What's new

*** Official PHANTOM OF THE OPERA Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

ThomasC

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2001
Messages
6,526
Real Name
Thomas
I've read some of the bad reviews, and a lot of critics don't even like the stage musical, so what they say doesn't really matter for those who have seen and liked the stage musical.

What are you talking about? The Ritz Five is showing it.
 

Larry Sutliff

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2000
Messages
2,861
Well, I stand corrected. All of my local listings had the closest PHANTOM showing being in Warrington, but I just checked Digital City, and it is being shown at the Ritz Five(in digital projection!).

Thanks for the heads up, Thomas!
 

David Ely

Supporting Actor
Joined
Sep 1, 1998
Messages
753
For those who don't like the 'rock' type singing from the Phantom, I think this was a change Webber has made to the production. I have seen the Phantom multiple times, with the last time being in London in October. The singing from his character is definately not the same anymore.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,601
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "Phantom of the Opera" please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "Phantom of the Opera" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy
 

brentl

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 1999
Messages
2,921
VERY dissapointed with The Phantom. While his voice was OK for the most part the "rock and Roll" singin in 2 parts turned me off.

He was WAY to young to play the Phantom, and his face was way to pretty.

"Like yellow parchment is his skin, a great black hole serves as a nose that never grew. You must be always on your gaurd or he with catch you with his magical lassooooo AGH!"

I didn't see ANY of that through the movie.

As for the Elephant Man canvas sack and the kids freaking out , who in the world would frreeak out from the way he looked??

What about the "magical lasso"?? looked like a simple rope to me!!

"She is singing to bring down the chandalier" why did they get rid of that?? It was omitted from the Masquerade # too -- "to a prosperous year,to a new chandalier", even the Phantom made no mention " remember there are worse things than a shattered chandalier"

in my mind that was a HUG omission!

NOW on to the good parts!:)

Christine(Emmy Rossum) was FANTASTIC, perfect casting and a very nice voice.

De Vicompte(Raoul)(Patrick Wilson) was solid in his role, with a solid if not entralling voice. My only problem with him was he appeared about 3-4 years too younf, and what about the long hair?

The Phantom(Gerard Butler) COMPLETELY misscast, OK voice for the most part, not much presence, WAY too pretty! Enough said!

Carlotta(Minnie Driver) They played her over the top and she was perfect, with the exception of a couple of bad Lip-syncing moments she was well cast!

Madame Giry(Miranda Richardson) Solid bit part in this, I think she should have been a little more of a hard ass with the girls.

If they had of cast the Phantom CORRECTLY, they would have had me slobbering like a baby at the end of the movie!!

Everything but "The Phantom" ---- 8.5
Including The Phantom ---- 6.0

Brent
 

Chris Will

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
1,933
Location
Montgomery, AL
Real Name
Chris WIlliams
Well I really enjoyed the movie, at least as much as I could(more on that in a second). I've had the movie cd since it came out so I'm used to Butler's voice. I actually like it more after seeing the movie. I think his voice works perfectly with the way they portrayed the Phantom in the movie. It worked for me. I loved Rossum. She was beautiful and sounded great. I can't believe she was only 16 at the time of filming. This is one of my favorite stage musicals, right up there with Les Miss and Miss Siagon. The movie was not a let down for me, I enjoyed it even more then Chicago.

Now the movie was great but the presentation at the theater I went to was the worst I have ever experienced. It was so bad that I almost left b/c it was ruining the movie, but I made myself look past the problems b/c I love this musical. This was the last showing of the day and it was the first day of release and there was already 2 scratches on the film that were there the entire movie. That was not that bad but from the beginning of the film to the end there were audio dropouts and pops (like a broken record) about every 7 to 10 seconds in the Dolby Digital soundtrack. This happened through the entire movie and was very annoying. obviously someone threaded the film wrong and/or didn't clean the projector right b/c this print was ruined after one day. This is one of many reasons why I like DTS better, it is on CD-ROM and not on the film itself so these audio problems would not have happen in a DTS theater. In today age of technology I wish theaters would move more quickly to digital projection so problems like this are eliminated or greatly reduced. I have talked to the theater manager and they know that the print needs replacing and I got some free passes, but if they would train these people right then stuff like this shouldn't happen on the first day of a theatrical run. Other then that I loved the movie!
 

