← MickeyJoTheatre
MickeyJoTheatre
Why did the critics hate SHREK the musical?! | A review roundup for the London return of Shrek
00:28:55
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
Mickey Jo
Now, it may surprise some of you to learn that I have in the past faced a little bit of criticism for dressing, shall we say, less than professionally while filming these reviews. So just to err on the side of caution, now, let's begin. Oh, my God. Hey. Welcome back to my theatre themed YouTube channel. My name is Mickey Jo and I am obsessed with all things theatre. I am a professional theatre critic and a content creator here on social media. And today I would like to tell you a little bit of a story because once upon a time, 10 months ago, I went to the new Wimbledon Theatre in order to see the brand new UK tour of Shrek the Musical, a musical of which I am actually a big fan. I think it is a deceptively brilliantly and cleverly written piece of musical theatre. It does a great job in adapting the beloved and iconic film to the stage. The writing by Janine Tesori and David Lindsay Aber, I think actually quite genius, honestly up there with Legally Blonde. For me, in terms of well written film to stage musical adaptations. I was, however, disappointed by this most recent production of the show, both by the creative choices and by the performances and just the general ethos of the whole thing. The atmosphere of the performance, there was very little that I could enjoy about it and as such, I gave it an entirely honest to my experience, two star review. @ the time, I probably said I hated it. Which, yes, is an extreme word to use. Hate is a very extreme word. However, what I'd like to do with these reviews is to kind of demystify a lot of the language that gets used in professional arts criticism and just say what people really think of things when, you know, they talk about them. When someone sees a show that they didn't like, chances are they will say to their friend, oh, I saw that last week, yeah, I hated it. Or oh my gosh, I loved it. And it's in those kind of linguistic extremes that we tend to talk about these shows. Also, even in some of my most positive and like four and five star review videos on here, I can get very specific and very passionate about things that I thought could have been improved. And sometimes I think it's difficult to discern when I really struggled to enjoy something. And so, you know, the word, the word hate conveys that quite helpfully. So I apologize for saying I hated it, but I also, I did. Listen, you want honest criticism, that is what I am going to give you. But sort of for the first time within the established professional phase of my career, I got a little bit of Push pushback from a couple members of the cast who I won't name and whose passion for their own work and the collaborative work of this company and this creative team I absolutely understood and even admired. What I had a little less time for was the request for me to come and have a sit down conversation about it. And the idea that by saying this about the show, I was robbing hundreds of children of the opportunity to have a joyous theatrical experience. Namely because the idea that Shrek the Musical and only Shrek the Musical can bring joy to young people. And there aren't, you know, dozens of other alternative family entertainments that aren't necessarily charging as high ticket prices for something that I think objectively was of lower and cheaper quality than every previous iteration of the show we've seen in the uk. But the reason I'm telling you this today is because at the time I was invited as well as a handful of others to come and review the shows, but the larger publications, the likes of, you know, the newspapers and the stage and what's on stage were not, not in that moment from what I recall. And I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to why that may have been, but it was also a tour that was leading to a sit down London run at the event in Apollo where the show has recently opened. And so it was very possible that they were waiting for that opportunity to then, you know, with the cast having like built up a little bit more experience in all of the roles and gained a little bit more stamina with it all, waited to have them reviewed by the big dogs when they came back to London. But when you're one of the few outlets that has been invited to cover it, especially if you say something negative and it tours around the country just getting lovely notices from all of the local papers and theater bloggers, it does kind of make you feel like a dog that's been shot into space a little bit. And I've experienced this before in 101 Dalmatians where mine was the only review to be published over the weekend. And I had to wait for Monday morning for the other newspaper reviews to come out and explain that I wasn't being a horrible person to this family