Sherlock Holmes

This was so awful we had a hard time staying until intermission. The couple sitting in front of us left 5 minutes into the play. The acting was horrible. I'm not sure if David Arquette was drinking heavily before the curtain went up or he just had no interest in learning his lines before hand. Some of the actors were speaking so softly you couldn't hear them, while other actors were screaming their lines. Also, I've seen many plays about Sherlock Holmes and at no time was he laughing hysterically and making stupid, silly jokes. It was just awful.

Very good performances by all the performers. Enjoyed the story and the comedic relief throughout the presentation.

The play was hard to follow and I couldn't understand what was happening most of the time. I was a little disappointed!

Very disappointing show. It was difficult to hear the actors; staging was over done -- too much scenery and lots of movement detracting from show. No real plot.

Weird, poor production values, choppy storyline; the play could have used more clever lines and even a little suspense believe it or not for Sherlock Holmes. David Arquette's acting was fine as was the entire cast but the play itself left a lot to be desired in that it didn't tell a story but was a compilation of several of the Holmes stories. Yes, we get the whole cocaine, morphine thing but seriously spinning lights A very big waste of money.

I received the Complete Sherlock Holmes in the 8th grade and have read the whole cannon at least 10 times across 40 years and followed tv series and movies, so I know my Sherlock. The technique of mixing elements from different Holmes stories (used in the excellent BBC series Sherlock), was attempted with this play, but definitely failed. Holmes was miscast, mis-costumed (his coat was beige, thick, and nothing like the Sherlock Holmes classic!) and spoke in arch affected tones that made him hard to comprehend. Instead of the beloved lean, intense, piercingly intelligent and idiosyncratic Holmes, this Holmes seemed foppish, giggly, was shorter than Watson, and rather plump. The device of casting Moriarty as a kind of Mephistopheles was cute, but ultimately meaningless. The staging was brilliant and interesting, but the comedy was weak and full of tiresome puns, the plot was convoluted, and "un-mysterious"-- there was nothing that made me even care who was murdered, or why. My companion and I said we were sorry for the children in the audience for whom the play must have been bewildering, as there would have been nothing similar to the Sherlock Holmes they might have read or seen...the play might have been mildly entertaining to a person who knew nothing about Sherlock Holmes....

The settings were clever and the costumes were great. However the sound was not clear to me and the accents made it difficult to follow the story and enjoy the dialogue. Plus there is a dark element with the drug use that is true to the original AC Doyle stories but off putting to this audience member with my spouse and adult children. Something else didn't click that I can'tput my finger on. The audience clapped politely at the end but did not stand. Sadly, just an average performance.

I've NEVER walked out on a show. This show was my first. The "star" was "acting in complete monotone. Dropping the ends of his sentences. With little to no enthusiasm as if he was trying to rush through the lines in order to go home. Yes, it was THAT bad. A complete waste of $140 for two. Do yourself a favor in whatever city it goes to next... Stay home and save your money!

Didn't realize it was a farce. The acting was terrible. They tried to copy "39 steps" and did so poorly. Arquette flubbed his lines at least a half dozen times. Avoid it!

The camp factor was high for this show; much more than expected for the usually witty repartee of a Sherlock tale. The actors failed to hit their comic timing, often more concerned with keeping their accents in check or remembering lines than actually delivering the message to the audience. What was fantastic was the staging and technical efforts here -- from lighting to costumes to choreography, it was a feast for the eyes, making up somewhat for the mess of a script.

Bad story, poorly written and badly directed. Tried too hard to be a comedy that it lost the rest of the storyline. Arquette was a monotone performer equal to that seen at a Middle School production. Skip this one.

Do not waste your time & money on this sophomoric play. This is the worst theater experience since a high school production seen years ago.

