The Phantom of the Opera (Full Screen Edition) Reviews

• PHANTOM is a solid and spectacular film musical

  
  By A28ILXH590CMRJ on 2004-12-26
  Many people will look at this film version of Andrew Lloyd Webber's classic musical spectacular, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA with mixed emotions. There are people who will be upset that Sarah Brightman and Michael Crawford, who played the original Christine and Phantom respectively, were not allowed to recreate their signature roles. There will also be people who'll be disappointed that this version is not a literal translation of the stage musical. Finally, we have the critics of both Webber and director Joel Schumacher, who have both been accused of wretched excess in previous projects in their individual careers. Taken as a film version however, this PHANTOM stands the test of time, not only as a wonderful musical film, but as one of the more faithful versions of Gaston Laroux's romance/horror novel.
  
  Starting with a black and white prologue, the film tells the story of budding opera star Christine Daae and the two men who fight for her heart: the noble Viscount who she knew in childhood, and the mysterious Phantom of the Paris Opera House who hides his ugliness behind a half-mask while sponsoring Christine's career. Like the stage production, this film is awash in glorious colors and sets that would put many epics to shame. It's well balanced by solid performances that help propel the romantic, if melodramatic, story along.
  
  Gerard Butler makes for a wonderfully dark and obsessive Phantom, while allowing the character to retain the audience's sympathy. Miranda Richardson is solid as the dour Madame Giry, who knows the Phantom's secret. Minnie Driver easily gets the most laughs as the over-bearing diva, Carlotta. (It's interesting to note that Ms. Driver's singing is dubbed in the film proper, while she actually sings the new closing credits melody "Learn to be Lonely.") Patrick Wilson makes for a stalwart, if somewhat bland, Viscount. But the strongest impression is made by the lovely Emmy Rossum. Only in her late teens when filming, she turns in a fantastic performance with a crystal clear voice that does justice to Webber's score. Joel Schumacher does a strong enough job in directing this film, allowing the music and the screenplay that he co-wrote with Webber to shine.
  
  In the end, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is a delightful spectacle that does justice in its own way to both the stage original and Laroux's book. As such, this is a film I highly recommend.
  
  
  

• I HAVE SEEN IT!!!

  
  By A1LVZOK9F7K4CN on 2004-10-25
  I have just seen Andrew Lloyd Weber's The Phantom of the Opera last night and I still don't quite know how to feel about it. This is my favorite Broadway musical of all time. I have been privileged enough to see it twice on stage with the inimitable Michael Crawford. This Phantom is significantly different - both the production and the character. On stage, the Phantom is an older man who is missing most of his face. In this film, the Phantom is so young and so sexy we wonder why Christine would ever be interested in Raoul. The movie has more time and ability to go into the Phantom's backstory - the problem is the backstory makes no sense! In the book, it was explained that Erik was the son of a master mason who grew up to be one of the contractors who worked on the opera house. In the movie, he is a child who is rescued from a freak show by Madame Giry who has grown up in the opera house. (Perhaps that gave him time to install a pipe-organ single-handedly.) Joel Schumacher has tried to "humanize" the Phantom, which is the wrong decision because - like Hamlet - the Phantom is a larger-than-life character. The worst filmmaking decision is to have the Phantom swordfight Raoul...and lose! The Phantom is like Hannibal Lecter - he would NEVER let anybody get the upper hand on him. In the play, the Phantom spends most of the time off-stage, creating an air of mystery. Also, in the play, he has more of a devilish sense of humor. The movie phantom does not move in the same way the stage phantom does - gone are the balletic gestures that accompany The Music of the Night.
  
  In the hands of a better filmmaker, this would have been a better movie. Shumacher is a little uncomfortable about having the characters sing directly into the camera. He cares more about the story than the music and seems to be happiest when he is adding extra scenes. He also misses opportunities to do things with film - superimpositions and the like - that cannot be done on stage. Emmy Rossum is great as Christine. Patrick Wilson is a fine singer to play Raoul - a character I have never liked. Gerard Butler has the thankless job of being "the guy who isn't Michael Crawford."
  
  However, there is much that the movie does get right. MOST IMPORTANTLY, it keeps the score intact. There are a few minor changes - some lines are spoken rather than sung, which is REALLY annoying. The movie LOOKS beautiful. The set pieces translate wonderfully to the film. When we hear the overture, there is an electric moment - literally - when the chandelier comes to life and the old opera house rejuvenates. The transition in the song Think of Me occurs perfectly. The journey through the mirror and into the labyrinth is fantastic. Much of the special effects from the stage show are preserved. Even a few new additions are here from the book: the horse and the torture chamber!
  
  Do I recommend the movie? Wholeheartedly. Is the film a satisfying interpretation of the stage play? No - it is just too different. Characters and relationships are altered for the worse. Watching the movie, I became grateful that the play is still running strong all over the world and shows no signs of stopping. I can't wait to see it on stage again - where it belongs. This film - taken on its own merits - is still great. Even though I will see the movie again many times in my life, it cannot compare to the stage version. The theater occupies a world too surreal to ever be adequately captured on film.
  
  
  

• Haunting, romantic and truly memorable............

  
  By A2X9AXCWH4MT4I on 2005-02-19
  You know that a movie works when it follows you long after you've left the movie theater. I saw the Broadway tour of "Phantom of the Opera" a few years ago and it has been my favorite musical since. I love it more than Cats, 42nd Street, West Side Story, Les Miserables, Miss Saigon...you name it. Its romanticism and beautiful songs just blew me away.
  
  I was then somewhat hesitant to see the film version, fearing that it would not live up to my expectations. A little over two hours later and I found myself crying over the Phantom (Gerard Butler) and his love for the young Christine Daae (Emmy Rossum) as she decides between him or the nobleman Raoul (Patrick Wilson).
  
  In short, I love this movie! It was everything I had hoped it to be and more. The story is faithful to the stage version but it also gives the audience a closer look into the lives of the three main characters. The art direction, sets and costumes are resplendent and breath-taking. And the songs are brought to life superbly by the talented cast of young newcomers (Rossum, Wilson) and film veterans (Miranda Richardson, Ciaran Hinds, Simon Callow).
  
  I know many would argue that Michael Crawford was a superb Phantom...that is, except for me. I always felt that Crawford's voice was too high-pitched and not manly enough. To me, Gerard Butler is more effective Phantom. Apart from being incredibly handsome (under that make-up), tall and well built, he also has this rough and raspy voice that is very masculine and full of passion. He IS the Phantom! Emmy Rossum has a hauntingly beautiful voice and has an innocence and sweetness that fits perfectly for Christine. Her voice gives me goosebumps! Patrick Wilson's romantic voice contrasts well with that of the Phantom's. After all, one is supposed to be a nobleman and the romantic hero while the other is dark, mysterious and brooding (like the misunderstood Quasimodo of "Hunchback of the Notre Dame.") But even without the singing, Gerard Butler turns in a memorable and passionate performance as the Phantom and you really do feel for him in the end. If there was one fault to this film, for me, it would be Minnie Driver's Carlotta. She was so over the top that I sometimes found her grating.
  
  All in all, however, I walked out of the theater wanting to see "Phantom of the Opera" again and again (I've now seen it twice and counting). I couldn't get the music out of my head and have since purchased the CD. I can't wait for the dvd to come out so I can watch it over and over. I highly recommend it to fans of the stage version, music lovers and incurable romantics everywhere. And if you loved the songs, be sure to pick up the equally superb soundtrack. This phantom will haunt you long after you've left the movie theater....and I have gladly fallen under its spell. Superb!
  
  
  

• Webber's Phantom Comes To the Silver Screen

  
  By A2I7ZAB04Q0DML on 2004-05-06
  Since its London premier in 1986, Andrew Lloyd Webber's "The Phantom of the Opera" has dazzled audiences with some of the most powerful stage performances ever seen. Combining an epic soundtrack full of rich, lavish music with some of the most technologically advanced special effects of its time, Phantom has delivered an unforgettable performance for almost 2 decades!