musical, that it actually had issues. And so I do feel a little bit vindicated by some of the reviews views that Shrek has recently had. It's worth saying I have a tremendous respect for all of the performers in this show. I've seen almost all of them do exceptional work elsewhere. I also feel the same way about members of this creative team who have done beautiful, fantastic, brilliant theatrical work elsewhere. But just like me saying something positive about something I enjoyed in the show is not a kindness, it's just the truth. Me talking about something I did not enjoy is not an unkindness. It remains simply my opinion. And today we are going to hear the opinions of others. Because while I generally use this channel just to share my own reviews, when the reviews are interesting, I do like to read from a few more. We're going to do another review roundup video today. I've done a few of these in the past and we're going to find out why London's critics did not like Shrek the Musical at the eventim Apollo. Now, needless to say, this is all about multiple opinions. So if you have seen this production anywhere on tour, if you've seen it at the eventim, specifically this most recent version of the show, comment down below with all of your thoughts and feelings. If you've seen a preview production and you want to talk about whether or not you like Shrek as a show, feel free to comment about that as well. I should clarify here because we're on the Internet and this goes out to people all around the world. I'm talking about the UK tour. This is not the same as the recent US non equity tour that came under a little bit of fire on social media for having a very different approach to the show where Shrek had hair and they were trying to like reconceive the idea of what the show was as like a troupe of players who were putting on Shrek. This is just Shrek without that kind of a framing device or a concept. But it was just a little bit cheaper. But we're gonna hear what the other reviews had to say. I've already done my review. If you want to go back and decide for yourself whether my review was fair, you can go and watch that from 10 months ago. In the meantime, let's start with the brilliant Anya Ryan, who was writing for the Times. She calls the show a one star calamity dressed in nauseating green. This adaptation at Hammersmith's Eventum Apollo of the 2001 Dreamworks classic film is shambolic, with abysmal singing and monstrous acting. There's a sign at the start of Shrek the Musical that reads Beware of the Ogre. That's exactly the advice I'd give to anyone consider buying tickets. And now, reading through this, I do wonder if this is Anya's first exposure to the show because again, I think a lot of my passion about why I didn't enjoy this production so much is because I really love the musical. But from what I can tell, this is Anya Ryan's first time seeing the musical and was not particularly a fan of the adaptation either. But I don't know that this production really showcases it in its best light. Anya does, however, care deeply about the film. She says that it's a beloved favourite among her generation, which is also my generation. It has classic lines and has been turned into memes and used as the inspiration for tourist attractions, including Shrek's adventure on London's South Bank. But the appeal of the original is far, far away from this musical adaptation by David Lindsay Abair and Janine Tesori. The film's durable message of not judging a book by its cover is overwhelmed by abysmal singing and monstrous acting. Here, Princess Fiona, played by Joanne Clifton, is a squeaky, excruciating presence, while Anthony Lawrence's Shrek is dressed dodgy emerald prosthetics and speaks with a Scottish accent that is iffy at best. Their love story is in crying need of chemistry. Instead, everything is shouted at a torturously loud volume. And in truth, I don't know to what extent I ever hold the performances of Shrek up against the film. I think because it's animated. There's. It's already so divorced from the original. And I think certainly, like Brian Darcy James did an admirable job with the Scottish accent on Broadway. But I wouldn't say that it felt like, you know, an uncannily accurate Scottish accent. And it's. It's come and gone over the years with other performances on the subject of Joanne Clifton, I also think that the original performer in this role was Sutton Foster, who is nigh on superhuman in terms of her talent and versatility. The way that she could front these dance production numbers, the way that she had these stratospheric belting vocals, and the way that she had these, like, Carol Burnett, Lucille Ball, familiar comedy chops, she could really deliver on all fronts and Joanne Clifton does a lot of that well. Like, when she's dancing on stage, she really comes alive. She does not have the same kind of vocal strength, and I occasionally found the characterization