TheBigSick The screenplay and acting performances are just shocking. Not a single actor of the ensemble cast gives a bad acting. The line design and the line delivery are simply speechless. The play takes a comedic and fantastical approach to a very serious and deep subject, making itself rather accessible to the general audiences.

DJWinston What a thoroughly excellent production of Angels this NT Live broadcast showed us. I wish I had seen it in person. Because last week I ventured to New York City and saw the current NT production there, both parts, all seven-and-a-half hours, in one day. And it blew me away. Many have said the Neil Simon Theater they are in on Broadway is larger and therefore more suited to the larger visual aspects of the production. Can't compare that since I didn't see it live in London, but I can tell you that the staging works very well in their New York theater. Although the sets are still minimal, they carry meaning of their own and work to enhance the production beyond the words and music. (Yes, there's music, and The Music actually got a Tony nomination up against the full-fledged musicals in the category.) I was blown away time and again by the imaginative use of the sets and visual effects which never seemed intrusive and always served their purpose.Almost to a person, the actors were terrific. I had some problem with blandness and sameness in Denise Gough's playing of Harper, and the new Joe is played by American actor Lee Pace, a fine actor but I just couldn't decide if he had been miscast or if he just hadn't had time to find his character's nuances yet. And unfortunately I saw it in NY on a Wednesday when Amanda Lawrence was out; program note says Beth Malone is filling in for Ms. Lawrence's roles on Wednesdays.But I personally found all of the other actors gave performances for the ages: Mr. Garfield was simply riveting from his first graceful drag appearance (more on that later) to his final man-up speech to the audience seven hours later. He had me hanging on every word he uttered and every move he made. And I was skeptical, believe me. But after about half an hour Mr. Garfield had won me over and I never looked back. And Mr. Garfield got the single most perfect in unison and loudest laugh I have ever heard in a large theater. I soared to heaven and back on that one. Nathan Lane I was also worried about going in, having only known him from his great comedy performances. But he was as chilling a Roy Cohn as you could ever want. And was, believe it or not, also very funny. (As was Mr. Garfield in the midst of all his suffering and delusions.) James McCardle and Susan Brown and Nathan Stewart-Jarrett were superb in the main and subordinate characters that they played. None of their characters was given short shrift. All stood in high relief.But I notice in the other three reviews here there are a couple of effeminophobes who had major problems with Mr. Garfield's interpretation of Prior Walter. As did some reviewers. I did not. There are many ways Prior Walter can be played, and Mr. Garfield chose to commit to an interpretation that can find support all over the place in the text and I found him exhilarating to follow along his journey. Prior was a drag queen, after all, as were Louis and Belize. And as no two drag queens comport themselves the same "offstage", there are many ways these three characters can be played. So you can hardly fault any moments of drag-queen softness or drag-queen movement or drag-queen bitchiness from any of these three.And I would point you to some advice Tony Kushner (the playwright) gave to Jason Isaacs (not even playing Prior, but rather Isaacs was tackling Louis in the original production) way back during rehearsals for the first production of Angels in 1993. And I quote from a 2017 article: "Isaacs recalls the 'invaluable' lessons that Kushner taught him about playing the character of Louis when he shadowed him for a few days in New York. One was to ignore anyone in rehearsals that found being effeminate offensive or unattractive, all of which he says happened. 'Louis and Prior were in your face screaming queens and it was everybody else's problem to deal with it,' he says. Another was that the character of Louis wasn't Kushner himself. 'He was bloody close, though.' And importantly, 'that nobody has the answers in life.' But I will say that in the NY production Mr. Garfield seems to have toned the drag down a bit from the NT Live performance in many serious moments, but he still screams like a little girl when the angel is breaking in to see him, but it's perfectly in his character and perfectly hilarious. By the end I was in awe of both Garfield's and Nathan Lane's deep dives into the extremes of their characters whether those extremes flatter or repulse. It all worked for me.Fly to NYC and see this one before July 15. You won't be disappointed. Eleven Tony nominations, most ever for a nonmusical play. (And as I say, they even have a chance to win Best Original Score (Music and/or Lyrics) Written for the Theater.)

