An independent show guide not a venue or show. All tickets 100% guaranteed, some are resale, prices may be above face value.We're an independent show guide not a venue or show. We sell primary, discount and resale tickets, all 100% guaranteed prices may be above face value.We are an independent show guide not a venue or show. We sell primary, discount and resale tickets, all 100% guaranteed and they may be priced above or below face value.
Loved the show. Had all my favorite bits of Broadway — great performances, funny, romantic, pulled at the heart strings and gave me that heart soaring feeling where for a moment I think “yes! Yes the world can be better!”.
Sorkin does wonders with the book. I liked his not so magical take on the story, since after all the story of King Arthur is always morphed and influenced by the writer. And the relevance of the same law applying to everyone and the difficulty of keeping true to ones ideals rather than give in to cynicism could not have been more timely.
RTP from New York, New York
AMAZINGLY UPDATED CLASSIC
I’ve seen the show twice during previews, and I’m going again! For Sorkin fans, his update to the old tale is brilliant and unmistakably Sorkin; the magical, mystical element of the original script are gone - replaced by a grounded, intelligent, and witty King Arthur who sees the future of Camelot much as one would expect a young Jeb Bartlett saw this country when West Wing began. Add a soaring musical score with a very impressive orchestra and 3 leads whose voices give you the chills, and you leave the theater wanting to return. Perfectly rewritten and directed… a must see!
Drew from Connecticut
SIMPLY WONDERFUL! A MUST SEE!
Sher’s Camelot is extraordinary. The staging, book, costumes, and cast are perfection. Anyone who enjoys musical theater must see this show!
AW from New York, New York
SMART UPDATE OF A CLASSIC
I thought this show was brilliant. Camelot has always been a favorite of mine, but I felt uneasy about the character of Guenevere who embodied all sorts of awful misogynist stereotypes--she was silly, flighty, and brought down a noble experiment by sleeping with someone. Aaron Sorkin's rewrite as well as Philippa Soo's excellent, spirited portrayal made this character work and brought the whole play into the 21st century. This is now an ideas play--with some excellent discussions of rule of law, limited government, and the birth of democracy. To be fair, I am already an Aaron Sorkin fan, so I am inclined to like that sort of thing. But I thought he hit the right balance between intellect and idealism. The costumes were beautiful, the music was lush, the acting was excellent (especially Andrew Burnap as a young, brainy Arthur.) If you are on the fence, give this play a shot. It's my favorite I have seen in a long time (and I see a lot of theatre).
T. Webber from Tucson, AZ
CAMELOT - BEAUTIFULLY REFRESHED!
I saw Camelot in previews at the Vivian Beaumont at Lincoln Center last night. It's a great production. The leads are all very strong, the Lerner & Loewe music is sung by the actors and played by the orchestra beautifully! The staging is captivating on the set. I sat on the side in the orchestra but could see everything really well. I don't feel like I missed anything. However, it's very long and is in need of some cutting, which I'm sure they will do (have to do!) before it officially opens in April. The only other negative I would say is that Gueneviere's lines are very snarky (funny (!) but snarky) so it's hard to see how King Arthur could love her. It's kind of questionable that he does until the end of the show. So, that makes his choice between saving Gueneviere and saving Camelot less convincing. To be clear, Phillipa Soo is great as Gueneviere. I think it's the lines themselves in the show that forces her to play the role as a kind of cutting and not very nice person. She sings beautifully as always and plays the role as best as possible given her lines. The other leads are very strong as well. The "book" aside it was definitely a really fun night out at the theater. I'm glad I chose it because there are also a lot of other great shows on Broadway to choose from and I was only in NY for a couple of days.
Sally Williams from New York, New York
I MISSED LERNER AND LOEWE.
