I have seen it on stage a couple times. I know that critics don't like Andrew Lloyd Weber. There is this automatic response to anything he does. I know that there are some better musicals. I know there is better music. But I feel that you can fool some of the people, but not for as long as people say he has. He has presented wonderful stories, created very memorable music. The first time I heard the music from "The Phantom of the Opera" was when the Cadets of Bergen Country, a nationally known drum corps, used it for their field show. I thought, "What is that music?" Since then, I've been in love with this show. Granted, both stage shows work better than this movie (although the opening credits deserve their own place--they are awesome), it still captures much of the romance of the play. Some of the scenes away from the opera house and away from the sewers take a bit of the original punch out of the movie. The singers are not as strong. This always amazes me. I would think that singing would take precedence over acting. There must be some wonderful people out there. But they are not terrible. And the music wins out in the end.
Add a Review
-
Hitchcoc15 March 2006
-
Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage hit is given justice in this sumptuous film version, that benefits from stunning sets and extravagant costumes, making the attention to detail evident here. Joel Schummacher's direction is very good in this film, it is hard to believe that this is the same director who directed the disastrous Batman and Robin. The music is just wonderful, with dark and poignant melodies and motifs that fit the very dark story, not to mention sad. People have complained that the film has too much music, almost all of it is sung, but it is a musical, set in an opera house bear in mind. The performances are excellent, Gerard Butler quite terrifying as Phantom, and Emmy Rosum as beautiful as ever as Christine. I liked the performances of Patrick Wilson, Miranda Richardson and Minnie Driver(as Carlotta). The film does have some truly sad moments, like Christine at the grave yard and of course the heart-rending ending, though I didn't understand it when I first saw it. My only complaints are that the film is a little too long, and also in Angel of Music particularly, there were times when the lips of the actors weren't in time with the singing. Apart from these flaws, a truly beautiful film, one that is dark and sad, and one that is once seen never-forgotten. 8/10 Bethany Cox.
-
ksdilauri25 December 2022I'll add to the bazillion comments posted here: if you don't make a side-by-side comparison to the stage classic, this movie holds its own. (If you don't like the screenplay, you can blame its co-writer: one Andrew Lloyd Webber.) The famous mask here doesn't hide the fact that Butler is a lot better looking than your average Phantom, and his voice lacks the wide range required by the score---but I found it more realistic, and all told, he does reflect the emotions of a tortured soul who's lived a lifetime literally in the shadows. The movie is helped by sumptuous sets, the ALWebber score, Emmy Rossum's singing, and its tale of hopeless love. Purists may sniff, but when the movie opened people in our area went back to see it again. I did. And the dvd is a welcome addition to my collection.
-
triple88 January 2005I have just come from seeing phantom and was completely swept away. The stage show is my all time favorite Broadway show and I was a bit nervous as to how Phantom and the music of the night would hold up on the big screen but I needn't have worried because it was very definitely worth the price of the ticket-and then some.
The movie, for the most part, retains much of the stage show, I'd say about 85 percent true to the show, though there were slight differences. The magic present in the show live, is still, for the most part, here on film. In fact, I was wondering if I would cry during the movie and of coarse I did. Phantom of the Opera's's loveliness is still so luminous and the movie just fills your senses. I don't think there was a sound in the theater during the whole movie.
The film's look-among the most riveting I've ever seen-colorful, rich and oozing vibrancy, the look and feel are just magnificent. I sure hope this movie wins some awards for it's costumes and Cinematography. At times, there was almost a bit TO much going on which, as my friends and I discussed takes the focus away from the music a bit and maybe(though I'm torn on this) they should have toned it down just a tiny tiny bit. Still, the look was so spectacular I'm not even sure I'd definitely have done that myself. But still, 10 of 10 for atmosphere.
The casting-pretty good for the most part. I simply cannot believe Emmy Rossum is only 18 years old, she is magnificent and I am in awe of her. She was a beautiful, lovely Christine and I think we'll be seeing a lot of her in the future.
Gerard Butler has been getting some flack. I actually liked him in the role of the phantom although I began to feel more strongly about his rightness as the movie went on, not right at the beginning. That is not because he wasn't good in the role, just different then the stage version. To me, his singing got more and more soulful as the movie went on and his acting was an A plus, he wasn't just there to sing and look pretty, he acted the heck out of the role and succeeded in elevating the phantom from just a presence to a tortured individual. People have been saying he's to good looking, well that's certainly not his fault!(though they really could have gotten a more realistic looking mask for him to wear.) And besides, his looks are transcended by the end, they lose their focus until we are barely aware of them. He did a really good job. Patrick Wilson surprised me the most, I think in a way, I enjoyed his voice the most. He was simply Superb, and he too, embodied Raoul. He is a talented actor with a moving, gently powerful voice and he was great. Minnie Driver, Miranda Richarardson-all great. Good casting choices.
