Did we see the same show?

Theatre truly is subjective.

It was an abomination and a travesty of both Forster AND Merchant/Ivory.

Everyone so loud...so vulgar...so AMERICAN!

I just went and read your review. You saw more in "Ernest Shackleton Loves Me" than I did, and I saw more in this than you did. So we're even!

I respect the thoughtfulness of your review, not to mention your above-average writing, so rare in reviews. I am also gratified to see a reviewer supporting a new and ambitious work, even if it's imperfect, rather that just picking it apart (which is so easy to do). But one thing that is also all too easy to do is to proclaim that a show should cut this number, and cut that number. Be assured that there are real reasons every song is included, and that cutting songs has complicated repercussions throughout the show which perhaps you have not considered as well as the creators who have probably lived with this show for years. Also, by the way, the love song you deride does not, in fact, contain the phrase "I love you." You are mistaken. Check your program. And keep up the good work.

I read reviews of the San Diego production of this same work--and the reviews praised a particular second act song called "Frozen Charlotte" as the best thing about the production.

That song was not part of the Seattle production.

Yes, yes...we, the viewing public can't know all of the things behind a complicated theatrical production--but, in a show that can run closer to 3 hours than 2.5, suggesting that some songs can be cut is not out of bounds.

Personally, I'd start cutting with "Non Fate Guerra" and I probably wouldn't stop until "Let It Rain" (in which Hobson was quite strong)--oh, that first act is a mess.

BUT...the song that truly ruins the story is "Everything In It's Rightful Place." That song, or perhaps the performance of that song, made me think that this particular Lucy Honeychurch actually belonged with Cecil Vyse.

I was so looking forward to this show and I tried to keep my expectations in check, knowing that it would be different from the book and different from the movie. However, I didn't expect the show to totally miss the whole point of either of them.

And the audience I saw the show with seemed to agree--being one of the few 5th Avenue shows I've been to where the audience didn't offer up a reflexive standing ovation. Indeed, I'd say the audiences for "Lone Star Love" and "Whistle Down the Wind" enjoyed their experiences more than they seemed to enjoy "A Room With A View."

Having had the privilege of seeing this show twice--first mid-way through previews on 4/26 (an ill-fated matinee marked by two unexpected interruptions) and again at the final performance on Mother's Day--I agree with the generally positive sentiment of Frizzelle's review but differ slightly in some details.
1. To me, Act 1 originally seemed a bit too long and drawn out, a point made in other published reviews even going back to the 2012 San Diego production. In the final performance, however, I felt the Act 1 pacing was improved, which may have been due to some cuts or adjustments in the production (such as those Christopher suggested) and/or my greater familiarity with the plot and songs.
2. While I thought Louis Hobson was very good in his role as George, I actually liked Laura Griffith as Lucy even more. Not only was her singing voice stronger and clearer than his, but her facial reactions while silent helped to further convey the inner conflict between her true spirit and the external pressures of aristocratic English tradition. Louis/George simply went from sullen at the beginning to exhilarated and lovestruck for the rest of the show, and seemed almost a bit stiff at times.
3. I'm completely baffled as to why Frizzelle wasted half a paragraph ranting about Lucy's getting up from the piano during her rendition of the excellent "Ludwig and I." Was he really under the illusion that Griffith was such an accomplished pianist that she would be playing directly on stage? The fact that the reviewer was startled seems more a tribute to the magic of the stagecraft than something to fault.
4. To me, Frizzelle misses the mark in his criticism of the song "I Know You," in which George earnestly tries to convince Lucy that Cecil will always perceive her as an object in his own image, while George sees her true persona. I think it would be out of character for George to be funny and satirical about Cecil at this moment of his own desperation to win Lucy. Besides, Cecil has already succeeded as his own caricature throughout the show.
5. I concur with Frizzelle's praise of Director David Armstrong's willingness to take risks and to make adjustments that can improve the show. The "Splash" skinny-dipping scene is so tastefully uncomfortable as the show's major highlight that it produces the most rousing audience reaction and is practically worth the entire price of admission. An example of continuing improvement is that the show's ending was significantly changed over the course of the run. At the 4/26 performance, the last scene briefly suggested that Lucy and George had later returned to Italy and finally shared the original "room with a view," which seemed to be inspired by the Merchant/Ivory movie's ending. I thought that point was not clear on stage and could be missed by anyone who had not recently watched the movie (as I had). By 5/11, the entire "return to Italy" scene had been cut, and the curtain came down right after the climax of the final song, "There Is a Yes." This seemed more effective, as indicated by the quick and sincere standing ovation from the audience. I look forward to hearing more Broadway-bound news on this show.