Having performed Camelot with both Richard Burton and Richard Harris, I rather know this show inside and out. I was so excited to see it again after 35 years. I started crying the moment the overture began, remembering the beauty of Camelot and the fine actors with whom I worked so many years ago. I loved the snow that gently fell in the beginning and had high hopes for a glorious production. I left the theater happy and satisfied, but with a few caveats. I’m afraid that Arthur left me longing for Burton’s Gravitas, and Harris’ exuberance and physicality. This Arthur is a fine young actor but where is his excitement and terror over meeting Guinevere for the first time??? The tempo was just so slow and matter of fact in I Wonder What the King is Doing Tonight. The lyrics dictate that he is both excited and afraid and the tempo should reflect his racing heartbeat. I felt non of that and his performance never really took off for me. Even the most beautifully written Excaliber speech at the end of Act I just fell flat. The original lines are some of the finest ever written but they were cut and replaced with a dryer political monologue that did not crescendo. That speech should bring the the house down. And then came the gorgeous Phillips Sou whose opening recitative was sliced and diced. Why did you cut her frenzied prayer to Dr Genevieve??? It sets her character up! She was clearly directed to be snarky and a strong female but in so doing, we never see the love that must exist between her and Arthur for this story to make sense. And like others, I mourned the loss of magic and Nimue (which I played) and the gorgeous song, Follow Me! Lancelot saves the show with his exquisite singing and acting. The show was screaming for a burst of color and flowers and Springtime in The Lusty Month of May, but instead, we only saw a nice maypole and static choreography. This show is not hard to love. I think it should just be trusted to do what it has always done… give the world a glimmer of hope that we can all be equal and honorable and that human love is messy and complicated but will not stop us from dreaming big and filling us with hope… something we all desperately need right now. Leave it alone. Trust in the material is Lerner and Loewe wrote it and give us beauty and magic!
Tom J from New York, New York
A WONDERFUL PRODUCTION--ALMOST THERE
Wonderful refresh of script and reset for contemporary values around capable woman and sometimes clueless men. Second act was stronger than the first.
Main criticism: Relationship between Arthur and Guenevere should be more nuanced with more space for the audience to suspect they might truly love one another. It was wonderful to hear all the songs strongly performed with the orginal lyrics but cast in a contemporary light. Of all the the songs I would have liked "I wonder what the king is thinking tonight" to have been bolder. A huge crowd pleaser, standing ovationi on my night. I'm hopeful with a few tweaks it will be a great success.
Karen Crawford from Avon m, new york
I loved the show. i planned a NYC TRIP to see play preview opening night while some people didn’t like the staging i going it interesting it was wonderful hearing the music and phillips Soo was fantastic. agree that lead for Arthur could have been stronger been stronger
He just seemed so young and Lancelot seemed much older
This is the first time I’ve been to Lincoln Center for a show and it was wonderful. i don’t think that there is a bad seat in the house
Kaongs from New York, New York
AN UPDATED CAMELOT
This production is terrific, but not without some room for improvement. Aaron Sorkin modernized the dialog - it’s snappy, funny at times and definitely “updated”. The score is sumptuous and the orchestra is just a treat. Andrew Burnap’s Arthur is interesting - it’s a very nuanced performance that’s funny, insightful, passionate, idealistic, sincere and raw all rolled together. I would not be surprised to see a Tony nomination coming his way. Phillipa Soo is a delight and her performance is memorable as is every song she sings. Yes, she is snarky at times, but clearly she was told to act that way. That approach is a bit off, in my opinion.
Jordan Donica as Lancelot has just an amazing voice and he sings the stuffing out of his songs, but I feel he’s horribly miscast. I just didn’t see any chemistry between him and Phillipa and - spoiler - when they hook up during the show, it was a “wait, what?” moment for us. We just didn’t get that relationship at all. The thought she hated Lancelot? Sorry to say that and this is by no means meant to take away from Jordan’s performance and singing voice, but the lack of chemistry is quite problematic here.
BUT. tonight (04.05.23), we saw the show again and the Lancelot understudy, Mathias, played the role and it’s like a whole different show. Really. Mathias and Phillipa definitely have a connection - much more so than Phillipa and Jordan - and the story was just more believable, IMHO. Maybe even a bit steamier? And Mathias' Lancelot was less angry than Jordan’s. At times, I was little scared of Jordan. Sorry!
Jordan's song, C'est Moi, is meant to be a bit cheeky, but he delivers it quite seriously, which simply escapes me. Some lines in the song should be delivered in a self-deprecating or humorous manner, but Jordan's was quite forceful and, at times, frightening. Mathias' performance of the song was much lighter and enjoyable. More fun. I would go and see Mathias again in a minute.