All in all a great night at the movies-I am giving this a 9 and I think if I had to say why it's not a perfect 10, it's just that this story was meant to, first be, a theatrical production, and as good as the movie was, and as many tears as I cried, it did not haunt me in the same way as the stage show. That does not take away from the movie's power or magnificence, I'm not even sure it could have been any better at all as a movie. It's just that seeing it live sends chills down my spine and haunts in a way that only a stage musical can do. I can actually understand how some people are not impressed by Phantom because, the bottom line is, this is as much about the music as the story and if one isn't a fan of this type of music, one probably won't simply find a lot here. But for those who have seen the beauty of Phantom on stage, they'll (probebly) love it and better yet, for those lucky enough to come into this film, and love it, WITHOUT having ever seen the play-see the play-because if you think the movie version is the stuff that magnificence is made of, think about all that live on stage right in front of you. This movie is good and I admiringly give it a 9 of 10. -
emily_glenister14 December 2004I dragged my long suffering boyfriend to see The Phantom of the Opera on Sunday, and was pleasantly surprised by it. Although I have never seen it on-stage, the film version - for me - was so enchanting that I now cannot wait to obtain tickets to it. The sets were absolutely beautiful. France is known for its beauty, and this adaption certainly paid homage to that. The theatre set itself was absolutely stunning; marble and velvet being the main materials within it. Emmy Rossum (Christine) was 17 when this was filmed and was absolutely outstanding. When she started to sing, my mouth literally dropped open. Minnie Driver (La Carlotta) was very funny in her Italian diva role. Her hand gestures added to the mannerisms of a typical diva. Her singing was overdone to add to the character (even though Ms. Driver did not do all the vocals herself). Patrick Wilson (Raoul), out of all of them, had the most captivating voice. Although Raoul seemed a bit wet and droopy, he was still gorgeous and made the GIRLS in the audience swoon. However, the star of the piece for me, was Gerard Butler (the Phantom). Although his vocal skills weren't entirely right for the part, he portrayed the Phantom as a lot of people see him; as a victim. I actually ended up warming to him, and when asked by my boyfriend who I would choose; Raoul or the Phantom, I said the Phantom. Something about the way Mr. Butler played him, was so sexy and he drew the WOMEN to him. Watching the Phantom and Raoul, certainly separated the boys from the men and the girls from the women. Another pleasant surprise is that Jennifer Ellison was actually rather good in her role as Meg, Christine's best friend. Miss Ellison has been trained in acting, singing and dancing and so was well equipped to the play the part, and carried it off very well. I wouldn't be surprised if more roles in Hollywood turned up for her. Overall, I rate this film a 5/5 and definitely recommend it. It sent shivers up my spine and gave me goosebumps. I urge those of you who haven't seen it, to become goosebump friendly by watching THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA!
-
shannyb0510 September 2022I have seen this film over 20 times. I have explored every single line and musical note in this production and I love every bit of it. I can sing every word to the most thrilling and detailed song in the whole movie. (Medley: Down once more) This movie has quite literally changed my life. I hope to see it performed live one day. Having a bad day? Watch Phantom of the Opera. Boom. Fixed. I'm not claiming that this movie will solve all of your problems, but it will solve all of your problems. It has never failed to make me feel better. It shows the horrors and tragedies of life, yet makes it beautiful and worthwhile. The Phantom is broken and just wants love, while on the other hand, she knows which man she should choose for her own well-being. It comes down to what your priorities are. Others or yourself. The intricate beauty of this film is almost unmatched. "A Beautiful Mind"(2004) comes very close in second. Both have the overlying theme of love and what it truly means. Both show how the world will break you and torture you get there is still hope for you. It makes you question: What are you living for? What does it mean? What do you love? And how far would you be willing to go to get it?
Great film. -
LadyBeth108 February 2005I can't believe I waited so long to see this movie. I've never seen the stage play. I lived in L.A. for about 17 years, attended acting school, and performed in some musicals before, but was never that crazy about seeing them, so I really didn't know what to expect. I thought "Chicago" was okay. I went to see it on a whim. But when that chandelier went up and the sweeping transformation happened to the opera house from black and white dusty ruin to a lush landscape of red velvet and gold ornate statues to the equal sweep of that unimaginably beautiful music, I literally forgot to breathe. Every time I see it I still get goosebumps. You feel that you've just been magically transported to another world. I loved every frame, every note, every performance from the very beginning to the very end. The critics must be crazy. This movie should be up for every award ever made!! I can't stop watching it. I've seen it ten times already and can't wait for the next time. It's definitely now in my top ten of all time. Joel Schumacher, and Andrew Lloyd Webber have created a MASTERPIECE!!!
