The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
Also known as "Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera"
The world's biggest musical!
Starring: Gerard Butler, Emmy Rossum, Patrick Wilson, Miranda Richardson, Minnie Driver, Ciarán Hinds, Simon Callow, Victor McGuire, Jennifer Ellison, Murray Melvin, Kevin McNally, James Fleet, Imogen Bain, Miles Western, Judith Paris
Director: Joel Schumacher
Running Time: 143 minutes
US MPAA rating: PG-13UK BBFC rating: 12a
Drama, Musical, Romance
Director Joel Schumacher is on a bit of hiding to nothing with this film. Those who love the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical are bound to pick faults with it, and those who hate all that Webber spawns will - well - hate this as well.
Me? Well, I did see the stage show a few years back, and my lasting impression of it was that the story was poor, the music was poor, but the special effects were breath-taking. That's predominantly because, as someone who frequents the theatre less than regularly, I had no idea such jaw-dropping visual feats were possible in a live performance. In the cinema, however, I'm used to better. A falling chandelier or a river of candles might look incredible on stage, but on the big screen they equate to nothing better than a "so what?". And there lies one of the key reasons why this valiant attempt at bringing 'The Phantom of the Opera' to the cinema screen is, frankly, a bit rubbish.
The story takes place in Paris, 1870, where an opera house is having a spot of bother with an unwanted lodger (Gerard Butler as the phantom who isn't a phantom at all, but rather just a facially-disfigured bloke in a 'Scream' mask who refuses to leave). Up-and-coming songstress Christine (Emmy Rossum) has been inadvertently receiving singing lessons from said phantom - and, being a man, old Phants now wants some sugar in return. Of course, she thinks it's the ghost of her dead Popsy who's been teaching her to croon, the daft idiot. Even the side-character played by mouse-eyed pop scally Jennifer Ellison gives her a funny look when she hears that one.
Anyway, Christine's dashing beau Raoul (Patrick Wilson) isn't best chuffed when he hears what's been going on. After all, to put things in perspective, his love rival is a man who looks like a cross between Freddy Kreuger and Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen. He's also a man who floats maniacally around the basement in a tiny little boat and sleeps in a bed shaped like a giant sea-shell. In short, the Phantom is a nutter, and by the time the film's plodded to a halt, there's not a character or viewer who doesn't know it.
Still, at least Phants keeps himself busy. For one thing, he makes all of his own masks. And he's even written an opera for himself to star in, based on the tale of 'Don Juan'. The trouble is, if he DOES insist on giving himself the lead role in all of his plays, he's kind of restricted in what stories he chooses to adapt. I mean, after 'Don Juan' there's 'The Lone Ranger', and then maybe 'Batman', but that's really about it.
You may well have already guessed that I'm not going to recommend 'The Phantom of the Opera'. I still don't think much of the music, and there appear to be only three or four actual numbers, which are then repeated to death with tweaked lyrics, and linked by inane, directionless warbling. As for the rest of it? Well, the sets look shoogly, the acting's wooden (particularly on Rossum's part), and its attempts at the macabre are a bit like The League of Gentlemen only without the humour.
It's Got: Minnie Driver having a diva strop and then starting to sing - so Phants drops an over-sized tapestry on her head. Good man.
It Needs: Christine to stop taking the Phantom's mask off! Jeez woman, doesn't the fact that he's wearing the thing in the first place tell you that he might be a little touchy about it? It's no wonder the poor fellah chucks a wobbler every time she does it.
Alternatives: Any of the countless other adaptations of the story to have been made, all of which with the advantage of not using Webber's music.
Summary: The Phantom of the Opera is there, inside your mind! But, like the owners of that 19th Century Parisian opera house, you'll wish he wasn't.
Review by Gary Panton
Review Date: 12th December 2004
External Links
Official Web Site
The Phantom of the Opera at the IMDB
Comments84 Comments |
| Do you know if the Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera is available on dvd ? |
| Comment by:- Aurelio Gimenez | | 09 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| Interesting movie ;) |
| Comment by:- Shyam Pandit | www.shyampandit.info | 12 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| How old is the man who wrote this review? Maybe in the future he should frequent the theater more regualarly before expecting anyone to take his opinion seriously. If he had been paying any attention when he actually saw the musical he would have known that it is the music that makes the show. The music is extremely powerful even if one has never seen it! I don't have to have the wonderful opportunity of actually seeing one of the greatest musicals of the time in person to know that it is good. Nor do I have to be more than a college student to know when a review lacks professionalism. |
| Comment by:- Elizabeth | | 14 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I agree with Elizabeth. i think that Phantom is the a beautiful show with moving music. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 15 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| Elizabeth, you think people need to go to the theatre regularly to be taken seriously? You can't take very many people seriously then! Besides, this isnt even a theatre review!! Its not the reviewers fault that this movie blows. |
| Comment by:- Mickey Four-Eyes | | 16 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| This film is not to be compared with the stage show or with a lot of the twee movies that hollywood is throwing out. Go and see it and then make your own mind up! I enjoyed it as a musical not a film it is a shame that narrow minded reviewers cannot give a little more encouragement to the movie going public and maybe they and the theatres might benefit. |
| Comment by:- The Phantom. | | 17 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I do agree with Elizerbeth. I had a chance to see the stage show a couple years back and it is gorgeous and wonderful. The music is really powerful. I haven't had a chance to watch the film yet but will be soon. However, I did listen to the soundtrack which I think it can't be compared with the original CD dated back in 1987. |
