Official "Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera" Reviews Thread- Page 3

[Matt_G]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:23pm

This really is a show that grows on you. I hated it at first, but over a long period of time I began to like the music more and more. There's a few shows I feel that way about.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:33pm

I saw it when I was 10, so I really think I was too immature to understand the material. No, not understand, but appreciate it, you know?

[InTheMoney]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:35pm

"If you are expecting the chandelier to fall where Act One would normally end, you're sorely disappointed. "

Doesn't that render the lines "To a prosperous year, to a new chandelier" in Masquerade a tad redundant? Or have those lines been cut?

[Matt_G]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:37pm

It has been altered but BELIEVE ME it works better this way for the film.

[elvenprincess971]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:53pm

*sigh* this is why i dont like to see musicals turned movies. too much altering takes away from what i originally loved about the show.

[Matt_G]

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

Why don't you see it before you make that judgement.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:58pm

And if they change details for a movie, the original show looses nothing, it's just a different interpretation. The show looses none of what made you originally love it.

[elvenprincess971]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 2:01pm

true. good point. probably shouldn't go into it with the mentality that im not going to like it, because its different from the show.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 2:04pm

It's not like the show is an especially literal adaptation of its own source material.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 2:06pm

Well it's really not all that different from the show...it's the same show.

[Rentaholic2]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 2:18pm

So I have a question...

First of all, I adore Phantom, and I really don't think I can be disappointed in ANY movie adaptation, so long as there is one. Plus, I'm a huge sucker for lavish sets, colors, costumes, glitter, etc. And from what I've heard, I love the slightly modern feel of the new soundtrack.

Anyway, question:

it seems like there are many negative reviews...how were the original reviews for Chicago? I love that movie, did it open to mixed critic reviews? I guess I just want to believe that Phantom can still be a phenomenal success...

[Matt_G]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 2:37pm

If I remember correctly, CHICAGO opened to great reviews.

But I don't think reviews will hurt this film. PHANTOM is an international name and people are going to go see it. The truth is that people who aren't "theatre snobs" like the majority of us here aren't going to really notice the little things we nitpick about and I'm sure it will become a classic.

Posted: 12/22/04 at 2:54pm

I really enjoyed it. It's a great movie musical. JS got it right. It was grand, sweeping, sumptious, at times funny, at moments intimate, romantic and sexy. Sure there's flaws, but some of that is source material. I do like POTO, but it's not ALW's best effort.

CASTING:
Emily R: Gorgeous, lovely and has a beautiful voice. It's not too operatic, ala Sarah B, but that fits her character better, as the young budding star.

Patrick W: Fine, handsome and proper, his voice refined, like his character. Let's face it, Rauol in the musical is kind of a nothing guy.

Gerald B: Sexy, gruff, manly. His gravily voice actually works for me more than some, as it befits his character. Don't forget that in a live stage show, a more imposing, operatic singer puts the character over, but in film, it can be illustrated differently, and a bombastic voice might not be as necessary.

I thought all 3 were fine, and the fact that the Phantom was a bit younger removes the "Father figure" creepy crush and makes it a more watchable love triangle. Also, I do believe that some of the stage Phantoms (Hugh Panaro for one) have played the part while in their 30's, so it's not that much a stretch to see a younger looking Phantom.

SPOILER ALERT!
I thought the storytelling device used throughout, B&W start, the music box, etc., flashing back and forth was effective and interesting. The added material about the Phantoms origins and the relationship with Mdme Giry (great work by Ms Richardson) worked. Also, this came from a few friends and is up for discussion. Is it possible that Meg is the Phantom's child with Madame Giry? The focus of her at the end with the mask could be a foreshadowing? Minnie Driver was awesome. And, now that I think of it, her changing accents could actually be part of her character. Carlotta, the diva would be that affected. Either way, she was hilarious.

Overall I thought Joel S was restrained, translation it wasn't too Schumacheresque. The sets, costumes, cinematography were, wait for it...almost Operatic, keeping within the theme. In my opinion, regardless of the reviews, this should help keep the movie musical momentum going.

[Phantess]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 3:16pm

Hello. I woke up at an insanely early time to see the first screening of the Phantom movie. It was worth it. There were a max. of seven people who also were there.

My expectations going into the movie were medium. I suppose because I had seen so many clips online, as well as knowing all the music and....the ending. So I was sitting there thinking, "Okay impress me." As a seasoned fan, this is what I'm sure a lot of you are going to think.

