Phantom Of The Opera, the movie...HOW BORING...

[DrTheatre]

Posted: 10/12/06 at 10:07pm

Sorry if this has been a topic before and this may be a pointless thread, but just wanted some opinions on this!

Today I decided to finally rent POTO and wow, what a let down.

I do have to say that I haver NEVER seen PHANTOM OF THE OPERA on stage, and to be honest I have no real passion to see it on stage at all. I am sure one of these days I will see the stage-version just to say "I saw that", but not in the near future.

But this movie really had not idea what it wanted to be---a musical or a thriller. I got bored in the first 5 minutes of the film. The visuals were very nice (the dungen scene looked like it could be a boat ride at Disneyland or something, wouldn't that be fun PHANTOMN OF THE OPERA the ride). But over all this film bored me.

I felt bad, beacsue it should have been sooooo gooooooood. We have been waiting way to long for a MUSICAL version to come out and it was such a let-down.

Responed back on what you like or didn't like of the film.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 10/12/06 at 10:22pm

*ducks*

[SDav 10495]

Posted: 10/12/06 at 10:24pm

Eh, considering the movie came out almost two years ago and a lot of people found it boring, I'm sure there's a similar thread somewhere...

As for me, the stage show is my sentimental all-time favorite musical of all time. I know it's not the best, but it's one I can and have come back to time and time again. The movie didn't come close to replicating the experience of the stage show for me. Yet I really didn't think it was terrible. I went from initially loving the movie to eventually loathing it, but for a while now I've been neither here nor there. When I really sat down and gave it another chance a few months ago, I found that I enjoyed it a lot more than I remembered...I do think it's a pretty good film.

I realized, though, that looming over its many little flaws (which I guess I can live with) was the huge flaw that brought everything down: the casting of Gerard Butler. Interestingly, when I first saw the movie in theaters, he was the one who I was most impressed with (probably because I expected the worst). I still think he did an admirable job with what he was given, and of all the actors in the film he comes off to me as the one who cared most about his role and really put something into his performance. He was just not the right man for the job. The character of the Phantom, as anyone on the street can tell you, is defined by two things: his voice and his face. With Gerard Butler, one was ugly and the other was pretty...and it wasn't the right way around. How the part could be so miscast is beyond me--Butler is the furthest thing from what the role calls for. It's not his fault that the casting was such a mistake...and judging by what I read in some interviews at the time, I think the poor guy was aware of it.

Anyway, I think the movie is quite good for what it is, but it's unfortunate that they screwed with the character at the heart of the story. I find the stage show approximately 600 times more enjoyable, however.

[broadway86]

Posted: 10/12/06 at 10:25pm

I didn't hate it. The visuals were great, some great moments, and Minnie Driver was hilarious. That said, it had a whole slew of problems. Among them, Emmy Rossum. I just don't get it.

[Rotel1026]

Posted: 10/12/06 at 11:49pm

Don't worry about rushing to see Phantom on stage though, according to the posts on Broadway-The Next 50 Years, you got plenty of time to catch it.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 12:06am

Yes, it was a total bore. But it is a fairly faithful transfer of teh stage show. It just happens that the stage production is also a bore. The let-down is in the writing: The lyrics and dialogue are bland, and all that is left to drive the show are the special effects.

Obviously for some, that is enough.

[musical_devotee]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 3:36am

I found the stage version much more interesting. Gerard Butler was the main thing why the movie didn't work for me. Plus it didn't have the dark side of the stage version.

[chealion313]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 7:31am

I actually preferred the movie over the show. But then again, I HATED the show with a passion. (I saw it after I saw the movie.) I would watch the movie again, but you couldn't pay me enough to go see it on stage again.

[EdmundOG]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 8:59am

I hated that he was barely deformed when they got the mask off. The whole theater screams and starts running, when probably nobody past the fifth row could see what was wrong with him. And the mask was crap anyway.

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 10:44am

I did not think the film was boring at all Visually it was stunning. Emmy was lovely. Patrick rocked. Gerard was... well.. vocally, he runined it. BUT one must remember they wanted a younger, sexy, hipper cast. They went with a totally different vision than the stage show.

Being a lifelong Phan, I can honestly say I was not at all disppointed in the movie save for Gerard's voice.

