The Phantom Of The Opera Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x800 | 11201.29 MiB | 1080p | |
|
720x544 | 2359.76 MiB | hidivx | |
|
480x362 | 650.15 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
Deformed since birth, a bitter man known only as the Phantom lives in the sewers underneath the Paris Opera House. He falls in love with the obscure chorus singer Christine, and privately tutors her while terrorizing the rest of the opera house and demanding Christine be given lead roles. Things get worse when Christine meets back up with her childhood acquaintance Raoul and the two fall in love. The Phantom decides to kidnap her and imprison her with him in his lair. Raoul is now the only one who can stop him.
| Gerard Butler | The Phantom |
| Emmy Rossum | Christine |
| Patrick Wilson | Raoul |
| Miranda Richardson | Madame Giry |
| Minnie Driver | Carlotta |
| Ciarán Hinds | Firmin |
| Simon Callow | Andre |
| Victor McGuire | Piangi |
| Jennifer Ellison | Meg Giry |
| Murray Melvin | Reyer |
| Kevin McNally | Buquet |
| James Fleet | Lefevre |
| Imogen Bain | Carlotta's Maid |
| Miles Western | Carlotta's Wigmaker |
| Judith Paris | Carlotta's Seamstress |
| Joel Schumacher |
7.30 out of 10 (38147 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Couldn't have been better!
posted on 28 Aug 2009My wife and went and saw this on Christmas eve in one of the few theaters showing it. We are both big Phantom fans and we absolutely loved the movie. We both got chills when the song "Phantom of the Opera" started playing in the beginning. It was awesome. We enjoyed that we were able to see the facial expressions we don't get to see when seeing it performed on stage. It was very well done. If you have never seen the musical itself, you may have a hard time with some of it because it comes across cheesy with them all singing in harmony to what would be general talking, but if you have seen it before on stage, you'll love it. The entire cast is wonderful. We have heard or read comments or reviews that Phantom (Erik) is too good looking to be the Phantom, but in the book and musical he is supposed to be good looking other than the scarring/marking on his face. After all, how can he seduce Christine if he's ugly even with the mask? Also, we really enjoyed that Raoul is so well cast. When we've seen it performed, you were happy that Christine went to Raoul, but you still felt like she should have gone with Phantom. In this one, the actor of Raoul is so well done, you want him to get Christine. Absolutely wonderful.
Fantastic
posted on 28 Aug 2009I've seen the stage production and read several of the Phantom books, and I thought this film was wonderful. I liked the new song, and I thought the girl that played Christine had an amazing voice. Butler as the Phantom was a wise choice, and Minnie Driver was the perfect Carlotta. The person playing Raul was so good, I found myself (for the first time ever) partially hoping he would win. However, I still cried at the end, when the Phantom is left alone. The set designs were exceptional, especially the masquerade sequence. The use of colors, and the lighting helped set a good mood for the entire film. My only problem would be with the chandelier falling scene, since it was in a different part of the play, but other than that, I have no complaints about this wonderful film.
Simply awesome
posted on 28 Aug 2009I saw this movie for the third time yesterday. All I can say is I love it. It gets better with each viewing. I have only 2 complaints 1) The whole Masquarade number looks like Madonnas "Vogue" video. 2) the whole graveyard scene is entirely too long.I find it surprising that Gerrard Butler learned to sing for this role. he is wonderful and just oozes sexuality.The 2 young lovers are very good also. I guess I have seen them before, but didn't know it. Now I will never forget them. But I highly recommend this movie.
