Overrated plays

Yes, it's a very English play with a mythic resonance that would be lost elsewhere (some of the Broadway audience were particularly confused - no, not that Jerusalem).

More than anything people's likes and dislikes (which is what these are, to call something 'overrated' being a form of self aggrandisement), reveal more about that person rather than the play/show. I know that I don't appreciate plays that put 'issues' to the fore for example, which reflects my belief that people matter more than ideology (as I dislike ideologically led people intensely, that's most politicians for a start!) 

Fwiw I'm very English (know my ancestors going back to 1066, that kind of thing) and I found Jerusalem boring.

You sound perhaps more Norman French than English.

The criticism of Jerusalem is a bit unfair, yes and I am sure many on here will agree that Mark Rylance is a one of a kind actor, who also elevated Farenelli and the King and Boeing Boeing from a very average plays to something more appealing. Whoever takes over as Rooster, when and if Jerusalem gets revived will always be unfairly compared to Mark Rylance, I am sure there are other actors who could have originated the role of Rooster and gone on to get excellent reviews.

Jerusalem has a cracking plot twist at the end, which always makes for a corker.

No one is really criticising Jerusalem though, just naming it as an example of a popular play they don't personally get.

As I said, you have chosen a Scottish forum name for yourself ("Duncan") and if you are Scottish you are less likely to be receptive to the traditional English themes of Jerusalem which would explain your lack of interest in them.

duncan @honouredguest - please let's keep the conversation on the topic of the plays rather than making judgements on posters themselves.   

Our rules include:

I too booked the Cut on the basis of Ian McKellen and was then somewhat baffled, it was in my early theatre going days though so I think I had more patience or less to compare it to at least and was excited to be at the Donmar but it hasn't sent me running back to see more Mark Ravenhill.

King Charles III

Plotting that makes no sense, very little action that matters, characters straight out of 'Spitting Image'. Fine if it's just a laugh, but some people seemed to think this had serious intent.

There are lots of plays or authors I don't like, so I avoid them now knowing I am going to have a grim evening. But art is, of course subjective and the plays I dislike others will enjoy.

I took the title of this thread to mean plays that are/were hugely commercial or artistic successes which seem overrated to individual posters.

So for example The Habit of Art with Richard Griffiths I found very disappointing due to the fact it reunited The History Boys team of author, director and star and expectations were too high. But I would not think it qualifies for this thread as it was not a huge artistic or commercial success.

War Horse of course does qualify and although I thought it was very cleverly staged and spectacular at times it wasn't especially a good play. So many times the production or the cast make up for weak material.

The Weir - already mentioned - successful but very dull IMO with no expected climax to the piece despite being "well acted".

But for the most part it is about personal taste or opinion. I suppose if a play is a commercial success it is not overrated by most folk.

Look Back In Anger. I can understand its importance but it is a really dire effort. Worst John Osborne I've seen by a country mile.

Me too!  I read somewhere that he wrote it in 16 days sitting in a deck chair and I'm like, yeah, I can imagine that.  I find him so misogynistic.