DVDizzy Forum

Anyone else see this yet?

I saw it today, and personally, I don't understand the general bad-will against it among the critics. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the director's lackluster reputation and Webber's past of poor critical reception, but the movie is actually quite well done. Emmy Rossum and Gerard Butler did excellent jobs - call it blasphemy, but I prefer both their voices in these roles over Brightman & Crawford (I like their performances too, though).

Really, I think one's reaction will depend on their perception and point-of-view when going into it. Essentially, its a slightly more cinematic version of a broadway show. The nature of the sets and cinematography feels very much like a stage, and the audience is viewing it all as they would the original show. Since this is obviously what the filmmakers intended for, I think its great for what its supposed to be.

However, in my opinion, I wouldn't have taken that approach to the material (although I'm sure with Webber producing, he wouldn't have had it any other way). I wouldn't have adhered so closely to the play, and I would've opened it up more in general for movie cinematic possibilities. For example - "Music of the Night" plays out exactly as it would in the theater, with the Phantom and Christine in the Phantom's staged lair. If it were me, I would've done something bigger with it. After all, it is the movies, and people are going to a movie theater to see a movie, not a play. That's just one example - I would've prefered them taking that approach to the whole thing. It feels somewhat constrained by the play.

Its tough to judge a movie like this, because you're not really judging the movie itself - you're judging the way the material was brought to a different format. In the end though, I had a very enjoyable time.

It was fitting that I went to it with my sister, since back in the mid-90s, after seeing the show, she got me into the music. I remember she was just so in love with it - she would always play the songs on her keyboard for hours, and I'd just sit and listen. I never did see the show, but I developed a love for the music thanks to her. However, she's changed over the years, and she fell out of interest of so much she used to be interested in, including music and such (don't ask me why - she's hardened up somewhat for hu noz why, I guess she just "grew up"). But once the movie started, she was almost as exactly as I remembered her being before - she immediately got back into the music, started tapping her feet, moving her hands like she was playing piano keys. When we came out of the movie, she was actually misty. She was humming the songs all the way home, and said she was going to go get the CD, and that she would try to start playing the songs on keyboard again. It was amazing. (Women are so emotional, aren't they? )

Anyway, perhaps that incident made my reaction to the movie more positive than it would have been if she wasn't there. Either way, I greatly enjoyed the entire thing. I hope nobody here is effected by the lackluster buzz, because it really doesn't deserve it. Go see it, have a good time!

The movie is problematic, plain and simple. This production doesn't translate well to the screen, although it does have its moments. Overally, this is the type of the movie where its parts are worth more than its sum.

As far as production values go, you can't go much higher, but Joel Shulamacher is such a horrible director. He's not very inspiring when it comes to the art of cinema. He wants to entertain, but fails to realize that you don't have to sacrifice quality for entertainment.

Patrick Wilson has the most thankless role in Broadway history, Emmy Rossum has the personailty of a lost and lonely china doll, and Gerard Butler does the best he can with a director who refused to delve deep into the phantom character.

The stand-outs? Minnie Driver and Miranda Richardson of course. There's a reason why they have Oscar nominations under their belts. A true actor does the best they can with sloppy material, and the proved that. They're thespians.

Why is it that true theater junkies hate Andrew Loydd Webber? Is he really the death of the American musical. I don't think so. He made the theater accessible to millions of people, but ostracized those that want more than a mushy love story. His music just doesn't work. It's too bombastic, and at time grating. I don't think he knew if he wanted this to be a musical or an opera. He may have tried to meld the two art forms, but they just don't work here. His musicals are so over-the-top and tacky that the audience just doesn't buy it. The lyrics to almost all the songs are simply atrocious. This is the type of musical designed to suck tourists' money, and then they can go home and think they've seen something high art. The songs are way to innane, and they don't mean anything to the story, which is what good musical theater is supposed to do. That's why Sondheim is so esteemed, and Webber is looked down upon.

I'm pretty sure more than one person is going to respond and make the arguement that the musical is "entertaining" and that's what counts. Whatever. That's fine and all, but these overly lavish productions draw attention from truly deserving musicals that don't get the time of day because you actually have to use your head to follow along. (I'm still made that Carolyn, or Change closed in less than a year! Closing this October was not justice I tell you! Not when The Phantom of the Opera has been open for 16 years and looks to embark on another 16!)

Anyway, I gave this movie a "B" on my other thread. Why? It was adequate and I want people to see it, if only to keep the movie musical alive. How does this stand compared to the other three big musicals of the last four years? It just doesn't compare. Dancer in the Dark and Moulin Rouge! were masterpieces, and Chicago was great. They each earned a place in my top 10 during their respective years. This just doesn't cut it for me.

Prince Eric wrote:This production doesn't translate well to the screen, although it does have its moments.

