The Phantom of the Opera (2004) on DVD May 3 (1 Viewer)

[Geoff S.]

Wow, why the sarcasm Michael? It's just a movie and someone's opinion of it. Some people like Phantom's type of undiluted melodrama. I personally eat it up if it's done right.

I respect your opinion of the movie feeling stagey and I'm sure John did too. Doesn't mean people have to agree or disagree.

Also, I hope that Jimmy's post about the 2 disc is true. That sounds more like it Warner!

 

[Michael Reuben]

No sarcasm from me, just a genuine question -- prompted not by someone's opinion of a movie (as far as I can tell, John didn't express one) but by the dubious assertion that the disappointing box office for this one particular movie somehow demonstrates that "the general movie-going public really has no concept of what passion and pure movie magic is anymore".

The point isn't whether we agree on the quality of Phantom. The point is whether you can use this one film as a yardstick by which to measure the public's appetite for, or appreciation of, musicals. And judging by many of the criticisms noted in both this thread and the Official Review and Discussion threads, I don't think you can.

M.

 

[Vincent-P]

Chicago was hardly conceived as a great work of cinema. It was filmed with all the imagination of a theater director. Pretty much all the music sequences essentially take place on a stage and you can tell that most everything was filmed on a relatively small set. I wish it had been bigger in scale.

 

[Geoff S.]

Thanks for clarifying your point Michael. I totally understand what you're saying now.

 

[Michael Reuben]

But the script was written with the imagination of a film director (namely, Bill Condon's). Whatever criticisms one may have of Chicago, it was anything but a literal translation from stage to screen. The same can't be said for Phantom. With some minor restructuring (e.g., moving the chandelier to later in the action), the stage version was what they filmed.

And I never said Chicago was a "great" work. I would suggest discussing that one with the person who first brought it up, but he's left the thread.

M.

 

[Geoff S.]

Regarding the Chicago and Phantom compare and contrast, I personally think that the two are like oil and water.
Of course Chicago could be more separate from the stage version because the story because there are so many ways you can tell the story. It seems that with Phantom that you'd have to be that faithful because of how the show's story is structured. Yes it is a literal stage to screen jump, but I don't know how it could be told otherwise. Maybe I lack the imagination for it. Who knows? That would be an interresting topic of discussion though.

 

[Geoff S.]

Regarding the Chicago and Phantom compare and contrast, I personally think that the two are like oil and water.
Of course Chicago could be more separate from the stage version because there are so many ways you can tell the story. In Phantom, it feels like there's less wiggle room. You either tell the story as it is or you don't. Plus both the story and music styles are totally different Yes it is a literal stage to screen jump, but I don't know how it could be told otherwise. Maybe I lack the imagination for it. Who knows?
That would be an interresting topic of discussion though. How someone else would have done it.

 

[Geoff S.]

Damn. Double post with all my bad prose on display. Ugh :b

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

removed by poster

 

[Damin J Toell]

Moulin Rouge! had approximately the same US box office take as Chronicles of Riddick. Do some people turn their noses up at films like Riddick simply because it has CGI and action? And, if so, so what? So what if some people have different tastes? Are only the things you like representative of "passion and pure movie magic"?

DJ

 

[TonyDale]

I might be in the minority here, but I found that the stage musical was nothing but flashy direction, pretty stage pictures and tired, trite lyrics set to obviously borrowed tunes ("Darkness stirs and heightens each sensation" is set to the same notes - not tempo - as "School days, school days, dear old golden rule days;" well, trite tunes, too). I found that onstage, there was a total lack of heart, soul and most importantly: motivation. Therefore, I dreaded seeing the film, but knew that I must since it was a genre I readily support. (Also having known Patrick Wilson whilst he was a student at Carnegie-Mellon University added impetus).
Except for the score, I found that cinematically THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA was a joyful film-going experience, and that the major issues I had with the stage show had been noticeably rectified. The score itself works nicely with the sumptuous new arrangements; I've listened to the soundtrack more than I have listened to any other recording of PHANTOM.
I'll have this one on pre-order.

 

[Hank_P]

I'm on the side of "I liked the movie better than the play". I've seen the play twice, movie once. I will be purchasing the movie on DVD when released. I will still see the play again when it comes to my area, as it is very good in it's own right.

At the same time, I think too many people had different expectations of the movie because they have seen the play. That is not fair, as it is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Ron-P]

I was just going to do a search today to see if this film at a DVD release date. You saved me some time, thanks Jeoff.

I was unable to catch this in the theater but I will buy this DVD. May, though, is such a long way off.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

removed by poster

 

[Luis Esp]

I guess if Phantom had great boxoffice, we would be seeing a re-release of Evita on dvd.

I enjoyed the movie, even with its flaws and I look forward seeing it again on dvd.

 

[Jay Gunn]

Definitely going to pick this one up...might even scour the import stores to see if there is a DTS version coming out somewhere. The sound on this one should be outstanding, and WB almost always delivers on the PQ.

 

[Jordan_E]

That sounds like a good idea, Jay.

 

[Geoff S.]

The Digital Bits has confirmed the 2 disc special edition DVD that Jimmy reported on earlier!

Their news story is as follows:

Meanwhile, Warner has officially announced the release of its recent musical remake of Phantom of the Opera for 5/3 (SRP $29.95). The 2-disc Special Widescreen Edition will include anamorphic widescreen video, Dolby Digital 5.1 audio, 2 documentaries on the story and the musical's legacy, and 3 "making of" featurettes. A single disc edition will also be available (for $27.95) in both full frame and anamorphic widescreen versions.

This is grand news and I retract my dissapointment in Warner. Keep up the good work WB! And might I add that I love the border on that cover art shot.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Y'know, I might call Chicago great, for one simple reason: people who don't like musicals enjoyed it. No, I can't claim that ALL musical-foes liked it, but I know that I usually can't stand the genre but I had a good time with Chicago. Same thing for my best friend. A consensus of two doesn't mean much, but I've heard similar sentiments elsewhere. Popularity doesn't = greatness, but for a musical to endear itself to so many folks who normal loathe the genre, it must've had SOMETHING going for it!

I do look forward to the Phantom DVD, mostly because I'll be curious to see if it does ANYTHING for me. I don't like musicals as a whole, and I REALLY dislike A L Webber. Heck, even though I'm a huge Madonna fan and maintain an enormous collection of her work, I couldn't stomach Evita on my CD rack - it's the one gap in my Maddy collection. Is there any chance I won't loathe Phantom?

 

[Chris Will]

Well, it is the same musical so, if you did not like the stage version I doubt you'd like the movie.

I one who enjoyed the movie better then the stage. I think it was b/c of the grander and bigger orchestrations.