| Comment by:- Rubis | | 19 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I agree completely with many of the comments written above about the review itself and indeed about the power of the music. However the film didn't truly convey this (could've been the power of the singing). I have seen the show twice within the last 12 months, once on Broadway once in the West End, and both shows were fantastic, however the film seemed to highlight the tiny flaws in the story that the show manages to hide, and why they felt they needed to change the chronology is beyond me, it completely changes the meanings of the plays. I'd say the reviewer is right in his score but for all the wrong reasons. Oh and on a passing note it is the reviewers job to actually review films and say what they think, not give encouragement to people to spend their money on something that they feel will be a waste of time and energy. |
| Comment by:- Chris | | 19 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I meant to type film instead of plays. Terrible typo, sorry about that, still associate it too much with the stage (not that it's a play and not that 'plays' would be grammatically correct but still!!!) |
| Comment by:- Chris | | 19 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| MAN, IF you thought the music was poor for the original theater version then I'm definitely going to see this movie. I hope everyone's criticism of this film is as bad as the movie is good!!! Didn't like the songs, that's sick! Please tell me you like rap or punk or some other poor choice of music. |
| Comment by:- Steve | | 20 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I have never had the chance to see it on stage, but i am obsessed with the music and the whole idea of it, and i will be there when it comes out, however, Steve, I happen to enjoy rap very much, and i love phantoms soundtrack, so there are people out there that do like both so you should relax a little bit. thanks alot. |
| Comment by:- Tiffany | | 21 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| The score of "Phantom" is of course one of the most ravishing beautiful of any show of the past 20 years. Anyone who loves opera adores it. It is hard to take a reviewer seriously who admits he/she dosen't like the music. |
| Comment by:- Sam Juliano | | 21 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| Sam - do you always find it hard to take people seriously just because they do not like the same music as you? You must find it very difficult to find people to take seriously! |
| Comment by:- Jones the Steam | | 21 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| No, Mr. Jones, it's hard to accept a review for a movie that has already marked poor before even seeing it. It's hard to accept a review that bases itself off of the score of Andrew Lloyd Webber -- and not the movie itself. If you don't like the music, then DON'T SEE A MUSICAL and expect the movie of it to be better. But I think that was already known, and the author wrote the review simply to tell the world (without justification) that he hated the play. This was NOT a review of the movie, but just the reviewer spouting how much he disliked the music and that he was bored at the theater. To the people who actually appreciate the score, we don't find this review offensive because it gave the movie low marks (heck, some of us even disliked the idea of a movie, too) but we resent it because it is strictly based off of his taste of music and previous experiences. He said it himself, had it NOT been a musical it might have been decent. That is not a way to review a musicial. And THAT, Sir Jones, it why it is hard -- no, not hard -- impossible to take this easily distracted, insensitive, humor-driven child seriously. |
| Comment by:- Aleema | | 22 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| The music is everything. The power, and emotion involved. |
| Comment by:- Toy | | 23 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| Well, I just got in from seeing the film version of "Phantom." I have to say that I have seen the stage production and loved much of the music but found the book quite poor. HOWEVER, I must admit that the movie...well I found it wonderfully done. The quality of the voices, acting, the overly large sets. Anyone who has been to the Pairs Opera house knows of the abundant sizes of everything there. The film caught all of that as well as the mood of the period. The wigs, costumes, and I must say BUTLER was in my opinon the best Phantom....for only one reason. He truly seemed to be a split personality. Did anyone catch that when he was singing of his love for Christine he sang in his falsetto and the rest of the time was pushing for a more dynamic sound..... Rick |
| Comment by:- Rick Wehmeyer | | 23 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I just want to say that punk is not a poor choice of music, nor is rap. I am a huge fan of punk. A huge fan of Musicals. I loved the phantom every time I have seen it. I do think that the power of the stage version does not transfer as well to the screen but still the music remains, and the movie was fine. As for the nay sayers that despise Weber, they shall continue to do so. I would also like to point out that phantom is the longest running musical on broadway. Proving one man's success breeds the fury of many. |
| Comment by:- Denise | | 23 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I just got back from seeing it with our 19yo girl and 15yo boy. We haven't been fortunate enough to make it to the stage version (sold out before we realized it was even showing in Honolulu) so this was the next best thing. We'd heard the music for years, though. Both kids loved it - in fact were willing to brave Christmas traffic on the way home to go by a Borders store and pick up the piano/vocal music and both CD versions (Broadway and movie). My take is if you like Andrew Lloyd Weber you'll like this movie. I'm just fortunate to have two kids who like him a lot better than the pop/rap stuff out there. |
| Comment by:- Connie | | 23 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| If you've ever seen "Pretty Woman", there's a scene in which Richard Gere explains a concept to Julia Roberts that every person who experiences an opera will have a strong, passionate reaction of love or hate. I think both the film and play versions of "Phantom of the Opera" evoke that reaction . It is an artistic expression no different than a painting by Van Gogh; a personal perception spurring from one unique mind. What I'm really trying to say is see the movie and you be the judge. Either way, if you love or hate the show, you will have respect for it because it is not phony attempt for money at the box office, it is an exquisite stage show. And yes, I loved the film (and the play) |
