A-

Critics seem to appreciate this short, poetic work fusing naturalism and Chinese opera, which comes from early in David Henry Hwang's career (1981). Qian Yi's choreography is praised, as is May Adrales' direction, which weaves it all together. The only complaints, such as they are, are that the 70-minute work can't go farther or deeper in exploring the two characters and the world they inhabit. For most, the skillful performances and the interesting themes overcome that shortcoming, though a notable dissent is from the Times' Charles Isherwood, who finds the play "tepid, almost soporific."

B

Reviews prove that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, with critical opinion ranging widely for this somewhat realistic but mostly imagined play about Isaac Newton. From “eloquent” and “fascinating” to “a mishmash of themes and topics that dulls the audience’s senses,” reviewers can’t seem to agree if this play is the apple of their ocular orb or just feels like someone has stuck a needle in their eye.

B+

Given that opening night was 400 years ago, some critics are weary of finding something new to say about this play. But along comes the "dishy" Jonathan Cake, acclaimed Shakespeare director Arin Arbus, and her Shrew from last year, Maggie Siff, and the critics break out the puns: "With Cake like this, who needs icing?" Cake's Benedick, they say, is "a masterpiece of seduction," "appealing directly to the audience with winning assurance." But guess you can't have that and eat it too: Others find Siff "sparkle-free," and fault Arbus for turning her Beatrice into a supporting player.

B

Many critics think that Jesse Eisenberg's second play for the Rattlestick Theater could use a revision or two (their joke, not mine). Though critics almost unanimously thank Eisenberg for bringing Vanessa Redgrave to the stage (they love her layered performance), many critics find the play thin. Another complaint is that Eisenberg's character is too unlikeable. Director Kip Fagan receives mostly positive reviews for the restraint he shows with the play's big reveal, which critics are nice enough not to spoil.

C

Few of the critics rave or rage about The Madrid; most stake out a disappointed stance in the middle. Although Edie Falco is widely praised for her acting in general, in this production many feel that she has been let down by the material. The same goes for Leigh Silverman, whose quiet pacing and humorous use of the awkward does not overcome the issues with the script itself. The key issue, almost universally identified, is that for a production that hinges on an emotional portrait of Falco's Martha, playwright Liz Flahive has not given enough insight into the motivation of the bold act that sets up the plot. It leaves plenty of critics feeling unrewarded. Apart from the crowd is Wall Street Journal's Terry Teachout, who hails it as "the smartest new domestic drama to come along since Amy Herzog's 4000 Miles."

B+

This plucky revival of Donnybrook! leaves few critics spoiling for a brawl. Though one witness knocks the show as "a four-leaf snoozer" (Adam Feldman, Time Out), the critical majority enjoys the "sprightly, boisterous production" and "lively, tongue-in-cheek staging" by virtuoso director Charlotte Moore (Jennifer Farrar, Associated Press). When the dust finally settles, despite a stereotype-laden script and "fakey Irish jigging" (Gwen Orel, Irish Examiner), the cast's hearty singing earns rich applause.

B-

Unsurprisingly, Paul Downs Colaizzo's debut as a playwright draws a lot of comparison to David Mame—both because Mamet's daughter Zosia is in a leading role, and because the he said/she said plot with allegations of rape remind critics strongly of Oleanna. Some respond negatively to the ethos of the piece, callling the characters flatly written and the plot contrived. Other critics, while acknowledging some flaws, still think Colaizzo's voice holds attention. And most critics still enjoy the performances, and all compliment the excellent direction of David Cromer.

B+

Tina Packer's performance-lecture analysis of Shakespeare is mostly received well by the critics. Many find her clear enthusiasm for the subject infectious, and find the performed snippets of Shakespeare engaging and insightful. Some critics find the lecture aspect a little too didactic, or have issues with the way the work has been condensed from its larger five-hour form. But even those critics tend to be interested and engaged with the work in general. The lone dissenter is Scribicide's Aaron Botwick, who says the performance has "a great deal of mass but no density" and doesn't delivered on the promised insight.

B+

The reception for Kirsten Greenidge's look at race and real estate is a bit mixed, with some critics calling it an "emotionally acute" and "classy production" and others labeling it a "dispassionate" and "overstuffed, discursive tale." The Daily News, for instance, calls the play itself a "fixer-upper." Some are engaged by the interracial house-fight, while others yawn, feeling they've seen it before in "Clybourne Park." All agree, however, that the set and lighting design, and Rebecca Taichman's direction, make the play's back-and-forth time-travel work, while the $20 tickets make it well worth the trip to Lincoln Center's newest and smallest stage.

A-

A unique concept—technologically advanced yet cleverly traditional—enchants most reviewers, though a few find the story less compelling. But these are quibbles: Most consider The Man Who Laughs a “thrillingly executed, utterly captivating piece of physical theater,” as Mary Notari of nytheatre.com notes. Beyond the universal appreciation for the play’s magical execution, the talented ensemble is applauded as up to the challenge of the piece, with the equal praise doled out for composer and accompanist Eugene Ma for a “riveting” piano score.