This one should be remade
posted on 26 Aug 2009The Phantom of the Opera is filled with fantastic imagery and delightful cinematography. The actors who play Christine and Raul were surprisingly very good. Their singing was much stronger than I expected and we will definitely see their careers get a kickstart from this film. I have been a fan of the staged version of the musical for years and I never tire of listening to the breathtaking soundtrack from the original London cast, nor seeing the musical itself. Its one of the few musicals that gives me chills when the first few chords of that haunting organ music is played.However there are a few weak points in the film version. First of all, there are certain things that work for the stage as there are for the theater, but don't mix. That's the problem with some musicals when they get transfered to film, the director tries to put every element of a staged play on film rather than allowing the film to achieve its own identity, like Chicago, or Singing in the Rain.For example, choreography designed for the stage doesn't always play out with the same effect on film. It seems to be more of a distraction in the Masquerade and Past the Point of No Return scenes. The dancers in Don Juan look like gay pirates, and its just plain annoying and comical to watch them twirling. Masquerade feels like a scene designed for extras or failed off-Broadway actors and actresses. Do I really need to watch masked people acting like mimes? And being able to see the backstage part of the opera really detracted from the overall atmosphere of the film Its clear that Joel Schumacher sees directing as more of a hobby than a job. He's willing to keep his experimental camera work in the film, even when it makes the scene crappy. Occasioanly he jumps the film around from scene to scene so quickly, that there are times I feel like I'm watching a candid video from some high school field trip at an opera house rather than a movie.And then there is the Phantom. Not a bad actor, but his voice was so weak that he had no business playing the Phantom. I recall watching the HBO special, where Andrew Lloyd Weber was being interviewed and he admitted to telling Joel Schumacher that any actors he casted would have to do there own singing. Big Mistake. Some people naturally can't sing, SO DON'T LET THEM!!!!! Whoever did the casting for this movie must be tone-deaf! Sir Weber is arguably one of the finest composers of all time, but the movie productions of his musicals usually fall way short of their potential and I think he needs to let the director have more control and he should also let more experienced film producers have control of the film versions. I think this film could be remade with stronger actors and actresses. There's also dozens of directors that could have made this movie much more romantic and engaging. It's alright to see the movie to hear the sweet songs of a tragic story come to life, but this isn't really an Oscar worthy film by any stretch of the imagination, nor one worth owning or watching more than once every so often.
Your mileage may vary
posted on 24 Aug 2009Its big...Its opulent...Its high camp.I found this version of the classic story of the Phantom of the Opera to be very silly. Big and beautiful and so over done that I came very close to laughing at it.Don't get me wrong its not bad, its just so over blown, over the top, over done that its very hard to take it seriously. Many people I know who saw it loved it, I just can't get past the silliness of it all.Should you see it? Oh yes, simply because they don't make movies that look like this any more, if they ever really did.Will you like it? Hey, thats up to you. If you hate the stage musical stay away. Beyond that you're on your own.
I didn't like it.
posted on 24 Aug 2009The characters were more than one dimensional and there was barely any character development. Gerard Butler can't sing and his face wasn't that bad. It just looks like he had eczema on a 1/3 of his face. Not enough to banish himself to the bellows of the opera house. Also, for someone who hated his face, why does he have so many full length mirrors, plus the Labyrinth was extremely well lighted; "All I ask of you" lighting was way darker than that. With the character of Raoul, oh geez where do I start; wimp, wimp, wimp, wimp, waste of space wimp. He had no purpose what-so-ever. If Andrew Lloyd Webber took out the "All I ask of you song," the love scenes, and replace his character with Meg, but have a Frodo and Sam relationship between the two, the play would had been better. I like Jennifer Ellison, and next to Emmy Rossum, they were the only two good things in the movie.The sword fight lasted way to long and was unnecessary, and "Masquerade" was such a disappointment. Who choreographed it, Madonna and Paula Abdul; however the scenery was great. I won't be surprised if the movie wins an Oscar for art design.I understand why other people like the film, because it is an extremely faithful adaptation of the musical, but I was watching it for the acting and characters, and it just wasn't good.