What can I say about the performances that hasn't been said, they were superb. Emmy Rossum was innocent, beautiful, and angelic with a voice to match. Patrick Wilson was perfect as Raoul; handsome, and with a voice as smooth as silk. However, I can't say enough about Gerard Butler. His emotional range is absolutely stunning. Not since Richard Burton or Larry Olivier in Richard III have I seen an actor who can encompass so many different levels on the turn of a dime: Murderous rage; intense sexuality and longing; incredible vulnerability. I can't believe the comments I've seen on his singing. His voice was beautiful, sensuous, and the amazing thing was his singing matched every emotion he was feeling from highest to lowest. In the beginning we see a very confident, strong, domineering individual partial to strangling people when cornered, (not the most sympathetic of individuals,) who nevertheless shows a sensitivity and sweetness despite all of his extremely fatal faults; that is, in the more than competent hands of Gerard Butler. His performance is so beautifully and deftly drawn that gradually by the end of the film we see what's been behind the mask all along: He's just a lost little boy who never grew up.
I also have to comment on the "Point of No Return" number. That has got to be the sexiest scene I've EVER seen. And neither of them lost a stitch of clothing. Well, accept maybe a cape and a mask. But I digress. I'm sorry, but I would have dropped Raoul like a hot potato just to lie in that swan bed and let him sing to me ALLLL day, and ALLLL night, among other things.....use your imagination. So he lived in a sewer and had a little anger management problem. We could have worked through it with a good therapist. I mean this guy gave Christine what every hot blooded woman wants: Total and obedient worship. Am I right girls? Anyway to all you naysayers, I say this movie would have been nothing without him. To tell you the truth I kept wondering, "Who is this guy, where did he come from? So I did what the rest of you do and looked him up on "imdb." I'd seen "Dracula 2000," and "Timeline," but I didn't recognize him at all. Since then I've seen his other film roles, (to be honest the films weren't that great, but that's not his fault. You've got to take what you're offered.) So I just have to note another of his astonishing talents: I swear he changes with every role. His voice and his face, even his body molds to whatever character he's playing. I cannot believe that he is not up for Best Actor, or that this film is not up for at least ten Oscars. Incidentally, I shall be boycotting them this year, and I urge you to do the same. Compared to this film, the rest is just drivel. Anyway, Mr. Butler is an amazing actor. I'm so glad Mr. Schumacher had the tremendous insight to cast him. I hope now he will get the roles he so richly deserves. I'd pay admission to watch that man walk across the street. I can't believe he'd never had a voice lesson before. I hope he does more recording. I still can't get those songs out of my head, got the CD and still can't stop playing it. To all those spoil sports, GET OVER IT!! This is a MOVIE, it's not the stage play. You must embrace it on it's own turf. And WHAT a movie, I can't wait to purchase the DVD so I can savor it like the finest wine that it is to my hearts content. If you haven't seen it yet, you've missed something extremely special. It's one of the finest and most beautiful films ever made.
I have to thank you "imdb," at least we, for once, get a chance to air our opinions. I will never see another movie without consulting my fellow "little people" again. Thank you so much for this opportunity. -
ma-cortes2 February 2007The film illustrates segments of the well- known story about a phantom by staging sets, sumptuous Opera and drama to go along with the soundtrack.It concerns a deformed young(Gerard Butler)living into the sewers underneath of the Paris Opera House.He falls in love with a secondary chorus dancer called Christine(Emmy Rossum).Worshopping the young soprano he's demanding to the proprietaries that be given her the main roles substituting to lead singer(Minnie Driver),being terrorized the rest Opera.But Christine finds her childhood acquaintance(Patrick Wilson) who is now Opera's owner and she falls in love with him.The disfigured phantom is jealous and decides to abduct her and jail her in his lair.
This lavish adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage musical is exuberant and stylishly staged with clever musical dance involving the classic story.It's an elaborated version but also plodding and with only occasional moments of terror.Overabundance of singing hurts this otherwise good musical remake of Phantom of Opera though remains enjoyable and fresh.Production values is high with overwhelming sets by Anthony Pratt and colorful cinematography by John Mathieson.As pageant,it works although there is no emotional center ,leaving the spectator aloof from its leading characters.Acting is great ,strong presence Gerard Butler who brings stunningly to life the disfigured young with scarred countenance.Emily Rossoun is charming ,she parades and sings well enough along with Patrick Wilson .The motion picture is deftly rendered by Joel Schumacher with grateful direction by way of some fine performances and songs especially by protagonist trio.The timeless Gaston Leroux novel has been smashing success in every form in which it has been presented as stage as cinema. -
kirby-218 February 2005We had seen only the original silent movie, not the stage play, (or even the soundtrack) before going. So we knew not what to expect. But at the very opening, as the long-dead chandelier rises to life, swinging in what seems like one endless arc, and scatters the colour of memories about as it flames back to life, and the theatre is washed in colour and majesty not seen in decades... we both knew this was going to be good. And it was.
When it comes to sets, scenery and cinematography, they spared no expense. Every scene is drenched in rich detail. At the risk of sounding the heretic, I must say that a movie version removes the limitations of space and time to set up the stage, and so has the upper hand in the scenery and sets department. Some of these shots must have taken weeks to compose, and I'm glad they invested the time.
The music is just wonderful. I'd dare say that even if you are not a musical fan, if you are at least romantically inclined, you will LOVE this movie. By the end of some songs, like, "All I ask of you" I'm restraining myself from singing the song out loud with them!