The set up and the plot of the movie was flawless. It is so much easier to digest and the flow is incredible. The little additions to the plot that put a lot of people up in arms really didn't matter too much. I will say (SLIGHT SPOILER) the connection between past and future, is an astounding way to link the movie together and transition between parts.

The direction and filmography. I am stunned by the direction of Mr. Schumacher. As a student studying film for the past semester I was very keen on the technical aspects of the movie. The angles and moves were just stunning and really compliment the production as a whole. We are so used to seeing the show from the audience point of view and although we are watching live theatre it is still very one dimensional. Having the camera in at certain angles was perfect for the medium. My favorite technical aspect has to be the lighting. Perfectly brilliant lighting that illuminated the rich colors of the costumes and scenery. Speaking of costumes and scenery, it is elaborate yes, but it did not take away from the more important aspects of the film.

The only thing I was disappointed with is the integration of song and spoken word. Sometimes it is incredibly obvious when certain people are lip syncing and it is not so much Carlotta that you can tell. It is also weird because one minute the character will be speaking in a normal tone then break out into song. Of course I know the movie is a musical, but the dialogue did not mix as well as I would have hoped. Also the reactions that an audience is use to when they see the a live performance is loss in the actors. Are they singing or moving their mouths... okay why hasn't she breathe yet. I just felt there was something loss in the way the songs were integrated.

When I first saw the deformity I thought, okay devil child no… slightly balding and skin irritants yes. The movie deformity is nothing compared to the stage version. I still do not know what to think about that.

I imagine that Masquerade will be the next Macarena. Who ever the solo hip hopper was I thought was pretty good. Very different, but very catchy. Christine must have missed the memo that it was a black, white, and tan ball.

Flashback farther into the past with Mme Giry. Oh fantastic, it completely answered the question of who is the phantom and why did he get to be where and who he is. It is solid decisions and the interpretation like this that really made the movie a complete different animal than the staged version. Looks like screen play did a little extra homework as well when it came to lair and trap building. Extra effort points for the traps.

The sword fight. First of all to some of you PFNers…shut up about the Phantom losing the fight, it was not horrible nor was it a giant defeat, he did not even shed any blood so calm down. It was intense and very much called for, especially since there could be no magic fire from the ground or anything like that. It did not end in begging…who told me that?!

I found it much easier to believe the story with the phantom having no random magical powers to make people croak or to raise steel portcullises. The story just makes it all more believable.

The “surprise ending” as I call it, puts to rest a question someone asked a while back. I like it quite a bit. It puts a nice finishing touch on the movie.

Now for the part you have all been waiting for. My comments about the actors.

I'll start with Christine (Emmy Rossum) first. Perfectly casted for Christine however her voice and role interpretation did not satisfy me. She is very pretty and that alone kind of makes up for the fact she is very static. During Think of Me, I was thinking "why doesn't she move??!!" she barely even moved her arms. For goodness sakes she is lip syncing she can have more expression than just standing there and singing the aria. Same thing happens through out the movie, especially towards the end. I just got the feeling that the blocking notes consisted of, "move, stand, sing, finish song, move," as oppose to mixing all the elements together. As Christine her interpretation is fresh, as she has never seen the show before. Maybe she should have. Her Christine is young, fickled, and weak. I personally disagree with this Christine style, but whatever floats your boat. What I did like from her was the softness towards the Phantom. In her eyes you can see the connection between the two characters. Emmy is incredibly talented when she needs to express an emotion and is able to tap into the core of sorrow and love. I do hope she wins the Golden Globes or an Oscar or something. My score for her is a B.

The Phantom (Gerald Butler) great acting, semi delicious voice. Warning he’s a rock singer and rock sang is what he did. I won’t comment any more on his voice. He did it, that’s it okay. Butler’s acting skills were amazing, the interpretation of the pain and the anguish felt by the phantom were portrayed with such ease for him. The heart just bled for the poor character. The acting is complimented with a sprinkle of vocal talent. Even Gerald Butler, who claims to have taken hundreds of music lessons in preparation for the role, did a better job lip syncing. His look is stunning. How can a half mildly deformed guy still look so good. He exceeded my expectations for interpretation, therefore he gets a B+.

If you were not a Raoul (Patrick Wilson) lover before, you just may turn into one. Patrick Wilson recently sky rocketed to the top of my favorite Raoul list with superior acting and vocals. I detest the hair completely. His performance in final lair solidified my love for Patrick’s interpretation as Raoul. Impetuous is the word to describe him, but in a good way. Patrick’s voice is definitely seasoned Broadway and for that alone he gets an A-.