You summed it up nicely. The very nature of the story being set in an opera house just doesn't seem to fit very well in a movie setting without feeling constrained. That's why I said I wished they'd deviated from the play more - take it out of the opera house, make it bigger. However, like I said, since the filmmakers basically wanted to reproduce the play in a slightly more cinematic form, I think its very good for what its meant to be. I think those who aren't very familiar with the play will appreciate it more (like me).

I am absolutely obsessed with this film! I got the SE Soundtrack for Christmas (love it), and have taped all the cast's interviews that were on TV this week.

Have I seen it yet? No. Have I seen the play? No.

But I'm really looking forward to it (my hometown is not a "select city").

From the clips I've seen it looks gorgeous.

My only problem? The critics. So many people are upset that Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman aren't starring the film. HELLO!: they're 20 years older now!

I guess the thing about movie reviewers is that they can very easily criticise a movie. It is strange that critics are not excited by the willingness to showcase new talent rather than relying on old talent or big name stars. You can imagine the outcry if the movie had have starred Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman, the cry would have been why not cast fresh new talent for the new millenium.

I saw the movie and was impressed with the transformation from the old burnt out shell of the opera house to its glory day state. The movie is a version of the stage musical, so a lot of the criticism about the music, lyrics, settings etc seem rather strange, again any great deviation from the original would also have caused more criticism from the reviewers. The movie is enjoyable and presents a version of the musical that is true to the original stage show BUT one that is accessible to a wider audience than those who can enjoy a seat at the latest West End production.

So if you like the music or you like the stage production then you will enjoy the film version. If you don't, then this movie will not be 4 u.

Hi
I'm also obsessed with this film,I have already seen it three times and I just loved it and will doubtless see it again. The opening scen when they rise the chandelier and the dust is blown away is fantastic.
I have also seen the play tree times, but unfortunately only the Swedish version.

There is only one problem. I work at the cinema in Stockholm where this movie is shown and we are showing it 4 times a day,so when i get home in the evening I can still hear the music in my head.
When this movie is replaced I will probably need to undergo therapy.

Happy new year
The Phantom of Astoria

I saw this film last night with a friend and while I was very, very impressed with the sets and costumes, I wouldn't say it's the best film of the year, and so on and so forth (though highly enjoyable and a treat to look at).

*ahem* I should say that the songs were excellent as well (especially "The Phantom of the Night"... love that song!). I've never seen the stage version or actually seen any other version of The Phantom of the Opera, but Webber's was very much a sight to behold. Some overly dramatic scenes were almost laugh-inducing and probably worked much better on stage (such as the scene where the Phantom loses his temper and sings that "Delilah" song). It was trifle things like this that sucked me out of the movie.

But all in all, a good film. I don't think it deserves to be trashed nearly as much as the critics are trashing it but whatever.

I just got back from seeing this film today and let me just say I was speechless. At the end of the movie everyone in the theater just sat there and stared, as if they were thinking "Wow". It was one of the first movie's I've seen in a long time which I was sad to see the end of. I just wanted it to keep going and my gosh, those singing voices...so beautiful! I will definitely pick it up on DVD when it comes out.

I originally wrote:I really want to see this film on the big screen but I won't get the chance to as nobody wants to go with me. Damn.

Well, what do you know? I did get the chance to see The Phantom of the Opera and I thought it was amazing. Not the best musical ever made, but a very fine production with a magical feeling to it where everybody looks like they came out of a stained glass window on a cold winters day.

I'm quite annoyed that the critics are bashing this movie. Roger Ebert gave it 3 out of 4 stars, but said this about the material itself:

Roger Ebert wrote:But what I am essentially disliking is not the film, but the underlying material. I do not think Lloyd Webber wrote a very good musical. The story is thin beer for the time it takes to tell it, and the music is maddeningly repetitious.

Well, I have to disagree. If he's saying that the story is dragged out too long, I disagree, as for the most part, I didn't experience major boredom. And I happened to like the music, too. I must say that Webber's Jesus Christ Superstar is a bit better, but I liked this score. To tell the truth, this is the first time I'd heard Phantom's score and fortunately my first experience with it was a good one.

Ultimate Disney's very own Prince Eric wrote:This production doesn't translate well to the screen...

I can see kind of agree with you on this one to an extent. Many musicals, even the finest ones like My Fair Lady can suffer from this problem, actually. I felt that the Masquerade number was a bit stiff and the Music of the Night number, as Jack put it, was "played out exactly as it would in the theater, with the Phantom and Christine in the Phantom's staged lair", which made the film look like it was a filmed version of the stage play. Yet seeing as the directors wanted to produce it along those lines (as a more cinematic version of a musical), I'm fine. Plus, with beautiful images played on a 2:35:1 canvas, what more is there to say?

I saw this in theatres the day after Christmas. I thought it was okay-maybe a three star out of four. Not sure I cared for them moving the chandelier sequence (I've seen the play twice), and the cemetary where Christine visits her father's grave just didn't feel like a real cemetary (it looked too much like a set-actually most of the movie looked like a filmed stage production.)

