My primary focus is on Medea, which has everything you want in a Greek tragedy in operatic abundance.

This edition of Euripides writings contains the only satyr play Cyclops and the tragedies Alcestis and Medea in a translation by David Kovacs. It includes a lengthy intoduction into Euripides life and works, his role in old comedy and his reception in fourth century alongside a bibliography and a short introduction to all individual plays. The following review will only cover the first two plays.
The Cyclops
Euripides Cyclops is the only surviving ancient Greek satyr play. It retells a well-known episode from the Odyssee: Odysseus time at the island of the man-eating cyclops Polyphem. Only in this version, there are also Satyres and Silenus awaiting Odysseus and his men upon their arrival at Polyphem's island. They got lost in the sea as well and now serve the Cyclop. Odysseus, who asks Silenus for some food, strikes a bargain with him: He will get some of Polyphems flocks in exchange for some of Odysseus wine. Everything happens as it must. Silenus gets drunk, makes inapproriate jokes and the Cyclops enters the scene before Odysseus got any food or has the time to get back to the ship. Polyphem kills two of Odysseus men and lets his servant plate them up. The servant tells the Cyclops:

The limps of your guests, boiled, roasted, or hot from the coals, are ready for you to gnaw, rend and devour, as you recline dressed in a soft-fleeced goatskin

Odysseus manages to escape the same fate by blinding the Cyclops and the play ends with Odysseus, his crew (minus 2) and the Satyrs escaping from the dreadful island.
Appearantly, satyrplays were designed to brighten the audiences mood after seeing the tragedies but exactly how this play would have done that remains mysterious to me. Something about the mixture of jokes, drunkenness, sexual tension and cannibalism does not sit quite right. To me it is harder to digest (pun intended) than the average family tragedy of Aeschylus or Sophocles. But as the Odyssee was so intimately known to the Ancient audience, the cannibalism of this play might not have had the same gory and repulsive effect on it.
Reading this play is certainly interesting and entertaining but it also shows that there are aspects of Ancient Greek culture which are still quite strange to me.

Alcestis
The Alcestis is one of Euripides' early tragedies. It is the final part of a tetralogy and contains elements more reminiscient of comedy, like its happy ending. In it, Euripides tells the story of Alcestis, who dies so that her husband Admetus might live longer. He made some mistake in his sacrifices and was sentenced to an early death by the gods. Apollo, who took a liking in Admetus, bargained with the gods and made the deal that if Admetus found someone willing to die for him, he could escape his fate. The only person willing to do this is his wife, young Alcestis.
Throughout the whole play, Admetus is an annoying and whiney character. He laments his fate, laments that his parents won't die for him and then laments his wife's unfair death. Once her body is taken away from him, the significance of this event becomes obvious to him:

Which way shall I turn? For the desolation within will drive me out of doors when I see my wife's bed and the chairs in which she sat now empty, the floor unswept throughout the house and the children falling about my knees weeping for their mother, while the slaves lament that they have lost so good a mistress from the house.

Can someone please remind Admetus that he made Alcestis take his place? Or that unswept floors are not among the first things to cry about when your wife dies?
However, Admetus once more get's lucky. Heracles fights with death and brings Alcestis back to him. Once he realises who she is, he asks why this woman does not speak to him. Heracles explains that three days must pass before she can. I personally like to think that Alcestis just does not want to talk to her husband and is mad that Heracles brought her back. Why would she choose floor-mopping and an annoying husband over some fun in Hades?
Euripides play to my mind lacks the passion and emotion of Aeschylus' and Sophocles' plays. Admetus relationship to Alcestis seems unbelievable, their lamentatation insincere and their emotions perfunctory. I miss in this play the reason tragedy is so effectful as an emotional practice: The possibility to sympathise with all characters and understand why neither is to blame for the tragedy that unfolded. Nothing about Alcestis return is joyous to me, nothing makes me feel pity for Admetus.

It is interesting to note the huge part that women play in Greek tragedies, be it as a curse to man (Medea to Jason), as a partner in life and in death (Alcestis to Admetus) or as a silent, sexual object useful merely for man's instant gratification (the 'Cyclops').

1)'Cyclops':

"Neptune's one eyed sons, the man-slaying Cyclopes"

This is said to be the only complete example of a 'Satyr play', usually the fourth play of a tragic tetralogy. As I was not certain of the nature of a satyr play, I am glad that I gave Euripides' 'Cyclops' a try. It does contain, being a satyr play, some vulgar references (of Helen wanting to be kidnapped and raped) by the satyr characters and even a crude, homosexual one that is unsurprisingly left out of many critical observations. As for the humour, here is an example, like when the Cyclops says to the satyrs:

"I wouldn't think of it (eating the satyrs), you would be the death of me with your dance steps, leaping around my belly."
I was recently watching an episode of the famous TV series 'Adventure Time' in which a troll ate some 'dancing bears', who irritated him with their constant partying inside his belly.

The Cyclops referred to in this play is no other than Polyphemus, being immortalized in the 'Percy Jackson series', which in the film at least (for I have not read the book), 'The Sea of Monsters', featured Polyphemus as a half-blinded cyclops (who was so blinded, as we know after reading this play, by Odysseus) in possession of the Golden Fleece (I though that the Golden Fleece cured everything, including death?).

Odysseus displays a certain civilized morality in this satyr play, which significantly contrasts sharply with the Satyr's treachery, cowardice, irrationality and fondness for excess, basically all the world that was not Greek at the time (which the Greeks justly considered barbarous). A worthwhile read.