  So why risk bringing such an incredibly successful live show to the silver screen, when Hollywood musicals have never done especially well? The answer, in this case, is simple. The Phantom is a musical about the power and passion of music. Where so many musicals are a telling of a story set to song, Phantom instead uses the songs to advance a narrative story about a deformed genius who teaches an exceptionally gifted chorus girl to sing. The music works becuase, as with most musical, it does advance the storyline, it also serves as underscoring to set tension, mood, romance and horror throughout the story, working more like a very effective movie soundtrack than musical score. Combine this element with a story that contains all the goodies that make Hollywood blockbusters great: romance, horror, action, suspense and of course, epic storytelling, and you have a package that can't help but be successful on the big screen.

  Many fans of the musical are troubled by the casting of the lead parts. Gerard Butler, a veteran screen actor, will done the mask and vocal parts of the Phantom, whose character was originally developed for Broadway superstar Michael Crawford. Relative newcomer, Emmy Rossum will take on the demanding role of Christine Daae', a part that Lloyd Webber wrote specifically for (now ex) wife Sarah Brightman. The use of this newcomer in this film is a calculated risk, but as the part of Christine is that of a woman who is relatively unknown, her involvement in the project might add a degree of believability to her character.

  The supporting cast is surprising as well. Many of Hollywood's respected names are on board for this film in parts that are, at least in the stage version of this film, far smaller than the roles of Christine and the Phantom. Miranda Richardson will play Madam Giry, and Minnie Driver will play the part of Opera Diva, Carlotta.

  The strength of this cast will be based on its ability to perform many of the productions demanding numbers. Speculation has been circling that Andrew Lloyd Webber had been working on a sequel to his successful film, but it is now believed that the film version of Phantom will, in fact, contain the numbers that he has previewed at select concert venues in the past couple years.

  Directing this film is Joel Schumacher, whose name is synonymous with some of Hollywood's most successful films (St Elmo's Fire, Flatliners, 8mm, Phone Booth to name only a few). His ability to create atmosphere and tension is second to none, and he should provide a vision to this film that will give it a vitality that will equal the spectacular stage direction origianlly given by Hal Prince.

  This film is scheduled to premire on December 25, 2004 nationwide.
  
  

• a greatb broadway show got 10 times better on film!

  
  By AX9J0U8J6XTCY on 2005-02-19
  bravo to all involved from the great cast, to the editors, director, cinematographer, etc. that list goes on and on-they have created a musical triumph that in time will defy all others to even come close to compete! a beautiful, unforgettable movie masterpiece, that upon it's conclusion, the audience responded with tears and a thunderous round of applause! it is great; having seen the show 2 times on broadway, i was very doubtful that hollywood could succeed-but succeed they did-splendidly! one awesome piece of entertainment-once seen -never forgettable-it will truly haunt you and stick in your mind forever! i'm ordering the special edition myself and cannot wait wait until may to own it on dvd! trust a stranger here-it is astounding. BRAVO.......
  
  
• A visual powerhouse and a musical delight for anyone willing to give it a chance!
  By A34BK0Q4R27OJX on 2006-01-20
  As a qualifier, I am an avid musical theatre fan and classically trained singer. Back in the 80s, I couldn't be bothered with seeing Phantom, partly because I was too busy going to show after show of Les Miserables, but mostly because I couldn't picture Michael Crawford as anything other than Cornelius, the wussy shop boy in Hello Dolly. His voice is nicely trained but his upper register is just simply annoying. I'm sorry to all his fans, but in my musical mind tenor does not equal dark and mysterious and emotionally tortured. The anger expressed by phans over casting the originals is just silly! Who wants to watch a 61-year old lusting after an older teenager? That is not entertainment, that is just gross...anyway, after relentless hounding by my niece, I broke down and took her to NYC to see it. It was wonderfully entertaining and I was glad to have gone.
  Ranting over, on with the good stuff. The movie is an absolutely over-the-top, spectacle in everything (AS IT SHOULD BE, FOLKS!) We're dealing with 19th century, gothic romance and a musical score that is closer to opera than not.
  Honestly, what else could you expect?
  The visual aspects of the movie are rich and sensual and draw the viewer into 19th century Paris. From the opening crack of the auction gavel to the end scenes of phantom disappearing into the emptiness of his life, I found myself ignoring the actors to "let the spectacle astound" me.
  The performances were very good with moments of brilliance for some. I'll save the best for last, so...
  MIRANDA RICHARDSON-MADAME GIRY-wonderfully mysterious, has great empathy for phantom, yet realizes he must be stopped. Any cast is improved by her presence.
  CIARAN HINDS/SIMON CALLOW-MONSIEURS ANDRE/FIRMIN-light comic relief from two veteran actors with good voices.
  MINNIE DRIVER-LA CARLOTTA-completely campy and completely hilarious. Eventhough Driver is a trained singer, her singing parts had to be dubbed by a true operatic soprano. The closing credits song is nicely sung by Driver, though. SIDENOTE: I have read some reviews that criticized the dubbed voice of the soprano as overblown and baudy-umm, hello? Carlotta is SUPPOSED to be past her prime and painful to hear-enough already!
  
  Now for the big three:
  
  PATRICK WILSON-RAOUL-Let's face it, the part itself is not exactly meaty but rather insipid. Wilson handles it competently and even ups the hero factor. An accomplished Broadway actor, he has a wonderful lyrical tenor voice, but it does get drowned out at times by the dynamic swells in the orchestrations, a mixing problem, not his. That hair was awful, though!
  
  EMMY ROSSUM-CHRISTINE-In a word, angelic. Again, the critics drive me insane with reviews stating her young voice was not polished enough. DUH!!! She was 17. The storyline clearly implies that Christine is very good, but to excel she needs to return to her teacher. Rossum's upper register did sound a bit pinched in a couple of spots, but the quality in general was pure and open especially during the boat ride to phantom's lair as she is essentially vocalizing on an open "ah" that ends on E above High C-yikes!
  Her acting performance was average-it would have been better to see a little more confliction/emotional stress in her facial expressions. The graveyard number was beautiful and poignant-lovely. However, the instant costume change from white dressing gown to black irked me.
  
  GERARD BUTLER-PHANTOM-In a word, sublime! As the critics have said-he's no Michael Crawford-THANK THE GOOD LORD!!! This talented Scot absolutely commands the eye to watch every move he makes. His phantom is emotionally wrecked, sexy, dark, edgy, tragic, soulful and ultimately heartbreaking. As others scoff at the frilly costumes and assume the bared chest shots are purely for female viewers, I feel his vulnerability is made even more apparent by those ruffled shirts which seem to lay wide open his aching heart that waits for someone to take care of it.
  Butler's singing performance is quite good for someone with so little training. Yes, a couple upper notes seem shouted and/or strained, but I do not think it detracts from the performance, but rather adds a sense of desperation that he no longer has control over Christine and his efforts to do so are futile. Butler's performance highlight is, without a doubt, Point of No Return; it is simply mesmerizing.
  Butler's phantom is raw sensuality and emotion. He could not possibly be more in love with Christine and it is heartbreaking to watch him be denied and ultimately defeated. If you can watch the last 30 minutes without crying, you have a cold, dead heart! Butler is so captivating and convincing that it is inconceivable to me how Christine chooses Raoul over phantom.
  
  Do yourself a favor, get a bottle of good Italian wine, settle in for a couple of hours of shameless romance and let your fantasies unwind through Gerard Butler's phantom.
  
  
• Don't let the critics fool you!
  By A34DY6QNGDRXE1 on 2005-02-17
  This movie is superb! I really loved the stage musical but this is ten times better...no, a hundred times better. I even had people who said they disliked the stage version comment on how great this film is. I don't understand why the critics are so harsh when the viewers are enjoying it. I should know, I've seen it nine times already...and I'm not the only one.
  