The best version of "Phantom of the Opera" I have seen in 35 years
posted on 24 Aug 2009Of the four versions of The Phantom of the Opera that I have seen over the past 35 years, I like the one directed by Joel Schumacher best. The film, released last year and based on the musical adaptation by Andrew Lloyd Webber, is truly worth seeing in that it has the feel and flavor of operatic arts and lives. Besides, the film, for the most part, also remains faithful to Gaston Leroux's original novel of the same name in vividly depicting the madness and genius of O.G. (the phantom), who falls for and is obsessed by Christine Daaé, the beautiful prima donna.The flashback technique, the ashen scenes that gradually transform into colorful ones reflect not only the mystery of opera ghost but also the beauty and classical atmosphere of 17th century Paris where the story took place. Close up takes of the phantom as he listens to Christine and Raoul's duet of All I Ask of You captivate the audience even more, thanks to the good work of the cameramen and Schumacher's meticulous direction.Although I am not familiar with most of the actors in the film – except Miranda Richardson – I think they have played their roles well, especially Emmy Rossum, Gerard Butler, and Minnie Driver who, besides their fine acting, also sing beautifully.I saw the film twice last week, and I gave it and all the people involved in its making two thumbs up. I just wonder why such a superb film like this was not even nominated in the 77th Academy Awards extravaganza last month!
A Phantom Even a Grandmother Could Love
posted on 24 Aug 2009"The Phantom of the Opera" has enjoyed numerous film adaptations since it was first published nearly a century ago. Claude Rains, Herbert Lom, Maximilian Schell, Charles Dance, and even Robert "Freddy Kreuger" England, have all played the tragic, disfigured protagonist of Gaston Leroux's 1910 novella. The king of the Phantoms was Lon Chaney, whose startling appearance and bravura performance in Universal's 1925 silent version is still the benchmark by which others are measured. No other actor conveyed the level of pathos and ferocity that Chaney brought to the role. Not only was Chaney a commanding actor, he was willing to abuse and physically distort his own face by means of wires, collodion, fish skin, tape, and other painful devices by which he achieved a level of realism that remains unmatched to this day, even with state-of-the-art prosthetics. Chaney's appearance as the Phantom remains iconic not only because it is so bizarre, but because it cannot be duplicated. Chaney's Phantom is also the most authentic in appearance. Leroux describes Erik's face as resembling a skull, with almost no nose that could be seen "sideface," with parchment-yellow skin pulled tight over the bones. Leroux's Erik was not a handsome, dashing figure who wore a quarter-face mask to hide a modest blemish. He was a thing of horror, a murderous psychopath whose grotesque deformities might have put him in good company with John Merrick or Quasimodo. Among the reading public in France at the time, he was the closest thing they had to an alien horror creature. Next to Lon Chaney, the most memorable interpretation of the Phantom was that of Michael Crawford, who originated the role in Andrew Lloyd Webber's ingenious stage production, and who elevated the character by empowering him with the gift of song. Much as I liked that production, the peril of making the character more romantic is that it renders him less sinister. Joel Schumacher's film version pushes this conceit even further by turning Leroux's horror story into a Harlequin romance. To make the Phantom younger, studlier, and more sympathetic, as Schumacher has done, is to denude the character of his near-spectral power. Imagine if somebody decided to do a film about a younger, more sympathetic Hannibal Lecter. (Oh wait, they did that, didn't they?)Schumacher's desire to make the characters younger and sexier should be no surprise, coming from the man who added nipples to Batman's costume. Even so, Gerard Butler is an odd piece of casting. He is a decent actor, however he doesn't come across as particularly "young," on top of which he can't sing. Johnny Depp can't sing either, however he would have made a much more interesting Phantom if looks and acting skill had been the only prerequisites. With all of the actors that have gone before him, the only novel quality that Butler brings to the role of Erik is a kind of uncharacteristic ruggedness that one doesn't usually associate with Leroux's wraith-like villain. If it was youthful machismo Schumacher was after, one wonders why