It’s Only a Play

Went for Matthew Broderick — stayed for Stockard Channing and Nathan Lane who clearly out-​performed their better known colleague.
The plot line is somewhat dull and repetitive. It could easily have been an hour shorter — and should have been. But… Nathan Lane definitely made it worth the rather hefty price of admission. He is excellent in the part — in any part… and Stockard Channing is a gem as well. It is hoped that Mr. Broderick will eventually get his lines down, and that should improve his performance as well. But even that will not save what is otherwise a DOA storyline.

Sorry, but what a waste of an afternoon. I almost felt like there were people planted in the audience to laugh because there was really and truly nothing to laugh about. it was quite awful! Do not waste your time or money!!!

I usually don’t read up on shows before I see them. Between my friend and I, we’ve seen every single musical on Broadway this season, and quite a few plays. All I can say is, this is probably the closest I’ve been to walking out at intermission. If not for the memory of paying actual money for the ticket, we probably would have gone home, cooked plain pasta and watched reruns of Friends. That would have been a vast improvement.
Kudos to Matthew Broderick for somehow acting while having rigor mortis. That must be some kind of achievement. Also, the amount of times Stockard Channing threw out f– and c– words augmented my vocabulary immensely. T.R. Knight was so lovely in person, but his character on stage was unbelievable. Like, I cannot believe him as an actual human being in real life. Mooning the audience and prancing around in a leather kimono? Next.
Micah Stock saved the show with great comedic timing, and Nathan Lane carried the rest of it. Also, a standing ovation??? I got all the jokes but my goodness I only stood up to leave, I can’t believe everyone else thought it was worthy of that. Glad my fellow Unilocalers agreed with me, at least. Oh, and Ben Brantley.

The play draws heavily on its star power, particularly Broderick, Lane, and Channing. That’s not enough to overcome a lackluster story and an ever more lackluster performance by Broderick.
In fact, while Lane and Channing deliver, Broderick really phoned this one in. Somebody said he was just a stuffed suit, and I completely agree. He delivered every single line with the same emotional tone, and more than a few times I had the impression he was reading lines rather than acting.
The story is simple enough, the writer, producer, director, and lead actress, along with writer’s best friend (who is also the actor intended by the writer for the leading role but who turned down the part) and a coat-​check guy/​wannabe aspiring actor are all upstairs from opening night party where they await the reviews. A critic also joins them halfway through. As they await the reviews and then later deal with the reality of the show’s poor reception, they reminisce about the theatre business. I got the distinct impression the story would resonate with Broadway insiders far more than it resonated with the audience.
Channing’s character was a bit overdone, but she has fun with it and was a pleasure to watch.
Lane is the real gem here, taking a fairly lackluster story and making it interesting. Without Lane this would have been a one star show.
The actor playing Freddie Fingers really put his heart into the role, which mostly worked. A few times it was overdone, but mostly it was entertaining. Except in act 2 with the puppet. Wait. What? What the %{* was the puppet doing there? Weird.
Overall, a pretty simple story about a playwright who writes a lousy play and the party at his house after opening night. It could have been 30 minutes shorter. It should have been 30 minutes shorter. And man oh man should somebody wake up Broderick.

Definitely go see this play while Nathan Lane is still in it. He was absolutely brilliant like always. The part played by T.R. Knight was also very good. I cannot say much without giving away the Play, but it’s basically about how people look at Theatre and they make fun at actors, making it very witty and funny. Stockard Channing was also very good. Even though the play is quite long, in my opinion it did not seem long because of it being so well written.

It’s only the worst play ever. So bored the whole first half. I think the play was supposed to be a comedy, but watching the precious minutes of my life being poured down the sewer all because I didn’t have the balls to just up and leave before intermission felt pretty tragic to me.
Here I present to you the formula for writing the jokes in this play:
«(Insert some banality) and (insert name of celebrity)!»
Repeat 100 times and congratulations! You will have written «It’s Only a Play.» Seriously, you won’t have to write a single other kind of joke. Round up some celebrities (really, just anyone who’s famous) for the cast, and presto! You have a Broadway show. And there are people who will pay good money to see it and even enjoy it and laugh. So, if you’re not a very clever writer, you may consider this a possible career path.

