Reviews of The Phantom of the Opera

Lengthy

Posted : 2 months, 4 weeks ago on 24 September 2009 03:17 (A review of The Phantom of the Opera)

The costumes and the choreography was a delight, but the main problem with this Phantom adaption is that it's just far too long. I really loved the last thirty minutes or so but it didn't need to take 2 hours to get to that point.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

The Phantom of the Opera review

Posted : 1 year, 4 months ago on 26 July 2008 04:50 (A review of The Phantom of the Opera)

First, let me say that I loved the stage version. And I went to the movie with every expectation of enjoying it, knowing that there would be differences. I was even sure I could avoid the inevitable “they were no…” syndrome. And I’m glad I went. But the movie I saw wasn’t the one I was hoping for.

The actors were generally well-chosen, and didn’t feel as though they were out of place, though I could have wished for a Christine with a stronger voice, and Raul was a bit too milquetoast. I didn’t have the trouble with the Phantom that most people seem to be having. He was older than Christine, and that’s all I really needed on that line. I did have two problems with him, though. One wasn’t the actor’s fault: the makeup they made for him made no sense. Throughout the movie we see his right eye looks exactly the same as his left. Until the mask is removed, and then suddenly, the skin underneath the eye is pulled away from it, and the eyelid seemed saggy. Wouldn’t we have seen this through his mask? The other was that, as nice as the actor was to look at, I do not see the Phantom as buff. Not in any way, shape or form. It just doesn’t work.

I was also mildly annoyed by the fact that they took part of the Phantom’s story and toned it down. The Phantom was the one who designed the Opera house. Madame Guiry says that he was an architect, and he’s constantly referring to the place as his. So why did they feel the need to take this from him? I realize that the little story they made up for him was nice and dramatic, and put Madam Guiry more firmly in his camp, but it bugged me anyway.

I found the faces I recognized in the movie quite interesting. Miranda Richardson was a lovely Madam Guiry, and Minnie Driver was perfect as Carlotta. A particular favorite scene of mine was the “Prima Donna” scene, where she’s about to leave the opera house, and they see the crowd waiting, and all assume it’s for her, and she opens the door, and a man hands her a rose, saying “Could you give this to miss Daae?” and she shuts the door and says, “I’ll stay.” Perfect. She plays to the hilt, which is exactly what the role needs. Oh, and the stage-hand mooning her as she prepares to leave was priceless, too.

Scenes: I liked the interspersed bits with Raul in 1919, particularly seeing the woman who I assume was Meg Guiry. And I remember thinking, “How can they possibly make the chandelier going up exciting in a movie?” But what they did was perfect, turning the chandelier into a time-machine, and sending us back to the opera at its height. The managers being introduced to everyone, and drooling over both Meg and Christine was amusing, and Christine’s first solo was lovely, if a bit weak.

They had me, right up to the point where the Phantom appeared in the mirror, and then suddenly I was watching a very bad rock video version of the Phantom of the Opera. Particularly the multiple images of Christine as she approaches the mirror, the arm-candelabra-filled hallway, and the (wtf?) horse. I couldn’t help but laugh. And for that scene, that simply wasn’t okay.

The chandelier’s crash being moved didn’t bug me too much, surprisingly, as I always kind of thought it was an odd place to put it, though I suppose it makes sense to have it end the first section of the play. Gives it a dramatic finish that simply isn’t needed in the movie. The duet between Christine and Raul on the roof was a touch nauseating, mostly because it went on too long.

The masquerade, which has always been my favorite part of the soundtrack, and which I expected great things from, fizzled. The costumes were lovely, but why weren’t Raul and Christine wearing masks? And as for the Phantom, if anything, his costume should have been bigger and flashier than the one in the stage production, if for no other reason than that this is a movie, and they can blind us more. But no, you barely even noticed his entrance, which could have gone unnoticed if the screen hadn’t shifted to show him. The change in the lyrics here worked surprisingly well, given that it was the combination of two scenes, but I was wondering if he was even going to notice the ring Raul had given Christine.

I was pleasantly surprised by Past the Point of No Return, however. After the muck they made of the title song, I was expecting more of the same, but this time, it worked, and the scene was perfect.


All in all? I’d say if you’re a big fan, do go see it, but if you’ve seen the stage production, understand that it’s definitely not as good.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

High culture for the masses.

Posted : 1 year, 9 months ago on 2 March 2008 07:03 (A review of The Phantom of the Opera)

I'm all up for making theatre more accessable to the masses. I fell in love with the story of the Phantom, when I went to see it in London for my 16th birthday, in a seat with the Gods.

I love this story, I adore the score and obviously couldn't afford to go to the theatre every time I wanted to see it. This film was a God send, excellently done and sung just as well as the original cast, Mini Driver is astounding.

A story of a deformed outcast, hidden from the world in the bowls of a theatre, his musical genius and obsessional, unrequited love with a chorus girl. Such a passionate and moving yarn you won't find anywhere else.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

[Film] Phantom of the Opera

Posted : 2 years ago on 9 December 2007 11:28 (A review of The Phantom of the Opera)

One word: gorgeous. It is a very pretty movie no doubt, and I think it does a good job adapting the musical to the big screen. Story-wise it doesn't have much substance (or make much sense), but neither does the musical. The cast is a hit-and-miss. Emmy Rossum is great as Christine, and her voice is very pleasant. Gerard Butler, on the other hand, lacks the vocal talent required for his role as The Phantom even though he oozes sex appeal (or it could be just the mask). The most boring character, however, has gotta be Patrick Wilson's Raoul, who is as lifeless as a bland love interest could be. The action sequences added in the movie are also quite pointless and redundant, and you can tell they are just there to please the male audience, who otherwise would probably have been bored with a romantic musical involving a guy in a mask.

The movie is flawed but gorgeous, sexy and entertaining. If you like the musical, the chances are you'll probably enjoy the movie too. I did.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Phantom of the opera

Posted : 2 years, 8 months ago on 6 April 2007 09:00 (A review of The Phantom of the Opera)

my fave film of ALL time

ive gotta admit, the book is pretty crap...but Gerry Butler makes an excellent phantom...his voice really fits...and Emmy Rossum is perfect as Christine....

0 comments, Reply to this entry