A little math for ya: PHANTOM = CRAPTASTIC- Page 5

[EddieVarley]

Posted: 12/30/04 at 5:24pm

Between the ever present Liberace set design and the complete disregard of what makes the character of the Phantom work onstage, the film was a major letdown for me...but the midget ROCKED!

[defy_gravity]

Posted: 12/30/04 at 5:35pm

I haven't seen it yet, should I? I know it's a lot worse than the musical, because the original rocked. How was Partick Wilson, though? Any good? What about that girl who was Christine? She didn't look right for the part, in my opinion. Any thoughts?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/4/05 at 4:24pm

***SPOILERS (IF YOU CARE)***

I just saw this film (it was a big movie weekend for me) and all I can say is "WOW". That was pretty bad. While it wasn't ENTIRELY awful (there were a few small scenes here and there I liked), the majority of the film was about as bland and lifeless as...well...as Emmy Rossum's facial expressions, which was in fact, the majority of the film. Emmy seems to have studied the Sean Young method of single-layered film performance. She has two expressions - mouth open and mouth slightly open. Once in a while, you might catch a glimpse of her with her mouth closed, but I guarantee it is not for dramatic effect. Whoever said the dancers in Masquerade looked like ravers are obviously young and way off the mark. The entire scene was obviously inspired by Madonna's performance of Vogue at the 1990 Grammy Awards and it really needed the Moulin Rouge color injection to distract us from the uninspired laughable choreography that was at turns simplistic Vogue and drill team half-time show. Patrick Wilson's hair reminded me so much of Rosemary Clooney circa 1954, it almost seemed intentionally funny. The fact that it wasn't intentional was what made it so unfunny. I literally fell asleep during the song "Phantom of the Opera". The lair sequence at the end was completely static and dull. The silly magic lasso effect on stage was far more exciting and dangerous than watching Patrick standing there knee-deep in water. Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again was always dull on stage, but the film decided not to take advantage of the father-daughter relationship that was almost completely abandonded on stage and almost completely abandonded it on film as well, filling the entire number with shot after shot of Emmy walking around a snowy graveyard........zzzzzzzzzz....... I just thank God Minnie Driver was there to wake me up. Everything that she did was delightful, memorable and actually worth a Golden Globe or Oscar nod. Miranda was good other than the mysterious exception that she was the only French character with a French accent. I thought the explanation of her relationship to the Phantom was one of the more interesting points of the film. Moving the chandelier fall to the latter portion of the film added nothing except disappointment to anyone who knows the musical. When it didn't fall during the performance Il Muto (one of the film's high points), I was bummed and bewildered and by the time it did, I was sleepy and indifferent. I had read last summer that Lloyd Webber and Schumacher wanted "young and sexy" for the leads. I'm not convinced they achieved their objectives.

I still hold firm that Hannibal and Il Muto are Lloyd Webber's best contributions to the score and I would love to see what he could do with an entirely operatic work or a symphonic work intended for ballet. I do hope he will one day be more objective with his film treatments.

Sorry for the scattered an unfocused review, but I tried to put more thought into it than Schumacher did in the film. I think I succeeded.

Posted: 1/4/05 at 4:52pm

After sitting through this movie, the only question I really had was, "Why does Mr. Schumacher keep getting work as a director?"

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/4/05 at 6:01pm

Schumacher has had one of the most critically varied careers as a film director. He had mixed-to-positive reviews for Veronica Guerin, Tigerland, Flawless, A Time to Kill, The Client and Falling Down. He bombed with Phone Booth, Bad Company, 8MM, and his Batman sequels (though both Batman movies did fairly well at the box office). And he had popular success with Flatliners, The Lost Boys and St. Elmo's Fire. Which leaves his mostly forgettable films Dying Young (oh-yea-I-forgot-about-that Julia Roberts sleeper), Cousins (liked-but-ignoredTed Danson French comedy remake), The Incredible Shrinking Woman (oh-yeah-I-forgot-about-that Lily Tomlin film), D.C. Cab (embarassing Mr. T flick).