Other times during the show, it seems like some of the knights are playing their roles angrily. Why is that? Part of me was thinking that they all need to relax a bit. Smile a little. Laugh a little. Have more fun here. Stop scaring people! The knights were almost TOO angry that Guenevere's carriage stopped at the bottom of the hill instead of the top.
My hearing is fine and that means the sound was off, at times, during the show. Some lines were delivered so quickly that they were missed. Yikes.
And finally, the orchestra was a treat. How awesome to hear the score delivered by one of the largest orchestras currently on Broadway.
In closing, I don't think this show is the train wreck that others are describing. But, I would (1) immediately recast Lancelot - like right away - maybe even postpone opening night, (2) lighten up Guenevere's character (does she like anyone?) and (3) fix the sound system.
Neil G. from Philadelphia, PA
A THOUGHTFUL RENDITION, BEAUTIFULLY SUNG
The updates to the libretto and absence of magic did what Sorkin intended -- strengthening the relevance to modern times. The magic wasn't missed, but the second act still drags in relation to the first. The three leads all did a great job, both with singing the lovely score, and fully-realized characterization. The only drawback was that when Guenevere says she always loved Arthur it comes out of left field -- not sure if that's a problem with the direction, interpretation by the cast, or the libretto. But, overall, a very stirring, thoughtful rendition of a classic.
Paul G. from New York, New York
GOOD, SHOULD BE GREAT
The original Camelot was a masterpiece. This was a shadow of what it once was. King Arthur did not come across as kingly at all. His voice was adequate. It was not impressive and the acoustics were totally off in the entire theater. I could hear multiple people complain they could not ascertain the language. It's almost as if they forgot this is Broadway and people expect better. The actors who played Lancelot and Guinevere were amazing and redeemed the show entirely. The ending was enormously anti climactic and missing key parts that the original accomplished so much better. My wife and I agreed, this was a major disappointment (as excited as we were it is back, we are unsure of how long it is going to last without some changes).
Sara Smith from New York, New York
PHILLIPA SOO SHINES, THE REST OF THE SHOW IS AWFUL
Whoever thought Aaron Sorkin would be able to revise the messy original book was sadly mistaken. The show is worth seeing for Phillipa Soo’s outstanding performance. The rest of it is slow, dull and filled with flat characters. The show is at least 30 minutes too long and has no sense of historical context or the characters’ identities.
Emily from New York, New York
I saw Camelot years ago with Robert Goulet as Lancelot. I didn't expect anyone to compare to him in singing "If ever I should leave you" I listened to Jordan Donica sing the song before I attended the play. I thought that he did a great job.However, when I attended the play on April 8, at least 4 of the actors were not in their original roles. Jordan Donica was not there. The understudy did a poor job singing. I had so looked forward to seeing this. It was a major disappointment. Phillipa Soo did a wonderful job, and has the voice of an angel.
Chris Woods from New York, New York
The singing was first rate. The acting was very disappointing. The lines had been learned - which is good for a play in its early days - but they were delivered in just that way. Learned lines. And the lines that were supposed to be funny - and they really could have been funny delivered skillfully - simply died and fell away. Three hours is a long time to sit in a theater, but not if you are fully entertained. This version of Camelot could be entertaining - but a lot of effort is going to have to go into its delivery (especially on a very sparse set) if those three hours are going to pass engagingly. At present it feels like three hours of a slightly bored dress rehearsal. On the plus side, despite the theater being full, it was easy to get a drink before and during the interval. And not being in the heart of Times Square its easy to get to and from in a taxi or Uber.
Peggy Outon from Pennsylvania
WHERE WAS THE MAGIC? WE WAS ROBBED!
