Paper Monitor
10:42 UK time, Wednesday, 20 June 2007
A service highlighting the riches of the daily press.
When news filtered through that the Lord of the Rings musical was to be the most expensive production ever to grace the West End, the sound of theatre critics sharpening their fangs could be heard all the way from Soho to Middle Earth.
There's nothing a sharp-tongued reviewer likes more than a £12.5m quarry.
As with other big "events" of Theatreland's past, like Equus (Daniel Radcliffe naked), The Graduate (Jerry Hall or Kathleen Turner naked) and The Blue Room (Nicole Kidman naked), this is the time when a critic knows he or she can nail page three (even if naked orcs don't merit it, the price tag does).
It is unlikely the phrase "theatrical Viagra" would have stuck in the memory if it had been hidden in the arts supplement midway down page 36.
So, with the scent of immortality (and tasty hobbits) in their nostrils, how did the critics respond?
Sure enough, "HOBBITS DIE A SLOW DEATH" says the Daily Telegraph, which notes "the language is flat, portentous or twee, and there is barely a moment that makes you gasp".
Quentin Letts in the Daily Mail derides the cheesiness of it all - "MIDDLE EARTH WITH MORE CORN THAN KANSAS". He says that with all the cod accents, "no wonder the North Sea is empty". Errr, what was that about cheese, Quentin?
But there are voices of content, such as the Times - "THE RINGS REGAIN THEIR WONDER" - which applauds "a fantastical environment that draws you in and grips you from beginning to end". And the Guardian is similarly satisfied.
It all leaves Paper Monitor very confused as it digests the write-ups and weighs up whether to book a seat.
Perhaps the Telegraph, as always, gives the best steer - "My 14-year-old son hated it even more than I did, tittering at the inanities of the script."
If a young teen hates it - the demographic most likely to be a Tolkien purist - then maybe us mere mortals will quite enjoy the spectacle.
The 