With Schumacher's bizarre track record, the question is not why he is still working....less credible directors with fewer critical success work constantly.....but why did anyone think he was the right director for this particular film? Nothing in his body of work would even hint that a Lloyd Webber musical would be well-served by this director. Give him Grisham or angst, but nothing that relies on stunning visual imagery (look at what happened to Batman) and excitement that is required to keep this show interesting as proven by the stage production.

[operadiva1979]

Posted: 1/4/05 at 6:22pm

Your review, which I have posted below hit the nail on the head....first of all I did like Gerard Butler as having a more sexual pull, but he was lackluster in all his vocal performances. Secondly, Emmy Rossum. In two words: god awful. Not only can't she sing like the role requires, she has three expressions: dumbfounded, crying, and crying harder. That's it. I actually thought while Patrick Wilson was lacking in the vocal department, he was a very good actor, especially when he plays older Raoul.

I was a bit, ummm, weirded out that they chose a girl so young to play opposite much older male leads...I know she's supposed to be young, but it's the whole Saved by the Bell thing...if you cast ALL actors to be in high school when they're in their 20s, it works...if one is really 14, uh they stick out like a sore thumb.

Last time I checked a pairing such as Emmy/Patrick or Emmy/Gerard would get you ten to twenty.



Holy Mary, mother of God!

You know you're not in a good place when you find yourself thinking back fondly on Sarah Brightman's dulcet tones and forceful acting.

Appalled is the only word I can come up with for what I'm feeling today after having given 2+ hours of my life to that big, stinking pile of poo known as PHANTOM OF THE OPERA.

The person who comes off best is not Lord Lloyd Weber. It's certainly not Joel Schumacher. And it cannot be Gerard Butler's agent.

No, the person who comes out of this whole sorry affair smelling like a rose (one not tied with a black ribbon, by the by) is Hal Prince. MY GOD did that man work wonders with such weak material. Every bit of the Broadway staging is magic...it actually provided chills, an arc and dramatic tension, all of which was lost in this 'film'.

How could every possible wrong choice be made???? I'm sorry, but all of those glorifying Emily Rossum's voice must be enjoying some holiday payote! Now...it's not like she can't sing. She can! And she'd make a wonderful Fiona in Pascack Valley High's production of BRIGADOON. But an overwhelming opera star she is not. She is, however, very pretty and quite a good little actress...when she has something to act.

Poor Patrick Wilson. When will this business learn that Mr. Wilson is actually an accomplished character actor in the body of a leading man??? The possibilities are endless. Why take someone who is so marvelously handsome and put him in a Rhoda Morgenstern wig? Why does someone who mined the depths of his emotions for his stirring performance in the film ANGELS IN AMERICA come off like a mannequin here??? Because there are simply NO EMOTIONS to play in this mess! Please, somebody put him in a Sam Shepherd play. STAT!!!

And then there's the role of the Phantom. If you wanted Antonio Banderas, you shoulda just gotten him. He would have done it. He was DYING to do it. And he would have been remarkable. Instead we have Gerard 'But I'm a Rock Star' Butler caterwauling through some of the very lovely melodies. I'm sorry...but it's not enough to absolve yourself of all blame by claiming you have a rock voice. Rock voices can still be GOOD!!!! Had Bowie or Sting or even...God help me...GEDDY F*CKING LEE sang the score, it would have been, at the very least, haunting...perhaps even thrilling. Instead, it was an aural attack that left me near soul dead.

As for the design...well...to quote ANGELS, 'It's all been done before.' And better, might I add. My boyfriend turned to me during the number 'Phantom of the Opera' and asked if they filmed this in the Haunted Mansion at Disneyworld. And the choreography in Masquerade made the dancing in WICKED look like opening night of WEST SIDE STORY! Horrifying.

Now...is it really fair to blame Lord Lloyd Webber? After all, he only wrote the melodies...some of which are lovely. He isn't responsible for the lyrics and the book, right?

As a matter of fact, yes he is. It's not like he's some neophyte who never had a show produced before. He has complete control over his shows and should have demanded his co-authors keep up with his standards, pedestrian though they may be. At least they're pretty!!!