| Comment by:- Ryan | www.movie-gazette.com/cinerevi... | 23 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| Alright... I'm bloody furious at this man. First off, he insulted the stageplay, and that made my blood boil. How can any person writing a musical theatre review dislike the music from "The Phantom of the Opera"????? It's quite an enigma to me and also quite offensive. Personally, I loved the transfer from the stage to the screen. There were a few things that I would've done differently, but all in all, I thought it was really good. Gerard Butler brought an angry kind of feeling to the character of the Phantom which I liked. Now, Emmy Rossum was a bit weak in the singing, but I think that Minnie Driver made up for her singing. The fact that this guy thought Minnie Driver was bad infuriated me! Her voice was absolutely heavenly! So... there's my take on the whole thing. :) |
| Comment by:- Stefanie | | 24 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| About 14 years ago I read the Phantom of the Opera book and was totally amazed by such a great book. I have since looked for that same book and have not been able to find it. It told about his many adventures and talents as he traveled. One of his talents was (I think) a brick layer. Please if anyone knows where I can get this wonderful book please let me know. |
| Comment by:- Judy Vermette | | 24 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| Judy, there are many versions of the original author's story. Many of which are titled "Phantom of the Opera". Without more information, I don't think you will get your wish. |
| Comment by:- Aleema | | 24 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| Judy Since I've only read two books based off of the Phantom of the Opera, Susan Kay's "Phantom" and Frederik Forsyth's "Phantom in Manhattan". To me, it kinda sounds like Susan Kay's book. As for the music of Phantom of the Opera.. I've always liked a diversed kind of music which got me strange looks. From 80's metal to celtic music.. the power and emotion behind the Phantom of the Opera always touches a part of my soul. I'm a late bloomer in the Phantom scene..but I had the double cd with Micheal Crawford and Sarah Brightman for about ten plus years. The first time I heard Phantom of the Opera I was spell bound. Having two friends who are heavily into the Phantom of the Opera and had the pleasure of seeing the plays (my area rarely has such) I'll have to make due with the movie. |
| Comment by:- R | | 24 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I just returned from seeing the movie this evening and I thought that it was very entertaining. My twelve year old son said that it was the best movie he has seen (he usually goes more for sci fi). My eighteen and ten year old daughters and my wife saw it last night and liked it so much they went back to see it with us tonight. I would give it a 9 out of 10. I loved it. |
| Comment by:- Jim Blaine | | 25 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I've never responded to these kinds of things. But having just seen Phantom a few hours ago, I feel I am obliged to strongly disagree with Mr. Panton narrow-minded review. In short, I was mesmerized with this film and enjoyed it even more than the Broadway production (which I thoroughly appreciated as well). I go to the movies to be entertained, to be taken up by the story, the actors, the mood and texture of the film. This movie achieved all that and more. It was a beautiful reproduction of a story that has been told many times, in many ways and I applaud this new production for this majestic interpretation. I give it 4 stars and beyond and heartily recommend it! |
| Comment by:- Joyce | | 25 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| This movie was truly an amazing experience for me and my girlfriend. We watched it on the eve of Christmas and i can tell u-- it was the most romantic experience that had ever happened to us. I would definetely recommend it to anybody that loves opera or classic music. For such a review by Mr.Panton truly shocks me; not only by his narrow mindness as a movie reviewer(which disguised me), but also from his poor judgement that questions his literacy in music.(try hip-hop next time Mr. Panton u might find u r homies there!) |
| Comment by:- James | | 25 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I saw the phantom of the opera when i was six and when i watched the trailer for the first time iburst into to tears because my big brother who died 5 yrs ago was with me so the film and the theatre touched me so deep. i think whatever way it is produced it will always be a classic hit. i just hope all of you feel the same. |
| Comment by:- Samantha France | gpj-web.net | 25 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I simply want to say: I hate this review, and I love the film very very much - great actors and actresses, and of course - great music! |
| Comment by:- anan | | 26 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I can't believe all these people who write the reviews for this movie. There has been many of us phantom fans who have been waiting a centry for this to come out and all they can say including this person is garbage!! I could write a better review, what about the review on the actors, the singing and history?? This review was so crappy i would be imbereesed to have my name on it! It's just proves that all us phantom fans stick by not matter what crappy reviewers have to say!!! |
| Comment by:- Mary L Martin | www.geocities.com/phantomlover... | 27 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| Like the rest, I thought the film was great and I love it very much. The only thing is that I thought the phantom's singing wasn't so great, but anyway credits to all of them!! |
| Comment by:- Joo | | 27 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| This was an excellent movie. I think any "Phanttm" lover would enjoy it. I cannot understand why the critics are panning it the way they are. |
| Comment by:- Sue Bernard | | 27 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I saw the play twice and just saw the movie. I felt it was absolutley wonderful and followed the play exactly, staying true to the Broadway theatre version. The music was as beautiful as ever and the sets and costumes showed the lavishness of the period as depicted in the play. Th emotions of the characters was also strong, as in the play.I felt the movie did and should follow the plot and presentation of the play in all ways . Thank goodness it did not and deviate into the typical Hollywood movie special effects and story embellishment. I loved it!! |