a little bit grating. But there are few who I think could do as good a job with the very challenging role of Princess Fiona as Sutton Foster did. And I have never particularly enjoyed any Princess Fiona I think I've really seen in the uk, if I'm being completely honest, nobody has hit it out of the park on all fronts, singing, dance and comedy. And Joanne Clifton, I want to add, is a start. And I have seen her really shine on stage and give some fantastic performances. And I think she could do a lot of those classic like Gwen Verdon roles because when she is dancing it's so, so good. But even Gwen Verdon I don't think would have been a great Princess Fiona. That's an image. Anya Ryan says the set, designed by Philip Whitcomb, is garish and relies on blurry video footage that would look better on the small screen. There's some attempt by Lindsay Abair to expand on the film's plot. We get a sprinkle of backstory and the addition of a young Shrek, but rather than bringing depth, it makes this brash performance stretch out even longer. She finishes by saying, during the interval, I heard the people in front of who were in fancy dress wondering if they might call it a night and if they can't believe in this offbeat fairy tale, how is anyone else supposed to so truly found almost nothing to enjoy about that performance? Let's go next to Theo and what's onstage, who says the show based on this latest evidence may be due sometime in swampy exile. This version comes from a new creative team led by director and choreographer Nick Winston, whose work I have been really enjoying recently, I do want to say, which should mean an injection of fresh energy and ideas, which is what I wanted and had hoped for. But mostly it feels like a cost cutting exercise, notably removing the child actors and replacing physical elements with projections which when I saw it were horribly out of focus, while one character change ends up backfiring spectacularly or Shrektacularly as the marketing material might have it. This is the decision to no longer have the act of playing Lord Farquaad perform on his knees. The sensitivities around the change are naturally understandable, but the production solution leaves James Gillan to mine as many laughs as he can from the notion that the antagonist is in the closet. And this is not like I'm not outraged by this, because I don't think like queer coded cartoon villainy is anything new. Like, have you seen the Lion King? First of all. But also the problem is so many of the laughs before came from dwarf jokes around Lord Farquaad and my understanding and listen, I'm not part of that community, so it's really not for me to say, but he's a dwarf in the fantasy sense, which I sort of don't consider to be the same thing. It's like the concept of a fantasy giant that doesn't relate to anything in the real world. And the casting of this role, if he is to be kept as a dwarf, sort of becomes impossible because you have, understandably and rightfully so, people advocating for the opportunity for an actor with dwarfism, given how few opportunities they have on the professional musical theatre stage. But at the same time, Farquaad's height is consistently the butt of several jokes throughout the show, so it would not feel whatsoever progressive or fair necessarily. It feels like a HR complaint waiting to happen, honestly. So I get the decision to remove that and just sidestep it completely. There are a couple of other problematic areas of the script that have been left in, I will say. But I also think you leave a gaping black hole of what was much of the show's comedy beforehand, like physical comedy. The way that he was costumed and the way that they used that and the way they did dance. As Theo says, the script has largely supplanted innuendos about height with innuendos about homosexuality, which hardly seems a giant leap forward. While the physical comedy now leans heavily on his tendency to swish his hair around, which can only go so far in a show that still has jokes about weight transvestism, which is, you know, they've taken out the slur that it used to be before for anyone deeply concerned. And mental health Donkey even has a new line mocking Martha from baby reindeer. It seems strange to excise an aspect that was so pantomimic to start with. And crucially, it means a production that relies so much on laughs just simply isn't as funny anymore. And this is a huge, huge problem, because, like pantomime, so much of the narrative caters towards a younger audience. It's the jokes that are going to play to the adults. Case in point, when Farquaad used to enter on his horse to go and meet Princess Fiona towards the end of the show, he used to call it Spearmint Rhino, which is. Is the name of a strip club. For those of you who don't know, that's a joke for the adults in the audience, like in many a pantomime. Theo also notes the reverberant sound and the cavernous