Overall, this isn't too bad if you haven't had a chance to see a stage version of Phantom. Those who've seen it performed on stage may be in for a disappointment, however.

Here's a gloomy article from IMDB that I read...

'Phantom' Flops
Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom of the Opera, directed by Joel Schumacher and starring Gerard Butler and Emmy Rossum, expanded into 622 theaters, but its $4.82 million take suggested that it was not likely to make back the $60 million that Webber and his partners reportedly put into it. In an article in American Enterprise magazine, Eric Cox, a research fellow at the Sagamore Institute for Policy Research, wrote that the movie, financed in large part by Webber himself, "is likely to go down in history as one of the greatest cinematic flops of all time."

Bleh.

Well I haven't seen it yet but I'll wait for DVD. I saw The Phantom of the Opera in Toronto in 1993 and that was amazing.

Calling it a "flop" is beyond a huge exageration. One has to look at the circumstances of its release to measure its success thus far . . .

The film opened with a $4 Million weekend in just over 600 theaters, meaning it got a very strong $6,000+ per-theater-average. It's second weekend, it actually went up - $4.8 Million in the same number of theaters, having over a $7,000 p-t-a. In addition, audience reaction has been mostly positive. So as you can see, its off to a great start in limited release, despite harsh reviews. It'll probably have even higher numbers when it expands into 2,000+ theaters in late January. Obviously, it has a good chance of making back the production budget.

That IMDB article is BS. "One of the greatest flops of all time" - I didn't hear them say that when Moulin Rogue or Chicago started off in limited release. Professionals just really dislike Webber, and are negative about most everything he does.

First of all, I really enjoyed this movie, and I recommend it to anyone who has seen and liked the play.

The movie version really seemed like the stage version put into three dimensions. Being a fan of the stage show, this is a good thing. Also, the character introductions at the start of the movie made it much more clear who these people are and what their relationships are. The movie uses the symbols of the mask, rose, and mirror to great effect.

Some of the singing was an adjustment after listening to Michael Crawford for so long, but none of it came off as bad. I loved some of the reorchestrations and the decision to speak some lines that were formerly sung.

This movie gets a solid A- from me.

I saw this film this weekend, and I really enjoyed it as well. I am biased, though, because I was already a huge fan of the stage musical and know the soundtrack inside and out. But I was impressed with the film adaptation, and plan to see it again and own it when it is released on DVD.
Still, even as a big fan of this movie, one must admit that certain "serious" moments are laughable. I really had a hard time keeping a straight face during "The Phantom of the Opera" number, with the serious look on Phantom's face, the "hypnotized" gaze of Christine, and the cheesy song production (as if the song wasn't 80's enough, they added handclaps to this version! what the heck!). Also, the bit at the end where the Phantom is ordering Christine to choose between him and Raoul.. I dunno, it was more funny than dramatic. But still, I really enjoyed the film, particularly the fact that they told it in flashback throughout, and I loved the final scene in the cemetary. Anyway, if you like movie musicals, go see this one. You shouldn't be disappointed.

snowbot wrote:(as if the song wasn't 80's enough, they added handclaps to this version! what the heck!).

I forgot about that. That was funny.

I disagree on the other points though. Nothing in the movie really struck me as funny. Sure, its hugely dramatic, but that's what an opera is. As I said before, it works for the stage better than for the silver screen, but I didn't find it as goofy as some others have, I guess.

Well, it's not so much that I found it laughable, more like smirkable at times. It is difficult to translate live productions to film, because on stage the actors are required to over-act in order to get their points across and acheive the greatest communication of emotion. On film, the camera is close to the subjects, and less "drama" is needed to convey an emotional message. For the most part I thought they succeeded at re-calibrating the dramatic acting of the roles. I just thought that there were a couple of moments where this didn't work as well. Not many, though.

Could the word be cheesy? I think that's what it was. Yes, operas are supposed to be dramatic, but there's a distinct difference between melodrama. Does anyone go to the opera regularly? If you have, you know that Webber was way off in capturing the art form. I've said it once, and I'll say it again: The guy didn't know if he wanted to create an opera or a musical.

I find it odd that many are people are defending the movie because "it works better on stage" and that "it's supposed to be a cinematic version of the stage show." Since when did two distinct art forms pose a problem of creating a successful adaptation? When the filmmakers said they wanted to create a bigger version of the show, that doesn't mean they had to create a kitchfest. If that's the case, they should have just filmed the show on Broadway and released it on the big screen.

Yes, it's an enjoyable movie, but it's not a great film.

Eric, I'm not sure if you're referring to me or not, but I was in no means defending the film by saying it works better on stage. That's a critisism. As I said in my original post, it seems the fimmakers just wanted to almost exactly reproduce the stage show for the cinema, and I wish they had approached it differently. If they had, they could've made a better film. However, I'm just viewing it as reproduction of the show, since that's what it seems they inteded it to be. And in that perspective, I think its good. I'm not saying it couldn't be improved, because it certainly can.

It wasn't you, I was just talking about everyone's general response.