Carlotta (Minnie Driver) is absolutely hysterical. She basically had to show up to work, scream with an accent and lip sync. She did the best lip sync too. Great interpretation and acting. B-.

Jennifer Ellison’s Meg Giry was very cute and girlie. She is Meg and that’s all I can say. Her voice is very sweet sounding, no overkill vibrato or anything. Her role seems to be lessened quite a bit, so the scenes she were in she was standing around.

Most outstanding female performance had to be Mme Giry (Miranda Richardson). Although her accent drove me crazy, the character was stunning and she portrayed the part stern yet caringly.

Reyer (Murray Melvin), much bigger part for this character. For some reason I really enjoyed him quite a bit.

Other favorites: The Midget??!!! (who’s idea was that?), The Sheep (yay for the sheep being difficult), and the guy who mooned Carlotta/the camera (if you knew you were going to do that…why wouldn’t you try to go to the gym..).

In summation, go see the movie and screw the critics. Go to see the opulence and the new interpretations of the musical, go to see the actors or listen to the new music. Take my advice though if you are crazy “phan” of the musical. Go to see the movie pretending like you’ve never seen the show in your life, and that you don’t know ever word in the script. If you do, not only will you be exhausted, but you will miss the amusing things in your haste to hate the differences that were made.

I suppose I will see this movie in the theater again, but I would first see Meet the Fockers or that one about the ocean (not Oceans 12...that was a horrible movie), first.

Posted: 12/22/04 at 3:30pm

I just came back from seeing it. I must say I myself loved it. The sets were flawless. Sheer perfection.

I think the young voice worked for Emmy, and definately enhanced her character. Patrick has a lovely voice, and Gerry. all I can say is WOW. Screw Michael Crawford, this guy rocks! He's gruff and powerful!

overall I like the movie a lot. It really also brings you into Paris more, and the opera house. In the show, the opera house was never really a big part. Well, it was, but one never really actually saw the opera house.

[etheb]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 3:58pm

i wrote this earlier but BWW world was down so i didn't get a chance to post till now.

reading these reviews, it seems like the critics either love the music and hate the interpretation, or hate the music but like the movie despite of it. i guess it's just a matter of personal taste.

i, for one, like both. i think that you cannot compare this movie to the show, or any other show, for that matter. nor can you compare it to "normal," all-dialogue movies. the movie musical is an entity unto itself and must be treated as thus. i think it is only fair to compare it to the more recent movie musicals: Moulin Rouge and Chicago. I think it is every bit as good, if not better, than those two (and i LOVE both MR and Chicago--have seen them a zillion times each and they never get old). it's probably not going to win the awards that Chicago did, but Chicago had more appeal to non-musical theater lovers. the score was more jazzy and less operatic (duh), the time period was more accessible, etc. still, i think that, if nothing else, POTO will be popular among those who, like myself until this year, have no access to broadway shows. when MR and Chicago came out, i was thrilled to have something Broadway-related that was not a CR (there's only so much you can do with music but no images to accompany it) or an off-off-off-off-off (x500 miles) Broadway production.

in terms of the talent of the actors, i think that Gerry is just as good as Ewan and Nicole in MR, and more so because his part is so much more challenging than theirs were. And of course, Patrick and Emmy, with real, classical training, were far better than anyone in the other movie musicals.

(side note: the reviewers who didn't like Patrick must be straight men, gay women, or BLIND. i would choose him over Gerry in a heartbeat! Oh my GOD, the kiss during "All I Ask of You" made me nearly fall out of my chair. AAH!)

This movie may not be a box-office smash, and it might not win awards. it's certainly not perfect, and i'm not saying it is. i still loved it and will go back to see it many times, and then will buy the DVD and watch that a gazillion times. a movie doesn't have to be perfect to be enjoyable, and i think POTO is a perfect example of this.

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 4:03pm

bronxboundexpress: "Notice how none of the reviews have just come right out and bashed Gerard Butler's voice like some people on this board have?"

Um, actually, no. They seem overwhelmingly scathing (not simply "negative" or "ok"). I'm honestly curious though...can you post links to some more positive reviews, with particular regard to Butler? I realize there have been a few that have not necessarily "bashed" him, but they're not exactly raving either.