he didn't cast Colin Farrell in the role, since they've already done a few movies together. Perhaps Schumacher wanted a more testosteronal Phantom in order to dispel the "twee" factor. After all, any man who spends his time poncing around an old theater in gowns and evening-wear is automatically suspect. We can be thankful that Schumacher chose not to show the Phantom in an unguarded moment, bare-chested and wearing a black bow-tie, though I wouldn't have been entirely surprised.After Universal's lavish 1943 musical remake, in which Claude Rains's phantom was little more than a sad subplot to a giddily witless love triangle, one reviewer observed that there was far more "opera" than "phantom" in the Technicolor extravaganza. Another critic was sufficiently underwhelmed by Rains's makeup in the climactic unmasking scene to write that the Phantom's ostensibly acid-scarred face looked less like a disfigurement than an unpleasant skin condition.Which is one of the problems with Schumacher's version. As anyone who has seen the stage production can attest, the original makeup design, while not overly gory, was nonetheless horrific and repellent--the suggestion of congenital deformity as might be exacerbated by the leprous effects of a flesh-eating disease. Schumacher had the temerity to re-write Webber (with Webber's consent, apparently), by inventing the least unpleasant-looking Phantom in the annals of stage and screen. At the first glimpse of Butler unmasked, I was a little confused. The only thing I could tell was that his hair color had changed. Before, he looked like Antonio Banderas in a mask. Now he looked like Simon LeBon, which was an improvement.I played the scene back, and got really close to the screen to see what Erik's disfigurement was, and why he had been wearing that mask, because I had obviously missed something. The only thing I could see was that it looked like he had a little rouge rubbed onto the side of his face. Which was baffling, because I had read about how many hours it took them to do his makeup. I thought to myself, that's it? If Claude Rains's makeup was an "unpleasant skin condition," Gerard Butler's was a birthmark. A large freckle. I've seen uglier people on prime time television! Which made the whole thing seem even more ridiculous,because we're expected to believe that this poor fellow was mentally scarred for life, and became a murderous lunatic, and felt the need to hide his face from the world, on account of--a change of hair color and a slightly ruddy complexion? Then again, I remembered something Schumacher had said in an interview. Prior to the film's release, he had explained to a journalist that he didn't want the Phantom to be so ugly that a woman wouldn't want to kiss him.Oh, the indignity. I suppose the Disney animated version will be next.
If only they stuck more with the play, and find a much better phantom voice
posted on 22 Aug 2009If you haven't seen the play before, this movie should provide a good background. Emmy Rossum stood out, even though at the first singing scene it seems that she's out of sync (so most likely she didn't sing the actual thing... it's doubtful any of the actors could). Reason for my complaint is that if you actually owned the Phantom of the Opera with the original London cast, and the included script in the CD cover, you should figure that the Phantom should be a character much more formidable than Raoul. The Opera Ghost should have _NEVER_ lost a sword fight with Raoul, and not even close to having Christine letting him live. Also the singing of the Phantom has too much bass, and not really charming or captivating. The Phantom's singing voice should entrance Christine, it it came across as a bass singing the Phantom's part. Michael Crawford (the original London cast Phantom) has a lot more range. And what's the deal with making the Phantom less magical? For example, sometime between the end of Masquerade, the Graveyard scene and before the Don Juan performance, there should've been a Don Juan rehearsal where the piano seems magically playing the score perfectly, and everyone would somehow magically fall in line and sing their parts very well. Also when the Phantom lasso's Raoul, the end of the rope should hang in midair. The Phantom is all about a scarred, tormented man who seems like a ghost, and sometimes perform things that "are not fully explained" as the Auctioneer has commented.Besides these faults, and a minor shifting of the breaking chandelier (which made no sense when the Phantom sang "there are worse thing than a broken chandelier"), it's a pretty good adaptation. I'm looking forward to watching the real play.