~4.25/5

2)'Alcestis':

"Some other woman will possess you, luckier perhaps, but not more virtuous"..."the noblest woman by far under the sun"

Apollo and Death personified, light and darkness, heaven and the underworld, good and evil, life and death. These are few of the parallels that this play constantly makes. One should be aware that these themes featured in Christianity from times immemorial (which I hope we all know dates back centuries before Christ Himself, especially when one considers the old testament).

Alcestis is the ideal wife, symbolical in the ancient world of the power of love. Alcestis' and Admetus' mutual love for each is inspiring, and which relevantly transcends death itself! Alcestis' virtue(s), accepting sacrificing her own life in her husband's place, is rewarded by resurrection by Herakles, who single-handedly brought her back from the dead and acts as a substitute for the gods of Greek mythology.

However, Admetus' love is also tested before he regains Alcestis. He promised her while she was still in the land of the living that he will remain faithful (by an oath of fidelity on his part) in respect of her noble name. Herakles does not reveal that the woman he has brought back from the dead to be Alcestis immediately, rather he claims that it is some other woman which he had won as a prize in a sporting competition (!). However, Admetus nobly rejects the 'stranger', which ironically turns out to be his wife Alcestis.

I believe that Euripides wanted to defy man's conception of woman as a curse on his sexual freedom or as a prize for his manly attributes. Admetus boldly claims:

"Truly such a woman, living with me my whole life, would bring me no grief"

Man should be, and ought to be, responsible for his own actions and not blame women as the cause of his many temptations. True love is very hard to find, one might search all his life and tragically never finds it, but it still exists, however endangered it may be.

~4.5/5

3)'Medea':

Jason, in the Medea, argues that women are a burden, or a curse, to mankind and he wishes that there could be a way to beget children without women (he did not oppose the chance to beget children from the royal princess though). In Christianity it was Eve who tempted Adam to their downfall from grace and exile from the Garden of Eden, although according to the same belief both were equally guilty in the eyes of God.

Therefore, do not ask the insipid question of who was right or wrong, Jason in abandoning Medea in favour of another woman or Medea in her 'violent and passionate tendencies'. That is not the point. It is relevant to notice how the Greeks viewed marriage, men and women but that is about it. Greek tragedy traditionally gives a chance for both parties to present their cases, but what is relevant is what the audience gets out of the whole situation. Euripides did a great job out of that, he was never afraid to question tradition, myths and convention, in some plays more than others.

In the 'Tragicometer', this play is 9/11 tragic. It cannot get any worse for the parties concerned (Jason and Medea), what they have left is literally their own lives and even then it is no better than a life-in-death situation. Divorce should not be a common occurrence, as the consequences are too many to predict, it also means endangering the lives of innocent people (some distraught spouses have a tendency to murder the other's lover or children), in what are popularly known as 'crimes of passion'. For Euripides, what is tragic is humanity's reluctance to reconcile and bury the hatchet. Let bygones be bygones, in this shadow of a life (his own expression) it is better to accept life as it is and move on, and adapt in the best possible manner to life's unpredictable circumstances.

~4.5/5
Overall 5/5, plays that deserve to be studied, read and enjoyed.

Goodreads is annoying for logging different translations. This is the Kovacs translation I read on June 30th.

I like to get a sense of Odysseus's character outside of Homer, but not much changes. The revelations take less time, but the effect is the same.

This is a satyr play, the fourth in a series, with more comic overtones, one suspects, to lighten the tragic load, something Shakespeare incorporated directly in his tragedies. The key to Polyphemus's catastrophe is wine, directly from Dionysius, and so we might see that one's lack of morality is repaid by an immoral source, but the idea of drunkenness and its presentation, the lust with which Polyphemus takes to the wine bag, is as funny as the fact that it constantly replenishes itself.

Polyphemus is, however, no rustic; he has slaves, eats decidedly well (a bit of a gourmand, as it were, weighing out the fattest of Odysseus's crew)--even when men are not on the menu, and has engaged Silenus and the satyrs (Chorus) who, of course, desire to return to Dionysius and to his surroundings.

I did enjoy this, fining Polyphemus much more developed here than Odysseus.

As a Latin Teacher, I love to reread the Greek Classics. There is always something more to be learned.

Não falo grego, então é difícil julgar a tradução do Jaa Torrano. Imagino que seja bem precisa pelo processo que ele próprio explica de sua própria metodologia e por ele ser um renomado especialista, então leio de peito aberto e com muita confiança. Porém, em questão de entendimento, ela deixa um pouco a desejar. Às vezes é bem difícil de entender a mensagem que está sendo passada, mas nada no nível hiper esquisito das traduções do Trajano Vieira. Eu gosto do fato de não ter muitas notas ao longo da leitura dos poemas porque garante que a leitura seja mais fluida, mas ter toda a explicação antes das peças também dificulta a leitura por obrigar o leitor a ficar voltando. Poderiam ter encontrado um balanço melhor; no fim a leitura se torna mais cansativa do que eu gostaria que fosse.

Embora ele receba bastante críticas, ainda acho que a tradução do Mário da Gama Kury é a que se comunica melhor com o leitor, especialmente quando um especialista atual é comentador (como no caso de 'O melhor do teatro grego', que conta com a participação da Adriana Duarte). A versão de Medeia dele mudou completamente a minha relação com os clássicos - e para melhor.

De qualquer forma, a intenção de lançar todas as peças em uma coleção, com o mesmo tradutor, que é especialista no assunto e comenta bastante sobre os poemas em si, é muito boa. Já comprei o volume II e pretendo comprar os outros.