I don’t know what motivates one to write a blantantly false positive review of something like a play. But there should be punitive damages for writing false reviews.

Tickets aren’t cheap. If one makes a purchase decision based on a review published in a newspaper and there is large public consensus that the review does not even remotely resemble the quality of the performance, the writer and newspaper should be liable.

I feel so cheated. To say it was amateurish is a gross overstatement. I wanted to walk out after 15 minutes but waited an excruciating 75 minutes to intermission. I saw many others walk out the door too.

The standard motivating factor (even worse for motion pics) is if you're the only critic in town giving a glowing review, guess whose name appears in the marketing for the production?

quote:

✯✯✯✯✯

Joel Nobuddee of the Smalltown Gazette calls Lame Play a stunning masterpiece.

Did you also go to the Greatest Showman thinking it was a biopic? I took my kids and from the poster and the original reviews/previews we had no idea it was a musical. It was ok but not how I would have preferred to spend a saturday night with the family.

Sorry you got bamboozled. I try to check multiple reviews because the papers generally can't be trusted. It takes a while to figure what their reviewer likes and doesn't like and how your sensibilities align or don't.

someone should be punished for having a different opinion than you?

because the fact of the matter is that how much one likes a play/movie/book/painting/sculpture/song/band is completely subjective.

Just to be clear, I don’t think this is just a difference of opinion. Regardless of storyline, I think there is general consensus of bad acting and casting if something is really bad. This was really bad. A number of people walked at intermission.

Think of pee wee herman cast as braveheart. That’s how bad this was.

And yet reviews were 5 stars.

Had a similar experience this weekend, but without the misleading reviews.

It was so bad and awkward that afterwards I remarked I felt like we'd just sat through a performance at the Birdcage in Tombstone.....

Reviews are subjective, so . . .

You also have to understand the context. The reviews quoted in the ads are going to be positive. A local theater piece, especially if it is partly amateur, is not likely to be crucified in the reviews in the local paper, no matter how dreadful. That isn't the New Yorker reviewing a Broadway show. A local paper reviewing a travelling production company probably won't pan something. They need the ads.

I get reviews are subjective. But I don't think this is a case of subjectivity.

But agree that there is probably a (business) context here that is influential. But that's what I mean -- there is a conflict of interest between the reviewer, the newspapers, the venue and the company. There's no integrity anymore. Just blatant lies.

All I know is that I want patronize this particular theater company anymore. Period.

So the theater has its equivalent of gun magazines?