THE QUEEN OF VERSAILLES Reviews- Page 4

[CoffeeBreak]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 9:05am

CoffeeBreak said: "Jarethan said: "I wonder if BroadwayWorld is getting kickbacks for their assessments of reviews. The said that Vulture and NY Post are mixed, when they are clearly pans.

I am shocked about The NY Times review and the fact that the Chicago Tribune/Daily News reviews were positive.

It is terrible that I actively want this show to be a total disaster, but I think it is just so vile and can’t understand how anyone could give it a decent review, let alone a ‘critic’s pick’.

I wonder if the few positive reviews (and the praise for Chenoweth) will lead the producers to keep this open longer than fiscally responsible."

RIGHT. In what world are 1 star reviews not a pan and  negative?!   Something is shady, BWW.

 

Updated On: 11/10/25 at 09:05 AM

[Huss417]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 9:06am

Cheesecake2 said: "Who cares. It’s a stupid fake name of a terrible website."

It's funny you correct someone else's spelling but then try to justify yours. Okay. Also see you are new here what was one of your previous incarnations here? Always difficult to keep track these days.

[Kad]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 9:22am

Obviously, even the worst show will have its supporters,  and sometimes those supporters just happen to be NYTimes critics, but it is strange it’s happened multiple times in a year. FWIW, I do think it’s generally a good thing for a critic to go out on a limb and defend a piece they like even if nobody else does. 
 
But the word of mouth on this show is incredibly poor and I don’t think it’s once broken even at the box office. An outlying rave from the Times won’t reverse its fortunes. 

Updated On: 11/10/25 at 09:22 AM

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 9:31am

And we’re off with the pull quotes!

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 9:46am

Does anyone else who has seen this behemoth grasp where "smart," "sparkling," or "a sociological fairy tale {what the hell does that mean}" come from?  The show lumbers and lurches, it attenuates its thinnest of plotlines to push itself forward, with nothing "sparkling" manifest, its insistence on making 1793 more pertinent than 2025 negating "smart." The review feels suspect to many of us because it doesn't use a lexicon that remotely describes the (absence of) entertainment value, the moribund impact of Jackie's repetitive goal-seeking as a basis for a satisfying musical portrait.  Anyone reading the review and rushing on-line to purchase seats will find a chasm between what's promised thus and the bloated reality at the St. James.

[trentsketch]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 10:12am

Goodness me. At least In My Life had the skeleton kick line to gawk at. These reviews are kinder than I expected but still not good. 

[WorldWithoutYou]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 10:12am

As an out of towner who hasn’t had the (dis)pleasure of catching this show, I’ve rather surprised to hear the response it’s gotten. Namely, how did Michael Arden create such a mess? Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t he at LEAST been nominated for every show he’s ever directed on Broadway, and had successes with his non-Broadway as well? He has never missed before. And sure, maybe he was bound to misfire eventually, but the gist I’ve gotten is that the show seems to lack any sense of concept or messaging, which are the specific strengths of Arden’s that have given him such an impressive track record. I can’t seem to wrap my head around the fact that he would direct such a toothless show. 

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 10:18am

"‘The Queen of Versailles’ Broadway Review: Kristin Chenoweth’s Electric Performance Can’t Save This Overly Ambitious Slog.." Variety

"Yet the play’s positive components do not make up for its faults. Broadway is the wrong medium for this story. Musicalizing the story does little to ground the audience in Jackie’s world and instead pulls and stretches the tale, when the themes alone could speak for themselves. The narrative would actually soar if it were given feature-film treatment. Additionally, adding the musical element further bastardizes this tale. Except for “Caviar Dreams,” the third song in Act One, none of the other selections are particularly memorable ... by the second act, the nearly three-hour-long performance began to drag, especially as the show’s tone shifted drastically..."

This is being characterized as "mixed"?  

Updated On: 11/10/25 at 10:18 AM

[binau]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 10:19am

I agree it's surprising but it doesn't feel uncommon for successful directors to have a a dud or two or three along the way. 

Hal Prince had "Merrily" (even if the revival redeemed itself) and "Bounce" that were nothing like the success of Follies, Company, Sweeney etc

Michael Grief had If/Then which (as much as I enjoy parts of it) is no "Rent", "next to normal", "Dear Evan" or "Grey Gardens". 

Jamie Lloyd's "The Tempest" was poorly received. 

Most artists who have achieved great things have had failures too.

[Kad]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 10:25am

I think it's telling that Arden is largely spared much of the criticism in the major reviews. 

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 11:53am

I've been looking for The Wrap's review from the typically disagreeable Hofler. Turns out he's...positive.

‘The Queen of Versailles’ Broadway Review: Kristin Chenoweth and Stephen Schwartz Reunite for a MAGA Musical Nightmare

Florida’s billionaire class gets the musical it deserves with socialite Jackie Siegel

https://www.thewrap.com/queen-of-versailles-broadway-review-kristin-chenoweth-stephen-schwartz

[ER765]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 12:00pm

Kad said: "I think it's telling that Arden is largely spared much of the criticism in the major reviews."

