Your Thoughts On The Phantom film- Page 3

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 12:33am

double post

Updated On: 12/26/05 at 12:33 AM

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 12:34am

Just as a side-note, to see the reaction from the Webber-haters, does anyone remember the news of a Phantom sequel? There were several mentions of it. The first, to my knowledge, was the birthday bash at the Royal Albert: in which Kiri Te Kunawa performed one of its numbers "The Heart is Slow to Learn". The tune was, since, recycled into Beautiful Game. Frederick Forsyth (Day of the Jackal, The Odessa File fame) wrote a book for it, which Lloyd Webber was to utilize: and, when he rejected it, it went out of print (I managed to get a copy quick-fast). It's a very interesting book and it's called The Phantom of Manhattan... pursuing the Phantom's escape to New York, where he meets "Christine De Chagny" and her son Pierre. The twist it, Pierre is his son...

Lloyd Webber had several melodies set aside for it (wonder where he reused them... LOL). There were further mentions on Interviews (i.e. Parkinson, UK etc.) and the project, suddenly, wasn't happening. Around the making of the Phantom film, I could have sworn that Lloyd Webber had been asked about it: and he responded: "we are hoping to make it as a movie." If anyone's seen the Phantom film, there is enough room to expand the story and shoot this version. Not only would it be the sequel to one of the most successful musicals of all time, but it would be the first musical Lloyd Webber has (specifically) written for film. Musical-sequels, like Annie 2 and Bring Back Birdie, have never fared well on stage. But sequels have always worked in Hollywood. I welcome the possibility of this being done, if only to hear "Our Kind of Love" in its proper and original context. In my opinion, probably the most beautiful song he ever wrote was wasted on that crime of a musical (and I wouldn't mind so much if he had of done something more with it, but he hasn't). But, yeah, a Phantom sequel... tremble or celebrate: it would definitely turn a few heads

I just got the movie on DVD today. The lip-sync is definitely obvious. It felt like a very amateur movie, even when it looked so good. I watched the promos, Music of the Night (original video), and I was like: "Michael Crawford should have done this." It's like not having Yul Brynner in The King and I. It was a crime and a shame that he never did it. Not only did he miss out on immortalizing himself on screen, but he turned to the Broadway disaster of DOTV which has (probably) damaged the rest of his career. I won't venture so far as to say its a tragedy, there's plenty worse, but it comes close. Watching "Music of the Night" I was breathless: and Gerry Butler came nowhere to what I felt in just one dodgy little promo video!

[Cape Twirl of Doom]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 12:57am

Yes, it was Emmy singing throughout the film. She wasn't dubbed like Minnie Driver but I think some of her notes may have been enhanced.

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 12:59am

thank you-I thought her voice was beautiful.

[Radioactiveduck]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 3:41am

I used the think that it was a pretty decent film...Then I saw RENT and realized what a good film adaptation of a stage musical is like.

They tried with Phantom, and it's a commendable effort, but the film couldn't capture the essence of what made the musical such a wonder.

I've seen the stage show 6 times, and would go again at the drop of a hat...I've seen the movie twice, and I dont feel like seeing it again anytime soon.

[paradox_error]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 6:18am

I'm in the minority that thinks the stage show is atrocious, and quite loved the film.

Oh well.

[elphatine]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 10:14am

Just thought I'd pop in and give my opinion, considering this movie was the center of my life for a good 4 or 5 months (December - May. Still can't believe this year went so fast)...

I saw the movie before I saw the show and was completely enthralled with every aspect of it. Everything was so ornate, so opulent, so lavish... I adored it. I ended up seeing it 7 times in theaters, and I listened to the soundtrack every day. I was completely obsessed.

And then I saw the show. And I'll reiterate my feeling that a stage show tends to be more passionate then it is on film. I was amazed, and the movie was the last thing on my mind at that point.

In the end, did I enjoy the movie? Yes, yes, a million times yes. Did I think it was a good representation of the stage? Absolutely not. And that's my rant for the day.

[guitargeek0624]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 11:15am

*sticks head in half-way*

Erm...aheh...ummm...meh, might as well hop on the bandwagon.

The first time I saw the movie was at a friend's house in June. I liked it, but I had a hard time getting into it because my friends wouldn't shut up. So I rented it and watched it with my mom the next day. Completely blew me away. I ended up watching it almost every day for the next month.

I loved everything about it - the music, the story, the characters, etc. Sure, there were tons of corny moments and mistakes, but I still loved it. I even used the Phantom in a seminar paper for my Humanities class. Once I saw Phantom on stage in November, I came to the conclusion that the movie had nothing on the stage show.

Do I like the movie? Very much. Is it a good representation of the stage show? Not by a long shot. Is the movie good as just a version of the story of the Phantom of the Opera? Yes.

Phew, I'm done.

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 11:26am

well, I've always disliked the musical, because I think Lloyd Webber is just an awful writer. I'm not sure why we went to see the film in the first place (maybe hope springs eternal?)...but I found it visually stunning, and boring as hell. I will never, for the life of me, understand such choices as having a play that takes place in a Paris Opera house with every actor portraying a parisian with a completly english accent - the only person in the film who even TRIED to do the correct accent was Miranda Richardson (a TRUE professional)...and it made her stand out like a sore thumb. But hers was the best performance in the film, by a long shot.
You can have Andrew Lloyd Webber. The only time I've ever liked any of his work was Superstar and some of Evita...but I think I like them because of Tim Rice's contributions, not anything Sir Andrew did.

