Ben Brantley of the New York Times thought, "This information-crammed, surface-skimming biodrama about the creators of television suggests nothing so much as a classroom presentation on a seven-figure budget. The show certainly deserves high marks for all those traits that exacting schoolteachers hold dear: conciseness, legibility, correct use of topic sentences, evidence in defense of two sides of an argument and colorful examples to support the main thesis. You’re likely to leave feeling that you have just watched an animated Wikipedia entry, fleshed out with the sort of anecdotal scenes that figure in 're-enactments' on E! channel documentaries and true-crime shows. This two-hour play is a fast-moving sequence of reflex-stimulating information- and emotion-bites. It never pauses long enough to find depth in any of them."

Joe Dziemianowicz of the New York Daily News wonders, "Why is 'Farnsworth' disappointing and ho-hum enough to make you want to change channels?" He thought, "Sorkin's framework - Sarnoff and Farnsworth co-narrate the story - automatically adds a layer of distance. And though the play is informative, it's seldom deeply involving. Scenes play out like brief vignettes from a History Channel biopic (the story was originally intended for the big screen) without stirring emotions. No wonder music accompanies several scenes, as in a film, to tug the heart." However, he notes, "Both stars give fine performances, but their characters often don't rise much above one dimension. Simpson is the aw-shucks whiz kid who dreamed of transmitting moving pictures through the air and made it a reality. Azaria portrays the Machiavellian Sarnoff with gravel in his voice and a cocky swagger."

For Clive Barnes of the New York Post, "Sorkin's take on the Farnsworth/Sarnoff standoff would be better suited to a screen, either big or small. Even now, while crackling with crisp dialogue, 'The Farnsworth Invention' often has the air of a clumsy stage adaptation of, say, 'Citizen Kane.' Its very busyness detracts from it as a stage play - plus the fact that all but two of its 19 actors play multiple roles. It all makes for a decent night out in the theater - especially if you can imagine you're watching a movie."

The AP reviewer thought, "this fanciful look at the birth of television is long on exposition but short on qualities that could bring it to life on stage — qualities such as heartfelt, earned emotion, fully developed characters and a modicum of suspense. The results make for a glossy, yet curiously inert docudrama, quite a letdown from the man who has given us such accomplished TV fare as 'The West Wing' and 'Sports Night' and who obviously has a great deal of affection for the medium that made his name. But 'The Farnsworth Invention' suffers from feeling undernourished and overproduced — at the same time."

However, one reviewer, Linda Winer of Newsday, did enjoy the show, calling it, "vintage Sorkin and crackling prime-time theater." She found it, "breezy and shrewd, smart-alecky and idealistic, the quick-moving drama presents two sides to the still-contentious story behind the invention of television. For all the double and triple casting, nobody is generic. Sorkin can pile more details than the mind can process about the mechanic versus the electronic TV. But he makes sure we get it. He also can set the stage for the Great Depression and the moonwalk with a few miraculously brief bursts of information."

(Photo: Music Box Theater)