I enjoyed the play. It definitely helps if you are familiar with many of the broadway shows. Nathan Lane was great. Matthew Broderick came in later and as others say he was rather robotic. I thought the other acting was good and found parts of it to be very funny. It’s certainly not the best play I’ve ever seen but not as bad as some reviewers have indicated. The play had a lot of hype at first and it looked like it was going to be a sell-​out initially but demand for tickets isn’t that high any more and you are likely to get a ha

I laughed from start to finish. I was expecting Nathan Lane to be amazing and he was. I did not expect T.R. Night to blow me away with his performance. The entire cast was so good. I am not sure if the play got better actors in it since some of these bad reviews but the night we went the show got a standing ovation and the entire audience was laughing the entire night.

I should have come here before I saw this show. At least I got the tkt at TKTS so I didnt pay full price. I agree with the NY Times critic 2.5 hours is 1 hour too long. I left at intermission and I have never ever done that. Nathan Lane played Nathan Lane and I have no idea what Matthew Broderick was doing. Some funny lines but it’s was a self congratulatory tribute to those in the theater.
I go to Bdwy shows at least twice a month and get the references and the script needed much more, which was not delivered.

I really wanted to like this play. With Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick, Stockard Channing, etc., what’s not to like. Well for one, Broderick’s performance, which bordered on catatonic. Of course, I was disappointed that Nathan Lane didn’t perform the night I saw it, perhaps it might have improved the performance, but his understudy did an admirable job with an hour’s notice. Two outstanding performances were given by T.R. Knight and Micah Stock… they’re the only reason there are three stars instead of two. There were some good laughs, but most younger audience members wouldn’t get them. I don’t predict the show being around much longer… which is probably a good thing.

You have to be a New Yorker or up on every star in film and tv to get this play, which we did. A lot of shtick and sight gags. For me it was all about Nathan Lane, he’s a riot. Sound quality in this theater was very poor, we strained to hear everyone in the front mezz.

Perhaps the worst Broadway play I’ve ever seen. Makes me want to renounce having grown up in NYC. Gratuitous humor, terrible timing, clichéd garbage dialog peppered with pointless inside jokes, and horrific acting from a well past their prime cast. Only positive is that I slept through about a third of it. I remain amazed at what tourists will sit through and what pretentious NYers will feign laughter for. This could be the end of Broadway.

Wow! That was really bad. I got the «inside» jokes but the acting was forced. We only had time for one play this trip. I’m so incredibly disappointed it was this one.

The appeal of «It’s only a play» rests largely in the super-​star cast: Stockard Channing of «Grease» fame, Martin Short, Ferris Bueller aka SJP’s hubby, etc., grace you with their presence for two hours.
The plot is quite dull: it’s the opening night party of a new play… the director, producer, cast members, a critic, guy who turned down the lead role, & a coat check boy discuss how the first show went, use plenty of industry terms & phrases, & await the review of their revue. The importance of supporting original Broadway plays is stressed, a contradiction since we are watching a revival!
The set doesn’t change once… actually, there isn’t much action or excitement except for when the coat check boy breaks out in «wicked’s» popular song, «defying gravity.»
Probably the least exciting Broadway show I’ve seen. Meh.

The worst play I have ever seen and hands down the worst performance by Matthew Broderick that I’ve ever witnessed (was he drugged/​stoned??).
The jokes were so dumb, not at all clever, and the whole thing was shticky. The actors played to the audience rather than addressing each other like humans actually do. Martin Short, in his infamous ego-​driven style, was the biggest culprit, squeezing out more laughter by breaking the third wall and eyeing the audience like in a stand up comedy show. Broderick brought new meaning to the term «stiff» — I honestly thought he had hurt his back or strained his neck because he never moved his torso and thus barely animated his thoroughly uninteresting character. I think McNally intended for his character to be more endearing and aloof, neither of which he was. It was bizarre. I also agree with critics that the director character (the indian guy) was overacted to an embarrassing extent.
This is not worth the money, trust me. You’d be better off watching Dumb and Dumber on your couch.

