disappointing from the off! Was like an cheap amateur production in my opinion! The sets were really basic and disappointing, could have done so much with it, mostly projected onto a screen in a cinematic style, the yellow brick road consisted of three large arrows that lit up as yellow bricks and they pushed around in front of a screen attempting to make it look like they were travelling! The whole thing didn’t know what it wanted to be … so it started with projected pictures of newspapers to give you a time line (we know when wizard was set), then Glinda came on looking like a cross between Barbie and a pink lady riding a pink moped looking like it was set in the 50s or vegas type style, the tin man was more of a robot and was very much just Ashley Banjo doing a bit of robotic dancing with some puffs of smoke coming out of him and he def can’t sing! Toto was a puppet that a man ran round with the whole show (to be fair a great puppet and he moved it so cleverly) but still odd as I watched him more than the dog. The munchkins just didn’t fit the bill at all and the wicked witch lived in wicked witch industries and was played in a comedic style (not scary at all), she also rode a bike and her broomstick fired what seemed like fire except the pyros didn’t always work, when they melted her they used a fire extinguisher with H20 written on it … I could go on .., honestly I don’t know what I watched! The songs were great and I have to say Jason manford as the cowardly lion saved the show! He was exactly like the guy in the film and was brilliant! The crowd lifted when he came on and wow can he sing! He literally carried the show! People around us were disappointed and saying the same ..,- it could have been amazing (they do such clever things on stage nowadays) but this was poor bordering on embarrassing! We paid for a West End experience and got a school production crossed with a panto 😳

Joanna naylor from England

SINCE WHEN WAS DOROTHY A 40 YEAR OLD WOMAN?

A very disappointing show. Dorothy is supposed to be an 11 year old girl, not a 40 year old woman. The wicked witch and the scarecrow were the best performers. Unfortunately the rest of the cast had very little stage performance whatsoever. There was good vocals but acting skills, choreography and setting was pretty poor to be honest for £450! More panto than west end show. The highlight for us were the musicians and in particular the conductor who not only conducted but also played the keyboard with passion and outstanding energy throughout the show. He was phenomenal.

Page:1234567All