  There are some prominent changes from the stage version, but if you've never seen the stage version this movie is just as enjoyable. Gerard Butler did a phenomenal job. I myself was a little leary of him, knowing he's no Michael Crawford, but now I like him a lot better than Michael Crawford. He makes the Phantom more emotional, powerful, and more easier to sympathize with. Gerard definately deserved an Oscar nod for his role, but that's neither here nor there.
  
  I won't give away any of the surprises of the film, but I will tell you something...you won't be disappointed. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll get mad, you'll feel sad, you'll want to jump for joy, then you'll want to throw things...it's a very emotional piece and not just for women (believe it or not, more men have cried in the theater than women).
  
  This is a must buy! You may even want two copies because you will wear out one of them for sure.
  
  
• The way the Phantom should sound!
  By A1UUVI8DMQQDPT on 2006-01-19
  What is all this chatter about the 'original' Phantom? Andrew Lloyd Webber explained his choice of Gerard Butler as the Phantom: he said he wanted a 'rock star' persona, and Michael Crawford, no matter what age, would not have fulfilled that requirement; Gerard Butler did. I have seen the stage play, and the movie several times, and I own both the London stage and movie soundtracks, and one thing that stands out is the emotion in Mr. Butler's version, which does not come across to me in Mr. Crawford's version. When Gerard's Phantom is sad, you know it -- when he's angry, you REALLY know it! I also believe Emmy Rossum is about as perfect a Christine as there could be . . . how lucky was that? She's divine! And how about Minnie Driver? What a hoot! I love her "these things do happen" routine, who cares if she doesn't sing? What professional opera singer could they have found who could have played the role 1/2 as well?
  
  Anyhow, forget 'the original' for now. Give these fresh new people credit for breathing new life and excitement into the most successful musical of all time -- they have certainly earned it.
  
  
• Had me humming all day!
  By A37PV5GMP2ILJC on 2005-09-13
  Five stars for one of the best movies I've seen this year. Beautifully orchestrated, acted and performed, this movie version does the theatrical masterpiece proud.
  
  Gerard Butler is so handsome and yet so intense in his portrayal of the tormented Phantom that if I were Christine (the excellent Emmy Rossum), that Raoul guy (vocally gifted Patrick Wilson) would have had to drag me out of that underground boudoir with wild horses and a bulldozer.
  
  Wilson seemed like a teenager in love compared to the agonized yearning of the Phantom, and in a different musical he would have been hopping around a gazebo in the rain singing "Sixteen Going on Seventeen".
  
  Minnie Driver does a fine comedy turn as Prima Donna Carlotta, and although she doesn't actually sing in the movie, she does a credit worthy number during the credits. Miranda Richardson is perfectly cast as Madame Giry, longtime keeper of the Phantom's secret. Rossum is also a casting coup, and the doe-eyed Jennifer Beal look-a-like fully captures the essence of Christine, the Phantom perpetual flava-of-the-month.
  
  The movie had me spellbound from Act one, Scene one until the closing credits, and I highly recommend it to you.
  
  Amanda Richards, September 12, 2005
  
  
  
• Stunning, Beautiful Rendition Of A Classical Masterpiece
  By AFTE7RESQ2JBJ on 2005-02-18
  I have seen many renditions of Phantom Of the Opera throughout the years and without a doubt this one is the most beautifully Haunting. The music was amazing. Andrew Lloyd Webber did a great job putting the movie to music. Gerard Butler is dashing as the Phantom, Emmy Rossum was stunning as Christine, what a voice!, Patrick Wilson was great as Christines childhood sweetheart and gallant rescuer Raoul. Minnie Driver added a bit of comic relief as the ever arrogant and conceited "Diva" Carlotta. This movie had a little bit of something for everyone. Great Music, Haunting Set designs, Beautiful costumes, Dashing sword fighting, and that Chandelier!...I could go on an on.... I have three teenage (macho) sons and they loved the film! They talked their friends into seeing it and now I have a bunch of High School "Phantom Junkies" on my hands. The last time we went to see it I had 9 High School boys with me anxious to see it. Seriously it is really great to see teenagers appreciating the cultural experience of this movie. I highly recommend seeing it. It's just a shame that it wasn't nominated for more academy awards! I hope you love the film as much as we did.... : )
  
  
• AMAZING!
  By A3VU2XZPCA8GZA on 2005-02-18
  I happen to be a mature movie-goer, but I totally disagree with the critics. PHANTOM OF THE OPERA was truly the greatest movie I have ever seen. Purely amazing in every way, haunting and very heartbreaking. The movie will leave you in tears for at least 3 parts of the movie. PHANTOM was purely spectacular. Why the critics say this movie is poor is beyond me. I have seen this 4 times and I am still not sick of it. Truly brilliant, artistic, and haunting.....this film is, in my eyes, a true marvel that towers over the rest.
  
  
• Escape For 2 hours and 25 minutes
  By A1KIHIDFBONH4A on 2005-02-18
  This is what going to the movies is all about. The movie production is lush, sensual and down right sexy! Gerry Butler brought a new depth to the character of the Phantom that I did not see in the stage production. His voice is not as trained as Michael Crawford, but who cares. He brought a harder edge to his vocals and it was perfect for the role he played. Emmy Rossum was a wonderful young Christine and Patrick Wilson played the perfect "boy next door" who falls in love with Christine. Buy, rent or see the movie and I promise you will enjoy the fantasy and beauty of the Phantom Of The Opera.
  
  
• A Phantom of an Opera
  By AQQFI7YHMRL7S on 2007-02-07
  I expect 400,000 negative votes for this review. Fine. I am not disappointed that this film is so bad; what I find horrifying is that this drivel has so many devoted fans. I don't know what's more frightening - that so many people consider this "high art" or the sad fact that so many seem to confuse it with real opera. The very word "opera" in the title is an insult to the good names of Puccini and Verdi.
  
  In my youth, I had marginally enjoyed Jesus Christ Superstar, and thought that Evita was fine theatre. But I hated Sunset Boulevard, and have no thought of ever seeing that ubiquitous tourist-trap, Cats. After 38 years of attending Broadway, and seeing dozens of musicals, I have come to loathe the music of Andrew Lloyd Webber, and the score and story of the Phantom of the Opera above all. If you are still reading, let me explain why.
  
  I believe that Mr. Webber epitomizes exactly what is wrong with modern Broadway musicals. His music never advances beyond trite, overly sentimental commercial fluff. The singsong structure of his formulaic melodies and their contrived, adolescent lyrics are apt to get stuck in your head for days, while almost never managing to advance the storyline or explain the character's motivations. At best, his style is derivative; the melody line for Music of the Night sounds suspiciously to me like portions of Puccini's La Fanciulla del West, and in spots, I hear poor imitations of La Boheme. At his worst, I get the feeling that he writes with one eye on his checkbook and both ears tuned to the latest trends in top-forty radio. When I listen to anything Webber, my mind's ear automatically hears Celine Dion and Britney Spears, stripped of even the bare modicum of taste that their least commercial endeavors have to offer. Not only are his lyricist's poorly structured songs devoid of wit and ingenuity, they frequently leave the action dead in the water. Worst of all, they pander to the mentality of a nation reared on reality TV, empty pop tunes and American Idols.
  
  I saw Phantom on Broadway. When the final curtain came down and the applause subsided, I realized with great sadness that today's Broadway audience seems content with smoke, mirrors, and special effects. I kept marveling that so much applause could be wasted on a show built around a chandelier and bad pop songs. The lyrics often make no sense at all, when they manage every so often to rhyme, they grab hold like there's no tomorrow, refusing to let go. Sondheim it's not; in fact, for my money, they've got a way to go to overtake Jerry Herman, or even the long-forgotten composers of Happy Hunting.
  