event in Apollo is more of a sticking point than the design aspects. He said, you'll be doing well if you can make out even half of David Lindsay Abare's lyrics, which I think is much of the brilliance and charm of the writing of the show. So that becomes a huge problem as well. Now, he enjoyed the performances More he called Anthony Lawrence a fine Shrek who shows the tortured soul beneath his green except exterior. It helps that his angry solo builder wall has been reinstated. I agree. And Joanne Clifton is a likable Fiona with clear triple threat credentials. Absolutely. There are also some impressive vocals on show from newcomer Sharice Richards as the love starved dragon. I enjoyed her very, very much. Now let's go to the Telegraph, who have also highlighted Shrek's ongoing commercial success. Three sequels down the line and with a fourth on the way, the appeal of the swamp dwelling green ogre who finds love with a princess is apparently endless. There are now Shrek tours, Shrek memes, Shrek rave nights and Shrek inspired Bath Bomb. I would add to that accessories Much Revised after its short stint on Broadway in 2008, a slimmed down version of David Lindsay aber and Janine Tesori's musical spent just under two years on the West End in the 2010s. That is correct. That Drury Lane version was reduced from Broadway. I'm glad people noticed that. But now, back in London following a tour, Samuel Holmes and Nick Winston's new production feels less like a reinvigorated revival than a cheap attempt to cash in on a cult favourite. Cheap, unfortunately, is a thing that we keep hearing in these because it's what comes across in the production. I'm sorry to say I don't know that I agree with this verdict about the material. However, it goes on to say there's a reason why songs from a musical that is now 16 years old were largely met with fidgeting and blank faces on press night. The numbers are just forgettable. I don't know what their age has anything to do with it. Go see Phantom. Go see Les Mis. Music endures. We may get our answer in the next section. It doesn't help that at times it was impossible to decipher the lyrics, despite all the actors practically bellowing their lines. Perhaps that has something to do with the acoustics of the vast Hammersmith Apollo. And I want to say here, I do wish that people would stop producing theatre in the event in Apollo. I don't think it's really fit for purpose. I saw Sister act there and it just about got away with it, but it's really not a fit venue. What it is, is vast. It's huge. It allows you to sell an extraordinary number of tickets and it kind of offers the audience a subpar theatrical performance. Performance because the sound is not going to be great, because there's nothing that can really earn that kind of A space. If you have an enormous enough production, chances are it's playing the Dominion or it's playing the Palladium. And anything you get in the event of Apollo is just going to feel stretched to that space again. It feels like producers trying to make as much money as they can, because guess what? If you're catering to family audiences, they're looking for something to do in the summer holidays. And when they're buying tickets, they're buying multiple tickets at once, which also means it cost them even more. And that's why I'm so passionate about this in the first place. Like me. They also highlighted a standout performance from Sharice Richards as Dragon, whose powerhouse vocals momentarily lifted the production. I also agree with this next part. The additional toilet humor will make the kids squeal. But for anyone over the age of eight, the excessive farting and belching gags get old fast. Topical jokes about Jude Bellingham, baby reindeer and Deliveroo are shoehorned in. And in one inexplicably bonkers and desperate attempt at raising laughs, Joanne Clifton's grating Fiona dances with an inflatable deer. I'm not sure if that's meaning to suggest that the deer is a baby reindeer. Nod. It's not. The deer has always been a part of the show. Those of you that know, it's always been a part of Morning Person. And I guess this raises a question about who Shrek is for, because if the kids are enjoying it and if the kids are delighting in it, is it doing its job? And if this were a version that kind of like refocused its efforts on trying to be more of a young audience aimed family show, then fine. But for the most part, I think kids enjoy a lot of stuff. And you can still appeal to a broader audience. You can still make a show that is going to entertain all sorts of people, that is still going to entertain, you know, the people who were kids when Shrek came out, who grew up with Shrek, who are now my age. You can also entertain parents, you can also entertain grandparents because, and having been a child myself once, I feel able to say this, you know, kids are not the most disturbing, discerning audience members. I