Great Re-Staging of Classic Thriller
posted on 22 Aug 2009To fully appreciate this film, what I did by accident is watch the original silent film starring Lon Chaney Senior. Doing this gives you a sense of what Andrew Lloyd Webber accomplished here.The story fully follows the exact story of the silent film. Many of the sets look very much like the silent sets. Nothing from the silent Master piece is disturbed.The opening of the film is different from Lon Chaneys & the ending in the cemetery is different. The phantom is not as hideous in this updated musical.Musically, this film is fantastic. The music does not distract from the story. Everything is here & in abundance. I just think that it might not have sold as many tickets because of the fact that the musical was on Broadway & beyond many years before it was finally made into the film.If you haven't seen Chaney's silent, watch it after watching this & you will be amazed at how close the 2 films are in story when this was done nearly 80 years afterwords. It is a classic story that must be seen once to be appreciated.
Don't Agree with Most Reviews
posted on 22 Aug 2009Perhaps this is a good film for musicals fans. As for me I've always found ridiculous those stories where people sing instead of talking when it comes to movies (I'm not referring to opera here), and this one is a perfect sample of what I find ridiculous.That aside the film is terribly long and I dare to say that Gerard Butler (the phantom himself) is not much of a singer, nor much of a make up either in his disfigured face. And all that singing and singing and singing ...I think a good normal version of Gaston Leroux's classical novel could have been made with this budget and fine cinematography.And singing and singing and singing ...
Absolutely Wonderful!
posted on 20 Aug 2009Are you looking for a movie that will enchanted you, excite you, and entice you to see it again and again? Then look no further than The Phantom of the Opera. This beautiful crafted movie will have you laughing, crying, and reaching out our loving arms to comfort and care for the Phantom himself. There is no emotion left untouched in this masterpiece of a film. Joel Schumacher has done what the Stage Play only hope to do, it brings directly into the world of Paris in the 1870's and transports into the mind of the characters. You feel as though you are Christine experiencing what she does, when she does. You cry out in anguish with the Phantom when his heart is torn from his chest and stomped on by his muse. You fear for Raoul and the unwavering love he still has for Christine after their childhood romance ended. Gerard Butler is the most moving and convincing character and one can't help but personally feel all of the emotions he portrays throughout the movie. The singing is out of this world and one wonders how come we are only getting to see these marvelous hidden talents now, after so many years of show business for the leads. If you only see one film this year I urge you transport yourself to the Paris Opera House for a night you will never forget. 10/10
Kinda Awful...
posted on 18 Aug 2009After hearing about PotO for years from my husband, I was really eager to see it. Afterall, I'm a fan of Lloyd Webber's 'Les Mis' & 'Cats'. But I can't believe how disappointed I was by this one.The music was good, the costumes were fantastic & the scenery was great - but it just didn't have the 'feel' that I usually have when watching any sort of play or musical. Granted, it may have been because it was a movie & the fact that my rear-end fell asleep about 2 hours into it - but I don't think I would have been any less disappointed if I'd seen it on stage.Not one of Lloyd Webber's greater endeavors.
Amazing!
posted on 18 Aug 2009I thought this movie was simply amazing! I was a little afraid to see it since I'm so in love with the stage musical and I admit it's nothing compared to the play but I wasn't disappointed. For a little advice, if you've seen it on stage, completely forget that. If you try to compare it to the play, you'll hate it. Just forget about the play and just watch it as if it's something new that you've never seen before. The acting is simply amazing and the way they changed some of the scenes to fit the big screen was magnificent! After seeing this movie, I couldn't see any other actors/ actresses as the characters. The colors of the costumes and theater was wonderful and the songs were as rich as ever!
wicked flick!
posted on 16 Aug 2009The sets are beautiful and the costumes are amazing!!! I loved Gerard Butler, he's super hot as Phantom! The singing can get a bit old but all in all it's a great flick if you're a musical and eye candy fan. I think that updating the script and switching it up helped make the experience better if you're seen the stage version. I did wish there was a bit more of a creep factor with the Phantom. He is a dark creature and that could have been explored on a deeper level. Minnie Driver is wicked funny as the Diva and should get awards attention for the role I think. I look forward to purchasing this one on DVD! The soundtrack is fun if you enjoy listening to musical's on disc.