  Then there are the plot holes; for lack of unlimited space, let's cover just a few. Christine apparently has lived in the opera house since being orphaned. I didn't know anyone had ever lived in an opera house, but why not? If the story is to be taken seriously, one has to wonder how Christine's father came to repose in an opulent crypt, while she was forced to mature in the squalor of a dressing room, which is about all I ever really learned about her. Anyway, Christine believes that the Phantom is an Angel of Music, despite his demonic, cryptic notes bearing sinister demands, and resorting to murderous acts of vandalism when he doesn't get his way, like a petulant child. At one point, we learn that he was rescued as a boy from being a caged circus freak and hidden in the bowels of the opera house, where he's spent his entire existence (think The Elephant Man, without any real drama or character development). He is described as, "a genius, an architect, a composer and a magician", but there is no explanation of how he came to develop these talents while spending his youth hidden in catacombs, with apparently no formal education.
  
  After the intermission - rarely have I seen a movie musical that made it plainer where Act Two began on stage - Bravo! - he shows up at a New Year's masquerade, interrupting (thank God) the most insufferable musical number in my memory. I believe that the Phantom's entrance in the Masquerade scene was the only way Mr. Webber could write his way out of the dizzying spiral momentum and endless repetition of that God-awful melody. Although he recently murdered one of the employees of the opera house, none of the hundreds of people present think to rush and detain him, even though it is finally obvious that he is certainly no specter. He then presents the theatre management with a new "opera", which they agree to stage with little discussion. The score, by the way, is full of utterly ridiculous "operatic scenes" that would ring false to even the most casual opera patron; I would expect them to be laughed off the stage of any legitimate opera house of the past three centuries. More puzzling still is why the Phantom champions the career of Christine over the diva Carlotta, when it is clear (or should be to anyone with ears) that at least Carlotta manages a few high C's, while Christine possesses the instrument of a second-rate 20th century pop singer. This is a story about "opera" professionals, and a Phantom obsessed with opera? There were more plausible opera moments in the 1962 Hammer film, which wasn't even a musical. And there was far more horror in the Lon Chaney classic, which managed, even in 1925, to avoid the gigantic leaps of logic required by the ludicrous narrative presented here.
  
  The biggest plot hole gnawed at me like a rat in a garbage can. The Viscount Raoul is supposed to be in love with Christine, and she him, their bliss threatened only by the presence of the menacing Phantom. Like the proverbial Knight in Shining Armor, we never learn ANYTHING about Raoul, except that he is from "a powerful and wealthy family". If he is truly powerful and wealthy, and so very much in love, why doesn't he simply take Christine away from the opera house to escape the Phantom? Was the rent on her dressing room paid too far in advance, one wonders? Of course, then there would be no story. Story? What story? The hundreds of fans of the show who complain how much this film has ruined their beloved "best musical of all time", never seem to notice that the movie script at least bothered to flesh out the plot a hundredfold over the stage production, and it STILL has almost no story, and even less logic.
  
  If you remove the special effects and gooey love songs, this celebration of everything that is wrong with Broadway today collapses under the weight of its own inadequacies. I give the film two stars for its sumptuous costumes and lavish sets, but if this can pass as "the best musical ever written" as so many seem to think, God help the future of Broadway.
  
  
• Truly mesmerizing
  By A3TOSOH4UMILRL on 2005-02-18
  This is the most addictive movie I have ever seen. I have seen it 7 times already. The visuals, the music, the mesmerizing performance of Gerard Butler as the phantom makes this truly one of my favorite movies of all time. How the critics could have so misread this marvelous movie is beyond me. I will never listen to them again!
  
  
• Start a journey through a strange new world
  By A3TC3D1UCAAI9H on 2005-02-18
  This is probably not a movie for the extremely cynical. So it's no wonder why many critics, especially having already established a dislike for Lloyd Webber and Schumacher, did not give this masterpiece the credit it truly deserved. One of the most beautiful films I have ever laid eyes on, "Phantom" is not meant to be analyzed--it is meant to carry you off your feet in one sweeping blow. It is meant to be viewed by an audience prepared to let themselves enter another world more lush, more strange, and more unbelievable than their own--and it seems most audiences embraced the experience. Like the sets and costumes, for which this film was at once praised and frowned upon, the melodic score surrounds every inch of you and settles itself in your head for at least a good week afterward.
  
  Moreover, there is a heart at the center of all the gold leaf and curtains--in short, Schumacher has stuck with the formula that made the show a mega-success over the past two decades. Like the show, not every detail of the film is perfect, but the overall experience can be described as nothing short of breathtaking. Don't look for trendy, frentic camera work here: the film knows its larger-than-life source material, and so is done in a big, bold, Old Hollywood fashion--and the result is a very successful adapation of the world's most successful show to date. There is no doubt that Lloyd Webber's "Phantom" is a people-pleaser.
  
  I saw this movie with very picky moviegoers...one had a great big smile on his face as he walked out and the other, although laughing during the film at some parts that seemed overly fantastic, had to admit it was wonderful and now wants the soundtrack. As for myself--even being a big fan and once "purist" of the stage show for many years did not stop me from loving this movie (as you can see).
  
  This film must be seen, if only for the visual wonder of it all...but most will come away with much more.
  
  
• My chocolate
  By A12FIZU6L6YXTJ on 2005-02-18
  This movie may not have been the best in the world, but it is damn mezmorizing and I had the soundtrack stuck in my head from the first moment I heard it. It still isn't all out. The visuals and costuming are fantastic not to mention the lovely Gerard Butler, who if you don't fall in love with, you are, in my personal opinion, a very sick person. :) I love his rendition of Music of the Night perhaps because I got to see the power of his performance, but if you haven't seen this, see it. If you don't like it, I'm sorry.
  
  But this movie is my chocolate. Dark chocolate.
  
  
• SUPERLATIVE
  By A2SU7H37GCQDOW on 2005-03-17
  It's close to 20 years now since the morning my symphonic band director in college walked into class and said, "You guys have got to hear this," and those magnificent chords reverberated at full volume off the cement block walls. Phantom has been a fixture of my musical life ever since, and after I finally got to see it on Broadway 3 years ago, I would not have believed my experience of it could get any better.
  
  Then comes this movie, and after 8 viewings, I remain awestruck. You've no doubt seen a few reviews criticizing the cast, and Gerard Butler in particular for not having any artistry comparable to Michael Crawford's. For my part, I find these criticisms ridiculous. The film is an intrepid endeavor to transcend the stage production - a tall order, to say the least.
  
  To me, the movie did an incredible job of fleshing out the stage play, and criticisms of Butler are misplaced. My dad probably said it best: in the stage play, they seemed to go out of their way to make you wonder if the Phantom truly was nothing more than an apparition created by mass hysteria. In the movie, they went out of their way to make him real as a man. To that end, Butler's performance was OUTSTANDING. Often strained, always gruff - even raw - Butler's voice was nonetheless usually well intoned with occasional glimpses of its own artistry. His performance gave the tormented, suffering soul of the Phantom an emotional authenticity that the refined voice of Michael Crawford never really did for me.
  
  I'll admit that with my first viewing of the film, I was less than wowed by Patrick Wilson, despite his very good vocal performance. But after I thought about it a little, I found his "understated charm" to be the perfect counterbalance to the forceful, commanding, and darkly seductive Phantom. Wilson perfectly conveyed the groundedness that Christine so desparately needed. He also did a wonderful job of making the character's main flaw the over-confidence of youth; and the great surprise such a young man might feel at having himself tested. He was the perfect breath of fresh air after being lost in the "dungeon of black despair" with the Phantom.
  
  As for Emmy Rossum: again, the casting choice here gave the character an emotional authenticity I always found just a little lacking in the stage production. The role commands a vocal maturity that is typically cast by women well beyond the character's emotional age. (Sarah Brightman and The Leading Ladies, for example, were in their late 20's to early 30's in their debut performances.) This lovely, YOUNG, and extremely talented girl made Christine utterly engaging as you watch her coming of age and developing an identity apart from her father's memory.
  
