Phantom of the Opera Movie- B'way Matt's Final Long-Winded Review of 2004

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 4:55pm

I got back from seeing an early matinee about an hour ago and want to post my main reactions to this film. Now, I am a long-time Phantom fan, having grown up near San Francisco during the now-legendary Davis Gaines/Norman Large/Franc D'Abmrosio & Lisa Vroman rennaissance. I've seen the stage show about 10 times and thank it largely for sustaining my interest in theatre during the dark days of crappy high school productions that threatened to push my limits. As I've expressed before, I was not a fan of the CHICAGO movie and am against the sudden shift toward putting all these musicals on film.

I've only read the Ebert writeup but have heard a lot of comments saying that the main reviews seem to dwell mainly on the flaws in the source material rather than reviewing the film itself. After seeing it, I think a reason for this is that the film doesn't give us a whole lot more than a masterfully-executed embellishment of the original stage source material. There are bits and pieces of new things to write about but the real critiques are related to the source material, and the reviews aren't for us but more for average John Q Public who hasn't seen the stage version but just sorta knows the story. Remember, even the BWW poster who knows only Rent, Phantom, and Wicked knows more than the average person. Everyone's a little elitist...

ANYWAY...
Visually it's absolutely gorgeous. The designs are bordering on orgasmic, the performers are attractive as can be, and the orchestrations have never sounded fuller, more powerful, or more effective (except the excessive electric guitar during the title song). Schumacher did an excellent job directorially, really too good a job if you ask me. I think that a big problem here is that such brilliant direction and design, while making it a better piece overall, also serve to highlight just how flawed the material is. It's not a rare thing nowadays, filmmaking that is better than the material itself, but it wasn't what I expected in this case.

Much like the stage version it's too long for its own good, taking 2 and a half hours to tell maybe 70 minutes of story. I'm usually against the heavy editing of a stage work when it's transferred to screen, but this is one piece that could be cut down to under 2 hours pretty easily and without much sacrifice.

Now, I do love the changes they did make. I think the bits and pieces of added dialogue and 1 or 2 extra scenes (Giry's flashback especially) are extremely effective in developing more complete characters in Christine, Meg, Madame Giry, Firmin, Andre, Buquet, and Carlotta. Though I can't quite wrap my mind around Minnie Driver's accent, which struck me as rather Modern UPN Latina, she was absolutely hilarious in her all-too-meager screen time. She played it so differently from any stage Carlotta I've seen and I think it worked wonderfully to make her as unlikable as she ought to be. Also love that they played up the idea that she is meant to be past her prime and not in the greatest of voice. Piangi was about par for the course and Madame Giry, though more likable and attractive, and a better developed character than onstage, was played about as well as any I've seen. I also agree that casting such attractive people wasn't always the greatest choice, especially Butler's movie star profile making the idea of the hideous monster a bit laughable. Also, Rossum was lovely in the role of Christine but the word "jailbait" did come to mind more than once during her romantic scenes opposite her leading men- one double her age and the other over 10 years her senior.

The biggest standouts for me were Minnie as Carlotta, and the 2 managers. Especially good as Andre was Simon Callow, who is always brilliant and deserves to be as big here as he is in the UK. PRIMA DONNA was one of the best numbers in the film. As for the leads...

Let's imagine for a moment that rather than a major motion picture, these 3 actors were starring in a community theatre production of the show in some suburb near a big city not on a coast. If that were the case, I'd come out of it with the opinion that Wilson is spectacular, Rossum does a damn good job, and Butler is mediocre but forgiveable. I would also rave about the wonderful acting on the part of all 3. However this was not a community theatre, so in that light, I'll say Wilson was good enough, Rossum surprisingly good, and Butler atrocious.

I had very low hopes of Rossum pulling off such a difficult vocal part but I think she did so and then some, especially given her age and *ahem* stunning good looks. Were she a stage Christine, her vocals would have been passable but below-average, however she comes across in the film excellently. Wilson disappointed me a bit but I had unfairly high hopes for him to begin with. In reality, he may not have the vocal chops to be a stellar stage Raoul but he's reliably outstanding in less-classical vocal roles, and we know he has the stamina to do so 8 times a week. He sounds good but his singing didn't wow me like in The Full Monty. Butler's voice, to me, was unacceptable and a major distraction from his performance. Granted, no one I was with seemed to mind much but they were busy drooling over his very attractive 60%-face, and they weren't brought up on Davis Gaines and Anthony Warlow's Phantoms as I was. I agree that the Phantom need not be an amazing opera singer, but Butler's strained "rock voice" had me wondering how this guy could've possibly tutored anyone into an opera star. I liken his vocals to approximately what I thought of Renee's attempt as Roxie in CHICAGO, though the Phantom is a much heavier role to sing and a very hard one to do right. All I could think during most of his scenes were, if they needed to go with a mainstream unknown from another country, would it have killed them to get Anthony Warlow?

