POTO movie from the point of view of someone who is not familiar with the original

[insomniak]

Posted: 1/1/05 at 3:59pm

Yes, it's probably a sin to call yourself a broadway fan and not know POTO like the back of your hand, but the cast recording is too expensive for a poor teenager like myself and the library's copy skipped more than it played. (that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.)

Anyway, the movie. I saw it yesterday and I have two reactions: WOW and WHAT?. This is doubtlessly the most beautifully crafted film I've ever seen, the sets, the costumes, the way it was all captured... just gorgeous. I don't think I blinked the entire time, not only for that reason but also because I was really pretty lost. I don't know if the stage version's plot is as loosely woven, but I don't feel the movie did a good job with developing the character's motives and why they changed. I still don't know how Christine felt about the Phantom or when exactly she changed. The story got a bit lost under the elaborate design of the set; the dialogue wasn't strong enough to compete. The physical beauty really held my attention more than any other aspect of the movie. The characters are pretty basic- Helpless and Moral Heroine, Pretty-Boy Prince Charming, Mysterious Bad Guy. The only interesting one was the Phantom, but his backround as a plot device would have been better used if the one lady (don't remember her name, sorry) hadn't just told his entire life story halfway in. It felt like 'Ok, we've explained you and now you can go back to your Character Box of Predictablity.' A lot of it was a basic love story dragged over two and a half hours that needed a lot more development.

Acting-wise, no one was really outstanding. Minnie Driver didn't do a lot for me. Emmy Rossum didn't show enough emotion to take my attention away from her pretty costumes until towards the end. Since I know Emcee and etheb will ask, yes, Patrick Wilson sounds lovely but wasn't GREAT. It's not his fault, the part is just flat. Liked him, didn't love him but only because his role didn't allow him to be interesting. As I said, Emmy's acting wasn't spectacular and maybe she is a good actress, but anything she did in thie movie was overshadowed by the splendor of the set, which happened quite a lot. I'm no expert, but I think her voice is fine, just thin at times. Gerard Butler... hm. His singing wasn't bad most of the time. He sounded off occasionally, but I didn't want to rip my hair out. Acting was pretty good, I think. I like the music in general, but I hated how repetitive it could get. Definetly going buy the cast recording, though. (But if they used 'darkness' one more time, I was going to scream)

Anyway, I found myself liking it alright, but I don't feel the need to see it repeatedly. I will say this for the movie- I really was not sure who Christine would end up with (and I was sorely disapointed with her choice.) and that's good because it kept me watching, but there wasn't anything else that did. I felt like it needed a more complex plot. And... that just might be the end of my ramble. Thanks for reading. Updated On: 1/1/05 at 03:59 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/1/05 at 4:20pm

Well done. I love this movie too much for my own good, but I can't put a finger on why... and it's not Patrick. I tried to see it again last night, but that didn't really pan out so well. F*cking family. Ah, well. That's another story. Thanks for posting.

[WhereAmIGoingTo]

Posted: 1/1/05 at 5:02pm

Thanks for that, it was interesting. (I can also relate about the library soundtrack. Ours wouldn't play Music of the Night, it pissed me off, lol.)

[kangaroo]

Posted: 1/1/05 at 5:07pm

personally, I think Frank Butler is the best of the cast. I personally don't like any of the singers that greatly, but he is the best out of them. Thanks for your review.

[Phanfare]

Posted: 1/1/05 at 5:10pm

Thanks so much for this review. I personally love the show so I was sitting there comparing the movie to the show. It was really nice to read a reaction from somebody who was only basing it on the movie, not the show at all. Thanks!! :)

[Type_A_Tiff]

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

Good review, Som. I agree with a lot of what you said. I left the theatre going, "THIS is the big, fabulous Patrick Wilson? Feh." (Luckily I just saw part of Angels in America and now I think he's quite a fabulous actor, but Raoul simply is pretty thankless.)

[insomniak]

Posted: 1/1/05 at 5:21pm

Thanks guys.