| Comment by:- A .Thomas | | 27 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| Dear Stefanie....Minnie Driver did NOT sing in this movie. Her singing voice was by someone else. I noticed this in the final credits........I always read the credits.....weird I guess.....I'm not surprised by the bad critical press on the movie.....musical talent escapes non music lovers..........beautiful film...I think the Phantom was a little too young and way too pretty! |
| Comment by:- Valarie | | 28 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I hope the aviator crashes! |
| Comment by:- Andrew | | 28 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| This movie kicked but and i dont care about what any one says about it, no matter how much people put this movie down, this picture was near perfection. My name happens to be Andrew Lloyd, and i have always been a fan of his work, i am also an actor and i take pride in the things i have done, and also the talent in other actors such as Butler, and Emmy. Their performance is absolutly amazing! I was in aww over the visuals and sounds on the screen that origanally came from Webbers mind. To everyone who said that this was not a good movie... you know nothing of what makes good movies! this is bassed on the number one selling broadway musical of all time! Duh that should give you a hint about why the movie is SO good. The story its self is enough to wow an audience. As a preformer, i can say that Phantom of the Opera is gold compaired to many others, and as a move creats an awsome masterpiece.I aplaude Joel S and Andrew Webber in their 'Glory' that i am 'Sharing' in!!!!!!! |
| Comment by:- Andrew Phillip Lloud | | 28 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| oh man....this is suchhh an emotional film! i saw the play like 7 yrs ago n i hated it coz i had NO idea wat was happening...i say dat u realli haf 2 separate the movie from the play...dnt compare..jus watch the movie with a new sense....honestly...dat works...as for the songs..yeah some of them were a bit drawn out...but i luvvvv the title song for this movie...the one with all the chromatics....but yeah..the phantom is CUTE man....lol...n its a real heart wrenching choice...jus try n put ureself in christine's place....n listen 2 the lyrics....spez the bit where she talks bout how her tears haf turned 2 hate 2ward the phantom...honestly....forget bout the setting...jus give in 2 ure emotions n this film realli will change u... |
| Comment by:- Christina | | 28 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| It's hard to understand how anyone can criticise such a spectacular film.The Phantom is played to perfection by Gerard Butler who IS the Phantom.The only criticism I can make is- being female- Christine- how could you have chosen Raoul over the Phantom!!!! |
| Comment by:- Phantom lover | | 28 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| hahahah..yeah...u tend 2 lean alot more 2ward the phantom...b it pity..or perhaps coz raoul is such a sissy looking guy compared 2 the mysterious phantom...whewww...tall dark n handsome i say...well..bsides the 1/2 disfigured side... |
| Comment by:- christina | | 28 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| Andrew Lloyd Webber's music for the Phantom is scary, loud and jarring - far from melodious. I have seen and liked many musicals. This one did not impress me at all. |
| Comment by:- Ranjit | | 28 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| You're absolutely right. It had nothing whatsoever to gain from being turned into a film. |
| Comment by:- Orla | | 28 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| Michael Crawford IS the POTO. Just listen to the original soundtrack. There is no reason why he couldn't have played the Phantom in the movie. Just Lloyd Webber's peevishness. I enjoyed the movie but winced whenever that other guy sang. |
| Comment by:- Betty Jay | | 29 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| the original soundtrack is extraordinary. the play is amazing. the movie is moving anyone with half a brain and any appreciation towards music should come to similar conclusions. and there was much to be gained by turning the play into a film. Although some are against it, it makes the story more accessible to true fans. end of story. |
| Comment by:- Maddie | | 29 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| Mr Phanton's review is rendered a bit...unprofessional, shall we say, for the simple fact that said critic is completely biased against the music in the first place. I believe I speak for most when I say that the music makes Webber's story...it IS Webber's story. I'm sure that the movie has its flaws - unfortunately, the last two times that I've gone, I've been too enraptured to spot them. The movie has so far been as close as I've ever come to the musical, and if this is as close as I get, I'll die happy. Many complain of visual gimmickry; however, the astounding detail that went into the Opera House is absolutely necessary in order to fully appreciate the scope and grandeur of the place, which is essential to the story. Many complain of Butler's voice; let's stop comparing him to Crawford and focus on HIS portrayal of Erik. I believe he made the Phantom amazingly human and pitiable - especially during the scene on the roof. His contribution to the Phantom character is wonderful. I thoroughly enjoyed the film, having but one objection - that Fop-boy Extraordinaire got the girl. Christine had a golden opportunity to shove him out of the boat at the end. I can't understand why she didn't. |
| Comment by:- Devour-me-own-tripes Dibbler | | 29 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| ahahahahahaha.....i agree with dibbler....the phantom was a better choice....but how could any1 not b moved by the movie??the music is incredibly beautiful....n i c nothing wrong with gerard butler's singing honestly...perhaps less refined n more gutteral...but it was good! stop being so biased! |
| Comment by:- christina | | 29 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| If you dont like Opera or musicals, you cant review a movie like this. If you dont like the music of a particular show (because of your own personal opinion) you cant review the movie. I completely disagree with this review especially because he doesn't like the music to begin with, not because its bad music but because he just doesn't like that kind of music. Please dont listen to this reviewer, if you like Phantom of The Opera (the show) then go see it. The movie is not going to seem bad to you because you have seen it on the screen (and that's better) The movie was almost as good as the show and thats saying something! |