ozjosh03 Angels in America is up there with the greatest works ever written for the theatre, but this NT production is seriously sub-standard in many respects. While the brilliance of Kushner's work shines through, this is nevertheless a limp, one-note, caricature-filled interpretation of his plays(s), unimaginatively designed, and directed, for the most part, like a middling sit-com. Andrew Garfield is mostly annoying as Prior Walter. He gives a performance that is fey and whiny beyond anything in the script, with too little of the strength and intelligence that is also there. He reduces the part to just another bitchy queen, seemingly more inspired by a camp Bette Davis impersonation than any real three-dimensional gay man. I also question why the director chose to depict three of the four main gay characters as flaming, sibilant, wrist-flapping sissies. Two of the four are wearing nail varnish throughout. Now, seriously, do two of every four gay men you know wear nail varnish? Do any of them? And does a gay man covered in lesions, shitting blood, dying of AIDS really take time to re-apply his nail varnish?! It's just one detail, but it's a telling one, in that it is typical of the way this production reduces characters to caricatures, rather than goes for complexity and nuance. The main saving grace of the production is Nathan Lane, who is appropriately chilling and revolting as Roy Cohn. His speech dismissing his AIDS diagnoses and denying that he's even gay, shows exactly where Donald Trump learned his "fake news" tirades (Cohn was Trump's lawyer and mentor). But Lane's star turn is not enough to make this a worthwhile interpretation of Angels. At the end of it all I just wanted to watch the HBO adaptation of the plays again, so that that superb version would wipe this one from my memory.

imizrahi2002 i usu don't rate stuff...i leave it to the rest of the commentators. unless i differ from the opinion stated and need to try and balance the scales...i saw this in NY when it was first presented...i saw it in late '98 or '99. i wasn't particularly moved. i'm not homophobic. in fact, i was a nurse during the epidemic. in the Bay Area...Oakland, San Francisco, Berkeley, etc. i was working with aids patients when it didn't have a name. and the Filipino nurses refused to work with them(they were fired. you shouldn't be 'in this business(which isn't a 'business')' if you don't know what you signed up for. it just didn't seem to go anywhere...and ended before it began, it seemed to me. i didn't see pt 2. until the HBO production. which i wound up thinking was one of (emphasis)the best pieces of work i've ever been lucky to be exposed to...maybe Pacino's best performance. and that isn't 'saying a little', considering the breadth of the man's career. it (emphasis)was different than the play, though. easier to do in film 'format'...real sets, etc. and it made perfect(emphasis on the purr) sense to me. it also introduced me to Jeffrey wright, who i thought matched Pacino step for dramatic step. those two were burning up the stage with the scenes they did together, Pacino and wright... SO... when i got to this, was seated and a)found out it was a London production and that Nathan lane was playing the Pacino part...i have to say...i was skeptical...i KNOW lane's a great actor. i just thought they would be impossible(emphasis on the poss, which, for whatever reason/s the IMDb program took issue with as 'shouting'. i wish people knew the diff between shouting and emphasis. and this is a site that contains dramatic works by the thousands. how do you spell irony?) shoes to fill... but lane seemed to have no problem warming up to the role...the man's been around a long time...he shows how a great actor becomes the character...till you don't even notice the actor anymore... another recognizable face is Andrew(?) Garfield...another great performance. but, honestly. EVERYthing/body in this production really nailed their parts...some playing a few of the roles...Denise Gough...where DID she come from? i can't believe i haven't, somehow, noticed someone THIS good before...i guess, maybe, she does television? if you're at ALL on the fence as to whether to go see this? i don't know what to tell you to illustrate how much i understand about storytelling. so either trust me that when i say something is worthwhile, it is...or lose out on an extremely moving experience, if the material sounds at all interesting to you. i entered this last comment as a caveat to those offended by 'foul language'(not a bird to be seen! 4 hrs and not even a chicken dinner!) or homosexuality(plenty of those).