do not think that I was at my most discerning, at my most, like, critically appraising When I was 8, when I was 10 years old, I don't really think until I was 15 did I develop the sense of, oh, that's like a good piece of art that's doing that well. And even then it still took time from them, but that's the earliest I can remember even having that thought. So when they go back to the idea of, like, oh, well, at least the kids are enjoying it. And, like, all those happy faces, all of those happy children, like, for the most part, they're going to enjoy it regardless. Carrying on, we have more commentary about Lord Farquaad. He's typically been played on stage by an actor on their knees. That comic bit doesn't feature here with James Gillan's camp villain. It feels odd considering that multiple jokes about Farquaad's height no longer make visual sense. It's a shame Philip Whitcomb's vibrant designs are undermined by a lazy use of screens for some of the trickier action sequences. And lazy is a difficult word because none of us as critics were in the room when this was put together. So, you know, work goes into everything. It does just seem as though cheaper and less demanding choices were made. But you also don't know who that comes from. And that's why, you know, I mean, as this does, you comment on the thing and rather the individual, because we don't know whether that came from set design, whether that came from direction, whether that came from producers. It is, however, something that we are hearing again and again in these reviews. We have some more positives, though. It's not all bad. Todrick hall is a laugh as the sassy and oversharing donkey, which is a tricky feat thanks to Eddie Murphy's defining voice work. I agree. And I'm sure Todrick hall is brilliant in this show. He wasn't in the show when I got to see it last year, but I thought that was a genius piece of casting when it was announced. The ensemble of fairytale characters bring life to proceedings, especially with their colorful number. Story of my life ending with the Monkees, I'm a believer, is a foolproof way to get everyone on their feet and leaving on a good note, which, surprisingly, was not originally a part of the first Broadway production. But this production, while likely to entertain the kids for a few hours during the summer holidays, is far, far away from capturing the magic of the original 2001 animation. And if that's all that it can offer, it kind of feels like you could just show the film to your kids. Like, I know it's not the same thing, and I, of all people, shouldn't be advocating for, you know, staying at home rather than going and supporting theatre. But, you know, I also have to advocate for theatre of quality. Now. I try and find contrasting opinions in these do we have someone who enjoyed it slightly more? Paul Vale and the Stage also commented on Lord Farquaad being stripped of his Napoleon complex and of the prosthetic short legs of previous stagings. He noted that the removal of the Ablest Overtones is welcome, but instead he's lampooned as a camp closeted gay man with a chorus of light footed soldiers at his heels, a substitution that scarcely feels any more progressive. And as I suspected, the production flounders on the event in Apollo's huge stage which brings all its problems into focus. And though there was praise for it just now, he notes the finale number I'm a Believer, which should sum up the central themes of the show, feels like more of a last gasp effort to get the audience on its feet, drained of its theatrical magic. The whole thing lurches desperately from one song to the next, sapping the story of charm and humour. Anyone? Did anyone enjoy this show? London Theatre okay, Aliyah Alhassan gave it three stars for London Theatre. That is more than half. Let's see what she had to say. Starts by talking about Anthony Lawrence. His Scottish accent could be stronger, but his singing is the best part of his performance with a touching rendition of Gonna Build a Wall. Thank God they put that song back in the show. He also shows off some impressive dance moves but lacks chemistry with Joanne Clifton who is an energetic but too high pitched Princess Fiona. We are hearing similar things across these reviews. The toilet humor they share will appeal to a younger audience, but there's little for the grown ups. Broadway star Todrick hall is a real hoot as Donkey, channeling some big Eddie Murphy vibes with his sass and attitude. It's listen, it's not enormous stretch. You can see immediately how he'd give a brilliant high energy performance and that's exactly what this role needs. If you've got a bad low energy donkey, the whole thing is going to really sink. Charisse Richards is the standout vocalist as Dragon. I mean good for her getting positive notes in all of this. Her rendition of Forever nearly takes the roof off and gets the biggest applause of the night. Although