  In short, the stage production, for me, has come to be an exercise of the imagination - a ghost story. The movie is a study in primal human emotions, and easily succeeds in stirring every one of them: loneliness, rage, grief, lust, fear, frustration, joy, and love - they're all there, and the film draws you in to experience them right along with the characters.
  
  It's hard to sum this up, but a pivotal scene made this movie the creme de la creme of film for me, totally separate from the usual Hollywood fare. Late in the film, the black knight drives a team of black horses to the cemetery, drawing the heroine into his trap; and the white knight gallops, riding bareback, through a misty dawn to save her. Most films offend me when they use melodramatic imagery like this to try and stir me. "Phantom," by contrast, succeeded absolutely. It succeeded because the cast and the filmmakers didn't try to impose these personas on the characters at the start. By the time the film reaches the ride to the cemetery, you already know that there is nothing supernatural about the Phantom - he's a dark, powerful, seductive presence preying upon the grief and imagination of a teenage girl. And there's nothing supernatural about the hero, either. He's simply ungiven to any eccentricities of emotion or imagination - but he's also unsparing in his adoration. As such, Raoul becomes an anchor, a rescuer and the perfect romantic figure to the emotionally wrought 17 year old. By the time you see the Phantom cloaked in a black cape driving black horses, and Raoul in the flowing white shirt astride the white horse, there's no need for future contrivances for either character to live up to the imagery: they've already been elevated to those romantic positions in our imaginations.
  
  Minnie Driver, Ciaran Hinds, Simon Callow, and James Fleet are not incidental in their comic relief roles: they're all fantastic in their own right, as are Victor Maguire, Jennifer Ellison and Murray Melvin in minor supporting roles. Miranda Richardson is a deep and intriguing Mme. Giry. (Is it a sisterly concern she has for the Phantom, or is she a little in love with him herself?) I can't say I cared much for Kevin McNally as Buquet, but it occurs to me that was the point of that character.
  
  It's hard to imagine any greater perfection being brought to this timeless story than what's been achieved by this film. The storyline, the music, the cinematography, the effects - nothing is missing.
  
  
  
• Fall in love all over again
  By A27AIAOARPA9XF on 2005-02-19
  If you try, repeat, TRY, you MAY be able to spot a flaw or two in this movie. But why would you try? From the opening scenes to the final credits, one is swept up in the awesome beauty of this film. Just wait for the rendition of "All I Ask of You" on the roof of L'Opéra Populaire in the midst of a gentle snowfall. The fact that such a work of art will be sitting in my collection by mid-May (for $20.97!) will only make the rest of February, March and April seem that much longer! The Broadway to Hollywood transformation has never been made so successfully. Treat yourself to this fine film.
  
  
• This movie moved me like none other.
  By ABNQXMPFGV5MH on 2005-02-20
  I have now seen this movie three times and cannot seem to get enough of it. I can't remember a time when I have felt so emotionally moved by something in the theater. I agree with many of the other reviewers here, maybe the vocals are not laced with the experience of the stage production, but the depth of emotion and heartache conveyed by the characters, (especially the phantom) will take your breath away. I went down immediately and bought the soundtrack and that is all that has been playing in my car ever since.
  
  The second time I went, my fifteen year old son went with me. Now this is a typical, action-loving young man who goes to the movies to watch things blowing up. He said that from the moment the chandelier rose from the opera floor and the overture began playing, the hairs on his arms stood on end and stayed that way for most of the movie. I don't care what the critics say, that says something.
  
  I am trying to control myself, because I know I will be getting the DVD, but I will probably make it to the theater for a fourth helping of this musically majestic and visually enrapturing film. You just can't beat sitting in that dark theater with the music of Andrew Lloyd Webber pulsing through your veins to the beat of your heart.
  
  
  
• The Masquerade Begins December 25th
  By A36H1UVSL76NNU on 2004-10-01
  This is one of the best musicals I have EVER seen in my entire life. For me, WICKED and The Phantom of the Opera tied in first for my two favorite musicals of all time. This is because of the sets, the costumes, and, most importantly, the singing talent. The songs are incredible, and the voices to go along with them make it complete.
  
  With the coming of this long awaited movie, I must say, I am QUITE happy with the results. the movie is slowly but surely being placed out there like CHICAGO did, and soon, will blast out of no where, and everyone will be absolutely hooked. Already, veteran fans of the Musical have found out about the movie, and they are ecstatic, even if Michael Crawford isn't playing the Phantom, and Sarah Brightman isn't playing Christine. Personally, Sarah Brightman and Michael Crawford wouldn't have been my first choice, either, for many reasons.
  
  1. Only those who know their music know about Sarah and Michael
  2. Only those who have seen the musical with them in it, or own the CD, would care to see them on screen.
  3. Their voices were meant for Broadway, not the big screen.
  4. They're QUITE older, now, since their London performances
  
  The reasons why I believe Gerald Butler, Emmy Rossum, and the rest of the cast (Patrick Wilson, Minnie Driver, etc...) were great choices are because:
  
  1. They are great actors and have excellents voices, and worked with the same people who trained Sarah and Michael
  2. They are well known for their work in other movies, and, for Emmy, work in Opera at the Metropolitan in New York
  3. Were casted with others who were just as extraordinary as the original cast in London
  4. Minnie Driver's voice is beautiful, and trained well, but, for the higher noted songs, like Prima Donna, and Don Juan Triumphant, her voice is being played by the ORIGINAL London Carlotta, so, there's some part of the originality of the musical, in there.
  5. They're working with Lloyd Webber himself, which is awesome
  6. They're used to the cameras, and being on sets, not stage, just as Musical Theatre people are used to being on Stage, not on screen.
  
  The list goes on and on, and this movie deserves the more WORLDLY respect it's been longing for, all these long years.
  
  Prepare yourself, ladies an gentlemen, for the Angel of Music, and his Music of the Night...
  
  
• Gorgeous, sensual and exquisite
  By A1T9KJ46MC7LB2 on 2006-06-01
  I have to say that until the spring of 2005 I absolutely LOATHED the Phantom. My mom has seen it at least twice and has the original London recording on a cassette, and she used to make me listen to it when I was little...apparently I thought it scary. But when the movie came out, my friends were all dying to see it, and I was actually going to go along and humor them; never happened. We ended up waiting till it came out on dvd and rented it for Mother's Day (b/c once again, my mom wanted to see it).
  As soon as the overture started, with everything shining clean and sparkling, I was hooked.
  For everything I've heard against the cast (mainly the Phantom), I thought everyone was stellar. Patrick Wilson was sensitive and believable as Raoul. You could feel his chemistry with Rossum -- like they really had known each other their whole lives. On that note, Emmy was AMAZING. For a sixteen-seventeen year old, her voice was beautiful. I loved Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again. And she proved that she can hold her own with the older guys in the production. I am now going to gush about the Phantom. :)
  Gerry made the show, and he definitely doesn't get enough credit for it... But I'll give people the benefit of the doubt and say that this is a free country where everyone has their own opinions. Anyway, contrary to what others have said, his singing may have been overdone, but it's an opera! Opera is supposed to be over the top, people, come on! ...Plus he's so handsome that whatever wrong notes he hits, he makes up for it in some way, shape or form later in the film. Where Michael Crawford's voice held an edgy danger, Butler's has a sensual caress. Music of the Night is a prime example: Gerry purrs every verse, and makes everything flow so beautifully. Oh, and Point of No Return... no words for that one, it's so breathtaking. For both Gerry and Emmy. I'll stick with Wandering Child as my favorite song because I totally love the violin solo at the beginning, and the way his voice just seeps into you.
  Minnie Driver definitely stole some of the show. Memorable moment: Il Muto and the world's first croaking diva! Yay! Miranda Richardson was also a very good choice -- she was able to play both sides of the fence very well.
  Overall, a wonderfully cast, beautifully designed, brilliantly done film that deserved more awards than it won. Very sophisticated for a musical piece. Go see it.
  