I had so looked forward to seeing Camelot. This production does not work…the set is much too spare, but the main problem is the script was determined to make the lead characters ordinary…Arthur did not pull the sword from the stone because it was loose - phooey! he did call Guinevere his business partner - ouch! They had no chemistry…he was much too young and slight a figure. Morgan Le Fay as a scientist, not a sorceress…really? It was a thin and too often joyless rendering of what has had pathos and beauty…and boy, is it long! The script is really pretty terrible….Aaron Sorkin has written some of best TV ever, but I hope he will stay away from theater classics…
Bertha Bauer from New York, New York
A DISAPPOINTING CAMELOT
This is a joyous, overly long, amateurish performance of a nuanced and beautiful musical. And, btw, a musical means just that, a lot of singing and communication through song. There was very little dance, Arthur was too young and slight and lack passion. Soo as Gueneviere was feisty but overly snarky. The saving moment was Lancelot. Skip it and watch the Richard Harris performance on UTube
William M. from Boston, MA
WHAT A DRAG
The music dragged, the script got too preachy at times (thanks Aaron Sorkin), and I agree with a previous comment about some of the leads sounding like they delivered lines that were learned rather than lived. The minimalist set didn't help set the mood, either. That said, the first act worked well and the singing was competent but the second act needs...work.
Mark from New York, New York
SADLY IT WAS BORING AND FLAT.
I agree with all the reviews posted above. The casting is odd. King Arthur looks like Evan Hansen. No Gravitas. The pacing is torturous. Slow and plodding. The arc of their love triangle is jarring and comes from left field. The magic of Camelot is missing. This feels like a really great area college production.
Wes Blauss from New York, New York
IN THE BLEAK MIDWINTER
It opened in bleak midwinter, black-and-white, minimalist set, snow, and black robes. I thought, "Oh, wow! Medieval Wales! This could be interesting." (My wife thought, "Oh, gross! They've drained the color out of a favorite musical." We were both misled. It turned out there was no love triangle, no great romance, no real tragedy. Arthur and Guinevere's political marriage is a business arrangement, and while Lancelot lusts for her, she resists until the moment Mordred captures them in the act. The songs (still beautiful if you overlook Fie on Goodness, Fie, which was always grotesque) clash with the lack of romanticism. One of my favorites, What Do the Simple Folk Do? turns out not to be a last ditch attempt between two souls trying to hold onto a love gone south, but a dare from Guinevere who thinks that her business partner may claim to come from humble roots but is really just another nobleman pretending to have the common touch. Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave broke our hearts. These two are simply failing to communicate. I did enjoy some of the updating, inc. the excision of Nimue (no clue what they were singing as Merlyn died, it didn't sound like the original lyrics) and the possibility that Morgan Le Fey was a scientist ahead of her time (my wife didn't like that either, and, of course, Morgan wasn't Mordred's mother, Morgause was!)). There's a touching final scene between Arthur and Guinevere that suggests they loved each other from the start but couldn't give voice to their love, but we didn't believe a word of it. Nowhere in the preceding action did we see a moment when she was anything but snarky and he was anything but the butt of too many jokes (about the French, about 99,999 people loosening the sword in the stone ahead of him (Clever!), about being knocked out... "I'm not quite dead yet!") We DID think the leads all had wonderful voices and the acting was adequate to the script, but we came expecting a production akin to South Pacific which we rate as the best musical theater we've ever seen/heard in NYC. We left disappointed, and our 14-year-old grandson has no clue why the Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot triangle is considered the greatest of the medieval tragic love stories. He may never read The Once and Future King now! Now that's a tragedy.