why the dragon puppet that follows her doesn't move its mouth is puzzling. Again, it's just a more inexpensive version of a dragon puppet. But I'm glad there are other people out there in this world who care as much about that as I do. I will forever be the critic that counted the Dalmatians at 101 Dalmatians and found there were not enough. Listen, I care very deeply about puppets Talking about the Lord Farquaad change no longer played by an actor on their knees. So nearly every reference to the character's height has been cut out. A sensitive decision, but it does remove a lot of the humour and the changes reduce him to a one dimensional villain. We have some positives. The tap dancing Rats and the routine during the rousing anthem Freak Flag are both great. Jeanine Tesori's music and David Lindsay Aber's lyrics combine to create a dynamic score, but it's not the most memorable out there. What unfortunately lets the show down is the set, which looks like it was designed for a much smaller theatre. Primarily confined to just a third of the stage and enveloped by large half moon shapes. The ensemble scenes feel constricted even when there is so much space to play with. It means the production looks lost in the vast space of the event in Apollo and is visually underwhelming. There's an attempt to compensate for the lack of set with Nina Dunne for Pixelux's video design. These projections are nicely considered, but are relied upon too much and distractingly go in and out of focus. This is a family musical and I've heard this a few places. That feels more like a pantomime. There are definitely some fun elements that will keep little ones entertained during the school holiday season. Just don't expect to be blown away at this point. We're hearing really more so than in any of these review roundups. I think I filmed before a lot of similar things across all of these critical responses, and some people have warmed to certain elements and certain performances slightly more so, but broadly they're saying the same thing and they're all offering a similar conclusive message at the end that this is perhaps a great way to entertain kids during the school holidays, but it feels very much for children and not for the entire family, which is what its marketing would want you to believe. Let's go next to the always down to earth time out. This one's been written by Kiara Wilkinson and again begins, as you would, I guess, by talking about the legacy of Shrek, saying it has a spirit so strong it has created themed raves and immersive experiences. You'd be forgiven for thinking that anything Shrek related would be good, but you'd be wrong. That was intense and I'm slightly scared. The classic lines fell flat, not least helped by the abysmally butchered Scottish, if you can call it that accent of Anthony Lawrence's Shrek. Even his roars lacked oomph. You know, I actually, I don't remember this man's accent. I will be quite honest with you. I saw this production 10 months ago. It's been a while, but more than one critic has said it's a dodgy Scottish accent. No one has taken quite as much umbrage with it as Time out the arrival of a I don't think I can say that on YouTube. A see you next Tuesday. Ified Lord Farquaad, played by James Gillan, who wore gold sequined hot pants and zooming into his wedding on a scooter, was some welcomed light relief from the chaos. And Charisse Richards, playing the dragon, had vocals which just about made up for the humdrum singing and accompanying soundtrack. The costumes were good and the stage design was fine for kids. There are plenty of rude burp and fart scenes, and the casting of singer songwriter Todrick hall, who pranced around practically carrying the whole production in his furry jumpsuit, garnered genuine laughs from the audience as one of the only convincing and likable characters. Interesting to see only praise for the depiction of Lord Farquaad there, but then I wonder if you haven't seen previous versions of the show whether kind of like not knowing what was lost in how funny that character used to b helps you enjoy it more in this version. I don't know. There were odd attempts to make it all seem relevant, but for the most part it felt like a bad school play. The musical numbers lacked punch and even the big ending numbers weren't catchy or particularly uplifting. Bar I'm a Believer, which was played at the end for the audience to walk brackets or run out to. Now I usually try and read from as many of these as I can. The Guardian was also a two star here. It does feel as though they're really all saying the same thing. Guardian also loves Charisse, Richards said she was on fire with a sensational singing voice as the dragon, but the show becomes bogged down by its sludgy monotony and often unmemorable songs. Lots of lots of people saying unmemorable of this score. I guess I discovered it at a formative age and so I know Shrek very well. I