Should've left at intermission, Could've gotten over the bad British accents, but, except for Moriarty's character - no one had any stage presence. The kids at Roosevelt High School were doing a better - and more passionate job with Annie that week.. Interesting, flashy tech

I had hoped this would have been a phenomenal show, but left disappointed. Arquette was the highlight, and the set was amazing, however, the script left much to be desired. Too many plots and it just wasn't good. We purchased our tickets full price, but if you still have a desire to go, I would purchase via discounted tickets.

This was my first time seeing a stage play of Sherlock Holmes and as a huge fan of the detective, I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed it from start to finish. David Arquette played a very comedic and maybe even more eccentric Holmes, and that is what made this great. The entire cast was excellent, especially Kyle Gatehouse as Moriarty. It is a comedy which was different, but in a good way. Highly recommended for anyone who likes Sherlock Holmes, comedy and a great night out!

overall the play was "OK". David Arquette wasn't the star of the show, Dr. Moriarty was better. Plot was ok, mixture of classic Holmes stories combined.

It was something to do on a Saturday afternoon but wouldn't go again.

For us a Sherlock fan this was an Awful interpretation of Sherkock and company. Acting was over done to create the looney depiction of Sherlock. The director created a Sherlock that was on a Jr. High School level. We left at intermission . A waste of out time and money. The Warner TgeTer and the costumes outshines the acting and goofy carton characters portrayed.

we left at the intermission --that says it all. Uninteresting and poorly acted.

The acting and the stage production was so bad that we left after the first act, along with a few dozen other attendees.

I hate to say this , but a terrible play. I thought it was just me, but at intermission we heard others with the same thoughts. I was just happy when it was over. We thought about leaving at the intermission, but hung in there. Not sure why.....

The show took me away for a few hours of fun, very enjoyable and light hearted. Lots of laughs and old time shtick. Great job guys

Both the story and the actors were entertaining. Both my wife and I enjoyed the show.

Slightly strange, hard to follow, and nothing that really stood out as enjoyable.

This was a very well produced production that kept you interested all the way from beginning to end. Actors (all of them) were excellent - costumes were really good and I loved how the set was managed and manipulated from scene to scene. I also learnt a few things about Sherlock Holmes that i never knew before - that I found very intriguing, which led to more research on the character and the author of the books Sir Arthur Doyle. Definitely worth going to see.

Sherlock was awful. Fully unforgettable except for how poorly acted and scripted it was. Lots of audience snoozer and leavers at intermission

If you know and love Sherlock Holmes, don't spend your money on this play. Every of the familiar characters with the possible exception of Mrs. Hudson is played as one sort or another of a simpering fool. That includes Holmes, Lestrade and Moriarty. The action is interrupted periodically with odd intervals of what might be called dance, but is more aptly described as a stage full of people moving with exaggerated, jerky motions that do nothing to advance the story. There is a plot of sorts, but it is overwhelmed by arch references to the titles of Doyle's short stories, Holmes' use of cocaine, his high regard for himself and the like. When you see the characters pretending to ride in a carriage by holding a stick and bouncing up and down oddly, the only conclusion is that this production simply didn't have enough of a budget to obtain the most minimal of props. It's no wonder that this show is only spending a week in each city; they want to get in, get your money and get out before the reviews are published and people begin demanding their money back.

My wife and I very much enjoyed Sherlock Holmes with David Arquette. We liked David Arquette's portayal of Holmes, giving him a sense of humor. We also liked the settings (images projected on backgrounds rather than hard sets) and the costumes.

Too much mugging by Sherlock and the show was frenetic confusion.

I am a big fan of David already but I must admit I was not sure how he would pull off such a different roll as Sherlock Holmes. I'm incredibly excited to say he was MARVELOUS. I enjoyed the performance - smiled and giggled throughout it.

The whole play felt like a Broadway musical without music. Too much was going on, the intertwined stories were hard to follow.

I definitely enjoyed this show a lot! The dialogue was witty and funny, the mystery was engaging, and the staging/props was really creative and modern. I would recommend this for sure!