ThomasC

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2001
Messages
6,526
Real Name
Thomas
Sorry to hear about that, Chris. I, on the other hand, had a great experience. I went to a multiplex where all the screens are THX-certified, and boy oh boy, I am so glad I went there. The screen was huge, and the audio was pumped up with great bass. The only problem was that the audio was a bit too loud at times, but I'd rather have that than having the audio being too soft. I plan on seeing it again there.
 

Adam_WM

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 25, 2001
Messages
1,629
Real Name
Adam Moreau


This way moved to allow for a climax ending whereas in the stage show, there needs to be a climax for intermission.
 

Chris Will

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
1,933
Location
Montgomery, AL
Real Name
Chris WIlliams


I did not see any kids scared, too me it looked like everyone was laughing and taunting him.

As mentioned above, those lines about the chandelier had to be changed b/c the chandelier had not fallen yet. I like the chandelier falling at the end of the movie better, it just seemed to work more there.
 

brentl

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 1999
Messages
2,921
I guess that's true, they didn't freak out, but the bag would tend to make us believe he is hideous!

Brent
 

Larry Sutliff

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2000
Messages
2,861



I saw it digitally projected, and it looked(and sounded) glorious.

I loved the movie; can't wait to see it again!
 

Peter Apruzzese

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 20, 1999
Messages
4,894
Real Name
Peter Apruzzese
DTS is also prone to dropouts if the print gets mishandled - if the reader can't process the timecode off the print, the sound defaults to analog stereo surround.
 

Larry Sutliff

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2000
Messages
2,861



This is very true, my first viewing of FOTR was ruined by an out of synch DTS soundtrack during the moments when Boromir was dying and pledging his loyalty to Aragorn. It ruined the film, and I've never warmed up to that film the way I did the other two in the series because of the spoiled first viewing.
 

Jordan_E

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2002
Messages
2,233


Wish I could say the same, but we had to see it at the local googleplex, and there was TERRIBLE Sub Rumbling coming from the next theater! :angry: But I still enjoyed the movie.
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
I'm shocked by some of the ignorant reviews of this film. Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal was at least up front about it:

OK, Joe, you're culturally impoverished. :) (He goes on to trash everything except Emmy Rossum.)

The film is a faithful -- too faithful -- adaptation of the stage show, with some minor plot changes (notably, moving the chandelier crash to the end and giving the Phantom a back story). If one doesn't like, or has no interest in, what Andrew Lloyd Webber created for the stage, then the movie isn't going to appeal. Lord Lloyd Webber is the Jerry Bruckheimer of musical theater, and while he may not be to everyone's taste, you know what to expect, and the movie generally delivers it.

My only criticism is that Joel Schumacher's cinematic imagination kept failing him (or else he was inhibited by the maestro looking over his shoulder). Key scenes lack visual flair: notably, the first meeting between Christine and the Phantom (which ends with his unmasking), the duet with Raoul on the roof, and the song in the graveyard. On stage, these scenes had energy, but on film they drag. Schumacher does much better with scenes involving more people (the introduction of the opera house, the scenes with the backers), because he has more characters to cover and he's forced to think of appropriate camera moves and edits. Whenever the film gets down to two or three characters, he gets lazy.

Still, I enjoyed the film, probably because (unlike many of the film critics) I like the score, and that's what carries it.

M.
 

Matthew Chmiel

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2000
Messages
2,281
Before I go into any details, I would like to say that Phantom of the Opera is one of my least favorite ALW musicals. Then again, it's not saying much, as I believe Starlight Express is ALW's best.

The first act = simply breathtaking and amazing. As a fan of musicals, I was drooling over what Schumacher pulled off with this once. Once the film got to "The Phantom of the Opera," I thought this might easily be one of the best films of the year.