[beacon1]

Posted: 1/1/05 at 5:22pm

I've seen the film three times now...so here is my unsolicited and completely fan-biased review of Patrick's portrayal of Raoul... I've never seen the stage production but yesterday I sent with someone who has seen several different ones and she felt Patrick's Raoul beat out all the others.

Omigosh: This man is so talented. Patrick's use of his eyes, facial expressions and stance are so on the mark for this role. As elderly Raoul his eyes and measured gestures are perfect for an ill and aging nobleman. He draws us in and reveals with a look much more than dialog ever could.

As young, dashing Raoul he is confident but not pompous, accomplished but not a braggart. He understands his and his families place in society. When he enters the Hannibal rehearsal to be introduced as the new patron of the opera, he is self-assured and aware of etiquette and social niceties. It's obvious he does not want to linger but he excuses himself with great manners.

And, he is unabashedly, passionately drawn to Christine. Patrick's reactions to Emmy's words and songs are wonderful. His tender smiles and eyes lighting up during "All I Ask of You"...or during "Masquarade" communicate volumes.

The flashforwards again feed us data with just a look, a head turn, and a shot of a Mdme Giry outside the Opera house, the couple at the jewelry store, the running stag, and the cemetery looming ahead.

The leap onto the horse, the ride to the cemetery, the swordfight. All "textbook" romantic but this Raoul is not cliche. He is ready for battle. His snarl is as fierce as the Phantom's when their swords get locked together in the ironwork. He is ready to run his sword through the Phantom but accepts Christine's intervention. He does not bully her or feel he knows better than her. He listens to her and withdraws--but does not lose any sense of presence or passion.

The Final Lair: Omigosh. I was so moved by his anguish as he saw his dreams seemingly coming to naught. He is furious at the situation and that now the Phantom is using him to torment Christine. Patrick performance is phenomanal. He is tied to the portcullis, being strangled by the Phantom--and yet he still rages at his captor: "Why make her lie to you to save me?"

His plea to Christine not to lie for his sake. And, I really began to cry when Patrick's tear-filled eyes showed us Raoul's heartbreak as he sang softly "I fought so hard to free you." This man adored Christine and was willing to die for her.

The final scene in the cemetery. Again, no grand "theatre" in his motions or expressions but every step of the way you see how much Raoul misses Christine. How he still wants to give her a present she will cherish. And, that he understands that the influence of the Angel of Music is part of her.

Patrick shows Raoul's feeling of happiness as he steps away...and then he sees the rose and ring. His eyes dart about the cemetery where so long ago he battled the phantom. You could feel him stiffening at the memory.

Again...the critics who call his performance bland or wooden are, in my opinion, blind/deaf. It's all there for them to see and appreciate.

And Patrick sings like an ANGEL!

Bravo, Patrick, Bravo!

[kec]

Posted: 1/1/05 at 5:30pm

"personally, I think Frank Butler is the best of the cast. "

Ummm... don't you mean GERARD Butler?

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 1/1/05 at 5:32pm

beacon1, at least you admit your biases.

[TGIF]

Posted: 1/1/05 at 5:35pm

I have to say I agree with Emcee. I was just so captivated by the entire thing. I did wish some things were different but my gripes with it are far outweighed by things I adored.

Your take on the movie was interesting to see Insomniak. I have seen the show and am very familiar with it, but I am by no means an expert on it.

"I still don't know how Christine felt about the Phantom or when exactly she changed."

That is a completely understandable reaction and it was one that I had when I saw the stage version. I thought it was because I felt (though others may disagree) I saw a "weak" Christine - for lack of a better word. The way I interpert it is that Christine is just captivated by the Phantom, which was portrayed wonderfully in the movie. She is drawn to him and almost goes into a trace when he sings. I do not see that as love. She loves Raoul, always has. She is however a compassionate person, and she pities the Phantom.