[Wildcard]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 12:12pm

I think the problem with the film was that it was too faithful to the stage show. It is acceptable to see people not doing much when singing a song live... you're there to see the performance. However, when you translate that on screen, it's not too interesting. For the most part, there are two boring scenes for me... right after Christine steps into the mirror and the Wishing scene. The movie could've done away with "The Phantom of the Opera" song and moved that to the end credits. Part of the boat scenes could've been included in the "Music of the Night" song so it would've given it more action. I actually fell asleep in this part of the movie and I've loved the show before it.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 12:32pm

It's really hard for me to say how good of an actress Emmy is at this point, but I think Christine is a difficult character to make interesting, especially in a movie and even more so when the character hasn't even really been fleshed out for the film. Taking out the one scene where she goes off on Carlotta doesn't exactly help, either.

If you care enough to read them, I wrote some of my other thoughts on the movie in this earlier thread. https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?boardname=bway&thread=849746

[wishinguweresomehow]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 1:56pm

I thought the movie wasnt great, but it wasnt bad either. It was just kind of an "eh" experience. I think the predominant let-down factor was that it had been talked about and hyped-up for years, and then when finally they make the movie it was not anything spectacular. Perhaps I am just biased, because the stage version was the first show I ever saw(when I was 4), and had all the music memorized by the time I was 3, but I think the stage version is a better production.

:)

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 10/13/06 at 2:26pm

"I realized, though, that looming over its many little flaws (which I guess I can live with) was the huge flaw that brought everything down: the casting of Gerard Butler. Interestingly, when I first saw the movie in theaters, he was the one who I was most impressed with (probably because I expected the worst). I still think he did an admirable job with what he was given, and of all the actors in the film he comes off to me as the one who cared most about his role and really put something into his performance. He was just not the right man for the job. The character of the Phantom, as anyone on the street can tell you, is defined by two things: his voice and his face. With Gerard Butler, one was ugly and the other was pretty...and it wasn't the right way around. How the part could be so miscast is beyond me--Butler is the furthest thing from what the role calls for. It's not his fault that the casting was such a mistake...and judging by what I read in some interviews at the time, I think the poor guy was aware of it. "

I just had to respond because this is a fairly different critique of him than most. I am pleased that despite what you thought was miscast, you were able to see what he put into it.

An interesting thing about the voice though...I admit he's no Boccelli...but, I dunno...I wouldn't call his voice ugly. I think it actually has that pretty, intoxicating sound to it. Like when he starts "Wandering Child" the sound is angelic-like, pretty and hypnotizing. I totally understood her attraction to the voice itself.

In terms of the ugliness...it could have worked better if they did a better job with the deformity. Everything we see in the title song and Music of the Night is through Christine's eyes--very skewed in an idealistic way, as is shown later when Meg sees what is really there. It makes sense to me that even with the mask through her eyes he would have looked that gorgeous. So that I can buy, but they could have done a better job with the deformity. Still for me...his acting made up for that for me. Whether or not I bought that he would be that shunned from society with that face, his loneliness and emotions at the end convince me of it, and make me forget the bad job done with his face.

"t's not his fault that the casting was such a mistake...and judging by what I read in some interviews at the time, I think the poor guy was aware of it. "

Really? Could you cite some? There were some interviews that I think shed light on the direction of it, but not the casting itself. I read one where he talked about shooting Music of the Night, Joel kept telling him to be more sexy, and he was like but..this is a sad song...huh? But followed direction obviously. If you go back to the interviews and such, you can see he had such an...understanding of the character, and was so happy to be portraying all the different emotions. I think he did a better job than most others, but I think in terms of the acting, it's such a compelx role, and I think he did an amazing job conveying all the different emotions. Any flaws in his performance I think may lie more in the make-up/direction department than casting.

But hey, I admit I'm pretty biased, particularly in the voice. Everything about him in that movie hypnotizes me

[Dover]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 1:28am

I think it would be a shame not to see the stage show because you didn't like the movie. Some people can't stand the show in general, but obviously many millions also love it. And there are plenty of fans (and phans) of the show who hate the movie. I think it's almost universally accepted that the show is better than the movie. So if you get the opportunity to see it, you might like it better.