from New York, New York
KING ARTHUR AS PLAYED BY CHANDLER FROM “FRIENDS”
Oh, where do I start? Sometimes I leave a show and say, “oh well, that wasn’t so great. Let’s go to dinner.” But honestly, I felt completely insulted by this show, and it was torture to sit through. First of all, updating the book with current snarky and sarcastic dialogue for some lines and scenes, but keeping the traditional Arthurian language for other scenes made absolutely no sense. When Arthur said “yeah, people say that I’m underwhelming in person,” I was like, yup, that’s about right. He played Arthur as an absolute doofus, like a more simple-minded version of Chandler from Friends. And Phillipa Soo, who had an amazing voice, played Guinevere as a shrew. She treated Arthur horribly, and he didn’t seem to like her either. At the end of the play, Guinevere and Arthur both confess that they each fell in love with each other from the moment they met. Really? Then WHY did that it take all of those years for them to acknowledge that? She was rude and horrible to him from the very beginning, and never indicated in the least bit that he that she was in love with him. Instead of her love inspiring this grand idea of a round table, and “might for right,” in this production she supposedly comes up with the idea herself while she treats Arthur like an idiot who can’t think for himself. And without that real love that they should have had for each other, the tragedy of her affair with Lancelot just doesn’t work. Also, I didn’t believe for a moment after King Arthur acted like such a bumbling idiot, that he would all of a sudden know how to fight the unbeatable Lancelot — with two swords no less. (And why did he fight Lancelot in the first place ? It should have been the third Knight, which is what causes Guinevere to ultimately fall in love with Lancelot when he brings the Knight back to life.) There was absolutely no chemistry between Lancelot and Guinevere. The staging consisted of Guinevere walking to a corner and looking out at the audience wistfully while speaking to Lancelot standing ten feet behind her. It was soap opera direction at its worst. And supposedly Morgan Le Fay slept with Arthur as a 15 year old boy and then gave birth to Mordred? First of all, that’s very creepy. And all of these years king Arthur wrote letters to her EVERY WEEK giving her money and inviting them to live in the castle, but she threw the letters away and gave the money away to charity? For what reason? And what the heck was him having to write down 10 numbers on a piece of paper all about? The sets were nonexistent, the colors were drab, and the acting was amateurish. I felt like I was watching a high school production gone awry. I want to wash my brain of this production so I can love Camelot again.
Bill from New York, New York
A TOTAL MISS, BUT ODDLY ENJOYABLE.
Saw last night (3/28). Must admit I enjoyed the first act, largely because it was just so good to hear that score again after all these years. Having said that, I agree with most of the above comments. The nasty, unlikable Genevieve( but great voice) the wimpy king, the absurdity of stripping the magic out of a medieval legend, the preachy, heavy-handed politics of all of Sorkin’s work shoved into a delightful ancient myth. The spectacular, witty score had to do all the work, but they stripped out two beautiful songs, and then replaced them with utterly forgettable noise. Sorkin has no idea what he’s mucking around with.
. Then I remind myself that I did actually enjoy the first act.
Joyce Knoller from New York, New York
WHERE IS THE HEAT?
The Queen as written, has one emotional setting—mildly angry with a side of moral indignation. The chemistry with Lancelot (understudy) was so weak, it was undetectable from my loge seat. Handsome King is now an “aw shucks” Everyman—bland. There was virtually no set, unless dragging in chairs and benches counts. And the opening attempt to create snow covered ground read as a lumpy gimmick. Too bored to return after intermission.
P Burkholder from Tucson, Arizona
MISSING THE MAGIC
As a life long lover of Lerner and Lowe and Camelot, it’s difficult to admit the current revival is empty of joy. The actors are well cast and sing beautifully but what were Aaron Sorkin and the director/producers thinking when they stripped the tale of love, lust and magic? Surely there is a way to honor a feminist sensibility without making Merlin merely an advisor and deciding that Morgan le Fay’s being a witch cannot add to the mystery.
And somehow the dilemma of Guinevere’s love for both men is stripped from the tale.
The songs are glorious but the joy and sorrow are missing.
J. June from New York, New York
DISAPPOINTINGLY STAGED AND PERFORMED
Surprisingly bad! This was a real letdown for us, as we’d seen the great LCT production of My Fair Lady a few years back and are fans of the original Camelot. We splurged on seats in the third row, which unfortunately only provided us with an up-close view of a tepid, half-hearted performance. None of the actors seemed fully committed to the story or their roles, and it felt like there was nothing at stake in the love triangle. The script wasn’t cohesive and Arthur and Lancelot (understudy) were miscast. On the positive side, Soo’s singing was great. I agree with the other reviewers that this performance had the energy of a dress rehearsal and the quality of an amateur (even high school) production—it just doesn’t work. The minimalist set and costumes felt lazy and cost-cutting rather than intentional and artistically driven. We left feeling drained and relieved that it was over rather than inspired or reinvigorated by attending our first Broadway show post-pandemic.
Joyce from New York, New York
Yes I missed the costumes and the sets, but I was more put off by the “contemporary” dialogue. In an attempt to be fresh and I guess more politically correct, I honestly think the missed the essence of what was so charming and engaging about this show. I’m a big Sorkin fan but I think he badly missed the mark here- too talky, too snide at times, too many “ isn’t this clever?” remarks. Please bring back something closer to the original!