EDIT: spelling

Updated On: 1/1/05 at 05:35 PM

[insomniak]

Posted: 1/1/05 at 5:36pm

Which might be why I don't feel the need to re-evaluate my position on Mr. Wilson. If it makes it any better, I plan to watch Angels in America at some point...

EDIT (TGIF and I posted at the same time)- I understood that much, but I don't know where Christine stands on her feelings toward him while she is in control of her senses. Updated On: 1/1/05 at 05:36 PM

[Mamie]

Posted: 1/1/05 at 5:44pm

I think your confusion hit on the biggest problem with this production.

It was evident (to me anyway) that Christine was very close to her father and missed him very much. In her mind she began to think of the Phantom as the missing father figure. The Phantom on the other hand sees Christine as that untouchable figure of beauty that he's always been denied.

It was these touches that made the stage show so endearing for so many years. You could find yourself understanding and caring for both of these characters.

The film makers chose to make the Phantom younger and more sexually attractive, thus throwing out the original reasons for Christine's attachment to him. Now it's nothing more than any other grade-B Hollywood flick - only this one has a bunch of other theatrical bits thrown in to make it confusing. It's very disappointing to many of us who really loved the theatrical version.

The part of Raoul actually takes on a little more importance - if only as a rival - in the movie version. It's really a throw away part as far as I'm concerned.

[WhereAmIGoingTo]

Posted: 1/1/05 at 5:46pm

You know what the funny thing is, Beacon? I agree, and I've not yet seen Patrick in anything else (though, I really MUST MUST MUST MUST see Angels in America, and not just for Patrick). Raoul is a flat role, but I thought he did an amazing job with it. And I love him tied to the portcullis. :P

[TGIF]

Posted: 1/1/05 at 5:47pm

I guess I will just refer to the movie since you haven't seen the stage version.

I felt that whenever she was in his presence she was always in a way "captivated" by him. When she wasn't around him, at least towards the end she was frightened. He wanted complete control over the theatre and in a way over her. That is very frightening. Near the end she says "What I used to dream, I now dread." But in his "lare" in one of the final scenes she almost comes to understand him, or again at the very least pity him.

[insomniak]

Posted: 1/1/05 at 5:54pm

I got most of that, but I definetly had to dig through the thin storyline and acting to see it. I understand that she was attached to the Phantom because he was sort of what her father promised her, but I thought it wasn't clear in the writing or acting how her feelings changed. One minute she hated him and the next she didn't- in the end I figured it out, but it took a while and I just didn't think it came across well. As I said, in general, there could have been more backbone to the whole thing. I would have liked to see Christine struggling with her feelings more or see Raoul slip up and not be so perfect. It would have been more effective in emphasizing the point than another pretty set piece.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 1/1/05 at 5:57pm

"I think Frank Butler is the best of the cast"

I don't know.
Buffalo Bill gives him quite a run for his money.

[Michelleruth2]

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

I'm going tonight.....I'm anxious to see it after reading this thread.

[etheb]

Posted: 1/2/05 at 3:03pm

i'm seeing it for the third time in about an hour. i, unlike nia, can't help but keep going back! i agree with emcee--there's this unstoppable pull to see it over and over and over. maybe it's just because i'm a totall shill for any new movie musical. i saw chicago 5 times in theaters, and will definitley match and/or beat that with POTO. i love how it looks, i love how it sounds (the orchestrations are FANTASTIC. i keep hearing all these little countermelodies and harmonies that are just fabulous!), and i (sometimes) love the people and story.

beacon, of course i agree with you about patrick. for the crappy role he was given, he does SO much. the second time i saw it, i was actually kind of bored in some of the numbers he's not in, like MOTN. my mother continues to insist that she likes gerry better, and i keep on arguing with her. but i suppose that means more patrick for meeee

as for Emmy, i just remember that she's like 6 months younger than me, and that i could never do any of this, and then i stop finding faults with her.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/2/05 at 3:22pm

YAY BEACON!!! And yay for biases, too. I'm up to three, as well... four soon. I don't know why I love it so much, since the show never did anything for me. Maybe I was just too young.