Official "Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera" Reviews Thread

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 12/21/04 at 8:18pm

It's out. What do people think? Post any official reviews if you find them or if they're not on Rotten Tomatoes.

Does it seem it's going to have overall mixed reviews? Updated On: 12/22/04 at 08:18 PM

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 12/21/04 at 8:23pm

So far they seem to be leaning negative.

[CarolynW]

Posted: 12/21/04 at 8:56pm

Depends on where you look. Right now it is almost 50-50 on RottenTomatoes.com which carries most of the US critc reviews of films.

There are several from the UK on various websites. Do a Google search or you can also check on Phantomfans.net they keep up with reviews around the world. The UK critics were more negative, not surprising since ALW is not a favorite son there:)

I doubt you will find that many on theatre sites as you will on film sites.

I use RottenTomatoes.com as my guide more since they have more US critics.

Variety like it, Hollywood reporter did not, Rolling Stones Magazine liked it and a Boxoffice site gave it a fairly good review.

The official site does not have reviews up. I have a couple on the messge board. We have lots of reviews by FANS negative and positive reviews.

Yours,

Carolyn
Moderator of the WB official Phantom Film website
WB Official Pahntom Film Website

[BroadwayBaby21]

Posted: 12/21/04 at 8:56pm

I'm going to see it Thursday night, so hopefully it's good...

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 12/21/04 at 9:22pm

Seeing it Sunday But, yes....the critics opinions are 50/50

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 12/21/04 at 10:08pm

hmm ok yeah thanks Carolyn.

I assumed the reviews would be mixed from the beginning and it sounds that likes how its going to stay. Just a few hours till I see it.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 12/21/04 at 10:20pm

Read the Newsday reivew. It is quite funny.

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 12/21/04 at 10:40pm

After reading this review, I know I will LOVE the movie (although I do not own any Celine Dion albums)

"Like overpriced costume jewelry, this tasteless, soulless contraption is sure to appeal to anyone who owns Celine Dion and Meatloaf albums."
-- Ed Gonzalez, SLANT MAGAZINE

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 12/21/04 at 10:50pm

Jan Stuart can kiss my ***.

Here's my favorite part:

"Thus, a smash-hit show that has run longer than a prison sentence for manslaughter has been transformed into a movie that crawls like a lifetime on death row."

But what does he mean by "songs patched in from other shows?" This is all the same Phantom music isn't it.

[Sporti2005]

Posted: 12/21/04 at 11:27pm

does the movie actually have the music in it? like, not in the background..i mean actually people singing..b/c i thought it was a sort of "les miz" or "ragtime" deal - where occasionally the die-hard fan will hear a little of the score under dialogue, but never actually sung.
so which is it?

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 12/21/04 at 11:30pm

ummm i gues i don't really know what you mean. it's a musical and the music is sung by human people and there is also music under dialogue.

[etheb]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 12:30am

I saw the BWW screening tonight, and i LOVED it. i'll post more when i have more energy, and have had more time to ponder the details. but overall, it was one of the best movies - and THE best movie musical - i have ever seen.

[Madame X]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 12:57am

I was at the BWW screening tonight too - I loved it too, but not as much as etheb (I don't think). Will post more later...

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:03am

Ok, this is a good sign but we need to find out what people outside of the BWW think too. I think we might be a little bias because we like musicals. Does anyone know a stupid white American Joe Shmoe-six pack (exaggeration) who's seen it? What did they think?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:04am

Ah, sorry. I didn't see this thread and posted elsewhere.

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?thread=641618&dt=122204010224

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:15am

Another great review. I am feeling good about this. I will post mine tomorrow night.

[Shawk]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:28am

I saw it last night, and I'd say it's a very mixed bag. It's not so bad that it's horrid, and not so good that it's worth raving about, and it's not quite entertainingly bad, either.

[LA Guy]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:40am

My take:

Okay, I just saw an advance screening in Los Angeles, and I have to say I thought it was pretty awful!

I pretty much disagree (respectfully) with everything luvthemcee has to say... the show lacks any kind of emotion, and any original idea that would have made for an interesting adaptation to the screen.

It was perhaps one of the most "faithful" adaptation from stage to screen, which means that there seems to have been a lack of imagination on the part of Joel Schumacher (and Andrew Lloyd Webber who co-wrote the 'screenplay' with Mr Schumacher). If I were Hal Prince, I would be demanding royalties, because it is as if ALW and Schumacher took the stage directions for the musical, and simply placed a camera on a sound stage and tried to recreate the staging (down to even the two guys drinking wine inside the elephant in the "Hannibal" sequence).

What has made for successful adaptations is some new take on the material to justify making it for the screen. What made "Chicago" so successful (and interesting) was the notion that all the musical sequences took place in Roxy's mind/imagination, which (1) makes musical transiitons less awkward, but (2) also makes for an added story layer, giving you added insight into Roxy's character.

In "Evita," Alan Parker successfully got over the awkward singing transitions by starting off with a shot of the radio playing musical, then tracking to show Banderas singing. It's a bit of a cheat, but clever - and seemless, to get over that natural inclination to think people bringing into song is strange.