  
• Went in with low expectations, never so happy to be wrong!
  By A3PIYMIYKUKOG2 on 2005-01-19
  I love the Phantom of the Opera; I have seen it twice on the stage (my husband actually saw it in New York in the 80s when Crawford was the Phantom). I must also admit that I have never quite forgiven Joel Schumacher for what he did to Batman, but the film I saw this weekend finally made me let go of the old grudge. It was beautiful, moving, and all the things that many other reviewers have already stated. But a couple of points that have made in other reviews bothered me a little, and I wanted to respond a bit.
  I have found that a common complaint is that the Phantom was too sexy and too young - too close to Christine's age... Well, Gerard Butler is 35 and Emmy Rossum is 18. That seems a significant age diference to me; it makes him old enough to be her father and is enough to make him seem more than a little bit like a sexual predator.
  I saw an interview Joel Schumacher and Andrew Lloyd Webber, and one of the things they discussed is that part of what PotO is about is the juxtaposition of first innocent love and first sexual obsession. Now certainly, the film brings that point into sharper focus by making the Phantom into a more sensual character, but it is not a new twist to the story.
  It has also been mentioned, with regards to the Phantom's youth and sensuality that Christine seems like an idiot for choosing Raoul. Now, to be truthful, Christine is a bit fickle and at times a bit of a twit, but she is also a 16 year old girl, and in my experience, that is part of the definition of '16 year old girl'. I can tell you without a doubt that if I were Christine I'd have jumped the Phantom in a second, but I'm a thirtysomething... not a teenager. I believe that while a young woman would be drawn to the dark, mysterious Phantom, she would choose Raoul.
  The most common complaint I have found among viewers is with Gerard Butler's voice. For a man who has never sung before and had no previous vocal training, he was fantastic. Certainly, he was no Michael Crawford, Butler's voice is lower and his interpretation of the character is different. But, in all honesty, the last thing I wanted to see in the film was an attempt by ANY of the actors to parrot any other actor's portrayal of a character. Any actor, if he (or she) has talent at all, will do all he can to make a character his own. I rather enjoyed Butler's nuanced portrayal. His Phantom was very angry, with deep emotional scars, crying out in righteous fury at a cruel, heartless world. I rather liked that the Phantom did not simply seem insane. He was deeply wounded, emotionally and psychologically. Perhaps Butler simply took the time to research what loneliness and severe emotional trauma would do to a person, and incorporated more humanity into a character that can easily be seen as no more than a caricature of humanity.
  It has also been mentioned that it is difficult to believe the Phantom truly loves Christine until the very end, but I always thought that was the point. He was motivated by selfishness right up until the moment he gave her up - until that moment, one could actually argue that he didn't truly love her.
  Feel free to disagree with me as you like, but perhaps take just a moment to consider this different viewpoint.
  
  
• "Phantom" should have been an Oscar nominee
  By A1J9R3MEKLCPHJ on 2005-02-19
  I have seen "Phantom of the Opera" twice at the theater and have thoroughly enjoyed it each time. I don't understand why many critics have not been as enthusuastic. The cinematography is wonderful, the sets beautiful, and the singing marvelous. I highly recommend it. I can't wait for the DVD to come out.
  
  
• Riveting and emotional
  By A2AK6S22CB56JY on 2006-01-29
  My favourite movie for the past 20+ years has been Ladyhawke and I never thought another movie would ever replace it. Was I wrong. Phantom of the Opera is the most amazing movie I've ever seen. I saw the stage version 12 years ago and loved it but the movie is so much better, I think due to the fact that there is so much more that can be portrayed on film as opposed to on the stage. I only wish I had seen it in the theatre.
  
  Gerard Butler-what can I say except the man is one of the most amazingly talented actors around. The emotion he portrays in Phantom is heart-wrenching-he made me feel everything he was feeling. His singing voice is incredible considering he's not a trained singer. I love the rock and roll edge he brings to it. And mercy, he's so handsome and utterly sexy. Perfect in every way.
  
  I thought Emmy Rossum was wonderful. So much talent for someone so young. I'm sooo envious.
  
  Patrick Wilson is also good but I must admit there is NO WAY I would have picked him over Gerard Butler.
  
  I really enjoyed Minnie Driver's performance. She's wonderful as Carlotta and injects humour into her role.
  
  The entire cast, music, settings are everything that is good in a movie.
  
  My only complaint is that it was over way to soon to suit me. I was totally enthralled.
  
  
• lak zzomgggg what an amazing film!!!11!!!1!
  By A2Z31J0240AG8X on 2006-05-07
  Let me start by saying that this film degrades REAL opera singers.
  I found myself laughing and cringing to no end when Carlotta gets dissed for singing Think of Me in an operatic
  style -however exaggerated it is- yet when Chrissy sings the song everyone stops what they're doing and slip into a trance. I mean even the phantom aka "musical genius" himself disses Carlotta's pipes over Christine's peanut vendor sound.
  Oh but clearly choir girl's lowered octave rendition is far more superior to that of the opera's leading soprano. Puh-leaze!
  I don't care if this flick wasn't meant to be an opera from the start, Christine is supposed to be an opera
  goddess not some poor excuse for a soprano with a very limited range. After all, she has been coached by the
  so called angel of music since her childhood. I take issue with the fact that most people who've seen this film actually
  believe that Rossum's synthetic squealing is what's called opera. Pre-pubescent girls mostly have this moronic
  misconception. "LAK ZOMG EMMY ROSSUM SINGS BETTER OPERA THAN SARAH BRIGHTMAN!!!!!@1111!" "ZZOMGZ! SHES LAK TEH BEST SAPRANO EVA!!111
  
  Opera singers are like the superheroes of music/voice (atleast in my humble opinion) and a voice like Rossum's being
  coined "operatic" is shameful, distasteful, and degrading to people with such amazing talent. Stop calling her
  an opera singer people, this chick is most definitely an alto. I enjoyed listening to her lower register more
  than when she was straining for those high notes which clearly she wasn't ready to sing. Her acting? umm, I didn't
  see any acting. All I saw was the same deer-caught-in-the-headlights expression, wide eyes, gaping mouth, she looked
  practically stoned, not mesmerized...but then again Butler's voice isn't the mesmerizing type. Rossum has a decent voice, but it isn't Christine quality.
  
  The Phantom. One thing is certain, Butler CAN act. He exudes passion, sensuality, and he's menacing.
  I missed something though, why WAS he hiding down there in the first place? it certainly couldn't be because
  of his hot deformity. Maybe it wasn't because of his third degree sunburn after all. Perhaps he was
  just some reject wannabe composer/musician who didn't have the right chops to make it in the music industry. So,
  he resorted to hiding beneath an opera house (of all freakin' places) and try to charm some dim-witted choir girl in hopes she'd fall for his "bad boy" side. Yeah cause all us girls prefer the bad boy rugged type. Pfft. Spare me the bull [...] of ALW saying that the phantom had to be "a bit rough and dangerous" with a "rocky type quality to his voice". This isn't Phantom of the Opera Superstar for crying out loud! The Phantom is supposed to be a freak of nature. Amazingly doted in the arts of architecture, magic, ventriloquism, and what's even more important, MUSIC and VOICE. He is by no means supposed to be a freakin' Adonis. He hides down there because of his FACE not his lack of musical talent. Christine is enraptured by his genius, mystery -not his overwhelming scottish masculinity- but she also fears him. There was nothing to fear about this phantom, heck Christine is an idiot (something that most people who watch this film inevitably think, when they shouldn't) for dissing him over...
  