Overall, I did enjoy the film and will likely get the DVD when it comes out and is at a good sale price. It'll hopefully do well nationwide but won't cause the sensation CHICAGO did. I definitely discovered flaws in the source material I had never before noticed, but you can read about those in any critic's review. I do think that the work of a great director and design team, as well as the slightly revised script, work to improve the original material, patching a few plot holes and addressing some unanswered questions. It does indeed feel like a full story now, just not one that needs 2 and a half hours to tell. Much like this review. Seacrest Out.

[maybethistime]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 4:56pm

WOW! Great review. Even though there are obviously some glitches, I still can't wait to see it...

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 5:03pm

Thanks much! I forgot to mention, to all who are on the fence, do see this movie. I can't promise you'll be 100% pleased but it's worth seeing if only for the visuals and orchestrations. Seacrest Off To Work!

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 6:07pm

I posted my review on the other thread. I just saw it today, Christmas, myself. I do agree with a lot Matt said in his review but found the movie overall to be a bit flat. I haven't seen the stage version since the late 80's and had hoped that I would go into this movie with a fresh take on it and not comparing it to the stage show. I will admit that it did bring back memories of the stage show but after it was over, my decision to see it again when I am in New York in the Spring was decided. I like the stage version better.

[amasis]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 10:37pm

I saw it two nights ago as well, and I pretty much agree with Broadway Matt, so I won't write much. But yes, definitely worth seeing for the cinematography and design; beautifully done.

"would it have killed them to get Anthony Warlow?"
My thoughts exactly, Matt. *sigh*

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 12/26/04 at 2:47am

god, can u just imagine if they had taken the plunge and let Warlow do it? he'd be an immediate sensation, even if they had botched up everything else in the movie royally!

[wickedfan]

Posted: 12/26/04 at 1:06pm

Broadway Matt- Pretty much agreed with everything you said. I found Emmy a little better than you put her and although Prima Donna was done extraordinarily well, I am not a fan of the song and found that it could have been cut and not have made a huge impact on the story. I too, found it too long. I found the supporting cast excellently cast but Emmy really the only of the three leads that impressed me. There were some nice patching up work, but not enough. I think an extra intense month of working on the screenplay (in terms of cutting) would have made all the difference.

[EponineThenardier]

Posted: 12/26/04 at 1:20pm

Awsome review Matt. I haven't gotten around to seeing it yet, will do so in the nea future.

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 12/27/04 at 7:32am

True, PRIMA DONNA isn't the most crucial number in the show but I've always been rather partial to it because it reminds the audience that there are other characters besides Christine and the Phantom who are fascinating but do spend the majority of their stage/screen time singing about the same conflict from the same 2 perspectives.

With the film, I loved the number because the script/ cinematography go to the extra trouble of lending some development to a few characters (Giry, Firmin, Andre, Carlotta) who, on stage, tend to feel more like archetypes and plot obligations than people. We learn that Carlotta is as she is, that Giry's history with the opera house and with the Phantom goes deeper than is implied on stage, and that Firmin and Andre are not only bumbling, greedy, and in over their heads, but also rather lecherous with the young girls. We also learn that Madame Giry ages MUCH better than Raoul when all is said and done.

All of these little details served to make the number fit in better as part of a musical, and give everyone a much-needed production number (rather reminiscent of Moulin Rouge). The score is sorely lacking in uptempo, which NOTES AND PRIMA are always good for. And, I figure, more screen time for Simon Callow, the best actor in the film, the better for all.

Another fun fact I just read on IMDB, 21-yer-old Liverpudlian Jen Ellison, who plays Meg, was "Voted sexiest blonde in the world by readers of Nuts Magazine (2004)"

Updated On: 12/27/04 at 07:32 AM

[leomaxfrank]

Posted: 12/27/04 at 11:09am

great review Matt - and even better avatar :)