In this version of POTO, there is nothing of the sort to give complexity, nuance or even a reason for the story to be on the screen. While the authors could have explored deeper interpretations (like the Phantom being a figment of Christine's imagination, or the Phantom represeting Christine's sexual awakening), they do nothing of the sort, leaving the movie lacking any sort of core to hold onto. And these are not my ideas I am expressing, but established literary interpretations of the material.

Ok - so what, you say - it's still a good story.

But, the direction of the movie is so poor, the story is lacking, and if anything shows the holes that the musical glosses over. It is sad to say, but the stage version is MUCH MORE cinematic than this screen version. Half the time I felt as though I was watching some new Clavin Klein perfume commercial, with the amount of slow tracking shots with cross dissolves and soft focus! Ug.

Next, the casting, acting and singing. I don't think they got one part right, though Minnie Driver brings some energy to the screen. As for the singing, it is light, listless and doesn't wow you in any way. To make matters worse, the actors lip-synching is so bad at times, Ashlee Simpson's SNL debacle looks tame by comparison (and I am not just talking about Driver's overdubbed singing voice). Wilson and Rossum especially seem to lip synch their songs as if they were speaking the words, not singing them. This brings a sort of disconnect to the audience, because you hear the singing, which requires effort on the part of the body, yet their mouths and body's appear almost motionless, as if they were just mouthing the words, not emoting them.

Worse, the characters switch from song to speaking with seemingly little reason, making all those transitions awkward. And then when it would seem natural from them to shift from song to speaking, they do just the opposite, and go from speaking to song (for instance, when the Phantom yells, "Go now - Go now and leave me..." In the movie, for some reason, he sort of sings it and not with any sense of urgency, but more out of some sense of defeat (which goes against what really should be the emotional underpinnings in this scene).

As for the acting and direction, I re-iterate a point I made earlier. There is NO emotion in this adaptation. The musical pulls you in so many ways - it's scary at times, humorous, romantic, touching, sad, etc. But this filmed version has none of that. You don't feel for the phantom, nor care much for Christine or Raoul.

Speaking of the phantom, can I also say that the make-up and masks seem to keep changing size and shape. Not that you would ever know he was disfugured, since Schumacher never really shows you what is wrong with him until the very end. And even then, the size of his mask was smaller than before, which would seem to suggest his "disfigurement" was not as bad as one would think with his white madk. but then, when he is revealed, all of a sudden the disfigurement takes up not just half his face, but half his skull as well... and sort of answers what happened to Chunk from the "Goonies" movies, since that is sort of what he looks like.

I think this movie fails on every level - as I was driving home from the screening, I had more fun sitting in traffic than I did for the 2.5 hours sitting in the dark.

And don't even get me started on the changes they DID make to the script. SPOILER ALERT -

If you are expecting the chandelier to fall where Act One would normally end, you're sorely disappointed. However, you wouldn't be disappointed, were there a better payoff to where they do finally crash the chandelier. In fact, I see NO creative reason for doing it where they did, and if anything, it undercuts the emotional moment which COULD have been, had they just left well enough alone.

Another strange thing is that half the time, you sort of get the feelings as though they don't want you to think this is a musical. Lots of long shots, obscured mouths, sort of voice-over singing, but then, when you get to "Masquerade" when they could have had a great "Masquerade Ball" sequence, with real dancing, instead they give you one of the most staged sequences, with musical theatre choreography and people singing directly to camera. Really odd and out of place with the rest of the movie.

But then again, it isn't that out of step, because the movie is a series of mis-steps. I can not think of one thing I liked, nor can I think of any reason why one should see this.

I feel bad for anyone who thinks they will get the stage experience in this movie version, because they will get anything but. Nothing inventive, nothing imaginative, nothing that will make them understand why this show was so ground-breaking when it premiered.

Which raises another issue: part of what made the show so special was the "special effects" that happen in a theatre right in front of you... a falling chandelier, a "lake" on stage, rising candelabras coming out of nowhere. Those happenings on stage, the first time I saw the show, were truly magical and awe-inspiring. On screen, when we can have fully realized CGI characters and/or see the Titanic sink, what's so special about a chandelier falling? The answer - nothing. And I still can't seem to understand why they candelabras in this film version rise from the lake for seemingly no reason (I mean, why wouldn't they just be free standing all the time?)

So, if you are expecting to get the same emotional feelings you had upon seeing the stage show, I am afraid you'll be sorely disappointed.

This "Phantom" phails.

[etheb]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:54am

i'm up WAY past my bedtime listening to the soundtrack...need to debrief here...

anyways, random question: when i got the soundtrack, i didn't understand the whole "keep your hand at the level of your eyes" thing, but thought it would be resolved in the movie. it wasn't. anyone care to enlighten me?