The movie kind of departs from the setting of the original silent movie, in which the Phantom is actually quite hideous. This Phantom is more "mysterious" than hideous. But the attraction between him and Christine is pure, raw sensual. I mean it borders on erotic it's so strong.
During "Past the point of no return" I'm sitting there with my wife, literally falling under the spell myself. "Yea... maybe she *should* be with this guy after all..." But that's the whole point. She WAS influenced by him, and he did cast a strong spell, and he was very alluring. The movie made it so real I was beginning to feel it myself.
Some people have derided Gerard Butler's performance. Frankly, I find his throaty, sometimes raspy voice to be right on par. I heard so much ado about Michael Crawford that I went to Amazon and listened to some of his renditions of these songs. Verdict: Give me Gerard Butler! His voice is masculine, seductive, and hypnotic. In the final verdict, I find the movie versions of these songs to be FAR superiour to the Broadway versions. I say "Bravo!" to the selection of Gerard.
Definitely worth seeing in a theatre if you can. Don't wait for the DVD. See it BIG and LOUD.
My favs: Masquerade! "All I ask of you," and "Point of No Return."
Wow... Point of no return had ME believing!!!!
What raging passion floods the soul,
what rich desire unlocks its door,
what sweet seduction lies before us, ...past the point of no return...
Oh yeah, that's the stuff! -
caprice122129 August 2007My thoughts and opinion about the Movie the Phantom of the Opera of Andrew Lloyd Webber.
Gerard Butler-The Phantom: he does come across as being sincere seeking love from Christine. His singing is rough, not exactly hitting the notes almost is overwhelmingly overshadowed by his co-star Emmy Rossum and Patrick Wilson.
Emmy Rossum-Christine Daaé: She is the perfect Damsel in Distress, her voice sweet and breath taking.
Patrick Wilson-Raoul, Vicomte de Chagny: The perfect hero. His singing and acting was the best of all three. He show fear, and deeply concern for Christine Daae's well being.
Some of the scenes were lavishly over done as if they were more important over the stars, their characters, their ability to sing, and the plot. -
planetweirdo9 December 2004Well pinch me I must be dreaming, Joel Schumacher hs made a masterpiece? I am not dreaming and I can tell you it is true. This is everything a musical movie should be, fantastic songs, amazing sets and wonderful acting.
I have seen the stage show once and enjoyed it a lot, but the movie just blew me away, it was so lavish and gorgeous I was floating in mid air or at least it felt like it. Emmy Rossum steals the show as Christine the beautiful young ingenue, she has the voice of an angel and her gorgeous youthful looks and innocence make for a wonderful performance. Gerard Butler doesn't have an amazing voice, but for what he lacks in singing he makes up for in acting. The supporting cast are great too, especially Minnie Driver who is HILARIOUS as La Carlotta.
I loved this movie but there are bound to be haters who hate webber or schumacher, my advice go in with an open mind and let the images and music captivate you.
10/10 -
lenoresden24 December 2004This is what I found myself saying when the end credits started rolling. I have seen the Stage Play 12 times. I have read the Book so may times I can not count it(LEaroux AND Kay's books). I will not put spoilers in here. All I'm going to say is go INTO it with an OPEN MIND. Some of the scenes are different from the Stage play. IT IS NOT a shot by shot remake. Bring Kleenex. Your going to need them. Butler plays Phantom with so much Intensity you CAN'T help but love him. I am NOT a fan of Minnie Driver by any means, but I have to say I liked her in this movie, she was even funny in it. As for Rossum she makes a good Christine. The costumes and the scenery were Beautiful. 2 days after seeing it, and I'm STIL IN AWE.
-
thenametheyallfear11 December 2004I had never seen the play before, indeed seen few plays before. I am not a fan of the theatre and feel the limitations detract from performances, but I was a big fan of the soundtrack to Andrew Lloyd Webber's production, which was a change from his usual work (which again I do not care for greatly), and wanted to see what this director, Joel Schumacher, notorious for the Batman sequels could do. I was originally going to see this with a group of friends, with the numbers whittling down as the night grew closer (being 16 with parents waiting at home), it ended up being me and just one of my friends. At the end, in short, we found it amazing. Neither of us knew what was to happen. I was really looking forward to the film, but hype has quashed many films (see, or don't see, the extremely lackluster Troy), and this film would have been so easy to screw up. Not the case. In particular, the opening scene is spectacular. A must-see in the cinema.
-
don_agu30 December 2004God almighty, what on earth is this? An undigested mega pastry with all the wrong ingredients. Plodding, vulgar, uncinematic (I don't know if the word exists but if doesn't I've invented to sum up the ineptitude and ugliness of this production) Who's idea was the casting of the Phantom? Why? For heaven's sake, why? The poor girl Emmy Rossum, lovely voice, but somebody forgot to shout Action. She seems to float throughout the film as if under the influence of some very powerful tranquillizers. Not to mention the Count that ages at a much faster speed than Miranda Richardson, thank God. If this was the intention of the producers I would have gone all the way and call John Waters to direct it. Can you imagine the fun. As it stands it is a rather sub Zeffirelli pastiche with absolutely no redeeming qualities.
