The Phantom of the Opera Reviews

God knows I love musical theater, but I have cared for the ponderous and thunderous work of Andrew Lloyd Weber. He of the simplistic and pedestrian musical and lyrical refrain, of crafting stage shows with scores that all sounds the same except for the one big song, of being nearly single-handedly responsible for terraforming Broadway into gargantuan ugly spectacles that liter the community. You would correct in assuming that I came to Phantom of the Opera with suspicion and trepidation.

 

Imagine my surprise (or the complete lack) to discover that Joel Schumacher managed to both transpose the show onto the screen but still somehow manage to make it badly done. How you can take something that was seemingly engineered to appeal to legions of bombed out wine moms and do it so poorly is an amazing feat of daring. I’d venture to label this a disaster of misguided ambition on par with Showgirls, but this lacks that movies sense of accidental camp and art.

 

This is just boring and self-serious. Wherefore art thou grand kitsch of Batman Forever? A sense of irony, however intentional or not, would liven up the proceedings, but there’s a never-ending parade of ostentatious white elephant art instead.

 

Everyone knows the story of Phantom by now: young ingenue (Emmy Rossum) becomes object of desire for tragic, disfigured hermit (Gerard Butler) while romancing her childhood sweetheart (Patrick Wilson) and upstaging the opera’s diva (Minnie Driver). There are time jumps, spooks, and a parade of elaborate costumes and big scale numbers, most of which garnered laughter from me that was probably not the desired effect. C’mon, they put in a vogue dancer in the middle of “Masquerade” for no discernible reason. That’s funny, especially as Schumacher seems incapable of understanding how to edit on beat and he’s clearly trying to go for that.

 

It doesn’t help that the entire film is awash in fussily overdesigned scenes that literalize things like scene transitions on stage. Something like candelabras rising out of the ground to symbolize the descent into the Phantom’s lair are literalized in this film, so fully lighted candelabras are rising from the water. This doesn’t inspire the giddy sense of unreality and magic that Jean Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast does but calls attention to itself for being unable to adapt itself from stage to screen.  

 

Nor does the cast help matters much. Emmy Rossum and Patrick Wilson sing well and are very pretty to look at but generate no heat and are self-consciously artificial. Gerard Butler and his singing voice (if we’re being generous) are grossly miscast as the Phantom, and his makeup looks more like a bad reaction to shellfish than hideous deformity. The likes of Miranda Richardson, Simon Callow, and Ciaran Hinds are largely wasted in thankless roles that don’t use their prodigious talents in any way befitting of their stature. Only Driver manages to evince anything resembling a personality in this garish spectacle and bless her heart for it.

 

I suppose Schumacher’s ineptitude with the material means it was successfully translated to the big screen as The Phantom of the Opera is essentially a dime store bodice ripper set to a Meatloaf album. It’s big, loud, and empty in the end, so it follows a logical progression that the movie version would expand on those issues and make them bigger. A gaudy stage spectacle gets blown-up for the cinema, and its tilt-a-whirl aesthetics and blaring soundtrack are enough to leave you dizzy and vaguely queasy in the end.   

Honestly, with Joel Schumacher, you never really know what you’ll get, a decent flick or something really terrible, so I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this movie. On top of that, I'm not a big fan of musicals so I was not really the best audience for a movie like this one. However, I thought it was actually not bad at all, quite gorgeous to look at and there were some nice songs. It was also fun to see Gerard Butler before he reached fame with ‘300’ and I thought he was actually quite convincing. Eventually, the big revelation in this movie was the charming and really talented Emmy Rossum who was just 16 years old when she made this movie. After watching this, I expected a lot from her but, unfortunately, 10 years later, we don’t hear much about her anymore which is quite a shame (on the other hand, if you pick up movies like ‘Dragonball Evolution’ and ‘Poseidon’, you can expect your career to take a dive). Coming back to our main feature, the main issue I had was with the story which I didn't find really compelling enough. I know, it is not the point here but without an interesting story, I get bored even when watching a musical. Still, in spite of its flaws, it is actually a decent flick and it is definitely worth a look especially if you are a fan of the genre. 

"Keep your hands at the level of your eyes!"

But don't you dare cover them, because this film is a lovely take of Gaston Leroux's novel. I remember reading a huge paperback book with beautiful illustrations, and I loved the concept of a deformed musical genius who has been shunned by the world because of his deformity. When the film adaptation rolled around, I immediately jumped at the chance to see it in theatres, and I wasn't disappointed. Everything, from the musical score to the costumes to the acting was flawless, but I marveled at the way Gerard Butler sung and acted his way as the Phantom. One could see the sorrow in his eyes, the rage and jealousy in his voice, and the secret yearning for the girl who he knows will never be his. Wonderful songs. A breathtaking romance story (although Christine Daae made a HUGE mistake by choosing Raoul over the Phantom, seriously). Gerard Butler definitely hammed it up as the Phantom, and he infused his portrayal of the tortured soul in a mask to the hilt. Emmy Rossum's unique voice made her stand out among the other actresses who played Christine over the years, save for Sarah Brightman, of course. And Patrick Wilson, well, he gave his own style as Raoul. That's all I can say. But they did a good job, honestly. But what I enjoyed the most was the performance of Minnie Driver as Carlotta. A definite diva; couldn't help but long to tape her mouth shut. The film may be nearly two and a half hours long, but you won't even notice the time, because the movie just sweeps you along and makes you feel as if you're watching the events unfold. A definite must-see for everyone.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....