Kathy McFarlane from Fort myers, Fl
HATED THE REVIVAL
The songs were beautifully sung. The updating was horrible. King Arthur says “shit!”? Guinevere is called “Jenny”? I was embarrassed for Phillipa Soo having to sing and dance to The Merry Month of May like a semi-hooker. Lancelot sings I Loved You Once in Silence instead of Guinevere, and I thought that was OK, until the morning after when Jenny says she never loved Lancelot, it was a big mistake. They went to war over her mistake. Horrible! Go back to the original story. Was visiting from Florida and deeply disappointed.
Leslie from New York, New York
STRANGE CASTING AND CONFUSING BOOK
I somehow am one of the few attendees of this show who hadn't seen the original play or the movie, yet I was familiar with much of the music. I actually found the sparseness of the set to be interesting and I did like the costumes. Phillipa Soo was charming and her voice is beautiful. As for the rest, as a novice to the story, I was honestly confused as to what was going on. Another reviewer said King Arthur reminded him of Evan Hansen and yes, I agree! I kept getting Ryan Seacrest vibes. My friend who was with me was very familiar with the story and said the original King Arthur was a powerful presence and there was great love between he and Guenevere — no evidence of that here. And Lancelot left me cold, as well. Apparently in the original, Camelot was a lovely place under the expert rule of these two. Here, there is no sense of what they're doing and even where they live and how they are perceived. I somewhat enjoyed it, but now just want to see the movie.
Loving Papa from New York, New York
A DISAPPOINTING MISS OF WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN
I had such high expectations for this revival and, perhaps, then, the fall seemed all the more tragic. The score does not soar. The performances are flat. The vocals pale in comparison, not rich, not rewarding. The revised script is no improvement; in fact, the changes have you disliking Arthur and, more so, Guinevere, who is truly unlikable in the choices made. The pushes for humor are anachronistic, finding no home in Arthurian legend. The setting and the lighting are reminiscent of a production of Beckett. The costumes cannot decide or define what Era Camelot is set. Unfortunately, what could have been is what will linger. How I wish...
Brooke from North Carolina
THIS WAS NO BRIEF SHINING MOMENT
I was so thrilled to have great seats for the show. I was singing that glorious music as I headed to the theater. Within moments, it was clear that the show failed. The romance, the joy, the magic were all gone. The music was great, but seemed jarring given the modern dialog and bland relationships among the characters. Arthur came across as boring and a little stupid; Guinevere was cold and analytical; lancelot was lacking spark. Don't misunderstand, they all sing beautifully, but they seem out of synch. One example, Lancelot has none of the spark or hint of arrogance that both Robert Goulet and Franco Nero conveyed. WHY would Guinevere be attracted to such a stck?
All in all, it was long, sad, and definitely not a brief shining moment. I was so disappointed.
Zena from New York, New York
ONLY SEE ACT 1
Is there no director? Arthur keeps his arms stiff at his side seems to be uncomfortable, maybe because there is no set! The sets are high school play level. Lancelot was great, the best in the show. The tough feminist role for Guinevere was not a good ,not fresh, not new just misunderstands the Arthurian legend...and She did not create the Round Table! Her voice is wonderful and you stay to finish act 1. Skip Act 2 Change the name of this ..admit its taken from Camelot but so far below the original in every regard. Skip it and buy the DVD with Harris!
Marco from New York, New York
Where are the sets? Where are to costumes? Where are the stupendous voices? Philippa Sue was in great voice, but acting-wise, they were all terrible. And WHY OH WHY OH WHY does Arthur (and other members of the cast) have American accents? In Medieval England? After stupendous musical productions like South Pacific and My Fair Lady, what was Bartlett Sher thinking? The casting of smaller roles--Mordred (terrible) and Morgan Le Fay (seems to have come from the Addams Family)--is an embarrassment.
I know the show is in previews, but the technicians need to re-mike the whole production--we had great seats and we have perfect hearing, but we missed half the words. Overall: disappointing, disastrous, depressingly directed.
Ramilda from New York, New York
ARE THEY KIDDING?