I've truly never seen something go so horribly awry. Was Minnie Drive the lost Marx sister? Why the hell was Miranda Richardson (who somehow kept her head above water) using a French accent?? And was that Baby Spice as Meg Giry???

If this movie has not put the nail in the coffin of movie musicals, it certainly has it's hand on the plug, screaming "Who's on top and who's on bottom now???'

Posted: 1/4/05 at 6:27pm

Mister Matt - I agree with your points. I seriously wondered during some of the set-peices if he realized that there was an established music line that was going to be going on in the background. I kept seeing arcs of scoring that, despite what anybody thinks of their merit, led in a certain dramatic direction - and the visual had NOTHING to do with it. I suppose this could ultimately be the editor's fault, but it really looked to me like that poor editor was given nothing to work with.

[LA Guy]

Posted: 1/4/05 at 7:17pm

Here's my take...

I have to say I thought it was pretty awful! 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 mask. 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 hybrid music video 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.

[CatieElphie1]

Posted: 1/4/05 at 8:29pm

heh heh heh heh. I must tell you, yours is the first post I have ever laughed openly to. You are SO right in every way. Ms. Rossum needs to stay in Disney "b" movies, not here. Ever.
I thank you. you are the first (but with 5 pages of comments it seems you are not the last) person to loathe this movie as much as I did.

[shira467]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 3:51am

I finally saw this movie, having finally found the time to spend a couple of hours in the movie theater.

I liked the sets. Sure, they've all been done before. But how many opera house designs are there? I think the sets were my favorite part.

I like Emmy. She was pretty, she played the part. But to the person who said she had two expressions "mouth open, mouth slightly open", I kep wondering how she kept that expression. I mean, it's too "Oh, my, I'm in a trance...damsel in distress/under spell" kind of thing for me. But I thought her singing voice was suitable. Wouldn't last on stage, but for the movie, okay.

But damn Gerard Butler for ruining the movie for me. I was almost enjoying it, and then he had to sing. The pain. The suffering. The complete and utter lack of vocal talent. Okay acting. But the singing. To quote another person here "If they wanted Antonio, they could have gotten him". I think I could have dealt with a Spanish phantom more so than Mr. Butler. There are many people who could have played this role -- and they chose him. Ugh.

Patrick Wilson has a beautiful voice, but if only he'd had better castmates, he could have shone. Or so I hope.

However, what was most squirm worthy (sitting next to the parents of a child I taught in preschool), is the softcore porn between Phantom and Christine. I mean, I know it's supposed to be sexual and erotic and all. But geez. If I wanted porn, I'd go buy porn.

However, I still love the sets. And Madame Giry. And I like Emmy, and hope she goes somewhere. And that's my review. If anyone cares at this point.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 8:21am

DGrant - "I seriously wondered during some of the set-peices if he realized that there was an established music line that was going to be going on in the background."

You are absolutely right. I thought he did well with the opening sequence and the transformation of the theatre, but it seemed that was the only scene in the film that he thought about musically. Everything else seemed as if he plotted out the "production" scenes and the "dialogue" scenes with no thought given to the continuous underscoring, which is what could have really set this film apart from Chicago or Moulin Rouge. I noticed it the most after Masquerade (Why so silent, good Monsieurs?) and in the Phantom's Lair at the end. There was little to no tension or sense of danger. Considering films are shot first and the scores are specifically written to add dramatic emphasis for each scene, I can appreciate the challenge a film director would have with this piece, but Schumacher obviously just didn't have the vision or the ingenuity. I will give him a teensy bit of credit for the flashbacks and the attempt to even out the opening sequence (which never made much sense to me on stage). But I think it would have worked had he shot the flashback sequences of the Phantom's past in black-and-white and included flashback sequences of Christine and her father during Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again (making more sense of the father/daughter relationship that was abandonded) and perhaps another flashback of Christine and Raoul when they were young during Little Lotte or All I Ask of You. I think it would give a bit more depth to the story as well as strengthen the frame of the timeline that he attempted unsuccessfully.

