See it if You have a friend in the cast.
Don't see it if You value action or story and want text with any meaning. I don't think anything really happened and most of the dialogue made no sense.
See it if you enjoy a confusing plot that you have to try to make sense of. Enjoy a silly story with crazy stuff happening.
Don't see it if you want a show with a simple story, easy to follow, with continuity. You don't like a silly play with ridiculous things happening Read more
See it if you are desperate for any play that doesn't make much sense nor deals dramatically with nonsense.
Don't see it if want an enjoyable time at the theater with some sense even when dealing with nonsense.
See it if You don't mind being lectured at the end after a boring 2-hour play.
Don't see it if Just don't
See it if if you like a confusing and satirical affirmation of our indifference to world happenings.the play is for you.
Don't see it if if you don't have the time.you have to wait until the second half of the play to get some concrete answers as to what is being conveyed.
See it if you like absurdist humor and don't mind a confusing play that has a couple good performances.
Don't see it if you struggle with plays that border on pointless and tedious. Absurdist intentions don't carry through and end up meaningless.
See it if Theater of the absurd (Pirandello, Ionesco) interests you and you are willing to look past the bad directing, and bad script.
Don't see it if if you want quality on almost any level. Some of the time the acting was good, but the overall feel was very amateurish
See it if you like comedies
Don't see it if you are not a fan of comedies
"An ambitious if rambling dystopian satire...There are many inspired moments and examples of smart writing within the play...But these periods of focused lucidity tend to get watered down by a convoluted plot that wanders into more tangents than you'll encounter in an entire semester of a geometry course...It does make for some rough going for an audience trying to absorb the free-flying loose elements of the play, which cries out for trimming and editing to make it more accessible."
"A tedious melange of the absurdist styles of Genet, Eugène Ionesco, Jules Feiffer and Dr. Seuss...There’s a lot of speechifying and violence, but really no discernible plot. It’s all supposed to be ominous and funny. It isn’t. The play’s ending is just as indecipherable as what came before it. If Blake had shaped the material into a more coherent form, it might have been entertaining, but he hasn’t...The actors cannot be faulted for overplaying their cartoonlike characters."
"The play is meant as an allegory for the current U.S. government. But for an allegory to work, it must capture our imagination and investment within its own context. This play never earns our investment because we have no idea what any character in the play needs or wants...Theatre of the Absurd should always offer us something to root for...The needs of 'Perversion's' characters are completely unintelligible, and so spending 130 minutes with them becomes something of an exercise."
“So wrongheaded on nearly every level...The company, god bless ’em, commit 100%...Characters warble and argue and pontificate endlessly about—well, one is never quite sure…At once leaden and glib, the dialogue constantly ties itself up in Gordian knots of faux profundity, leaving the actors, bless ’em, with little to do but go really, really, big. The result is a show that strains to be 'Waiting for Godot' but ends up 'Waiting for Guffman.'”