| Comment by:- It's over now, The Music Of The Night | | 29 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| What is up with reviewers bashing this show?! Please! It was awesome! I have seen the play and read the book. It is simply amazing! And the music is the best part. It is definately worth going to see if you enjoy musicals. |
| Comment by:- Kitty IceCrystal | ksds.frozenmind.org/kitty... | 29 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I have to say that the review was pretty dumb. The idiot-child reviewer tries to sound witty and funny but only appears to me as being.. how should i put it.. not very intelligent. I've watched the show and it was great,it will only take musical lovers to be able to appreciate it, not any tom, dick or harry. Obviously the reviewer hasn't got much taste in music, what does he want? Pop or rap in the Phantom of the Opera? I also think its rather stupid of the reviewer to keep questioning why the characters does this or that, like why Christine keeps taking off the Phantom's mask, or thinks that the Phantom was actually her Dad's spirit. Hello, is he going to start analysing the characters now? I myself would give this review a one out of ten. And to the reviewer, one piece of advice; plase do consider using your brain before actually writing a review. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 29 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I think the film was amazing but who the hell was the old man at the end? |
| Comment by:- ANON | | 30 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| Obviously people that don't like this movie have no respect for great music. This is the best musical of all time. Webber captivated me with the contrast in dynamics and the shear power. If you don't like this, then don't ever watch a musical, because you obviously have no taste. The movie was the best I've ever seen. Nothing can compare to the Phantom |
| Comment by:- Phantom lover | | 30 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| The old man was Raoul. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 30 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I thought the movie was awesome. But thats beside the point. Everyone does realize that Minnie Driver is not singing in the film right? Great. Rossum is pretty and marvelous. Butler...hmm I would have rather seen Harvey Feirstien play the Phantom. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 30 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| carlotta was slightly overbearing in sum bits...n her fake italian accent....but it was funni..... |
| Comment by:- christina | | 31 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I would like to first say I love the show, the music and all things Phantom. I would also like to say that I've seen the play more times than I care to admit to. Cried every time. And it's probably my regard for that show that's turning me off on this movie. I've seen the pics, and clips, very pretty. I paticuraly like the Chandelier going up and the time melting away from the theatre, quite classy. But I heard the soundtrack and I must say YIKES!!!While I'm sure Mr. Butler plays quite sympathetically and cries on cue, he's a fine actor, and easy on the eyes, but I'm sorry, he couldn't carry a tune in a bucket. I'm not trying to compare him to Crawford, I tried very very hard to appreciate this guy on his own grounds, but audio wise he is PAINFUL. You can hear his voice crack on the high notes! I haven't flinched through a cd this much since the disco version of Phantom(I kid you not, the title song, in disco form. *Twitch*) And it sucks because the rest of the movie seems so incredible, that this one thing should mar it, and he does try, bless his soul, but, well, yikes!!! They dubbed Carlotta, couldn't they have dubbed him if they wanted that chest in a poets blouse so badly? (I can't argue with that chest, I'm only human...want to touch...) |
| Comment by:- Persephone | | 31 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I think most of the critique in the review is quite baseless, telling us that the music and plot of one of the most famous and successful musicals are bad. If you're a theatre/musical hater then you shouldn't start making such statements in the first place, since this is an adaptation of a play and it's to be taken for granted then that you would hate this aswell. Personally the faults I could find were the poor acting of Emmy Rossum, who was just too puppy-eyed and fragile-looking all the time. Gerald Butler's voice wasn't as captivating as I could've hoped with this screen presence was still awesome and dominated Wilson playing Raoul and Rossum easily, which probably saved the movie from a lot. Minnie Driver having her voice dubbed was an excellent thing because the role of Carlotta suited her PERFECTLY, and I saw her performance as one of the saving aspects of the movie-adaptation, when you think of for instance of the amount of deliberate Emmy Rossum boobs turning your gaze in most her scenes and the most horrifying techno and electrical guitar (jesus christ, what were they thinking!) spoiling a lot of fun from the Phantom's theme - sometimes it's good not to take the film too seriously. I didn't, and that's why I enjoyed the things I liked. It's not a perfect film and I want and will see the theatre version of it someday, no doubt about it, but it's very viewable and definately not a waste of your time, like the reviewer says. |
| Comment by:- Tatu | | 31 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| amazing movie, if you can call it that.. i loved every second of it!! |
| Comment by:- Eef | | 31 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I saw the movie several times. I enjoy the music, I enjoy the show, I enjoy the actors and their voices. I will see it again. |
| Comment by:- Ralph | | 31 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| How do people get these reviewing jobs? Who gives them a right to critique anything? Freddy Kreuger doesn't even belong in the same sentence with the Phantom! They are galaxies apart. I was so into the movie my husband's hand is still numb from me squeezing it so hard (hint for the men who are reluctant to see it.....} I'm going to see it again this weekend. |