don't think it's the strongest musical theatre score I've ever heard. I don't think I'd call it unmemorable necessarily. More Farquaad commentary here. Farquaad, mocked in the film for being short, has been played in the past by an actor on his knees. That's not the case here, but the production has not resolved how to present the character oddly fudging some sections. And Fiona's lyric about seeming a bit bipolar meanwhile, is left uncut. And I'm glad someone else said that, because that's one of the things I was invoking earlier when I said that there are still offensive parts within the material that have not been trimmed out of this particular production. At this point, I'm not sure it's necessarily kind to seek out further reviews, because everyone in the newspapers, broadly, does seem to be saying the same thing. And in terms of answering the question that was the title of this video, why did these critics hate Shrek so much? We are hearing a few conclusive answers. And in terms of what would win people over, it's more about what wasn't present, because there doesn't seem to have been enough of a set design to justify the eventim Apollo. It didn't feel like it really played well to that space. That's not the theater I saw it in. But I didn't like the set design where I saw it either. And the eventum is even bigger. And the trade off you get there for the size of it is that the sound is usually worse. And I think so much of the value of this score in this material is the wit of these lyrics. So if you can't hear half of them, you're really in trouble. Then you're not laughing in the script because so much of the comedy was the Lord Farquaad material, which has been taken out for legitimate reasons. But they find themselves in a bit of a quandary. And a lot of people didn't like what the character then became in place of that. And maybe none of this matters if you have a really winning heart at the center of the material, but it does feel like other people have noted Anthony Lawrence and Joanne Clifton lacking that important and fundamental chemistry. Some people enjoyed their individual performances, and I think there is a lot to be praised about the work that they are doing, about the work that everyone is doing in this show. But many of them aren't part of, you know, really effective performances. And I've said this before, but a performance is not an actor. A performance is a collaboration between an actor, a costume designer, a director, and everyone else who helps put this together. Theatre is all about collaboration. It is not one individual creating a problem here or something that's not working. Sharice Richards getting a lot of praise as the Dragon. Todrick hall getting much of the praise as Donkey. I'm sure he's fantastic. I haven't had the chance to. To see him. I have seen Shareese in the show. I thought she was great. But ultimately, and for reasons that leave me a little bit puzzled, it does feel like this very trimmed down and seemingly much cheaper production of the show has left many critics cold and they have all remarked that, you know, it might be a great way to entertain children. There's plenty of toilet humor in there and it's all like bright and brash and certainly loud enough, but it's not really going to appeal to older theatre goers. And having seen more of Nick Winston's work recently in the brilliant yout Lion April that he has just directed for the West End and all the fantastic concert productions that he's been doing and hearing great things about burlesque that I haven't had the chance to see yet, I think of him as a director who is incredibly innovative and who can do brilliant things with staging and that's really something that is lacking in Shrek. So I am very puzzled as to what has gone so wrong with this production, but I have shared plenty of my own thoughts already. We have read through these reviews. If you are a huge fan of Shrek and you still want to go and see this production, I encourage you to go and find out for yourself. If you have already seen this production, I welcome your thoughts in the comment section down below, particularly if you disagreed with these reviews. If you loved it, please tell us why. And if you are looking for brilliant theater to take the whole family to this summer, there are a wealth of other options. It's a really exciting time for theatre in London and also around the country. There is lots of great regional theatre. Check out everything that is on offer where you are as well. I hope you've enjoyed today's review roundup video. If you did, make sure to subscribe to my theatre themed YouTube channel and be sure to let me know if there are any other productions you want me to do Review roundups for coming soon. I hope that everyone is staying safe and that you have a stagey day. For 10 more seconds, I'm Micky Jo Theatre. Oh my God. Hey, thanks for watching. Have a Stagey Day. Subscribe.