I'm not intending to "start anything" here...just curious.

[JBSinger]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 4:18pm

Well I saw a free sneak preview last night and did enjoy the movie. I was forgiving of some of the structural changes and even some of the dropped keys. The cematary sword fight was a welcome addition and scenically, it was gorgeous throughout. One of my beefs with the new crop of movie musicals is if the performers could actually perform the role in the theatre 8 times a week. On at criteria, only Patrick Wilson and Simon Callow (and the girl who played Meg) would get my vote. Emmy did a nice job but her voice is too young and undeveloped. Though her voice is lovely, I know any number of sopranos who could sing rings around her. Gerard Butler gives an intense and actually sexy performance. Perhaps it was the theatre I was in, but his vocals were a mixed bag. Minnie Driver was funny as Carlotta and her voice double was sufficiently operatic.
I think this movie will be well-received but not have anywhere near the impact of the CHICAGO film. This movie opened up the stage production and delivers a fine account of it, whereas CHICAGO re-defined the show and kept the bite and heat. I don't think this will affect the upcoming movies (Producers & Rent) because Producers is a musical comedy and has sufficient "talking" funny bits between the numbers. I imagine RENT will look like a big music video and go over pretty well.
Go see Phantom, especially if you're a fan. Another problem is that with such an enduring piece, things become cliche. I haven't seen the stage show in 14 years but still know every line, so there were few surprises.

Posted: 12/22/04 at 4:25pm

minnie didn't sing.

[kec]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 4:28pm

"I'm honestly curious though...can you post links to some more positive reviews, with particular regard to Butler? I realize there have been a few that have not necessarily "bashed" him, but they're not exactly raving either."

There was a part in the NY Times review in which the reviewer mentioned "impressive"singing by both Gerard Butler and Emmy Rossum. I can't access the NY Times site at the moment, so I can't give you the link.

[Derek]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 4:39pm

Okay, seems to me like people either love it or hate it. We all have to remember, when the movie CHICAGO came out, it too got mixed to bad reviews. It only recieved 2 stars in Newsday, and ended up winning the oscar for best motion picture. Im not saying PHANTOM will win the award, I'm just saying it's still early. I guess if you enjoy the soundtrack u will enjoy the movie. From what I heard, all the negative comments seem to about their voices. I actually really like Emmy's voice as well as Patricks. Gerards..well...he adds character to the role. Im seeing it tonight, I will let you know how it is :)

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 4:58pm

kec: The NY Times said, "Mr. Butler has sufficient physical and vocal presence to give the phantom some dramatic weight...."

"Sufficient" doesn't exactly equal praise in my book. And I still maintain that there are plenty of other actors out there who could provide at LEAST as much "sufficient dramatic weight" as Butler while at the same time giving us a show-stopping, INDISPUTABLY powerful vocal presence. And I know there's that whole "film is a different animal than the stage" argument, but no one has yet to convince me that I should put up with something that's sub-standard JUST because it's on film rather than live on a stage.

Oh well...the general tone of even the most positive reviews seems to point to one bottom line: If you're not much of a fan of the show to begin with, don't expect to be won over by the movie. I seem to be noticing a pattern in that those who have always liked the show like the movie too (and therefore Butler), while those who've never been crazy about the show anyway don't care for him.

In spite of all the vocal controversy, I'm still really looking forward to seeing it, if for the visual quality alone (which, by many accounts, is the strongest part of the film). Updated On: 12/22/04 at 04:58 PM

[BroadwayPhil]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 4:59pm

I'm looking forward to seeing this !!

[beacon1]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 5:25pm

Etheb...

Thanks for the review.

And, as for the kiss in AIAOY...yes, I've heard it really rocks our socks.

Can not wait. I can't see it until next week, but then...hold onto your hats!

Etheb...don't forget to check out the thread on the main board here about the new Broadway.com article on Patrick and the chance to ask him a question. I already posted mine...and I kept it in good taste. No mention of beaches or anything. Emcee is proud of my restraint. LOL!

[Marquise]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 5:42pm

a reviewer from boston had me laughing my @$$ off with his take on the "Masquerade" ball production number:

"That moment will probably come during the big masquerade ball, where certain folks in the audience will turn to one another and ask about the actors dancing on-screen, "Are they vogueing?"

the reviews for this movie are deeply mixed to completely negative...not a good sign...

i'm seeing it tomorrow night and judging for myself
Updated On: 12/22/04 at 05:42 PM