  
  Raoul. Charming voice, but Fabio isn't the musical genius here. Neither is he the lonely choir girl coached by the so called musical genius. Maybe the real Erik hides inside Raoul's closet, that sure would explain why Raoul has better vocal talent than phantom and Chrissy combined. He's also very handsome but that's as far as it goes. Wilson may be a broadway actor with a charming voice, but a film actor he is not. Well he
  definitely didn't show any acting skills in this flick. He lacked any emotion/passion whatsoever, and the wig just made it worse. Unbearable even.
  
  oh yeah, because I dissed all three actors I'm obviously jealous of Rossum's amazing operatic talent, Butler's rockstar abilities and sensuality, and Raoul's hair. AHA. HaHaHaHa.
  
  
  What's the deal with Chrissie wearing a replica of one of Empress Sissi's hand-me-downs anyway?
  Where are all the dazzling colors so dearly emphasized in the Masquerade song?
  Why is madame giry the only one with a french accent, when everyone else seems to have gone british in 19th century France?
  Why does everyone gasp when the phantom's hot deformity is revealed?
  
  The movie doesn't suck completely though, the cinematography is quite splendid. Minnie Driver is enjoyable in the role
  of La Carlotta. Butler is great eyecandy for the ladies. Rossum is great eyecandy for the guys. There are alot
  of statues of naked gold women. There is somewhat of an erotic atmosphere to the whole film actually. *gasp* but of course! this
  is the same director who ordered nipples to be placed on the outside of Batman's costume...
  
  "make it sexy Gerry!" *hurls*
  
  
  It's very sad that the lead roles were cast more in accordance to their appearances in a film whose sole message
  is 'beauty lies within' and contains the word O-P-E-R-A. I don't get why the screen tests required them to sing at all when they were gonna get the parts anyway based on their marketable looks. Young, pretty, sopranos are a dime a dozen though, and all you needed was some 30 year old tenor for your phantom. Oh but the flick has to appeal to the younger audiences, so we're just gonna cast some pretty chick who can sing the role of opera goddess Christine decently in a popera style. We'll cast Gerard Butler as the phantom because he's incredibly beautiful, and we can synthesize his horrid shrilling. Let's make it sexy and oh so marketable. After all, half of the audience aren't entirely familiar with the term opera, it'll be lak so easy! Complete. Bull.
  
  I blame Joel for this disaster, ALW is simply weak like his henchman or something. Nice work eegore!
  
  
  
  
  
• Great Film - Best Phantom Ever!
  By A1HFVLMQUZ1AKI on 2005-02-19
  I love the film!!! I've seen it three times and I can't wait for the DVD to be released. Everything about the film is great. The music is so haunting and the cast does a great job. Gerald Butler is the best Phantom ever. He portrays the part very well. The Phantom is an insane murderer, but at the same time he has feelings. The scene where the Phantom sees Christine and Raoul together singing "All I Ask Of You" is very touching. To see him cry over Christine because he loves her so much is enough to make anyone cry, too. I'm sure Gerald Butler has made every female who has seen the film fall in love with him. He is indeed a very sexy and handsome Phantom compared to the others who have played the role (sorry guys).
  
  
• Sexy, Amazing & entertaining
  By A184FJD73PAMZH on 2005-02-19
  I can summarize this movie with one word "WOW". This is probably one of the best musicals I have seen & enjoyed in ages. Gerard Butler is one amazing & sexy phantom. I saw it 3 days in a row, & just can't wait to add the DVD to my collection.
  
  
• Sizzling chemistry
  By AYB2RR9WW2OVR on 2006-05-12
  I have seen "The Phantom of the Opera" on stage three times--in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York, the latter being one of Michael Crawford's last performances. For some reason, I did not catch the film version when it was in theatres, but saw it a week ago via On Demand on HBO. To be honest, I had been aware of some of the negative reviews, but I must say, this film is utterly amazing! In my opinion, the only negative is Carlotta, the diva, whose part I felt was TOO over the top. I do not recall this part being so overblown in the stage versions. I do not necessarily blame Minnie Driver, as her performance is probably what the director wanted. All the rest of the roles were cast, acted, and sung to perfection. Emmy Rossum is perfect as Christine. She brings an appropriate aura of naivet? and vulnerability to her role, and her vocal quality is also appropriate: youthful, promising, but not yet fully operatic. We can really believe that she has the potential to blossom under the Phantom's tutelage. Patrick Wilson's lyric tenor is ideal for the romantic hero role of Raoul. But the movie truly belongs to Gerard Butler, who is an absolute revelation as the Phantom. Director Joel Schumacher's decision to make the lead actors young (to attract a more youthful audience, as he and composer Andrew Lloyd Webber admitted) works very well indeed on film. Butler's edgy, passionate, and emotional singing, as well as his strikingly masculine looks makes the contrast between him and Raoul clearer for both Christine and the audience. In every scene with Gerard Butler, he is the irresistible focal point, which is as it should be, since The Phantom is the titular character. Because Butler plays up the Phantom's magnetic sensuality, we can really believe that Christine is mesmerized by his seductive powers.
  
  The film looks fantastic. The device of opening and closing the story with the grainy, black and white sequences with the aged, wheelchair-bound Vicomte Chagny works well, and the dramatic change from B&W to color as the theme music plays and the chandelier rises at the beginning is thrilling, to say the least. The Phantom's lair and the tunnels and catacombs leading to it were wonderfully conceived and lit. The flickering candelabras emerging from the water were an impressive effect. The huge orchestral accompaniment sounds marvelous. Because I missed seeing the movie in a theater, I feel fortunate that I was able to watch it on our big plasma screen and hear the score on our surround speakers. Yes, it's true--after having seen the movie on HBO's On Demand, I ordered the 2-disc DVD set from Amazon. I recommend this version to anyone who has not bought the DVD yet, since the extras are quite interesting. Schumacher and Webber discuss the musical's original conception and the casting for the movie version. It had been a number of years since I last saw POTO onstage, and now as I watch clips from Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman, I can really see why Schumacher insisted on casting younger actors for the lead roles. In fact, as the clips of Crawford/Brightman played, I could hear how different their voices were, and how differently they acted the lead roles and to be honest, Butler/Rossum bring a new flavor to the movie. Their chemistry simply sizzles, and when they light up the screen together, you can see why Webber and Schumacher chose them.
  
  I have owned and played the London cast recording of the stage POTO for many, many years, but now, I find it disconcerting to listen to the discs, as Butler, Rossum, and Wilson have truly put their mark on the well-loved music of the night. Kudos and Bravo to all!!
  
  
• Tacky and disappointing
  By A1GRPBJ38IVX54 on 2004-12-17
  NOTE; I HAVE SEEN THE FILM, MANY REVIEWERS BELOW HAVEN'T???
  Now, I should start this review by stating that I have NOT seen the stage version, however I am a fan of the original stage soundtrack (Sarah Brightman & Michael Crawford). I am reviewing the film based purely on what I saw and heard, without comparisokn.
  It would also appear this is a love or hate film, as many of the reviewers here loved the film. Anyway...
  My first criticism is that whilst the film looked lavish, it actually looked more like a stage set than 'real life', some of the backdrops looked like exactly that,(especially the outdoor scenes) and I found it off putting at times. I also found that the black & white scenes looked cheap, almost tv movie quality. (Present is filmed in B&W, past in colour).
  As for the performances, well Emmy Rossum was passable as Christine, though her vocals are a far cry from Ms Brightmans. Gerard Butler as the Phantom, is a disappointment. His singing is below par, and almost has a speech impediment(?) and seems to have no control over volume. Throughout the film, he is quite an attractive Phantom, but when he is unveiled, he becomes hideous, even his hair changing colour and texture, and scars appear where the mask didn't even cover. Ridiculous, viewers are far more discerning these days, we expect more care and attention to detail.
  Patrick Wilson as Raoul is fine, and Miranda Richardson is underused as Madame Giry (Christines 'mother') - it should be noted she is the only one to attempt a French accent! Hello, the film is set in Paris with just 1 French person! So Hollywood it's ridiculous. Are Americans scared of a foreign accent?
  The best performances for me came from Minnie Driver, who is a fine over the top Diva, and Simon Callow as one of the Opera's new managers.
  In summary, this film is a huge disappointment, with poor vocal performances rendering the music lacklustre and emotionless. Definately poorly cast, and whilst I am not suggesting the originals return, the vocals should have been the most important reason to cast, not JUST a pretty face...
  If you want to watch a Webber musical, then get Evita on Dvd, its a far more superior film in every way, vocally, visually, lyrically, emotionally. That is how this film SHOULD have been.
  This is just disappointing... :(
  (and I meant to score this film with 2stars not 3, but I cant edit that?)
  
