Haven't seen the movie version yet as the reviews scared me away. After viewing some of the comments below I might make an attempt to catch it at a good (re: sound system, screen) theater.
We have not seen it, but plan to go when it reaches our "neck of the woods". I promised my son I would take him. While he is not much of a theater fan, and we have only seen a few shows, this movie has caught his attention.
The movie reviews I have read were awful. 'Curious about what others have to say.
Ping
The wife & I are planning a date to go see it when it gets here to rural MI.
The movie is NOT a clone of the stage. It's a different experience from the stage, and if the Phantom audience can suspend their stage expectation, they will find a totally new view of Phantom.
Andrew Lloyd Webber, whose mark is all over this movie, is a romantic addict and genius.
Is hollyweird making any new movies?
I thought it well worth the time to see and enjoy it. I think the kidlet and I may see it again.
Neither lead could hold a candle to Crawford or Brightman, vocally. The movie phantom...no charisma. The movie Christine...lovely voice, however, too "young" top register; acting...it was as if someone told her to "just sing" and show no emotion on her face. Boring.
Patrick Wilson, as Raoul, terrific !
Orchestrations, set, costumes wonderful.
Saw it, it was awsome.
Never saw any other version, so I have nothing to compare.
So good, I went back again.
Thought it was good..of course I am biased towards Crawford as the Phantom. He was better. But Christine was very good and the sets were also. My 18 year old son loves it and has seen it twice!
Haven't seen the movie version yet as the reviews scared me away. After viewing some of the comments below I might make an attempt to catch it at a good (re: sound system, screen) theater.
Personally, I liked it & will probably see it again.
You need to remember one thing...many "critics" hate ALW and his productions. They'd have done anything to give Phantom a bad review. I've seen it on stage three times, love the music, and always find something I missed the last time. Will catch the movie soon.
My take on the movie is that the music, staging, cinematography, and Emmy Rossum’s Christine were fantastic! I was even more impressed when I found out that Ms. Rossum is only 19 years old.
However, I thought that Joel Schumacher could have done much better with the casting of both the Phantom and Raoul. I was not all that impressed with either Gerard Butler or Patrick Wilson’s performance.
Gerard Butler, in my opinion, cannot sing. In fact, I would go as far as to say that he couldn’t hold a note if it had a handle attached.
And Patrick Wilson must have taken acting lessons from Pee Wee Herman, because his portrayal of Raoul was one of the wimpiest I have ever seen. On a brighter note, at least he can sing.
Lloyd Webber was rightfully sued by the Giacomo Puccini estate for plagiarizing Puccini's "La fanciulla del West" for the theme of "All I Ask Of You". He settled out of court. Although I was not privy to the details of the settlement, scuttlebutt among long-time cast members was that the Puccini Estate receives a small percentage of the profits of "Phantom" worldwide. As Billy Crystal opines in the movie "Forget Paris", the big song in "Phantom" (i.e.,The Music Of The Night) is "School Days" ("School Days, School Days; Dear, old Golden Rule days...).
Personally, I am convinced that the success of "Phantom" has more to do with a lot of smoke on stage, candles coming out of the stage floor and the robotic boat in which the Phantom plies the supposed underground lake, than with the music, most of which is poorly written from a technical standpoint, and almost all derivative from Lloyd Webber's betters. Certainly, Handel and Bach lifted bits of melody from other composers, but they then turned those themes into glorious masterpieces. Conversely, Lloyd Webber appropriates glorious themes from other composers and turns them into pop mush.
There is no way that Joel Schumacher can take a poor work like "Phantom" and make it into something worth seeing and hearing.
Modern musicals are produced by such sickening no-talents that Lloyd Webber can seem like Richard Rodgers in comparison. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Hey, ride..thanks for ping.. Movie lover & addict that I am, must put in my 4 or 5 cents.
I saw stage plays 4 times. twice in Toronto & twice in Cleveland. They were remarkable & I enjoyed them.
I thought the movie was excellent and I agree with someone's comments on going to a theater that has the top quality sound.
our theater was packed with people of all ages It was a Cinemark with the largest seating venue & had DLP & digital sound that was awesome. The whole audience broke out into applause at the end.
There is a magic and charm in live theater.. there is another magic & charm in movies.
There is an artistic enlargement in the movie & I think it was great. Things can be done in movies that you cannot do in theater.
To always compare something to something else & not let it just be what it is as entertainment , can really rob one of much that any movie (or play or concert) has to offer.
Somehow Minnie Driver having someone else's voice rubbed me the wrong way.. not sure why she had the role (which she acted well.) It is just that there are so many super talented actresses WHO CAN SING also. just thought it strage. (is she sleeping with one of the producers?)
The only thing the film has going for it IMO is Minnie Driver. I am in love with that woman. However, my ardor is not strong enough to sit through a musical that I HATED when I saw it on Broadway.
This movie was about Frenchmen with Some Issues. I fell asleep. My wife tells me it was a good movie. I give the theatre seats 4 stars for comfort.
This is the only version of The Phantom of the Opera that I have seen and if there are better versions I would much like to see them.
I suspect elitist snobism in anyone who did not enjoy this film, but that is conjecture.