What to say about … The Wizard of Oz

Kind reader, spare a thought for the shoppers and strollers of Oxford Street this Tuesday afternoon past. Many of them, we fear, may have been victim to the sight of an enraged Charles Spencer, the Telegraph's theatre critic, rampaging through the capital's premier retail district, humming "We're Off to See the Wizard", as he himself relates, "through gritted teeth". If he sounds like a man possessed, perhaps it's fair to point out that he was off to see the Wizard – or, to be precise, the press night for a new musical adaptation of The Wizard of Oz, an event to which he seemed not to be looking forward.

Toto is, also quite literally, no longer in Kansas. He and all the other characters from Frank L Baum's children's classic can now be found on the stage of London's Palladium theatre, in a production adapted from the 1939 film score by Harold Arlen and EY Harburg, with a few new numbers from Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice.

Critics have mostly agreed on two things: that the production lacked soul; and that, in writing as much, it was open season for every Oz-related metaphor in the book. "[T]he paradox of the evening," writes the Guardian's very own Michael Billington, perhaps with his little finger raised to the corner of the lip, "is that it suffers the same dilemma as the Tin Man: it might have been so much more if it only had a heart." The Times's Libby Purves agrees: the show's "technology, polish, and scientifically calculated hype", she argues, end up "drowning the magic". Henry Hitchings, writing in the Evening Standard, is slightly more forgiving – but only just. "The story is lucid and well-paced," he proffers, "though the technological wizardry occasionally obscures its inherent magic."

Hitchings is more unconditional with his praise of the show's lead: 18-year-old Danielle Hope, who plays Dorothy, and who won the part through a BBC talent contest. She, says Hitchings, "makes a winning impression. Her performance combines innocence with easy charm, and her voice soars." He goes on: "It's a vindication of the TV casting show – a phenomenon readily mocked, yet capable of unearthing a likable, credible new talent."

The Sun's Jenna Sloan went even further. "She knows she has huge ruby slippers to fill," – boom, boom – "reprising the role made famous by Judy Garland in the 1939 movie classic. But judging by last night's performance," continues Sloan, who has moved suddenly into italics, "Danielle will ensure the Lord has yet another smash on his hands."

Others weren't convinced. "Serviceable" was how the Independent's Paul Taylor described Hope, while the Telegraph's Spencer thought her merely "competent". Hope, he writes, "lacks the heart-catching vulnerability of the young Judy Garland". For some bloggers, such an argument was merely academic. For Little M, who blogs at Mummy's Little World, "the true star of the show was Toto!" Why so, you might ask? Well, for starters, says Little M, "there was a REAL dog on stage!"

Except, if the write-up from Quentin Letts in the Daily Mail is anything to go by, Toto wasn't just played by one West Highland terrier, but four. And what a performance they gave, says Letts: "numerous doggy entrances and exits were performed without straying, scratching or so much as a hint of cocked leg. Some very creditable barking was done bang on cue, too."

But Toto's performance did have unexpected side-effects, says the West End Whingers. He – or they? – tended to be "marvellously, completely unfazed by the drama or spectacle going on around him". In turn, write the Whingers, this meant he'd be "fascinated by the odd smell on a floorboard or a glimpse of something in the wings" – and, as a result, "Toto's honesty showed up everything going on around him as the fragile tissue of lies on which theatre is built."

But in the end, who really cares what the critics think, eh? Not even the critics themselves, apparently. Oz made £10m just in pre-sales, and perhaps as a result, Purves has "a helpless sense that it's a … predetermined hit". Billington concludes that regardless of the show's quality, "people will go to see both the winner of the TV talent contest and to luxuriate in the sumptuous visuals", and that "in the end the show will be critic-proof". But is it Charles Spencer-proof? Just about, it seems. While much of the 1939 movie "had me metaphorically reaching for the sick-bag" – hence the gritted teeth, perhaps – "I did at least manage to sit through it without throwing up in the aisle."

Do say: We're off the see the wizard!

Don't say: … but we've heard he's lost his whizz.

The reviews reviewed: Ain't got no soul.