I mean, maybe I'm wrong. But I used to write these, for this paper, and this review looks exactly like something I would have written if my friends put on a show that I wanted to like but didn't.
I really enjoyed this play. It was delightfully campy, extremely funny and very well written. Allie Pratts performance blew me away. What a wonderful young actress. I can't wait to see more of her.
I don't get the comments here. The review reads to me as very positive.
e.g. "Theater Schmeater's decision to reintroduce itself with a zingy Rawley play was a smart one, showing the world that other than moving a mile west, it hasn't changed at all."
But even if that reads "qualified" to you...so what? A reviewer shouldn't just say what they subjectively loved or hated. A damn good reviewer can look at something, describe what it is, and say whether it succeeds or fails at its own goals. "liked it; didn't like" is pathetic. If Kiley didn't personally love this and still wrote these very favorable things, that proves he's a smart reviewer with an ability to objectively consider a production.
Sounds like he liked it just fine, is up-front about it being pulp and is juggling a theater review with a interest piece about Schmee's new space.
And it's one sentence.
e.g. "Theater Schmeater's decision to reintroduce itself with a zingy Rawley play was a smart one, showing the world that other than moving a mile west, it hasn't changed at all."
But even if that reads "qualified" to you...so what? A reviewer shouldn't just say what they subjectively loved or hated. A damn good reviewer can look at something, describe what it is, and say whether it succeeds or fails at its own goals. "liked it; didn't like" is pathetic. If Kiley didn't personally love this and still wrote these very favorable things, that proves he's a smart reviewer with an ability to objectively consider a production.
Who could have a problem with that?