-
endymion8215 December 2004So, I usually don't qualify my reviews, but this movie is sort of special, and the comments I've read are from all over the map so I feel I should give some idea of where I'm coming from too.
I've been an playwrite, actor, and director for years, with work of mine have been doing both domestically and internationally, and having appeared in plays both amateur and professional and every level in between, including a professional opera and many a musical: whenever I watch anything, I approach it on three levels: artist, critic and audience. Also, I grew up seeing shows on Broadway, both mega-musicals and little indy plays in the Village, and while generally speaking my tastes lean more towards "arty and indy", I do have a broader pallet and it would be more accurate to say that my real interest is piqued by anything that is genuinely good at being what it is- which is one way of describing "Phantom of the Opera." Because yes, it's not as complec and intelligent as the work of Sondheim, or Kander and Ebb, but for what it sets out to be, an enthralling and absorbing Gothic romance (a genre that is rarely done well on stage, let alone as a musical), it achieves on every level: the score (which is soaring and crashing and large, just like the emotions of the characters who sing it), the design (ornate and overwhelming and grand guigol to the hilt), the story (which is totally ridiculous on some level, but since gothicism and romance are both genres which celebrate the extremes of our minds and imaginations, this is totally appropriate). "Phantom" is a brilliant example of art where the content and the style of the rendering of that content fit each other to a tea, and while it may not be YOUR cup of tea I sort of feel that anyone who thinks it's crap has basically missed the point or is just sour grapes because the thing is so damn popular and so damn good at being what it is (and lets face it, it's hard not to resent a success sometimes). Genius is often ridiculed, especially genius of an unusual nature or in a somewhat unconventional field (and Gothic romance, be it novel, film or musical, is looked down on in general, usually for the very qualities that make it interesting) and Webber's work is genius, because "Phantom" is, for all its faults, tightly written, a brilliant balance of camp, melodrama, satire and fairy tale, and while the style of music might not work for each listener, it effectively illuminates the story and conveys what is most important about the characters: their titantic (albeit, somewhat simple-minded) emotions, desires, fears and obsessions.
*SPOILERS*
The movie, in my opinion, takes what is best about the play and does it even better. Though some of my favorite bits from the stage show (the rehearsal of Don Jaun where the piano plays itself, Raoul's part in "Wondering Child") are gone, they have been dropped in favor of brilliant improvements, namely having the chandelier crash at the conclusion of the film (it really brings the whole thing full circle), and allowing more glimpses of Paris 1917, finally explaining why it is Raoul returns, what happens to the Phantom, etc. Other good bits that we see now but never saw onstage: an affectionate moment between Meg and Madame Giry, some history of the Phantom, a deeper sense of what Meg may know or not know about the Phantom's presence, the stalking of Josephe Bouquet, the life of the underclass of the opera house, the Hall of Mirrors from the book, etc. Also, the music has been beautifully re-orchestrated, and never sounded better. I'll take orchestra over canned synths, any day, thank you.
The cinematography is beautiful and the "opera" moments are well done- complete with the cornball, almost intrusive dancing and vibrant but totally unrealistic sets and costumes that characterized "grand opera" at the time. The sense of constant claustrophobia back stage is great, and adds to that sense of what it was like to live and work in this tiny world where everyone is a performer and half your wardrobe comes from the costume department (did anyone else catch that moment where Christine takes her dress from the wardrobe?), adding to the central question at "Phantom's" core- what (who) is real, and what (who) is an illusion- and is real preferable to illusion, or vice-vera? The bleedingly bright colors and deep shadows of the movie help echo all of this- reminding us always, this story is not real, hero on white charger and all, but we don't want it to be: it's a legend, it's a fairy tale, it's a farce... it's a masquerade. It's, as the Auctioneer says, "a strange affair." "Phantom" told and acted realistically, totally wouldn't work, so don't ask it to, or judge it that way.