[LoringsGuy]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:59am

We have two major metropolitan newspapers in my area, and one critic, who is an easy-going, middle-of-the-road Average Joe kind of guy, gave it a great review. The other critic, who tends to be more highbrow in his choice of entertainment, gave it a so-so review, but admitted to not being a fan of the original stage show. Nothing devastating, but not exactly glowing, either.

I've never cared for the stage show myself, but I can't wait to see this. I hope it's successful, for the sake of future film musicals waiting to be green lit.

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 2:11am

A "nutty" review by Roger Ebert...

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041221/REVIEWS/41201007

[LA Guy]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 2:13am

You keep your hand at the level of your eye so the Phantom can not put a noose around your neck to hang you.

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 2:40am

NY Times Review...

Back With a Vengeance: The Music of the Night
By A. O. SCOTT

Published: December 22, 2004

Far too many notes for my taste," sniffs one of the proprietors of the Opéra Populaire in "The Phantom of the Opera." I quite agree. He is talking about the threatening messages that the control-freak phantom (Gerard Butler) is sending to various members of the company, but his complaint applies perfectly to the music of Andrew Lloyd Webber, whose relentless bombast afflicts this movie like a bad case of swollen lymph nodes.

Of course, Lord Lloyd Webber's music is the whole point of the film, and Joel Schumacher, the director, does his best to find a visual style to match the vulgarity and pretentiousness of the soundtrack. He succeeds admirably, drawing on his long-ago experience designing department-store window displays to produce nearly two and a half hours' worth of overstuffed tableaux, the cumulative effect of which is likely to be a state of headachy nervous exhaustion. This kind of spectacle might work onstage, where numb enervation can sometimes be mistaken for exhilaration, but this screen version, for all its wailing emotionalism and elaborate production design, lacks both authentic romance and the thrill of memorable spectacle.

These failings are not the fault of the cast, which works hard to capture the grand, delicate feelings of this venerable, much-adapted story. Somewhere in this movie is the story of a striving young singer, a tormented musical genius and the volatile mixture of artistic ambition and obsessive longing that binds them together, but it is buried in orchestral sludge and chaotic storytelling.

Lord Lloyd Webber's thorough acquaintance with the canon of 18th- and 19th-century classical music is not in doubt, but his attempt to force a marriage between that tradition and modern musical theater represents a victory of pseudo-populist grandiosity over taste - an act of cultural butchery akin to turning an aviary of graceful swans and brilliant peacocks into an order of Chicken McNuggets. The songs fill your ears, but you are unlikely to find yourself humming any of them after the movie is over (which may, come to think of it, be the only merciful thing about this "Phantom.")

Nonetheless, the music is technically demanding - just try to hum a few bars - and calls forth some impressive singing, especially from Mr. Butler and from the lovely Emmy Rossum, who plays his protégée, Christine Daae. Ms. Rossum, who was the murdered daughter in Clint Eastwood's "Mystic River," breathes some fresh air into her claustrophobic, overupholstered surroundings and brings both a spark of defiance and a touch of melancholy to her role. Mr. Butler has sufficient physical and vocal presence to give the phantom some dramatic weight, though the same cannot be said for Patrick Wilson, who plays the phantom's rival (and Christine's childhood sweetheart), the smooth-faced Vicomte Raoul de Chigny. Although everyone in the movie is supposed to be French, only Miranda Richardson, as the head of the corps de ballet, attempts a French accent.

Minnie Driver, as the Italian diva upstaged by Christine and the Phantom, tries a bit of dialect humor, saying things like " 'Ee lava me!" and "I 'ate my 'at!" as if she were auditioning for a part in the next Super Mario video game. This passes for comic relief in a film otherwise notable for its witlessness. Full though it is of bellowings and screechings about love, art and the spirit of music, "The Phantom of the Opera" is remarkably lacking in tenderness or grace. The gothic creepiness that has kept Gaston Leroux's 1910 novel in circulation for so long has also been swept away. There are dark corridors, guttering candles, masks, robes, corsets and top hats, but no sense of mystery or strangeness.

For that, I suppose, you will have to go back to Rupert Julian's 1925 version, which starred Lon Chaney as the phantom. That film, long regarded as a classic, has a great many virtues, two of which seem especially relevant at the moment: it is 93 minutes long, and it is silent.

[elvenprincess971]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 2:44am

its interesting how so many of the reviewers like the movie overall, but do not like most of the leads, or the plot, etc. After reading roger ebert's review, and others, i found that type of trend.

Sadly, those type of reviews may make or break the decision to see it for those those who arent familiar with the actual show. Hopefully, this doesnt flop.

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 2:48am

What a nice review by Roger Ebert!

I liked this part:

"This has been, I realize, a nutty review. I am recommending a movie that I do not seem to like very much. But part of the pleasure of moviegoing is pure spectacle -- of just sitting there and looking at great stuff and knowing it looks terrific. There wasn't much Schumacher could have done with the story or the music he was handed, but in the areas over which he held sway, he has triumphed. This is such a fabulous production that by recasting two of the three leads and adding some better songs it could have been, well, great."

He seemed to like Schumacher more than Lloyd Webber which is a nice change from the other reviews.