The show has a real clunker of a book, and a hummable but simple score. But the character of the Phantom seems to be what sucks people in and makes the show stay with them after they leave the theatre. And the movie got everything else right, but completely screwed up the character of the Phantom, not just by casting someone with the wrong look and a terrible voice, but by removing all the magic that makes the show work. I could go on about that, but suffice it to say, I hate to think that people will avoid seeing the show because of the movie.

[Luscious]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 8:49am

It was so long and boring that my ass fell asleep while watching it. And it was so bad, I actually envied my ass!

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 9:30am

I blame half of the "boring" factor on the simple fact that EVERYTHING is way under-tempo in the film, except for Masquerade, which is rushed way too fast.

With all the music being SO FRIGGIN' SLOW for most of the film, the movie audience could second-guess the end of every line, thought or plot point "ages" before the actor/performer got there. And that spells "death" for any movie.

I tried watching it again not too long ago, and I had to turn it off because I felt like I was wading through molasses. Those actors never had a chance against that cement conductor's baton.

[WiiCKED x3]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 10:22am

I hated the movie. I Thought the show was o.k.

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 10:25am

i loved the POTO movie. the first time i saw it, i hated Gerard Butler as the Phantom. the second time i saw the movie, though, i enjoyed his performance more.
seriously, though, Emmy Rossum made that movie for me. she is so hot, and has a beautiful voice. THAT'S how i imagine Christine to be like, young and naive, not like the old Christine i saw on Broadway :P

[Duckie93]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 10:40am

i liked the movie but i LOVED the stage show

[SweMozArt]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 11:08am

I think it would have been beneficial if they had fleshed out the relationship between Christine and the Phantom a little bit more in the beginning. There should have been a scene where she had a class under the Phantom. Perhaps a scene where she as a child arrives to opera as well. In that way their relationship would come out as much stronger. There are of course negatives with such an addition. It effects the pace of the movie and Christine won't be introduced as she gets assigned the main part in the opera. The mystique of the Phantom could suffer as well. However on the whole i think it would become a more emotionally engaging movie if they fleshed out the main characters relationship a bit more and sped up the pace of the rest of the movie. When it comes to characters i actually think it is the supporting characters that are the biggest problem. The theatre owners and the opera diva are way over the top. To me the three main characters were done best.

I don't have time to give a detalied review of the movie but i have to say that many individual scenes are visually great and make the stage version look like a high-school production and the youthful beauty of Emmy Rossum is perfect for the role of Christine.

[Becky2]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 11:16am

The movie was an abomination, and I say this as a huge Phantom fan. I think Schumacher made a list of everything he could do to ruin the movie... and then did all those things. Incorrect costumes, bad sets, hooooorbile casting, the world's worst directing...

I'm really surprised that some people here actually liked Emmy Rossum. Do you guys only like her because she's attractive and young? Because her vocal technique was awful, and her acting not a notch above mediocre.

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 11:18am

yeah, mostly because she is VERY attractive :P

but i thought she had a beautiful voice. after all, Christine is not supposed to be a big opera diva yet, she is still a teenager, so i thought her voice was great for the part.

[Bruce Memblagh!]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 11:20am

The movie was ok for what it was. Based on an adequate stage musical. Butler was execrable though. Horrible voice and very bland as an actor - but then I have yet to see him in something where he shows more than one dimension to a character. Rossum was just about adequate but Patrick Wilson might as well have been absent from the film for all the impact he had.

[SweMozArt]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 11:32am

Ok. I wasn't saying that any role was overall perfectly casted. However i have a problem picking a definite candidate from seeing clips of poto on the net. Anthony Warlow has made fantastic renditions of poto songs but he would have been to old i think (start update) and he also projects to much confidence in my view to play the phantom (end update). And even if you could turn back the clock i believe that the original phantom had a too cold and akward voice. Sarah Brightman on stage was more of a Carlotta diva than a Christine. However she would probably have been great in the role on screen when she was around 20.

Update:

Regarding the phantoms scar it could have been a little bit worse but really i think an important message of the story is that the main scar is in his own head having received to little love in his live. He thinks that nobody would respect him with his scar but actually decent people would. People have also been mocked in all times for much less visible scars than his. Actually i think it would have been a dumbing down of the movie if his scar would have been horrendous.

Updated On: 10/15/06 at 11:32 AM