Posted on 05/16/2005 3:42:01 PM PDT by Cinnamon Girl
For those who never saw the musical, or the movie when it was released, the DVD is out now, and I recommend it. Very much. Number one because of this guy:
Scottish actor Gerard Butler, who I first saw on the DVD release of "Attila," cannot cover his Scottish brogue no matter how hard he tries (and why should he, really?) and the unfortunate truth is that, well, he isn't the strongest singer they could find, but he is a good actor and let's face it, he's hot.
I knew before seeing the DVD that Butler couldn't sing so well and that Schumacher and Andrew Lloyd Webber cast him for the other reasons mentioned, so I didn't have high expectations. But Butler is so intense, and it's such a dazzling film, and Emmy Rossum is such a fine singer, that it was all very appealing.
The look of the opera house was fascinating and elaborate as were the costumes, and especially intricate were the secret passages to the Phantom's cave-like home.
Emmy Rossum is remarkable. Isn't she 18? I like her voice because it's clear and strong but not opera-ish. And the two leads definitely expressed a chemistry which made their scenes together more powerful.
ATTENTION: *****(the following may sort of ruin certain aspects of the story for anyone who isn't totally familiar with it, so skip it, please!):
Some parts of the movie I didn't understand, like, why exactly was Christine's boyfriend, the visconte, better than the Phantom? If it hadn't been for one particularly hugely wrong incident which I didn't understand the motivation for anyway, what was so wrong with the man in the mask?
I cried my head off at the end, when the Phantom had an emotional revelation and then cried for his broken heart. That's when Butler's acting abilities really shined. You could see his face change as he considered what was happening, and his tears just flowed.
Minnie Driver's singing was looped. I guess it would have been too weird to loop the Phantom, but I'm not sure it would have been a bad idea.
Overall, I liked and maybe loved this film and recommend it, recognizing that guys may not care for it much or at all.
I know she was supposed to be French, hence the question. ALL the characters were French, but they didn't put on fake accents, so why bother with her?
I think the accent was designed not so much to mark her as French, but rather to mark her as having a 'wisdom' that many of the other characters lacked. Not that being French implies that one is wise, but rather that a more closed voice would suggest a more reserved character.
I was thinking of buying the DVD having missed it in the theaters.
Then, a group of friends who all went to the play in Los Angeles pretty much all called this movie crap, so maybe I'll rent it instead for a dollar months from now.
Imagine that the movie Ben Hur (1959 version) had been released exactly as it was, except that in the naval battle scene one of the boat commanders called out "Damn the torpedos--full speed ahead!" Would that make it a bad movie in your eyes, or would you simply shrug and ignore the gross anacrhonism and notice that the rest of the movie was good?
If you are the sort of person who can notice was is good about a movie with with flaws that are insignificant but glaringly obvious, then you might enjoy the movie. If such flaws prevent you from enjoying a movie, then you probably won't.
That's an interesting idea. I wonder if the character in the stage production has a french accent.
Most of the singing was total crap according to the people I know who are into this stuff.
Like I said, I won't buy it, but will either borrow it or rent it for a dollar down the line to see what I think about it.
Couldn't be much worse than a Michael Moore film, so how bad could it have been?
I think it had a chance to be an A+ movie that came in as a B- and that it disappointed people into it was all.
I'm sure there are lots worse DVDs out there though.
bump for later
Someone who could read the released film into an editing suite could improve it by making a few slight edits (e.g. eliminate the "James Bond" swimming scene). Someone with the original film elements could probably do even better--even without reshooting anything--by choosing some different camera angles which avoid obvious goofiness. Looping a few lines of dialog would help things further.
I would expect that it really wouldn't take much to get the film up to an "A-" rating from a "B-" rating (some people aren't going to like the singing, but that's a matter of taste). I am perplexed as to why the producers couldn't have done better.
Planning to rent it. :-)
I would have liked to have seen an all out Hollywood edition with Hugh Jackman/Antonio Banderas as the Phantom, Emmy or Charlotte Church as Christine and Leo Di Caprio perhaps as the other lead. (which was pretty much their ideal casting list to begin with)
Gerard Ping!
You are my good friend! ;-)
Not enough pics yet, though...
Mmm...yeah, that works.
*drool*
My objection isn't with the casting or set construction. It mainly falls into three areas:
I agree with you, it is a matter of taste and for those who have gone several times to the play, I'm sure there is a large level of snobbery involved.
The choice of singing roles is a matter of taste. Some of the silliness, though, is simply silly. Is there anyone here who has seen the movie who thinks it would be made worse by the deletion of the James Bond swimming sequence?
Last night I saw the DVD. I thought it was okay, but I probably don't know better because I have never seen the musical.
I take it that the musical is much better?
I do know that Michael Crawford is the best Phantom, IMHO. The Phantom on the DVD..Nope. Not even close.
Please see post #59. It's important. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.