| Comment by:- Diane | | 31 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| *shrug* I enjoyed the movie. A lot. I will be watching it again shortly. I think the film warrants a lot more than a mere 1 1/2 stars, but meh, personal preference there. |
| Comment by:- Helen | | 01 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| I've seen the play once and now the movie for the second time. I don't even have the Michael Crawford version of the music and I still thought Butler was lacking. I agree that Minnie Driver delivered her lines dramatically to the point of concern, she would have been more convincing if she'd just had some better lines. However, I loved the movie and hope to buy it on DVD whenever it comes out. |
| Comment by:- Susan | | 01 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| I think that everyone who dislikes this film has gone a bit mad really. ! The characters were absolutly brilliant, especially Emmy Rossum and Gerard Butler, their performance was definatly not 'wooden'! ! ! ! They are all VERY talented to have the singing and acting talents that the have which makes the film that extra bit special! I saw it on Wednesday and i enjoyed it so much i went back to see it on Thursday, which was also when i went out and brought the soundtrack! THIS FILM IS ONE OF THE BEST OF ALL TIMES ! |
| Comment by:- Gem | | 01 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| The sound quality was poor, the singing was average, the acting was less than impressive. Low budget, wrong director, see the show, by the soundtrack - skip the film, you might need those 2 hours of your life back one day. |
| Comment by:- Jon S | | 01 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| I sat for awhile after the end of the credit of the movie because my heart was pounding. I agree that Gerald Butler's voice was not that pretty to listen like Frank D'Ambosio's (ex-Phantom of San Francisco for 5 years). But Butler was the one Joel S. and Andrew L. came to ask him if he could play this role. His voice did deliver the hate in his soul well. Also, personally, I love Raoul's voice. Ususally, Raoul character is kind of a solid, middle-aged man in the play, which I usually wasn't fond of. But Patrick Wilson is a younger, attractive man with beautiful voice. I heard Patrcik did most of the stunt including the bare-back horse riding and the sword fighting (Patrick did the fight for both Raoul and Phantom). Because of the nature of musical in the play, it's not easy to understand every little detail of the story. But this movie helped me a lot to comprehend everything. And the cinematography was breath-taking. I just loved it. |
| Comment by:- Kay | | 01 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| Well, I must say that I whole-heartedly disagree with the review of the movie version of the Phantom of the Opera. And, I disagree with some of the comments posted above. Here's my review: The movie version of The Phantom of the Opera is in one word spectacular. That said, here are some things that you need to understand. Everyone will have a different reaction to both the movie and the theater performance adaptations of Gaston Leroux's original novel originally published in 1911. Many different variations of this book have been created both for the stage and for the screen, however, Webber's is the closest to the actual story as set forth by Leroux. Schumacker has created a vast and beautiful opera house and has been able to take some liberties with the original broadway play. This is in no way a bad thing. Webber created the play with the knowledge that he would be limited in his ability to portray certain things. Schumacker, with the guidance of Webber has been able to expand those areas that Webber was initially limited on. And, for those that say that the movie is too different from the stage performance, it is interesting to note that Webber is credited as both the producer and co-writer of the screenplay. The added music was not created by someone else, but by Webber himself. A quote from Webber included with the CD of the music: "I've written several minutes of new music, but it doesn't threaten the integrity of the show in any way...[The movies's] not at all based on the theatre visually or direction wise, but it's still got exactly the same essence." To claim that the movie does not follow Webber's original ideas is ludicrous. Another aspect that many will not truly appreciate is the music. To fully appreciate it, you must have some training and/or experience with music. Webber brilliantly uses minor and major keys to elicit the emotions from the listener. Dissonant music can be very melodious and within the confines of the Phantom, it is extremely appropriate. The listener is not supposed to feel happy and peaceful and like everything is perfect. We are supposed to feel struggle and a little chaos and most importantly, I believe, fear. I had the privilege of seeing the touring Broadway troupe in Indianapolis a little over a month ago and it's hard to compare the two. I loved both. For the price, I would much rather watch the movie, but you can't beat being in the audience and seeing the story live. The movie outperformed my expectations, though. The acting was excellent. The singing was near-perfect although, that's easier to attain when singing in a studio and not on stage live. The camera work was brilliant as well as the directing. Every aspect of the movie, in my opinion, portrayed precisely what Webber originally envisioned when he set out to create the Phantom of the Opera. The one problem I really had with the movie: Minnie Driver as La Carlotta. What happened to the fat woman? |
| Comment by:- Bill Winner | www.taylor.edu/academics/acadD... | 02 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| What's the point in going to see a musical, if before you get in the cinema, you already know you won't like the music???!! And especially why write a movie review to say you don't like the music?? Just phone Mr Webber and tell him!! |
| Comment by:- Catty | | 02 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| I had never seen The Phantom of the Opera before seeing the film and I thought that it was a beautiful artistic film that explored the many depths and sorrows of the Phantom. The music was incredibly powerful and I would highly recommend people to see it. |
| Comment by:- Jess | | 02 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| I loved the movie. I thought it was absolutley fantastic! The music, the special effects, the acting, it was ALL wonderful. But I do have a question...WHO WAS THE OLD MAN AND WOMAN AT THE END OF THE MOVIE IN BLACK AND WHITE...ALSO WAS THE PHANTOM DEFORMED OR DID HE HAVE SOME SORT OF INFECTION. I was just wondering. |