The Lack of Facial Disfigurement Flaws POTO's Plot
posted on 16 Aug 2009I'll be the first to admit that my introduction to the Phantom of the Opera was this movie. But now I realize it wasn't as perfect as it had seemed those few years ago.Yes, the display is fantastic. It's beautiful, appealing, and each scene is well put together. But in regards to the history behind it, I'd say you might be better staying at home. This movie is not true at all to the story of the Phantom of the Opera, and has annoyed many phans. With the elimination of the Persian, Erik's true history, Erik's name, and even something as simple as when the chandelier was to fall! But, these little hitches could be ignored. After all, it is Hollywood. They change everything and people learn to accept that. But one fact still lingers in my mind and annoys me- and many others- constantly.Erik appears to suffer from second degree burns.. And that is his only disfigurement.This completely throws the point and the meaning of this film out the window. The disfigured face is what causes him to keep himself from the opera occupants, what keeps them in constant fear of him, and, naturally, what keeps his little white mask on. But, when he takes off the mask to reveal said "disfigured face," I was appalled to see nothing more than a pile of red, slightly wrinkled flesh, which is seen more clearly in the Final Lair scene than the dramatic removal. (They used many masks to make the face, and it is incredibly obvious when they change it.) The only thing that could go wrong now is if the Phantom's voice was instead ear-grating and hard to bear instead of ethereal and like an angel's! ... .. Wait a minute.
Good but frustrating...
posted on 14 Aug 2009When it comes to Phantom, there is no bigger fan than I am. I have loved the play and music for as long as I can remember and I have anxiously waited for the movie to be made. Finally it is here, and I certainly have mixed feelings about it. The movie itself is very well done. The camera work, the costumes, the acting, and the storyline itself are excellent. The movie is certainly "eye-candy" and I found myself grinning from ear to ear several times throughout the movie.My biggest problem I have is with the casting. I do not understand the decision to cast Butler and Rossom as Phantom and Christine. In my opinion, there were two routes the producers and director could have taken when casting for this movie: (1) Go for the big-named cast and pretty much forget about the voices, or (2) Go with a relatively unknown cast full of amazing singers. Well, neither one of these was achieved and we are left with a semi-famous cast full of weak voices and bad notes. They do a pretty good job considering the shoes they are trying to fill, but it just didn't make any sense to have those two people as the main characters.All in all, this is a pretty decent movie. Try to go into it with an open mind and try to forget how Phantom and Christine sound in the stage version, and you'll have a pretty good experience.7/10 stars
'Phantom' Works Better as Stage Spectacle
posted on 14 Aug 2009Joel Schumacher's *The Phantom of the Opera* is one of the more schizoid movie-going experiences I've ever had.On the one hand, I love the music. I consistently get spine tingles when the first crash of the organ chords to the Phantom's theme occurs. Tears strolled down my face and I got goosebumps during the songs "The Music of the Night," "All I Ask of You" and "The Point of No Return." While the movie is not as ravishing as I expected (with the exception of the "Masquerade" production number), I loved *looking* at it, and enjoyed one performance tremendously.On the other hand, I disagreed with several directorial choices, found the movie almost painfully slow, devoid of necessary tension and woefully miscast in two of the lead roles.A major problem is that the Phantom simply isn't a threatening presence. It seems to be forgotten that this story should be a little spooky! On the recording, you can sense actual terror of the "opera ghost." No one seems too afraid here.Perhaps this is because the screenplay gives us psychological reasoning for why the Phantom acts as he does. By making Madame Giry aware of what makes the Phantom tick we are subconsciously informed that his story has been told by her before. And if it has, what's to be spooked by? He's gone from being a seeming apparition in the bowels of the Opera House to a sexy stud with a mask, a past, and control issues. It doesn't feel right.Schumacher also makes the mistake of showing us brief shots of the Phantom as he is setting up his "accidents," especially the first one, where the scythe nearly kills Carlotta. It ruins all sense of mystery. