KING CHARLES III Previews — Page 4

phan24 said: "I think this play really soars in Act 2. While Act 1 does set up the second one, it felt a little too slow and I thought it could've moved faster. Act 2 is where I saw Tim Piggott-Smith and the rest of the cast give award winning performances, they were truly great. The last scene is truly chilling and the direction serves it justice."

Interesting. I thought both acts were excellent, but I actually found the 2nd act to be a tad less focused than the first (with the exception of the last 2 scenes of the play which were very focused and chilling indeed). Different strokes I suppose.

The more I think about this show, the more remarkable I think it is. I think I'll try to see it again before it closes, if i can get around to it with all the other openings.

I think someone else asked this but I couldn't find an answer. If anyone sat in the $97 front row seats how was the view? Why are these tickets less expensive?

While knowledge of English history is not required - it does help to understand some of what is happening in Act One - especially how the act ends:

any news of extension

I have long suspected that After Eight was either Stadler or Waldorf ( minus the good nature) OR a genius piece of performance art.

My new theory is that he is Michael Reidel.

thebeautyis3 said: "Darn. I was hoping for a week's extension. I am arriving down there on February 1, and I was really hoping to see this. When does Shuffle Along start?

Previews start March 14. Don't know when they will move into the theatre. So, if ticket sales warrant, I guess - depending on contracts - maybe could squeeze one week more.

"

Sorry to be in the minority, but was mostly unimpressed. Act One nearly had me dozing; Act Two was better and livelier, but this still struck me as another king-and-country, do your best for England soap opera. Perhaps you needed to care more about British politics. Never quite decided if it was a comedy or a drama, so never seemed to be much of either. Piggott-Smith was good, but can see why he lost the Olivier to a better, more interesting actor. As for the play, it all felt like sub-Lear stuff. And the ad campaign, with Charles appearing with a taped-over mouth, made me expect a sort of wild-and-woolly comedy. No such thing.

And (SPOILER ALERT) what was that Diana apparition? Was it meant to be funny, or was it just as silly as it looked? I wasn't the only audience member that snickered at that.

Major disappointment, imo.

Hate to bump this -- but, could anybody please PM me with the final visual of the show? I hear it's simply spectacular, and I would love to know what it is... Thank you!

I missed the final tableaux too and would like to know!

PLEASE

That's basically it, but there's a critical component you left out:

jayinchelsea said: "Sorry to be in the minority, but was mostly unimpressed. Act One nearly had me dozing; Act Two was better and livelier, but this still struck me as another king-and-country, do your best for England soap opera. Perhaps you needed to care more about British politics. Never quite decided if it was a comedy or a drama, so never seemed to be much of either. Piggott-Smith was good, but can see why he lost the Olivier to a better, more interesting actor. As for the play, it all felt like sub-Lear stuff. And the ad campaign, with Charles appearing with a taped-over mouth, made me expect a sort of wild-and-woolly comedy. No such thing.

And (SPOILER ALERT) what was that Diana apparition? Was it meant to be funny, or was it just as silly as it looked? I wasn't the only audience member that snickered at that.

Major disappointment, imo.

"

I agree here, saw this Tuesday night and was completely bored by it.

The cheap seats in the mezzanine are a great view and it was only half full so plenty of seats to move down if you wanted to.