Yes it’s in previews, but OMFG, this is worse than a dinner theatre production in Sarasota FL. Barely any set design, boring costumes, problematic sound system, American accents, miscasting, budget production values, Sher’s worst directing effort. No wonder Aaron Sorkin had a stroke!
Judith Royston from Maryland
I was so hopeful for this show but it was such a disappointment. The book really did take the manic out of the show. It was a snarky feminist Guinevere, a wimpy king and a decent Lancelot who needs to inhale without snorting. A horrid distraction from an otherwise strong voice. The first 3/4 of the show were heavily embellished with Sorkin's politics and the last bit was given the bums rush. Strange choice s we’re made that added nothing to the story-having Lancelot kill ( or knock out )Arthur instead of the third knight so when Lancelot brings him back Arthur does not witness the change in the relationship between his wife and his friend. Merlin gets knocked off instead of going away to “the cave by a sapphire shore) with the loss of a beautiful song. Morgan La Fey is a scientist. No one would ever follow this Mordred. Last night I saw another show and the man sitting next to me said,”Don’t waste your time and money on Camelot”. I agree!
from New York, New York
A TOTAL DISASTER
I see all the new productions each and every season. As my final show this production was saved for last and I was deeply disturbed by this totally lackluster performance on every level from directing, set designs, and acting. I wanted to leave at intermission after squirming in my seat but thought I would give it another try. The second act was worse than the first. I loved LCT's productions in the past (South Pacific, The King and I, and My Fair Lady) but this was an all time low in recreating Lerner and Lowe's beloved classic. Shame on you for allowing this to be presented in such a disgraceful production.
A. Torelli. New York from New York, New York
WHAT A DISASTER
I or dered the tickets for my husband's birthday. What a terrible disappointment! It was the worst show we have seen in 40 years. The sets,costumes and every other aspect left a great deal to be desired. IT WAS TERRIBLE!!!!
from MHughes. Monroe, New York
DOES NOT EVEN DESERVE A SINGLE STAR RATING.
Mediocre production I have ever seen on Broadway. I have seen just about every musical on Briadway in the last 45 years and sadly this was the worst show I have ever seen.
In fact, I wouldn't see this show even if Lincoln Center paid me. It is utterly boring, poorly acted, cheap sets, garage sale costumes, and a totally uninspiring cast. Lincoln Center should refund everyone who had to sit through this painful show.
KJH from NJ
AWFUL. DISAPPOINTING. JUST PLAIN SHAMEFUL.
This was the worst musical I’ve seen in years. Poorly cast and just amateurish in so many ways. I’ve seen high school productions that were better. Shame on Sorkin. What is Phillipa Soo thinking being part of this shameful production? Arthur and Lancelot were poorly cast. Set was awful and uninspired.
Randel Cole from New York, New York
A MESS OF A PRODUCTION
I saw the musical last night in previews. I had seen the LC production of South Pacific back in 2008 and thought it was terrific. With similar expectations, I awaited this new production. Unfortunately, this new production with a heavily doctored book is a huge disappointment. The plays tone is unresolved. It feels like a cross between a bad sitcom and Monty Python. The first act ends with a lame admonishment that is banal. The second act feels like a different play and disjointed. The production design is unimaginative and cheap looking, lacking any sparkle. And NO round table! Unfortunately, the problems do not end there. The characters are miscast and have no chemistry. As for the singing, the voices are pleasant but they don't project and many of the lyrics are unintelligible. Iand then there's the length of almost three hours. It's not the time that's the problem because I go the opera and they run long as well, but because there's no pathos, boredom results. Well, you may say, surely you must have liked the music. Well, yes but as they placed the stage thrust over the out, the instruments were miced and all the richness and sounds that should envelope the theatre is lost. I write this with reservation as I was hoping for a great evening. Sadly, I suggest that you save your money and watch the movie.
MRC from Queens, New York
A PAINFUL AND QUITE EXPENSIVE THEATRE EXPERIENCE
Camelot has brought new meaning boring!
$358.00 for tickets + $49.00 for parking was certainly highway robbery for what was the equivalent to a middle school production, to which it would have had appeal.
Why was it rescripted,?
Richard Harris and Robert Goulet may be turning over in their graves
The worst play I have seen in 50 years.
The last scene missed its mark.
