GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK Previews- Page 2

[BETTY22]

Posted: 3/21/25 at 3:45pm

Review: Good Night, and Good Luck – A Starry Letdown That Misses the Mark

George Clooney’s Broadway debut in Good Night, and Good Luck should’ve been a moment. A timely story, a beloved star, and a marquee theater—it all sounds like the recipe for a hit. Instead, what’s onstage at the Winter Garden is a bloated, sluggish, and strangely lifeless production that feels more like a museum exhibit than a play.

The most glaring problem? There’s barely a play at all. Much of the two-and-a-half-hour runtime is consumed by video montages and projected archival footage, leaving the cast—Clooney included—playing second fiddle to a screen.

It’s less a theatrical experience than a dramatized newsreel, padded with live music and long transitions that feel like attempts to justify the ticket price.

Clooney, a natural on camera, seems strangely adrift onstage. His performance as Edward R. Murrow is polished but distant, and at times, he appeared to stumble through lines. Whether he was reading from a physical script or not, it felt under-rehearsed.

The rest of the cast is equally lost in the production’s cavernous scale—especially in a space like the Winter Garden, where the intimacy this material needs is drowned out by the distance.

The climactic TV montage—meant to send the audience out with a swell of emotion—feels manipulative and overproduced. It plays more like a YouTube tribute video than a theatrical payoff, though judging by the cheers in the audience, it hit its mark for some.

Still, it’s hard to ignore the sense that this show was assembled as a star vehicle, not a piece of living, breathing theater.

The producers may be raking it in, but audiences are left with a flat, uninspired experience.

A BIG STAGE, A BIG NAME, AND VERY LITTLE TO SAY.

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 3/21/25 at 4:04pm

I thought this was an hour and forty minutes?

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 3/21/25 at 4:12pm

TotallyEffed said: "I thought this was an hour and forty minutes?"

It is, indeed. (Though it feels like 2.5 hours…)

[KevinKlawitter]

Posted: 3/26/25 at 12:03pm

102-year-old Shirley Wershba (portrayed in the play by Ilana Glazer) to attend opening night

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 3/26/25 at 12:07pm

KevinKlawitter said: "102-year-old Shirley Wershba (portrayed in the play by Ilana Glazer) to attend opening night"


Let that old lady take a nap in the comfort of her own home.

[Tom-497]

Posted: 3/29/25 at 1:14pm

I saw last night's performance from a $99 seat (first row of the mezz, which still seemed pretty distant in the too-large Winter Garden). I think the show is worth seeing, although it's a mixed bag.

On the plus side:

- I didn't realize until I got to the theater that Paul Gross from Slings & Arrows was in this - if I had, he would have been the biggest of several big draws for me. He gives a good performance as the head of CBS and has, I think, the play's key lines, telling Clooney's Edward R. Murrow that even Murrow injects his opinion into supposed straight news and asking (rhetorically) what it will be like when less responsible people start doing that.

- Because the above is such a significant aspect of the story, I liked the near-closing montage of TV images leading up to the present, showing the ever-increasing propaganda spewed out as "news." It felt, to me, like an effective illustration rather than the usual fatuous attempt to indicate that the past might actually still be relevant. (And, even if for other reasons, it got an extremely positive audience response.)

- Clooney gives a good, restrained performance that makes sense in the dramatic context: Murrow is the star and focal point of a show that involves many other significant players, and so is Clooney. He also has a particularly funny, character-revealing moment when wordlessly responding to a compliment.

- The multimedia presentation is effective: you can choose what to focus on. And while some have seen it as a weakness, the contrast between a huge, imposing TV close-up and the life-size guy who's just reading words off a page struck me as intentional and successful.

As for the negatives:

-  The multiple songs are far too prominent and occasionally intrusive. The evening begins with a complete number that, to my taste, added nothing other than a few minutes of running time. And much worse, a song destroys what might otherwise have been an excellent sequence where the spread of sad news brings a loud, bustling room to silence.

- The subplot involving two young lovers is relevant but still feels like an uninspired attempt to inject some light romantic comedy. (The serious part of the subplot, McCarthyism hitting close to home, is already there with regard to Clooney's character.)

- As someone else mentioned, the very large stage sometimes gets in the way of tightness and sharpness of pacing, and also just swallows things up. The production tries to get around this, with mixed results, by having, in effect, mini-stages in which to confine action (e.g., a small corner of an office; a small, overcrowded conference table).

Last, I'd just mention that the audience seemed pretty tuned-in overall. And there were a few big responses - one joke stopped the show for several seconds, and the actor had to make an effort to get back on track.

[MasterThespian 2]

Posted: 3/29/25 at 5:49pm

Thanks for the detailed review. Hearing the same things over and over. A thin story being stretched with video montages and a live band. 

[jared123]

Posted: 3/30/25 at 12:59am

I really wanted to like this, but agree with the mixed word.   Its kind of lifeless, despite a great cast.   The theatre is also gigantic.   I was an aisle seat on row G and even there i felt really far from the stage.   I can't imagine the rest behind me not feeling the same and that's like 75% of the room.   Im glad I snagged a $299 ticket, if I had spent more id be more annoyed.   