Meanwhile he should be blamed just as much as the rest of the creative team. His work here is atrocious. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 12:55pm

If I’m not mistaken, the show was Arden’s idea or at least he’s the one who took the idea and got everyone involved? I swear that’s what I had heard. 

[Up In One]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 1:08pm

Amazed the aggregators rated many of these reviews middling. Guessing they didn’t want to pile on but I am only counting three reviews that are not negative. These headlines alone are enough to let you know they didn’t like it.


Kristin Cheoweth gets lost in hall of mirrors 

Queen of Versailles is the only show on BWay that has everything but Yul Brynner and it remains a puzzlement.

Kristin squandered in tone deaf musical

Kristin’s return to Broadway is an ostentatious mess

A Broadway musical as empty as the mansion it portrays 

Kristin goes all out to save musical from foreclosure

Gilt? Or guilt? I can’t decide.

Kristin returns to Broadway in dire musical that needs a wrecking ball

Queen of Versailles; Kristin Chenoweth vehicle breaks down

Le Grand Sigh for The Queen of Versailles

An unfinished musical about an unfinished house 


Kristin Chenoweth in the Big House 

Queen of Versailles Doesn’t Quite Rule Over Broadway

Ver-sigh feels misguided and very much still under construction

Kristin Chenoweth’s electric performance can’t save this overly ambitious slog. 

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 1:14pm

Kad said: "Obviously, even the worst show will have its supporters, and sometimes those supporters just happen to be NYTimes critics, but it is strange it’s happened multiple times in a year. FWIW, I do think it’s generally a good thing for a critic to go out on a limb and defend a piece they like even if nobody else does.

But the word of mouth on this show is incredibly poor and I don’t think it’s once broken even at the box office. An outlying rave from the Times won’t reverse its fortunes."

This. 

I normally appreciate Laura Collins Hughes' takes, but this one is so loud and so wrong. 

At the end of the day, it won't matter though and one positive review won't save this show from floundering.  The writing's on the wall, no matter how long the producers keep it running.

Updated On: 11/10/25 at 01:14 PM

[OhHiii]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 1:22pm

Helpful to remember that the aggregator in question is owned by Seaview…

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 1:24pm

Jordan Catalano said: "If I’m not mistaken, the show was Arden’s idea or at least he’s the one who took the idea and got everyone involved? I swear that’s what I had heard."

I think it was Lindsey Ferrentino's idea first and then she sat down next to Michael Arden at an event and pitched it to him then, but he was on board fairly early on.

[CoffeeBreak]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 1:24pm

Kad said: "I think it's telling that Arden is largely spared much of the criticism in the major reviews."

He should not be.  There is much wrong here but...  His inability to coallese the writing team, focus the show itself as well as the staging with so much money and a ton of time (that most shows never get) is astounding.  It's the first time he has taken a show and developed it, even with an easier task of it being an adaptation.  He's definitely to blame with the two others.

Updated On: 11/10/25 at 01:24 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 1:25pm

We get it, girl, you have a weird vendetta against Michael Arden for some reason. 

[CoffeeBreak]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 1:27pm

chrishuyen said: "Jordan Catalano said: "If I’m not mistaken, the show was Arden’s idea or at least he’s the one who took the idea and got everyone involved? I swear that’s what I had heard."

I think it was Lindsey Ferrentino's idea first and then she sat down next to Michael Arden at an event and pitched it to him then, but he was on board fairly early on."

Even MORE reason this is his mess - 

Updated On: 11/10/25 at 01:27 PM

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 1:28pm

Coming across that savage salmon one-liner from Holdren has got me wondering just how exactly she’ll slam CHESS on Sunday. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 1:31pm

Michael Arden is one of the best directors working in musical theater today. The man is only 43 years old he’s got a LOT of brilliant things ahead of him, I’m sure. Yeah he didn’t hit a home run with this one but especially in theater we don’t “cancel” folks for one misfire. And this shows flaws can hardly all be attributed to him. 

[binau]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 1:37pm

To be fair when it comes to new musicals part of the role of the director does appear to be shaping the material. So for example Michael Grief heavily influenced next to normal and Dear Evan Hansen. Hal Prince shaped kiss of the spider woman etc. 

I guess it might be hard for Arden to tell Schwartz he needs to do better and even if he did, that doesn’t mean he can. 

I don’t think Michael Arden can be thrown under the bus for this but I don’t know if he gets a free pass either. 

But the man is clearly talented and has successfully staged so many revivals, and has had success with new work so I don’t think this show really means much negative for his career. 

[CoffeeBreak]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 1:39pm

Kad said: "We get it, girl, you have a weird vendetta against Michael Arden for some reason."

Nope, none of us who have this opinion above do.

It's just obvious.   People fail, shows fail - but it would be incorrect to 'cancel' everyone around the project and not include the person leading and SHAPING it.  Also no one is canceling anyone.  It was 'telling to you' that he was not implicated in some reviews (he was in many) - we stated he should have been in those reviews and why.  It's fine.

Updated On: 11/10/25 at 01:39 PM

[CoffeeBreak]

Posted: 11/10/25 at 1:41pm

Has Holdren always been with Vulture?