The best thing about this movie is the performances, and the director has done a wonderful thing by moving AWAY from Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman, both of whom gave role defining performances, neither of which are any more "correct" than any other. The question isn't, are Butler and Rossum as good as their predecessors, but rather do their versions of the characters work, and the answer is: yes. Return to "Phantom" as a text, not as a show with a history, and you'll see that Christine is supposed to be dreamy, lost, emotionally unstable and young, just as Rossum plays and sings the role. Butler, with his harsher singing and deeper range, is much more believable as a madman who is sometimes pathetic and pitable, but still ultimately a deranged egomaniac who lives underground and makes wax statues of the woman he loves. The rest of the cast is equally good, with Minnie Driver giving a heroically hysterical performance, Jennifer Ellison combining strength and curiosity with innocence and a certain grounded quality (I've always believed the audience is ultimately supposed to identify with Meg, who is the only character who never panics and maintains a healthy sense of "reality) that contrasts nicely with Rossum's morbid dreaminess, and Patrick Wilson doing much more with Raoul than any of the actors I've seen on stage. I wish Simon Callow had had more to do, but such is life- at least he was there. Miranda Richardson continues to prove she can play anything, and conveying more with a look than most actresses can with a full script of dialogue. Her accent is totally brilliant: it sets her apart, makes her glamorous and mysterious, and at the same time, is another sly tongue in cheek reminder that what we are watching should only be believed to a point: it is, after all, just another version of beauty and the beast. -
Stardreamer200812 November 2006I absolutely love this movie and I have it on DVD and gave DVDs of this movie as presents to friends :) it was my first real introduction to 'The Phantom of The Opera story and I first saw it on December 25 in 2004 and I still love 'Phantom of The Opera' story and discovered many other versions of it...I think that the acting in the movie was good, the singing was good (although Michael Crawford's version of 'Music of The Night' is my most favourite one, Gerard Butler did a good job too: his acting and singing was also good, especially 'Point of No Return'..oh and tomorrow is 13 November, which is his birthday, so happy birthday to him)...the scenery and the special effects are also excellent, in my opinion. Thanx to ALW and JS for creating this beautiful movie :) also, this movie actually made me want to see the stage show, so I hope to do so someday
-
dougandwin24 February 2005I originally only went to see this movie, because I had seen "Phantom" on stage, and wanted to see how much they had ruined the whole thing. The experience proved me wrong, I am pleased to say. Sure there are a number of changes to the story, with the Chandelier spectacular being moved from the end of Act 1. to virtually the end of the film, but they do not, in any way, impair the total enjoyment of a very, very good film adaptation. All of the main characters are extremely well portrayed, particularly Christine and Raoul, while the music which has always been stunning is backed by great orchestral talents. Along with the music, the photography is quite awe-inspiring, and the moods are captured brilliantly. It is very clear to the movie-goer that Andrew Llloyd Webber was vitally involved in this excellent and enjoyable film - he has kept his dream alive.
-
theshadow90827 June 2006The Phantom of the Opera is based off of both Gaston Leroux's novel, and Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage musical. It tells the story of a mysterious man that lives beneath the Paris Opera House, and is madly in love with a young ballet dancer. The managers of the opera house think he is a phantom. The young dancer believes he is the Angel of Music, sent by her dead father to watch over her. When the phantom begins to kill and cause damage to the opera house, the dancer's heroic suitor sets out to stop the phantom once and for all. With great music and stunning sets, this is the best version of the tale on film.
Joel Shumacher's career was pretty much destroyed after Batman and Robin came out, but after a few good movies to pick himself up, he was given a seemingly impossible task. To turn Andrew Lloyd Webber's world famous stage musical into a movie. Sadly, I've never had the chance to see the show, but I have been listening to the music almost all of my life. I was excited beyond words when this movie came out. I was worried about Shumacher a little bit, but as soon as I saw the movie, it didn't matter. He adapted the stage show almost perfectly to the screen. There are a few changes, but they work, and they make the movie so much better than if it was a straight copy. I loved the sets and the cinematography. Even if you're not a fan of musicals, I highly recommend you see this if you're interested in film at all. This movie is a visual necessity. You'll learn a thing or two. The angles at which certain scenes are shot, the black and white footage, the sets, they all make this movie so good. Of course, Andrew Lloyd Webber's music is genius, and I still get chills whenever I hear the overture.
The acting is great. I was worried about almost every actor in this movie initially. I mean, Gerard Butler was Dracula in Dracula 2000, Emmy Rossum was that chick from The Day After Tomorrow, and who the heck is Patrick Wilson. Well, all that went out the window after I saw the movie. Emmy Rossum was amazing in the role of Christine. I really didn't think she could sing. Gerard Butler was absolutely perfect in the role of the phantom. He played the character both sympathetically, as well as devilishly creepy. His singing was nowhere near bad either.
Overall, this is the best movie based off a stage show out there. The amazing acting, cinematography, and direction combine to make this one great movie.
9/10 -
Vartiainen23 January 2016In 1800s a young soprano opera singer is given a chance to perform in place of the lead soprano of Opéra Populaire. Surprising all her doubters, she gives a stunning performance. When questioned about her skills, she simply answers that she has had an excellent teacher. In reality this teacher is none other than the mysterious opera ghost, the phantom of the opera, played by Gerard Butler.
Christine Daaé's (Emmy Rossum) career was now on the rise, but things get complicated when her old childhood friend Raoul (Patrick Wilson), the Opéra's new patron, recognizes her and becomes infatuated, thus enraging the jealous ghost.
This adaptation of The Phantom of the Opera was directed by Joel Schumacher and that definitely shows, both in the film's strengths as well as its weaknesses. Meaning that the visuals are fantastic, but the story could have been better told.