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate if we didn't see the set up? After all, we're dealing with a *phantom!* The stage version worked because the Phantom was generally showcased through use of shadow or a disembodied voice when he was not onstage.Emmy Rossum is wonderful and a real find as Christine! She has a lovely presence and I found her singing voice to be warm and engaging. She projects emotion into these songs that Sarah Brightman does not on the original recording. If there is reason to see the movie for a performance, it's Rossum's.I have a problem with the choice to make the Phantom a younger presence. It doesn't make much sense that the "angel of music" promised to Christine Daae should turn out to be relatively close in age to Daae herself. This becomes especially non-sensical when, after "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again," Daae is transfixed enough to think her "angel" is really her late father! An older man simply serves this role better.Gerard Butler sings fine as Phantom, although he growls and whispers more than I'd like, which makes the Phantom's agony almost non-existent. Michael Crawford is definitely missed. It should have been Crawford's role....or even Antonio Banderas, as was originally suggested.Patrick Wilson is, unfortunately, a blank slate as Raoul. When he sings "All I Ask of You" to Christine he may as well be singing to a wall. I know Wilson to be a fine actor (check out *Angels In America*) so I can only assume he was directed to this by Schumacher. It's rather standard that Raoul is supposed to be a "blah" compared to the Phantom, but here he is made *too much* so.I didn't find too much in Minnie Driver as Carlotta, despite all the buzz on her performance. I know that Driver can sing (she sings the end credit song "Learn To Be Lonely," which is totally incongruous with the rest of the score), but I don't understand why they didn't cast someone who actually has the operatic range to SING the role of Carlotta.I was confused by choices to turn some sung moments into dialogue. What was wrong with just having everything sung? For all the supposed complaining people are said to do when people burst into song in movies, here there is the opposite problem: it feels stilted and wrong when the people TALK the lyrics while the corresponding melody plays.Some of the musical moments are not as focused visually as I would have liked. For example, after the Phantom overhears the love duet between Raoul and Christine, as he sings the line "You will curse the day you did not do / All that the Phantom asks of you" he is singing up to the sky. Huh? Wouldn't it be more effective to make some sort of connection that he is projecting doom onto the lovers? During "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again" Christine is walking through the mausoleum. It's only at the very end of the song that she is at her father's grave specifically. As a result, the visual seemed more like an excuse to show off a set piece than to focus on Christine's moment of prayer to her father.I mentioned the "Masquerade" sequence earlier. As I watched, I held my breath for the moment the Phantom arrives. It is a moment of creepy power not only in the musical but in the 1920's silent. Essentially, the Phantom arrives in a costume representing Death. I hoped Schumacher would stick to it. He doesn't, really. Even the chandelier crash is uneventful as a climax to the movie.It is clear that Webber's *Phantom* fares better as stage spectacle than as a film.Paul Katz
Its beauty cancels out its flaws...