Very intelligent humor. It is written for insiders so you may not get all of the jokes. My sister happens to be an insider plus I go to a lot of Broadway shows so I got all of the jokes. The original cast was amazing. Nathan Lane is at this stage doing a parody of himself which I found great.
The rest of the cast was amazing as well. I didn’t notice a weak link. They all played off of one another really well.
It also helped that we were moved from the balcony to the 5^th row orchestra :)

I’ve appalled by the Unilocalers who have given the show bad reviews, but I’m guessing their either too young to get the jokes, too dim to get the jokes, or (most likely) both.
This is a smart show for people who love great theatre. It’s a larger commentary on what big business has done to the arts, more specifically the theatre, in the last century, and those with a true love of the arts will laugh hardest — they will also get the show’s message in a way I’m betting others don’t.
You absolutely cannot go wrong with this play. The cast (we saw the original cast) is brilliant — we laughed for 2 ½ straight. Everyone was fantastic.
Above all else, and I can’t emphasize this enough, the message really was spectacular. It’s a play about why the theatre, original American theatre, is such an important art form. It’s not something I’d thought much about lately to be honestly, but I left having a renewed appreciation and commitment for it.
This was one of the best New York experiences I’ve ever had.

If you actually liked this play you should be shot. The people who were laughing, and gave a standing ovation should get a life. WORST PLAY I have ever seen. Holy shit was I bored, I wanted to get out of there. The characters were also super annoying and not funny at all.
Money back please.

Hard to write a Broadway review of a show that makes fun of a review about a Broadway show. In fact this show is a revival and makes fun of revivals (Riverdance 11). In fact this show makes fun of everyone and everything Broadway.
In fact it is a Broadway snob’s show. If you don’t get the joke or reference, then you obviously aren’t a true Broadway connoisseur! The writer has updated the original play to give it the modern day feel. Jokes about Lady Gaga are for the young and jokes about Tommy Tune are left in for the old.
So here is the trap. If I say I hate this show because I didn’t laugh or hated it, then that means I didn’t get the jokes and must not be a connoisseur. If I loved it, then I am really a snob! So what am I?
Okay, so I think I got the full gist of about 80% of the jokes. It doesn’t matter. I came to see the all-​star cast. That is what Broadway is all about these days. The girls behind me could have cared less about Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick. They were here to see Rupert Grint from the Harry Potter movie. And then they wanted to get his autograph after the show. Ironically during the play, they talk about the revivals and the need for celeb pull for any show to make a hit and reference Elephant Man which is playing next door starring Bradley Cooper.
The play is a rounded out by Stockard Channing, F. Murray Abraham and Megan Mullally who unfortunately was played by someone else the night I went.
The 2 and a half hour show does drag at times. Nathan Lane is his awesome self and Matthew Broderick seems somewhat bored by this role which seems too shallow for him. In fact his Playbill bio already mentions that he will soon leave the show for a different one. As per usual, a great play has great character roles behind the main starring roles and those of Megan Mullally and F. Murray Abraham steal the show in my opinion. I’ve seen many shows and this one might be in the bottom 50% in terms of depth.
BUT BUT BUT I cannot say this show is a flop. I often say that you should not pass up a chance to see great performers. The opportunity to see such a great cast all on one stage was a treat, so if you love any of these performers, see them now. It is worth at least the ability to say you saw them perform.
Other notes: Yes, a soda is $ 10 and a water is $ 5. It’s only a drink!
Oh, make sure to go to the wall outside the theater and take a selfie with the cast before or after the show!

I guess it’s me, not them.
I didn’t laugh one time. The crowd was laughing, though. I swear that I went with a good attitude. I WANTED to like this play. I WANTED to laugh. But as much as I tried, I just couldn’t find anything funny.
What was the crowd laughing at? What was I missing? Obviously, I didn’t «get it.» When the second act opened, the characters were standing on stage, in various positions around the stage. Immediately, the crowd started laughing. Really? At what were they laughing? I mean, the curtain raised and the characters were standing there, in position. How is that funny?
Like I said, it must be me, not them.