  
  
• I don't even know where to begin...
  By A3CF7B2U0IB8PS on 2005-02-05
  Oh, Amazon.com, curse your limited review space, because I could write an entire dissertation on why this movie was so bad! By the way, you folks may remember me as the fourth person who reviewed this movie, before she saw it, just because she was annoyed that people were hyping it up before they had even seen it. Yeah, I finally saw it. Be prepared, guys.
  
  Okay, I'm going to admit from the get-go that I am most definitely not a "Phan"; I used to be, but then I came to my senses not more than a year later. Now, I only hate five musicals and Phantom is at the top. I think that ALW in general is simply awful, and the Phantom musical makes a mockery of Gaston Leroux's original story. But when I went to go see the movie, I kept thinking about how great "Evita" was as a movie and tried to remain hopeful, despite the horrid things I'd heard (like the soundtrack soundclips.)
  
  Phantom got nominated for cinematography, and that I will give it. You could really see that it tried a lot to be like Moulin Rouge, only more elegant and upper-class. While at first it was beautiful, and some transitions were simply lovely, though, there are only so many times you can show roses, candles, and snow and have it be meaningful. Plus the snow was very obviously fake.
  
  Story. I'm not going to say the Phantom musical's story. I was expecting the movie-musical to not be the book, but I most certainly was NOT expecting it to not be the musical either! The thing that pissed me off the most was the whole added backstory with Madame Giry; that she hid Erik in the opera house when he was a kid and he's been there ever since, slowly going mad. Um, here's the thing. Erik's supposed to be this worldly genius. The torture chamber, the Punjab Lasso, his various talents, they all come from his travels. And finally, if he didn't help design/build the opera house, how the heck did he get all of those trap doors, not to mention the house on the lake? Also, I don't like how they made Erik so young. It doesn't make sense. Sure, Gerard was sexy and pleasing to watch (I'll elaborate more on that later), and I'm sure Erik looked something like that when he was younger, but there are a lot of questions raised if he is not much older than Christine or Raoul.
  
  The Chandelier being moved was dumb; Phantom by Susan Kay did that too and I still don't know why. Not that the musical had it in the right place either, but I digress. Other story elements that annoyed me: Meg "stumbling" upon Erik's little passageway--because we all know a genius would leave it open for all to see; Raoul falling into the "torture chamber" and then Madame Giry getting him out--it was a nice book thing to see, but no one can rescue you from the torture chamber; Erik and Raoul's "swordfight"--because we all know if you have a magical lasso that is inescapable, you're going to bother with a freaking sword. Also, some of the song shifting annoyed me.
  
  The little "dolls"! Why not just give him a chess set and be done with it, in how cliche THAT was!
  
  Also, the "love story" was handled extremely poorly. Even more poorly than it should be (the musical does a horrendous job of it too.) All they put between Christine and Erik is sexual, nothing scary yet exciting and nothing tender to show the genuine love he had for her. For all we know, he's just an obsessed madman. It was incredibly shallow.
  
  Music... like I said, I personally think that ALW shows have about two amazing songs, then the rest is either mediocre or just plain bad. Phantom movie pointed out the flaws even more, by making it all "rock opera." Phantom is NOT a rock opera, it is horrendously stuffy and "proper." It was also at its most notably obvious that ALW's "operas" really don't resemble opera at all, unless sung by Piangi and La Carlotta. I'm supposed to believe that Christine is an opera singer, on par with Carlotta, who can sing the part of Margarita in Faust!
  
  Don Juan Triumphant. This is the worst part of the musical, story-wise. I hate hate hate hate it. I can rant about this for hours. But it just plain did not sound like an opera. And most of it consisted of prior Phantom melodies. I'm beginning to think ALW was trying to insinuate that Erik's "brilliant music" is like his. He would do something like that, wouldn't he... however, I DO love Point of No Return, though as an opera song it is laughable, and as compared to what Erik's music should sound like, it is just too inferior.
  
  The whole "not focusing on Erik" bit. For the title role, he's really pretty much brushed over story-wise. The musical does this (they don't even give him a NAME!) but the movie made it even worse. Perhaps because Butler was just so... not good, he did the opposite of stealing the show--he lost it.
  
  What the HELL was up with the random talking!? They Shattner-ized Phantom! They turned one of my favorite songs (which is saying a lot, seeing as how much I hate Phantom) into a... poem! They even had talking during Il Mutto... which is an OPERA! Operas have NO TALKING! Arghhhhhh!
  
  Now, the best part to judge: the acting/singing. Singing first. How do I put this nicely... everyone sucked. While I hate Michael Crawford, I have heard good Phantoms--Anthony Warlow, Gary Mauer, etc--and Butler was... I refuse to call that "singing." Okay, here's the thing. "Angel of Music" implies that you not only can sing, but you sound absolutely divine. It does not imply that you hiss out words and attempt to sound like a rock n' roll star. Rossum was pathetic. Her singing most of the time sounded like a peanut vendor whistle, and her voice was incredibly thin. She also had lots of technique, but no soul. I did not believe for one second that her voice was show-stopping, better than La Carlotta's. Raoul (dunno his name) was decent, at least. Meg sounded too young and very unprofessional. Ah heck, all of the singing sounded unprofessional.
  
  In short: They should have just dubbed everyone over. They did for Minnie Driver, and the effect was WONDERFUL. That's why old movie musicals were so great.. .they didn't hesitate to replace any voices that sucked!
  
  Acting... this is the worst offense, even worse than singing, and that is SAD. Rossum looked stoned throughout the whole show. She just stood there and looked amazed or confused, or both. Butler didn't understand the complexity of the character he was playing; of course, in the Phantom musical Erik is hardly a complex character, but a movie could try to do that better. Driver was the best (and I LOVED the accent), which is really sad when you think about it. Whoever played Meg... she had the same lines over and over and each time they sounded the same. Ridiculous.
  
  I'm going to throw in a random choreography thing too--the "backup dancing" during Point of No Return? Um, what? You could tell they were trying to be all "Tango de Roxanne" from Moulin Rouge, and it simply did not work. I always burst out laughing whenever they showed the dancers. Hahaha.
  
  And last, but hardly least, the ending! The musical's ending sucked, but it was meant to end there. Phantom movie continues afterwards, unnecessarily. Not only are you mad because you're like "I should be done watching this terrible thing!" but then the movie throws this weird thing at you. It insinuates that Erik visited Christine's grave. Um, what? Don't tell me this is an opening for a sequel and they're going to make a movie of The Phantom of Manhatten now!
  
  Y'know, that "What?" thing was my most common spoken line throughout the movie. I just kept saying it: "What?" That should tell you exactly how little sense this movie made, and some of its "artistic moments" were really either insanely corny, overdone, or just plain weird. The acting is terrible, the singing is terrible. The story is terrible.
  
  During the movie, I kept thinking back to last May when I saw Phantom onstage. I really found it unsoulful and it did not touch me in the least. Yet I kept thinking of it pretty longingly during the movie. Maybe that's the movie's goal... to be SO bad that it makes the performed musical look good.
  
  

• The Phantom of the Opera (2004 Movie Soundtrack)
• The Phantom of the Opera (The Original Motion Picture Soundtrack)
• Batman Begins (Widescreen Edition)
• Chicago (Widescreen Edition)
• Tim Burton's Corpse Bride (Full Screen Edition)