posted on 14 Aug 2009Because I've seen the stage production and love the music, I went to see this film with an extremely critical eye. It wasn't perfect, but it was an excellent effort. Here are some thoughts:GERARD BUTLER as THE PHANTOM turned out to be an excellent choice. His portrayal is both sympathetic and sinister--as the Phantom should be. Although his voice isn't as trained as men who have tackled this role on stage, I have to say that Gerard Butler's method of singing adds more sadness to the character than others I've heard before. I think it was a wise casting choice to choose someone who isn't extremely well-known for the role (I, like many, had heard the rumors for years that Antonio Banderas was going to play the Phantom.) Gerard Butler had the anonymity that the character needs. (Oh yes, and he's hot.)EMMY ROSSUM as CHRISTINE DAAE was a good choice. She seems, to me, the way Gaston Leroux pictured Christine when he wrote the book. Unlike Sarah Brightman, who is a diva trying to look innocent and fragile, Rossum's Christine is innocent and fragile. She's sings very well--although there were a couple of places where you could tell the music had been modified for her--and is lovely on screen. My only complaint is that oftentimes she capitalizes on her loveliness a little too much by not showing a range of facial expressions. As another reviewer wrote, "She looks as though she's been injected with some heavy tranquilizers." Unfortunately, I agree...MINNIE DRIVER as CARLOTTA the diva was a brave and, decidedly, great choice. She is hilarious, as she should be. Minnie Driver has a way of portraying ridiculous characters who are supposed to be serious but aren't that is very endearing. No, she doesn't do her own singing and yes, the lip synching is way off for her first number, but it almost adds to the silliness of the character. Kudos to Minnie for holding that 3 foot wig up on her head, too. This was a character where it was nice to see a familiar face and, if you want to hear Minnie do her own singing, stay through the ending credits and hear her rendition of "Learn to be Lonely." She does a great job.MIRANDA RICHARDSON as MADAME GIRY and SIMON CALLOW as MR. ANDRE were other roles where it was nice to see familiar faces. Simon Callow is always over the top and hilarious, as this role demands. I do agree with another reviewer about the age makeup on Miranda Richardson at the very beginning and end of the film. Considering that she is older than Raoul and his age makeup makes him look much older than her was careless, but insignificant.PATRICK Wilson as RAOUL is someone I almost forgot to mention because he is so forgettable. The role often gets bashed--even for stage productions--but their casting choice here was very sloppy. No memorable singing or acting came out Patrick Wilson's performance in my opinion. There were many times when his character was speaking lines that would've ordinarily been sung. I don't know if this is because the filmmakers knew they couldn't demand much from his voice or because they wanted to do something new and different for the film. Either way, it happens so often with the Raoul character that one can't help but think they were trying to spare him from singing. Overall, he comes across as a blond piece of cardboard.Some last comments are: 1. Visually, the movie was stupendous. The costumes and production design will surely get some nods and recognition during award season. I was most impressed with the scene when Christine goes to the cemetery. It had a misty, Gothic look that would've made Tim Burton proud. 2. Despite the flaws, Lloyd Webber's music is so wonderfully haunting that it acts as a thread that carries the film from beginning to end.3. I wish that the filmmakers had done more with the Phantom's mask and when to show it or when to show the healthy side of the Phantom's face. I remember in Mel Gibson's MAN WITHOUT A FACE that it seemed like he was very strategic in which side of the face you saw depending on what the character was experiencing. It is more random in PHANTOM and I think that the filmmakers missed an opportunity to stick in some subtle symbolism. 4. A last cheer for GERARD BUTLER. That man really put his heart and soul into the role and it shows. I was even more impressed with his singing efforts after buying the soundtrack. I was also very impressed with the look the filmmakers created for the PHANTOM. The very dark hair is effective and Gerard Butler has these piercing eyes that are accompanied by a lot expression, even on the masked side. I was very impressed by his performance. He had some big shoes to fill and yet still managed to make the role fresh and his own. Great job!A WORD OF ADVICE...see the movie. Everyone is so split in their opinions that the best thing is just to see it and form your own. I didn't expect to like it as much as I did. Happy movie-watching!
Phantom
posted on 30 Aug 2009Regarding the Phantom: I thought this movie was well done. I think that comparing it to a theatrical stage production is totally unfair. Its impossible to create the atmosphere of actually being there with live actors within a movie theater. The part of Christine I thought was played rather well, although at times it seemed as though she was just "quacking" the words rather than actually feeling them (although there were moments of greatness). The costumes and make up were disappointing to say the least, especially with the Phantom. At times you could tell his makeup was not on under the mask. I was not a huge fan of the future scenes, nor of the sword fight really. Also, the rooftop scene was lacking. But, despite all of the comments, the Phantom movie was very good. It had most of the charm of the play. I thought that the part of Raoul was played well, despite the voice difference from the play. They were more successful turning the phantom into a movie then other theatrical productions. If you liked the play, or books or anything else then go see it. The theater is well done, very beautiful sets. The direction is good, and the cinematography is also impressive. Nice symbolism that wasn't in the play.