[paradox_error]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 3:17pm

But RedHot, you were in Sunday in the Park with George, did you play that with a french accent?

Or A Little Night Music - I think it would be ghastly to perform this with Swedish accents.

As a general rule, in Musical theatre, we only use the accents of the English speaking locales. There is no point putting an accent on if, in reality, they would be speaking a different language.


Updated On: 12/26/05 at 03:17 PM

[Kringas]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 3:36pm

I agree with Doxy. While I liked the film and I liked Miranda Richardson in it, I thought it was odd that she was doing a French accent.

[paradox_error]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 3:39pm

You can't have only one person with the accent. It's all or nothing...

But really, it didn't call for French accents...

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 3:44pm

I enjoyed the film, differently than the show.

[Kringas]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 4:03pm

But really, it didn't call for French accents...

Exactly. On that note, I've never understood why many Juan Perons play the part with an accent, either.

[Dramatic_Irony]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 1:59pm

I liked Gerard Butler (The Phantom) acting-wise, and he was pretty hot, but when it comes to him singing, I just have to cringe. Thankfully, I saw the musical again after the movie, so my vision of the lovely Hugh Panaro is not impared.

I loved the lavish sets, and Emmy was good, if under-developed as a singer and actress. Overall, I think it was good, but not great, and not something I would want to see again.

[dancing_through_life]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 2:05pm

wow. . . I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion lol :) I liked them both equally. . .

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 2:35pm

Has it really been a year??

Here are my thoughts on the work.
Craptastic!

[beacon1]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 2:38pm

Robbiej:

I do love this part of your review (and agree about his being a character actor with leading man looks) A Sam Shepherd play would be fabulous!

"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!!!"

[Dorothy85]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 2:46pm

I really enjoyed the film, but it didn't have the same effect as the show because things you saw on stage in Phantom were amazing and things you saw in the Phantom movie were things that had been done in tons of other movies.
I thought Gerard was very good, especially his acting towards the end. Even though I was a little mad at the casting in the beginning, I think the movie was great.

Posted: 12/27/05 at 5:45pm

I hated it. They could have made it great... but instead they chose Gerard Butler & Emmy Rossum. They were two very weak singers, and the parts they played needed strong singers. There are so many talented people who have the ability to play Christine & the Phantom, but instead... they chose Gerard & Emmy. Also, Minnie Driver was completely unneccessary. They didn't even use her voice for Carlotta, so what was the point of her being in the movie? It was such a copout of the stage version of Phantom, and I can honestly say the only good actor in it was Patrick Wilson. I can't enjoy a movie where there are so many poor singers in it, regardless of the sets or costumes... you can have the most beautiful set, but with crappy actors you have nothing. (and vice versa)

I mean, seriously...
Emmy Rossum?

[Sally]

Posted: 12/28/05 at 12:27pm

I like ALW's music (don't care what influenced it or where he got it) and the stage Phantom of the Opera. I thought that the film was just fair. I would have liked it more if they had gotten really competent singers instead of going for youth, looks, and not-up-to-stage-standards voices.

I was not pleased at their changing the character of the Phantom from the stage show by making him a younger man who had lived in the Opera House since he was a boy instead of a somewhat older man who had travelled the world and was grasping at his last chance for love. (But I doubt that the average movie goer was botherd by that.) They took out much of his power and all of the "magic*---his somehow making Carlotta croak (without putting something in her throat spray), his voice mysteriously echoing around the opera house, his raising the portcullis just by raising his arms---that kind of thing. I particularly disliked his losing the sword fight in the cemetery (although I thought the idea of the duel was a good replacement for the sometimes pathetic theater fireballs).

The sequence near the beginnng when the theater changed from a derelict to shining red and gold grabbed me, but I wasn't really emotionally affected by much else.

---About a sequel? ALW fortunately abandoned that idea after the Phantom in Manhattan book tanked (as it richly deserved to in my opinion). The stage show has a very effective ending (the additional ending scene in the film struck me as anticlimatic), and I would not like to see a sequel.

[Phantour]

Posted: 12/28/05 at 12:55pm

When I saw it on the big screen I loved it. I feel this movie is really one you need to see in the theaters to really appreciate it. The sound is better and the overture is breathtaking to watch. Watching it now on DVD or HBO, it's lost some of it's magic. I would rather see the show live any day. My major problem with the movie is the direction and what Joel Schumacher did with it. I don't like how the Final Lair is staged either. Also the background story of the Phantom is nice so the audience feels sorry for him, but I don't like how he's hidden in the Opera House so young. He's supposed to explore the world so he has the skills of an architect, magician, composer, etc. I do love the new musical orchestrations though. For a film version I think it's fine. I absolutely love looking at Emmy Rossum as Christine because she has such the ideal look. Her acting is very subtle, but I think it worked on the big screen (it could not work on stage). Gerard had moments as the Phantom, but yes, his voice is not what I consider the angel of music. I thought Patrick Wilson did a fine job, though I don't like his hair at all. The supporting cast did quite well. I liked the ending with the rose on the grave to signify that the Phantom really will "haunt us till we're dead." I couldn't watch the film all the time, but once it in awhile works and I really appreciate it.

[children&art]

Posted: 12/28/05 at 1:49pm

nice to look at (scenery, costumes, Patrick Wilson AND Gerard Butler) but a horribly boring adaptation of the only musical to ever make my heart race.