| Comment by:- Lorelai | | 02 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| I loved the movie. I thought it was absolutley fantastic! The music, the special effects, the acting, it was ALL wonderful. But I do have a question...WHO WAS THE OLD MAN AND WOMAN AT THE END OF THE MOVIE IN BLACK AND WHITE...ALSO WAS THE PHANTOM DEFORMED OR DID HE HAVE SOME SORT OF INFECTION. I was just wondering. |
| Comment by:- Lorelai | | 02 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| Who the heck wrote the review? Phantom of the Opera is a CLASSIC!!! Definition of Classic: Some piece (Musical or not) that has been carried around for A VERY LONG TIME!!!!!! Phantom of the Opera is a classic because it is an outstanding show with brilliant singing, and acting. BUt more acting than singing. Fairly enough, the acting and singing are comparable, though the singing is probably better. Anyways, if the Phantom of the Opera is SOOOO bad, then why is it a classic? Fix the puzzle yourself, genius. I thought that it was an incredibly moving and touching story with a sort of romantic twist...but personally, if I were Christine Daae, I'd choose the Phantom rather than Raoul! LOL! What I'm trying to say is, that it is a great movie, and most people who have a basic understanding of art and music should know. If this Gary Panton person thinks that the acting is so bad, and the singing and music is crap, then why doesn't he try to write a full musical that's going to stay around for a few decades, sing everything perfectly, and act well too? Riiiiight. I'd like to see him try. VERY SINCERELY!!! Phantom. Of. The. Opera. (Or P.O.T.O) P.S. I'm listening to the soundtrack now. |
| Comment by:- P.O.T.O | | 03 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| Lorelai: I assumed that the old man was Raoul and the old woman was Meg. Sure makes sense. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 03 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| It has to be said to all of you uneducated fools that the Phantom of the Opera is a deeply moving and powerful film the voices are phenominal even if Minnie Driver's part is sung by Margaret Preece. The Phantom played by Gerard Butler is a character that haunts you due to his sex appeal and power not pity,Gerard Butler trained his voice to acheive this character and he did it better than any trained vocalist could manage, Christine was well played by Emmy Rossum and her voice is good. For people who cannot afford to see the stage show this is an amazing substitute and should not be disparaged by people who know no better as none of you, I presume, are anywhere near the talent of Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 03 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| Though all are entitled to an opinion, Mr. Panton is an incompetent. His review is so off the mark that it would take forever to counter it. Suffice to say that this is a beautifully shot movie with marvelous music well sung by all (including Mr. Butler, who adds the right amount of sexiness to the role). Ms. Rossum is destined to be a star, Minnie Driver is a riot, and the editing is first rate. A very entertaining movie. |
| Comment by:- LongTimeTheatreLover | | 04 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| Wow, that was about the most offensive review of anything I've ever read. Yeah, the movie has it's faults, but there are better ways of pointing them out. The "faults" you pointed out aren't even real ones! How strange that you'd ignore the things that are actually wrong with the movie (which can be overlooked, and the movie enjoyed) to create brand new ones that don't even exist. |
| Comment by:- HeatherD | | 06 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| Lol! I thought to myself after seeing it for the second time this afternoon "Why did they add those pointless flash forwards? Do they think we're too incompetent to figure out or remember the two characters in the beginning?" But I guess I have an advantage since I know the play and I see that a couple people have missed that even with the added "help" of extra flash forwards. The old man is Raoul. The auction man called him "Le Vicomte de Chagney" (although in the book his brother, the count dies, so he ought to be Le Comte by that time!) and he visits Christine's grave (La Comtesse de Chagney) so um, hello? lol. This isn't in the original stage play, but the woman should be Madame Giry, not Meg Giry. If it were Meg, they would have put that actress in "old" makeup, not Miranda Richardson. Hope anybody else wondering sees this :o) |
| Comment by:- HeatherD | | 06 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| Visit my website to view my commentary on the show. http://www.geocities.com/joo_h/Works/phantom.html |
| Comment by:- Joo | www.geocities.com/joo_h/Backgr... | 08 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| I loved this movie!Gerard Butler is the perfect Phantom, and he can sing! People have to stop comparing him to Crawford all the time! It is a beautiful movie and I highly recommend it!!! |
| Comment by:- Cila | | 10 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| Just saw the movie last night. It was great!!! It seems that most of the so called film experts had it out for this film...they just don't like Andrew Lloyd Webber or Joel Schumacher. But they are just way off with this one. This film is far better than just about anything that is typically put out there for public consumption. We sat way up in the second row...it blew us away. The design of the Opera Populaire was downright amazing...a true spectacle to witness, especially during "Masquerade". I could have sworn that they filmed in the real Paris Opera House...the set was that good. Some really gorgeous scenes in the cemetery, on the rooftop, and in the depths of the Phantom's lair. Emmy Rossum was just stunning and drop dead gorgeous as Christine, and had just the perfect kind of innocence and purity to her voice that the role demands. Butler was an interesting choice for the role...not Crawford as a singer by any means...but it worked. His rock vocals gave the Phantom a real edginess and sexiness that makes it believable that he could realistically seduce Christine, and not only based on his magic or his music. You can understand why she might be attracted to him, despite the fact that he is a sociopath. Put Crawford, at age 62, in a suit and cape with a mask, and have him grope Emmy Rossum...? Yecch! Can anyone say statutory rape and lechery? While the age difference btw. Christine and the Phantom is necessary it should also be minimized. Avoiding the "old pervert gross out factor", they