[Magical_Ms._Mistoffeles_72]

Posted: 1/8/05 at 6:14pm

Can we please stop hating the phantom movie now? Okay, so nothing can ever be as good as the stage version. I think we all know that. But this movie gave those of us who never got a chance to see the stage version a chance to at least SEE one of the greatest musicals ever

[Marquise]

Posted: 1/8/05 at 6:23pm

no we cannot stop hating the phantom movie now, even though it gave those the opportunity to finally see in your opinion: "one of the greatest musicals ever" be that as it may to many the movie was still bad, you have your opinion don't try to silence those with their own. Updated On: 1/8/05 at 06:23 PM

Posted: 1/8/05 at 6:29pm

Just for the record, I've yet to get back to see it the 2nd time!

Tomorrow, first showing.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 1/8/05 at 8:03pm

Seen it twice.

Posted: 1/9/05 at 4:49pm

I went this afternoon to see it a second time.

I liked it even more than the first.

This film musical is finely done. And it ranks with one of the best film musicals.

You'll see.

[DofB5]

Posted: 1/9/05 at 6:20pm

Updated On: 1/9/05 at 06:20 PM

[DofB5]

Posted: 1/9/05 at 6:21pm

I hope you don’t mind if I chime in with my two cents worth.

First I had vowed I would never go to see the movie and paid no attention to it once it was in production. Curiosity got the better of me so I went to see it last Saturday, having seen the stage version of it 2 weeks before that.

I liked the opening. When the chandelier rises and the old theater becomes new again was nicely done. Having said that, that was about all I liked about the movie.

The stage version was and is head and shoulders above the movie.

The seamless transformations from one scene to another in the stage version were gone.

The switching from speaking the songs to singing them made no sense.

Patrick Wilson who played Raul (who as most of you already know is NOT my favorite character by any means) was the best out the whole cast.

One of the managers sounded off key and just awful.

And don’t get me started on the Phantom!

Not paying attention to who was finely cast in the title role, I made the mistake of telling friends on another board that English obviously was not the mans first language. The singing was so choppy that it sounded like they literally pieced each word he sang together.

The mask was a joke. When his true face was finely revealed, there was so little wrong with him that one wondered if he was such a “genius” (who lived in a opera house no less) why couldn’t he figure out how to use the stage make up to cover his “disfigurement”.

The stage version went to much greater lengths to show that Eric had a disfigurement.

The “Masquerade” sequence where the Phantom appears as Red Death was always a highlight in the stage version. I don’t know what happened with the movie. They ran out of money for a decent costume and couldn’t borrow one from a stage show?

I also strongly question the idea that Madame Giry or Eric were still alive in the future that was the ending.

I could go on and on with everything I thought was wrong with it but others have already covered those points.

I’m sorry but the movie was horrible. I have no plans on buying the DVD or the soundtrack.

I can only finish by saying I had feared it would be a disaster beyond my imagination. I am very sorry that it lived up (or down as the case may be) to that expectation.

D

[DofB5]

Posted: 1/9/05 at 6:21pm

Updated On: 1/9/05 at 06:21 PM

[beacon1]

Posted: 1/9/05 at 8:57pm

Just saw it for the 5th time. Really loved it this time, too.
Theatre (again) as nearly completely filled. Adults and teens. There was applause at the end...

And I was overwhelmed again at the overature and sobbed again during Raoul's struggles in the Final Lair.

Loved it. Am going with another group of friends in a few days.

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/11/05 at 5:14pm

Felt the need to bump just to make sure everybody knows that this film is CRAPTASTIC!

[Sally]

Posted: 1/11/05 at 8:45pm

<< Abotu the miming--wasn't much of the singing done "live"? Shumacker and all claim they invented a process where much of it could be recorded and performed at the same time >>

Schumacher isn't very clear about it, but here is what he said in an interview with Cinema Confidential:

"Q: Were you nervous about doing live performance on camera as opposed to the singers lip synching?

