|
Directed by: Joel Schumacher Starring: Emmy Rossum, Gerard Butler & Patrick Wilson Taken from Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage production, based on Gaston Lereux's original book about a musical genius (the Phantom) haunting the 'Opera Populaire'. This production has gone from strength to strength, and released a few weeks ago a film version which superceeds all previous performances and brings a completely unique and fantastic experience to the musical-film. The story begins in the Paris opera house in 1870. The phantom haunts the opera houseand has been forced to haunt the catacombs of the theatre for near enough, his whole life. The disfigured musical genius takes an interest in the young, naive and musically talented 'Christine Daae' and mentors her in his 'music of the night'. The opera house comes under new management and with this many changes - most of which deny the phantom's very existence which he soon alters with disasters that effect not only the theatre staff but the audience also. The story moves from the main theatre to the dungeons where he declares his love and devotion, through music to young Christine. Christine is hypnotised by her 'Angel of Music' (as she calls him). The young patron of the theatre, Viscount Raoul de Chagny was Christine's childhood sweetheart, and when he hears her sing her debut performance 'Cannibal' singing a memorising number 'Think of Me' all these feelings come back to him. The story revolves around Raoul trying to save Christine from the fate that the phantom has in store for her - an eternity with the musical darkness. This is the most romantic and fantastic movie I have ever seen. The music is emotional and the way the actors portray the characters is next to none. From the start to the finish, the experience is truly moving and is to be enjoyed by all. EDIT: The Title RATING: 5.5 PROS: The Whole Performance CONS: None ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.phantomthemovie.com/ steevo_1986 fucked around with this message at 09:40 on Dec 28, 2004 |
#
?
Dec 22, 2004 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
I loved this movie. The orchestra does a great job playing, and the chorus is great. Gerard Butler does an excellent job as the phantom. If I had to make any criticism, I'd say Christine scooped a little bit too much to her notes, but this is a movie review forum, not music. It was beautifully shot, the Masquerade was just breathtaking. 5.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2004 23:49
|
|
|
oh my god, this was STAGGERINGLY bad. everything that is wrong with joel schumacher films is taken to the nth degree here. huge, lifeless sets; pretty, talentless actors; a film that just drags ON and ON and ON and heaps cheese on top of cheese on top of empty melodrama. watching phantom of the opera is like stumbling onto the set of a lifetime original movie and having your eyelids torn off and your eardrums punctured. your eyes don't get a moment's rest as you stagger around, never able to catch your balance or enjoy a moment's respite from the endless kitsch. avoid at all loving costs. and this coming from someone who's seen the stage version and can drunkenly enjoy baz luhrmann epics. 0.5/5. i cannot rate this low enough. christ. i will never be able to enjoy a musical again. BONUS: joel schumacher thought the guy that played dracula in dracula 2000 would make a good phantom 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2004 01:25
|
|
|
Schumaker directing was my one big worry for this movie, but, he basically stood back and let it remain faithful to the stage play without too much interference. Very enjoyable, though, I think the ending (which strayed from the stage muscial) was a bit more anticlimatic. 5.5
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2004 18:29
|
|
|
I enjoyed the movie. I thought that it was well filmed, and the sets were amazing. I liked Gerald Butler, he took over the role. I admit I've never seen the show by Webber, but as a stand alone piece without a history it was great. Purists will not like the film but I did. However I had trouble trying to understand what the lyrics were when three people are singing at the same time, like at the end. Pros; Awesome film, Gerry rox! Cons: what are those lyrics? 5.5
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2004 00:11
|
|
|
I just came back from a show and drat was I amazed! For a little background on me, The Phantom Of The Opera is my all-time favorite story/show/soundtrack/whatever. I don't know why, but it's just my faveorite. Moving on... The movie was beautiful. The sets were simply incredible, the script barely differed from the stage version (and one of the major differences I feel works better in the movie), and the acting and singing was superb all around. There's my review. Short and sweet cause I have other things to do. GO SEE THIS MOVIE! 5.5 Pros - Everything. Cons - Nothing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2004 01:00
|
|
|
Worth going to to have a good laugh at. The scene with the candlesticks popping out of the water in the cave with the cheesy 80s rock had me nearly in hysterics. I found the singing extremely grating - especially the phantom's voice. Lloyd Webber can't write music, he tries to fuse old and new and ends up with something awful. The composition is so repetitive and dull. The acting was OK, Minnie Driver and the two theatre owners were enjoyable to watch - but they couldn't carry the whole movie. The small blonde girl was infuriatingly irrelevant, and the scenes between the main girl and the viscount's son were pathetically cheesy. Dragged on too long aswell, I hope Lloyd Webber stays out of my cinema in the future. 2/5.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2004 01:18
|
|
|
Great film, lots of fun to watch, PLENTY of beautiful things to see. The scene involving the chandelier left me agape it was just so wonderfully done, I'd be willing to pay again just for that scene alone. The music was, of course, wonderful and that lended so well to the enjoyment of the film. At times, however, the actors were just a tad over-dramatic, even for the very theatrical tone that it intended, and it can make you chuckle a bit. I loved Minnie Driver's performance, it was a nice addition of comedy relief that was actually intentional. To say that it was the most romantic movie ever is a decent overstatement, though there are a few scenes which can be moving if you give them the chance. Expect to be entertained and exposed to some very beautiful images, that is, if you're not so jaded that the sometimes over-dramatic acting won't put you out completely. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2004 06:27
|
|
|
The sets and coreography were pretty much the high point of the movie. The phantom is a pale immitation of Crawford, no darkness, no mystery, flat and dull as dirt. The new theatre owners did a great job in their parts. Film student effects, fading from sepia tone to black and white with the rose as the only colored object? Gag me. See the stage version or spend the money to buy the soundtrack from the broadway release. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2004 07:57