made a brilliant choice in casting a younger Phantom! Raoul was adequate here...not particularly charming or interesting, and a good singer, not great....but again...if he was too good/interesting, he would take too much attention away from the Phantom and the Phantom/Christine relationship, which is really the focus of the story. We don't really care too much about Raoul in the stage production (only enough that we hope that the Phantom doesn't kill him)...and we shouldn't care too much about him here either. He is the "safe", boring alternative to the Phantom...the only realistic choice that Christine can make... Make him too interesting/likable and then the Phantom just becomes a monster, and nothing else. Lloyd Webber's version of the tale is to make it into a love story, not a tale of horror. This is where critics have got the point all wrong, especially when they compare it to other pre-Lloyd Webber versions...make no mistake, this is a DIFFERENT kind of Phantom from those portrayed earlier. These same critics have argued that the Phantom isn't scary enough. Well, he's not SUPPOSED to be too scary. If he's too scary, then we feel no sympathy for him at all...he is not human--he is just some kind of version of Jason or Freddy Krueger. That's not what they were going for here. The makers of this film were correct to make the Phantom as human as possible, and that comes through. I could go on, but the bottom line is: if you like the music, (or even if you don't), go see this movie. The performances were great, the colors were gorgeous...and it was a thrilling experience. Try to get a front row seat. Enjoy the show! |
| Comment by:- jfelix43 | | 10 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| I LOVED it!!!I seen it the day it came out!!!I laughed,I cried,It moved me.The music is very moving.Everyone was grate!!I sat very close to the front.The colors are beautiful!!This movie is amazing!!!Go see it right now!!!Shame on you people who don't like it!! |
| Comment by:- Spunkeygirl | | 22 January 2005 | ip: logged |
| I saw this film a couple days ago and had trouble trying to figure out who the black-and-white woman was. I agree that the man is Raoul. If the woman is Madame Giry, as someone suggested, then why did she look younger than Raoul when she must've been at least 20 years older than him? And even aside from that, why did Raoul want the monkey? Why did he put it on Christine's grave? Christine only saw it in passing when in the Phantom's lair. I see no reason for it to have held any meaning for her and, therefore, I see no reason why it would hold enough meaning for Raoul to want to purchase it and put it on Christine's grave. |
| Comment by:- Crabtree | | 07 February 2005 | ip: logged |
| I think many people are looking at this movie closed-mindedly. I agree that then end was a bit confusing in the black and white but other than that i thought the movie was awesome it made me cry and most movies dont. Also i'm tire of people comparing gerard to miachel crawford. What do you think they'd get him to do the movie?? He's like 60 or 70 something gross. Christine is actually supposed to have a pull towards him. Yuck not an old man that sick. Gerard is really good looking and I liked his voice even though it was different than former phantoms. I could really feel his emotion in the songs. I also think the little accent he has is pretty hot, lol! |
| Comment by:- gymnadancer | | 18 February 2005 | ip: logged |
| I think he buys the monkey because it plays the song "Mascarade" which is the song that is playing on the Mask Party when we find out that Christine and Raoul are engaged. |
| Comment by:- Renata Ventura | | 06 March 2005 | ip: logged |
| Where is Michael Crawford for the Phantom of the Opera? Gerard Butler was sexy, seduction, but he could not sing The Music of the Night. His singing did get better as the show progress.His voice ws not unpleasant. The Music of the Night is still a Michael Crawford Song. Emmy Rossum carried the weight on her shoulders, Bravo great singing. Patrick Wilson Bravo great singing maybe he should have played the Phantom, he might have song The Music of the Night with ease. It is a Beauty and Beast Story that goes wrong for the Beast. The Best is The Point of No Return when Gerard Butler shined through.He had angry, sorrow, destructive power. |
| Comment by:- caprice05 | | 18 April 2005 | ip: logged |
| If you've seen the stage version of The Phantom Of The Opera, then you'll simply love this film which combines all of the musical thrill of The Phantom with the beauty of first-class cinematography and intricate sets. If you haven't ever seen The Phantom Of The Opera, then I suggest holding off until you've seen the stage production first. You'll like the film a lot better once you've seen the stage version... |
| Comment by:- gilletbd1977 | www.thedvdreport.com/dvd_revie... | 26 June 2005 | ip: logged |
| As good if not better than the musical stage version. I love Andrew Lloyd Webber and The Phantom on film is superb. |
| Comment by:- migen2004 | www.moviereviewindex.com/revie... | 29 June 2005 | ip: logged |
| Phantom of the Opera has been my favorite "story" since I read the book years ago. I traveled to Toronto to see the stage production at the Pantages Theater, and I couldn't imagine anything being any better than that. Until the movie! I have seen and heard comments about Gerard Butler's singing not being comparable to Michael Crawford's. Nothing against Michael Crawford, as I do enjoy his voice, but I thought Gerard Butler's was actually much more suited to the Phantom because it is more masculine, and yep...sexy, and Point of No Return had me holding my breath! I thought the movie was much more emotional than the live version I saw...Christine being attracted and drawn to the Phantom's dark, mysteriousness, while at the same time thinking of him as sort of a father figure. The Phantom being attracted to Christine's beauty and innocence...the things he never had. I thought Raoul was portrayed as he should be...a stable, somewhat confused, gentleman, and a complete contrast to the Phantom. And Minnie Driver as Carlotta, what a hoot she was! I couldn't help thinking Christine wanted to and should go with the Phantom, but then think of it...how about being in your 60's or 70's and still living in a dungeon with an old guy with half a face? lol...just kidding. Seriously, I thought the movie was fantastic, and the roles played by exactly the right people. Phantom of the Opera is for sure one of my favorite movies, and I'm sure I will be watching it a "few" more times! |
| Comment by:- northsky | | 05 July 2005 | ip: logged |