The recollection of seeing South Pacific and My Fairlady will help bury this horrible memory.
Renee B. from Philadelphia, Pa
No need to reiterate all the previous posts that echoed our feelings. Having left at intermission to avoid getting back to our hotel at midnight, I feel much better knowing we were not alone in our disappointment. With one week left of previews, I certainly hope this website is being followed in time to make requisite changes. Philippa Soo was the one shining star- as enjoyable as her Hamilton performance fall 2016. Listening to the original album now as we drive home only confirms how lacking this “revival” was for Camelot fans.
Claire Allison from New York, New York
THE TYPICAL IMAGINATIVE LINCOLN CENTER REVIVAL THIS IS NOT.
I have thoroughly enjoyed the rich, brilliant, perfectly cast and conceived Lincoln Center revivals of South Pacific, My Fair Lady and The King and I. What happened dear Lincoln Center? In a word, this production is thin.
For one brief shining moment there was Camelot...in 1960.
Peter B from New York, New York
I agree with all of the negative reviews. Highly disappointing production from beginning (no sets, dark lighting, poor sound, emotionally flat) to the clunky end.
Lzena from New York, New York
MISS THIS ONE
Everything audiences love about Broadway shows is missing here and conspicuous by its absence. One saving grace is Lancelot, the voice not the acting...I didn't think he even liked Guinevere nor did Arthur. No scenery, little dance no passion...don't torture yourself!
Rachel from New York, New York
This show was so disappointing and such a waste of money. I left at intermission, which I have never done before through years of attending theater. It was so boring and emotionless. Except for Phillipa Soo the singing wasn't great either. Also really the whole reason we wanted to see the show was for Jordan playing Lancelot and he wasn't even performing the night we went, and the understudy unfortunately did not have the voice for the role.
Allison Richless from New York, New York
I FELT NOTHING
I wonder if Aaron Sorkin took over directing, casting, costumes and sets from the director... the same director of The King and I, South Pacific and My Fair Lady. It would explain this dark, mis-guided production and Sorkin's having a stroke. (I am very sad about that and hope he has a full recovery).
Phillipa Soo was the bright spot. My husband, who knew nothing about her, said, "There is one person on stage with true stage presence and a Broadway-worthy voice. What's her name...oh here it is...Phillipa Soo!"
Agree, dear husband.
Robert Cioffi from New York, New York
AN UGLY , JOYLESS MESS
Take a glorious musical and rob it of all its magic and romance and you have this astounding slap in the face to Lerner and Loewe
It’s a fitting version for today , I guess.
Sorkin was suffering from a stroke when he wrote this and that may explain the overpowering sense of doom
The set is spare and ugly as are the costumes. And Soo is barely audible
This is a total disaster
If you love Camelot , stay home and listen to the glorious original cast album and watch the spectacular film version
PVS from New York, New York
A FAILURE ON ALMOST EVERY FRONT
Sorkin said he wanted to take out the magic. Well, he succeeded there. By effortfully modernizing Arthur's hopeful effort toward governance based on humanistic ideals rather than power (already present and clear in the original), all Sorkin has done is diminish it. The language is pedestrian and dull throughout, the plot contrivances head-scratching. And the show is dismal on other fronts. With occasional exceptions, the singing is undistinguished, and the performers all seem to be on battery-saving mode. Presumably they were directed this way- they have good credits, and could be appealing. But not here.
Lauren Gezzi from New York, New York
BECAUSE THERE IS NO ZERO STAR
This is so bad! No scenery, little dance, left out great music...Hated Guenevere character so mean girls ! Lance character is only Broadway voice....stay home...this is BAD!
DH from upstate NY
WASTE OF MONEY, TIME, AND....
There is no way better to warn you that you are wasting your money, your precious time and worse of all a waste of talent!
Please note: The term Vivian Beaumont Theater and/or Camelot as well as all associated graphics, logos, and/or other trademarks, tradenames or copyrights are the property of the Vivian Beaumont Theater and/or Camelot and are used herein for factual descriptive purposes only.
We are in no way associated with or authorized by the Vivian Beaumont Theater and/or Camelot and neither that entity nor any of its affiliates have licensed or endorsed us to sell tickets, goods and or services in conjunction with their events.