The film looks stunning. The costumes are majestic, detailed and rich in textures. The sets, especially the opera itself, look amazing and Schumacher uses wonderful angles and shadows to evoke the feeling of fantasy, of dream. The music is based on the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber, arguably the most successful musical of all time, so you know that aspect of the film will work. Whenever the main theme starts blasting, you cannot help but shiver.
Unfortunately, Schumacher has never been the strongest of storytellers. His films have a tendency of focusing on inconsequential moments and on evoking mood and looking as Gothic as possible. Likewise here. You get the basic story alright, but because so much time is spent on simply admiring the set pieces, you don't really get into the heads of the characters. Not helping the matter are the actors. Rossum is fantastic in her role, fully capturing the youth and innocence of the character, but both Butler and Wilson don't quite fit their roles. Wilson is too much of a storybook prince, a shining knight on a white horse - at one point literally - making it hard to take him seriously. And while Butler has some range as an actor, his singing voice isn't quite what it needs to be, though it's by no means awful. Notably he was the only one of the main actors not to have any previous singing experience.
In the end this makes this particular adaptation of the old classic tale something of a hit and miss. Those that can appreciate films simply because of their visual splendour can easily get lost into this film and get a lot out of it. But those requiring a good story will be left disappointed. -
jsp12323 January 2005I have seen the movie, Phantom of the Opera, five times, a phenomenon never experienced with any other movie in my life. The movie has such depth and rich details, making it is worthy of spending the time and money to see it five times. Please spare me any more negative comments about Gerard Butler's performance! I have seen the play in New York and in a regional theater. Of all performances I have seen, Gerard Butler's portrayal of the Phantom is the finest, most sensitive, and most provocative. His singing is full of emotion, making his character believable and powerful. I would like to see Gerard Butler get some recognition for his performance, because he lifts the character of the Phantom far beyond what it has been in the past. He was perfect for the role, and his acting and singing should be recognized as one of the best performances on the screen this year! Emmy would not have been as great as she was without the performance provided by Gerard Butler. I want to thank Gerard Butler for taking me out of the everyday details of living into a world of "music of the night." Speak out for Gerard Butler's receiving recogniton for his truly inspiring performance as the Phantom!
-
buck-7718 January 2005Audiences compiling collections of favorite plays on film to retain some of the great theatre experiences in "West Side Story", "Little Shop of Horrors", and "Chicago" will now have "PHANTOM" at last! But unless you have a 72" plasma screen, see it in a movie theater!!
I dismissed the film critics of this film because, ironically, they all noted the same criticisms lauded by theatre critics when the play first debuted.....and then continued for over a decade and still continues, solidifying the belief that what people don't like in the play will not be improved in the movie, and what people loved will be enhanced, with the obvious absence of the energy a live performance presents.
While I am one of those people that LIKE "Stage Adaptations" (it should be a whole designation in itself, like "Documentary" and "Comedy"), I have never been a huge fan of the play,"Phantom." Accordingly, I loved the film, not crazy about the story, but straddling the fence, I found this an enjoyable movie that had some slow parts.
Many films attempt the feat of adapting plays-Broadway Musical Plays- for the screen, but only a few have effectively captured the essence of the PLAY, which is in itself defeatist to movies...generally. Why put "Oklahoma" on a stylized set when the whole glorious, open state is there to be filmed? So while having characters' conversations suddenly break out in song for no good reason in the play is great, doing so in a film narrative is sometimes difficult for audiences, exceptions given to most Disney movies.
Films are not to blame, for they are a visual medium that are expected to expand through the obvious limitations of a live stage set with a limited budget. And don't blame the play...it was written to deliver a wonderful entertainment on a live stage set with a limited budget. So that leaves the audience.
If you like Broadway musicals, this is a great film that retains the play's theatrical roots, and gloriously expounds on the famous over-the-top sets and effects that helped revive live theatre. Visually this movie is a stunner. You have to admire the scenes dressed with a stylized set worthy of an Art Direction Academy Award, and Schumacher's flamboyant style which does them justice! The lighting, sound, and visual effects all give the film-goer a great night at the theatre.
Unfortunately, if you do NOT like Broadway musicals, the movie also retains the melodramatic acting, repetitive score and length that also is the nature of the play.
Minnie Driver is wonderfully comedic if you understand what she's saying, especially in the "Prima Dona" number. And Rossum is a surprising singing talent, at least to those who only know her as a dead girl (Mystic River), and as a frigid damsel-in-distress (Day After Tomorrow), like myself. Regardless of this film, her performance will catapult her...at the very least onto the New York stage.
No one will be frightened from this film, although some effectively eerie scenes remind us the Phantom is SUPPOPSED to be a scary story. But, again, this is foremost MUSICAL THEATRE, and thus a love story, so the mask just accents the chiseled features of the most handsome Phantom who must have found the world's best tailor somewhere in the Parisian sewer system.
This is one of those wonderful films for theatre fans who want to gift wrap their evening at a live performance up and watch it anytime. I will put the DVD right between "How To Succeed in Business Without Really Trying" and "The King and I."