The second act = after the Phantom sung "The Music of the Night," the film started to go downhill with swift aim and precision. The second act, to be blunt and honest, is boring. The entire second act moves at a crawl and is a bit too hard to take. Usually with film adaptations of musicals (or musicals in Las Vegas), you can edit/trim stuff out to make it go at a quicker pace; but the second act was way too faithful (as Michael mentioned) towards the original musical. The only sequence I enjoyed during this act was "Masquerade."

The thid act = this is where the film brought back up to speed, but it wasn't good enough to make up for the dreadful second act.

I thought the film was decent at most. Maybe I had too high of expectations (after the amazing trailers Warner put out for the film) or the fact it was my least favorite ALW musical to begin with. Either way, the film is worth at least one viewing on the big screen.
 

Haggai

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
3,883
Just saw this today. I had never seen the musical on stage, or even heard very much of the music, and I barely knew anything about the story in any version. Overall, I liked this movie, although unlike some other commenters here I didn't think much of the third act (more on this below).

Best thing about the movie, definitely, is Emmy Rossum. Wow, she was incredible. Amazing voice, and great on-screen presence too. Color me incredibly impressed. I thought Gerard Butler was fine, he didn't blow me away, but he was effective and believable in the role. Miranda Richardson was fine in her small role as well. Patrick Wilson, I must say, was the weak link for me. His singing was adequate, I guess, but man, I don't think he could act his way out of a paper bag. I was so taken with Rossum that I couldn't help thinking, "you're falling for this guy?" during their scenes together. But I did like the chemistry between her and Butler.

Some questions/problems I have with the third act:

What's up with the end of the graveyard scene? I loved the part where she was drawn to her father's grave by the Phantom's presence, great intense stuff tying his place in her life together with her lack of a father. But then there was the sword fight between him and Raoul, and then he's about to finish off the Phantom when she says something like, "no, not like this!"...uh, what? Yes, she has conflicted feelings about the Phantom, but they just ride off and leave him there? That seemed awfully weak, and what was the point of the sword fight, anyway?

Then there's the whole plot with the final opera--are they trying to catch him and arrest him? I kind of missed what they were up to. And when he comes on stage and sings with her: since he showed up at the masquerade, doesn't everyone associated with the production know that it's him, even before the mask comes off? And they stand around waiting while he--having killed at least one of their crew already, as they all know, earlier on in the story--gets intimate with her on stage?! What?

The final resolution of the plot, back in the black-and-white sequence of 50 years after the main events of the story, seems weak to me as well. Raoul visits Christine's grave, and we see that...they married and lived together for 47 years, until her death? That's a tragedy? The reason I was into the story most of the way through is that it was really about Christine, and I cared about what was going to happen to her (thanks primarily to Rossum). So, the Phantom vanished after burning down the opera, and she lived the rest of her life with Raoul...did I miss something? That's the resolution of the story?
 

Joe Hsu

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 2, 2001
Messages
812
I really really want to see this movie as it's one of my favorite productions (also the first I ever saw, thanks to my parents)...but with sooooooooo many other good movies out, I don't know if I'll get around to it!

I'll just have to live through you guys for now :)
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben

No, it's not a tragedy, but you're focusing on the wrong character. The title isn't "Christine"; it's "The Phantom of the Opera", and the tragedy is the Phantom's. It's the tragedy of a love that's been thwarted, in large measure by his own actions (murder, kidnapping, jealousy, destroying the very opera house he loved).

Raoul's visit to the grave wasn't part of the original stage show. That ends after Christine kisses the Phantom, and he's so stunned and moved that he releases her and Raoul. Then he vanishes mysteriously. The film takes it one step further. When Raoul visits Christine's grave and sees the rose wrapped in a black ribbon and a jewel, he knows that the Phantom survived and has continued to love Christine hopelessly from afar for all these years.

As for the other questions about the third act, I don't think there's any way to satisfy them. Phantom doesn't try to fulfill the requirements of realistic narrative. It's an opera filled with big emotions and grand gestures, and there's just enough plot to get you from one set piece to the next. You listen to the music and take the rest on faith.

M.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,629
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top