 

[ElephantLoveMedley]

Posted: 4/2/25 at 3:35pm

This production commits the one true sin in theatre: it is beyond boring.

Most of my thoughts on Good Night, and Good Luck have already been written on this thread, but man, what a misfire. Clooney is entirely unremarkable and the "play" (if you want to call it that) feels completely unnecessary. It is not even close to dramatically compelling or theatrically interesting. 

I also really hate when a show that takes place in the past has to end with blatantly showing the audience how its themes apply to the modern day. It suggests to me that the creative team either feels the audience is too stupid to make those parallels themselves, or that they don't trust their work enough to believe that those parallels would come through. The montage at the end was the cherry on top of an awful experience at the theatre.

Save your money and skip this.

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 4/2/25 at 4:24pm

It is mind-numbingly boring. It felt like every sentence had ten seconds of silence before the next one arrived.

[MarilynMonroeSmash]

Posted: 4/2/25 at 4:31pm

How terrible would the view from the side boxes would be? 

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 4/2/25 at 4:32pm

MarilynMonroeSmash said: "How terrible would the view from the side boxes would be?"

 

Horrendous. I couldn't see half the stage and almost nothing upstage. I didn't really care though. It was more interesting watching people check the time and fall asleep.

[Kad]

Posted: 4/2/25 at 4:52pm

The production photos are certainly cinematic and stylish, but certainly don’t make the production look terribly compelling. Or even… like a theatre production. 

[Dolly80]

Posted: 4/2/25 at 6:11pm

ElephantLoveMedley said: "This production commits the one true sin in theatre: it is beyond boring.

Most of my thoughts on Good Night, and Good Luckhave already been written on this thread, but man, what a misfire. Clooney is entirely unremarkable and the "play" (if you want to call it that) feels completely unnecessary. It is not even close to dramatically compelling or theatrically interesting.

I also reallyhate when a show that takes place in the past has to end with blatantly showing the audience how its themes apply to the modern day. It suggests to me that the creative teameither feels the audience is too stupid to make those parallels themselves, or that they don't trust their work enough to believe that those parallels would come through. The montage at the end was the cherry on top of an awful experience at the theatre.

Save your money and skip this."


Have to say I agree with this completely. It is just…. Meh. And boring. Clooney should have chosen something more exciting than this.

[verywellthensigh]

Posted: 4/2/25 at 7:53pm

Us waiting around for a "Movie Star Vehicle For Broadway!" that isn't half baked and ill conceived.



 

[The Other One]

Posted: 4/2/25 at 10:26pm

verywellthensigh said: "Us waiting around for a "Movie Star Vehicle For Broadway!" that isn't half baked and ill conceived.

"

I haven't seen the show, but this gave me a great laugh.  Thank you!

 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/2/25 at 10:39pm

I saw this tonight and I guess felt differently than others here. I thoroughly enjoyed this and wasn’t bored at any time.  Three things though - I’m a huge fan of the film, This particular part of history has always fascinated me and I think George Clooney is one of the best actors working today. So all of that combined maybe I was always going to like this. I also thought Cromer’s direction was brilliant and everyone else in the cast also was spot on. 

I’ll also push back a bit on the feeling that the quick ending montage of “current” events (which was everything from the Kennedy assassination to Elon’s Nazi salute) is unnecessary. I thought it was perfectly edited together and the right way to end this show. I don’t feel like it’s redundant to show parallels of the story they’re telling and what’s happening today, if anything people need to be reminded. We know good and damn well that people’s attention spans are SHORT. Hell, after four years of Sh*tler, in November people either voted for him again or sat home because they forgot how awful things were for four years. So maybe that’ll be the knock on some people’s brains that they need. 
 

[EvanstonDad]

Posted: 4/3/25 at 9:38am

Relying on video screens to do much of the work seems to be a trend this season. Is this a creative blending of mediums or a cynical way to reduce production costs? I haven't seen any of the shows that use them so I don't really have my own opinion. From what I've read here, it sounds like in "Sunset Boulevard" and "Dorian Gray," they're at least an artistic choice that blends in well with the concept. For "Goodnight," it just sounds lazy.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/3/25 at 9:44am

The use of screens here is important and well done, I felt. This is after all a story about what happens on the tv screen and Murrow says as much, in the play. The screens that are used are used during the broadcasts (again, not something added just to add screens - like other shows do) but to show what’s actually happening in studio. Of all the shows to catch flack for using these things, I’m a bit confused by the criticism of them here. 

[gibsons2]

Posted: 4/3/25 at 11:07am

Jordan Catalano said: "Hell, after four years of Sh*tler, in November people either voted for him again or sat home because they forgot how awful things were for four years. So maybe that’ll be the knock on some people’s brains that they need."

Except people who really require that knock on their brain, unfortunately, don't go to the theater at all...

[MarilynMonroeSmash]

Posted: 4/7/25 at 3:23pm

I’m hearing a lot of different things about the sight lines. I found some affordableish tickets on the orchestra sides that aren’t marked as PV, but want to see what others say.