Now, if "The Producers" can accomplish something similar next year..... -
broz-127 December 2004Never once did I see characters in a story. I saw actors speaking lines in lavish sets. On the plus side the sets were SPECTACULAR. So were the costumes. The lead actress is a very fine singer. The music, however, was the same theme over and over. It got old, quick. The story is well known. There are no surprises, and nothing at all compelling to keep your interest. I didn't care what happened to any of the characters. None were interesting, or were worthy of sympathy. The only thing holding this mess together is sets and costumes. This was easily the most boring film I've seen in the last few years. Don't waste your time.
-
lisa_nyc23 November 2004I was able to view this at a special screening and was very impressed. It is a visually stunning movie - the costuming and sets are as extravagant and lavish as the music. Gerard Butler gives a particularly anguishing and sympathetic performance as The Phantom. Emmy Rossum is beautiful portraying Christine and her transformation from a young innocent to a woman who is aware of herself, her sexuality, and the world of love. Patrick Wilson is a particularly dashing, heroic and protective Raoul and Minnie Driver provides hilarious comic relief as Carlotta. I particularly enjoyed the film's ability to delve deeper into the lives of characters. It provided depth and context and layers to all of the characters that the stage production cannot do. The entire cast was magnificent and I will be hearing the "music of the night" in my head for the next several days. I would definitely recommend it and can't wait to see it again.
-
IloveStarsky14 December 2004I did not know the story and it took me a while to get into it I must admit, but as the story unfolded and the characters developed, I became hooked. There has been criticism of the leading roles, but I thought they were excellent. Emmy Rossum was perfect as the young girl with the blossoming voice, so innocent yet being awakened to passion. (Yes, the passion is there if you have eyes to see it!) Gerard Butler was the phantom, mysterious, malevolent, tortured and (of course)passionate. I thought his singing, quite raw at times, conveyed some of these emotions very very well and I can imagine that just hearing the soundtrack, you might be disappointed. It is best appreciated in the context of what is happening at the time of the songs. Minnie Driver was wonderfully over the top in her role. It brought some welcome lightness to the story. All in all, it has left me wanting to see it again, to see what I think of it second time around.
-
jack_skellington_13 September 2005When word came that a film version of 'The Phantom of the Opera', one of the most successful and entertaining Broadway musicals ever, was about to be made, many people were excited. Very excited.
But then word came that Joel Schumacher was to direct.
Known for his technicolour explosions and elaborate set designs, Mr. Schumacher may seem to be a perfect candidate to head this production; but we also get some of the worst editing ever committed to film, gaudy effects, horrid acting and an all-around disaster. Things start off well for 'Phantom', with an excellent introduction complete with Moulin Rouge-style "postcard" digital grading effect- an excellent tool for the subject material. Then we get a rousing sequence with the chandelier, and the excellent "Rehearsal for Hannibal". Then things quickly fall apart with the introduction of the film's female lead, Emmy Rossum. The character Christine is clearly meant to be a prodigy- someone that we are to gaze in awe over, someone that we are to get out of our seats and yell with an enthusiastic "Bravo!" Rossum, unfortunately, does not suit the bill. While an excellent vocalist, she is unable to capture the mysterious X quality that draws us to a character. She stands there with a vacant stare, one that is supposed to represent nervousness, or wonderment, or whatever. She is unable to show any real emotion, and it's more or less like watching a singing wooden plank. Think a young, female Keanu Reeves. Patrick Wilson as Raoul is similarly bland- although in the film's defense, it has always been that way. Such a shame, because this guy has the vocal chops.
Ridiculously gaudy art direction suits the time and subject matter, and Schumacher pulls it off, much like Luhrmann did with the now-classic "Moulin Rouge!". But unlike Luhrmann's masterpiece, 'Phantom' tries too hard to take itself seriously- a big mistake. This is a pop opera, and the film completely misses out on this subtlety. Minnie Driver is perfect as the pompous Carlotta, but other actors, like the aforementioned Rossum, just don't get it. And when the production is supposed to take a break from all the overblown effects, like during "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again", Schumacher decides to fill the set with fake fog. Ugh.
Now, my biggest problem here is the decision to change some of the vocals into plain spoken dialogue. What the hell were they thinking? "Notes" was brilliance in every production, yet here they decide to change half of it into spoken word. Once again, Schumacher misses the point of pop opera. By having everything to music, the play demanded your attention and allowed you to suspend belief- something that is required in this, considering some of the plot.
And the editing. Oh dear lord, some of the sloppiest transitions ever. And this guy is an Oscar nominee in '81? He clearly did not age very well. And anyone else notice some very sour notes? And why, oh why, does the Phantom go from a full head of dark hair to a few strands of blonde as soon as his mask is taken away? Agggghhhhh! Keep the sets and costumes and re-do this. With a new cast, except for Minnie Driver, and for god's sake, never let Mr. Joel 'Batman & Robin' direct anything again.