JOEL: No. The old way the movies used to be made and even some of the modern musicals, they did the album first and then they would lip sync it. I thought because this was a lot sung-through, the lyrics provided the dialogue of the film the same that poetry does for some plays, that it was more important for the actors to act it than perform it for the balconies, which you have to do. What we did is a scratch track for them to follow, because the music has to be the same, but if they cried or laughed or paused or whispered something. For instance, there are things in “Music of the Night” that of course, when you’re on stage, you’re singing for the whole theatre, but when he has Christine next to him and he has her in his embrace, he can whisper to her."

[newyorkuniq]

Posted: 1/21/05 at 12:34pm

As a movie musical lover, and Phantom fan, I just couldn't believe that the movie was Craptastic untill I saw it for myself last week.
I thought it was terrible from a acting,singing,and filmmaking standpoint.
Ok -the set was good......thats about it.
If you are interested here are some of the reasons I feel this way:

**- Emmy Rossum. "High school play quality" acting, and bad singing. During the entire movie her face showed maybe three expressions. I felt that her Christine really lacked emotional depth and was one dimensional. The singing was WEAK and airy. We are supposed to believe that her singing is more enjoyable than Carlotta's, but in the movie Carlotta is a much better singer.
**-When the Phantom takes Christine into his dungeon her hair and makeup drastically change. This is a huge no no in film consistancy and it happens again when the Phantom takes off his mask and has no hair where hair was before, and parts of his face that were perfect are now covered in scars.
** The lipsyncing in the movie was way off at some points, and very obvious the entire time. This should never be a distraction if done well.
**The guy playing the Phantom was a horrible actor and went way off key more than a few times. Who was that guy? I was with a friend during the movie who leaned over and said "Where did they find that guy he's awfull!" To which I replied "AMDA"
Besides all of this stuff the movie really lagged and the ending was over the top corny.
I went in expecting the same quality as Chicago but left really dissapointed. I hope that the upcoming Rent and Producers movies do them much more justice then this one.

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 1/21/05 at 1:58pm

It sure is one gigantic piece of crap! I usually can find something good about even the most mediocre of movie musicals. I own several on DVD just for one or two favorite scenes. But this is one movie musical that I would NEVER want to subject myself to a second time. Not even for it's "supposedly" beautiful look. (Frankly, IMO the 1980's T.V. series, "Beauty and the Beast", had more imaginative sets.) If it had opened wide, instead of in limited release, it would be long gone by now.

Updated On: 1/21/05 at 01:58 PM

[EponineThenardier]

Posted: 1/21/05 at 2:39pm

Little tweeks that would have made HUGE differences in how this movie turned out:

1: If they wanted Gerard Butler for so long they whould have IMMEDIATELY started giving him lessons instead of waiting until 6 months before shooting. If they have their eye on someone for a part they should give them plenty of time to train. I think that Gerry is gonna have a very good voice in about 5 years or so if he keeps training all the time. He could be very good. 6 months is no where near enough time to turn a non singer into a Broadway leading man.

2. Get a different director. Honestly the amount of difference that it makes is enormous. I'm not a huge fan of the music or story of Chicago. But I loved the movie when I saw it. Why? Because of the way it was packaged. It was so complete and well made that it was well worth it. Rob Marshall could have done wonders here. Baz of Moulin Rouge would have been fabulous.

3. Raoul. The part could use some rewriting. Seroius rewriting, not just more screen time. Poor Patrick Wilson. The guy has $hit-loads of potential and talent. All wasted and then some. And his hairdo didn't do much either. Were they trying to make him look like a girl?

4. LIP SYNCING!!!! OH GOOD GOD!! The lip-work in Moulin Rouge and Chicago were practically flawless. That was sevreal years ago, Phantom has no excuse to skimp on this. And by golly it makes a HUGE difference.

5. Emmy. There is a difference between singing in character and singing weakly. I would have been happier with someone else as Christine. Also someone with a better screen presence. I think there had to be some personality traits that drew Raoul and the Phantom into Christine. Not just looks. They love her more than anything. And it ain't because she the prettiest girl, there has to be a full character and personality there worth fighting for.

my 2 cents.