|
|
|
Overall a decent film and enjoyable but I'd take the stage production any day. I knew going in that no one could duplicate the performances of Michael Crawford and especially Sarah Brightman and I was right. The "Masquerade" scene could've been much bigger and better done. Maybe my eyes are just bad but it seemed that often the songs didn't match the singers lips. It was as if they shot a good take and decided to go with it despite the song not matching. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2004 13:16
|
|
|
I thought it was drat good. Over the top at times, but I am a fan of excess when it comes to the Victorian period. Decadence or nothing! I didn't like how the frame story kept intruding in the middle of the film. The first shot and the chandelier unveiling were incredible. A solid 4 in my book. P.S. I am in love with Christine
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2004 00:03
|
|
|
Pros: The sets looked great, and I loved the singing. Most of the time, I was able to tolerate the musical dialogue. At first, I was annoyed with some of the cheesy stuff, but the remembered "hey, this is a broadway musical, stop being so cynical and enjoy it". Also, Christine was hot  . Cons: The first half of the movie moved way too fast for me. Also, I really don't understand why Webber still thinks that it sounds good to put an 80s style rimshot synth track in the otherwise awesome organ piece that the phantom plays. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2004 04:15
|
|
|
When deciding whether to see this movie, your choice is very simple: Do you like the musical Phantom of the Opera? If yes: You will like this movie If no: You will not like this movie There's really no other deciding factors. It was basically the musical on a screen. Everyone did a quality job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2004 21:30
|
|
|
I have walked out on two films in my life. The first was in 1997 - it was a preview screening in Los Angeles for an awful ditty called "Disturbing Behavior". The second was at the tail end of 2004...and it was this film. Watched it up until the "Music of the Night" part, which was so pompous and overblown...it simply wallowed in its sincere awfulness. And therein lies the problem with this film - it doesn't take the proper tone. Schumacher, that fop, plays this film as straight-laced as possible, where it should be played for, say, possibly laughs, or campiness; those routes may have afforded it some redeeming value, but as it exists, it is a steaming pile of filthy refuse. Stay far, far away from this film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2004 01:18
|
|
|
As someone before me said, if you are trying to decide whether or not to see this movie, ask yourself if you like musicals. If not, don't go. If you do, then go! I'm a huge NYC musical theater geek and proud of it and I loved this movie. It did drag a bit in the middle, but it was very faithful to the stage show and the opening sequence of bringing the chandelier up and transforming the old, dilapitated opera house back into the beautiful and functioning opera house was one of the most beautiful things I've seen onscreen. I give the movie a 4. It was very, very good and if you like musicals, get to a theater, it's totally worth it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2004 02:09
|
|
|
This is one of the best movies I have ever seen, not just one of the best musicals. The scene on the top of the opera house with the snow and music, jaw dropping to me. 5 only because every once in a while I had to strain to understand the exact wording of the song Also I would cut my left arm off if it meant Christine would love me
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2004 04:06
|
|
|
Just got back from a showing. Wow. There are no words that can possibly do justice to what is running through my mind. Perhaps this will let you know what I thought of it: I was in hysterical laughing fits as soon as the end credits started. There's just so much that's horrible about the film, it becomes one of those trainwrecks that is absolutely awesome to watch. Ok, let me be fair. When I first saw a teaser for this, I thought Schumacher's overblown sensibilities might make it a nice show. Unfortunately, he never bothered to tighten up his script. The chandelier lift opening, while pretty, was just so overdone it became cheesy. The Phantom's origin makes no sense (as in, it gives him little motivation for doing what he does other than him being an obsessive psychobitch) and hurts the character quite a bit. [Hi, I'm a castoff that lived underground all of my life. I'm gonna settle in your theater, be a total cock, and demand you pay me. Oh, and I'll kill a shitload of people just because. What's empathy?] Speaking of no sense, the flashback scenes were largely superfluous and used as an excuse to go from the black and white speckle filter to the orgasmic color tones of the film's past. One was a shot of a reflection of people in a car, followed by a horse running along a road. What. The. gently caress? The singing. Jesus christ. I know it's an opera, but hitting the higher registers so often became really loving annoying. Apparently singing can drive a girl to orgasm, because Christine's facial expressions clearly implied sopping wet panties, and it happened way way too often. Also, great idea to have three people sing similar lines simultaneously, all with approximately the same volume. Real understandable there, Joel. To the director's credit, a lot of the scenes are very ornate. They create a pretty good world for the story. But when you've got candelabras rising from the water then magically lighting themselves... well... I mean, I was totally digging the power-ballad rendition of the Phantom's song, but the cheese just made it into an empty parody of, well, I don't know what exactly. Favorite scene's probably where the Phantom is 'betrayed' by Christine, then runs to a gargoyle or something, cape billowing in the winds. Close runner-up would be that long-rear end scene about him living in darkness-- despite the fact that he's apparently got a 600 watt light illuminating his piano. Thankfully, there's a boobalicious blonde that keeps running around. 5/5 Pros: Antonio Banderas as The Phantom. Nice cleavage. Cons: Not enough space on the internets to elaborate. Come for the singing, stay for the spectacle! The Bat-Man of the O-Pe-Ra is heeeeeeeeeeeeeeere!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2004 10:50
|
|
|
Just saw this with my mother, who I went to see the Broadway production with about 7 or 8 years ago. I'm not much of a fan of musicals anymore; I used to be when I was a theater student, but not so much lately. I was also never a big fan of Webber, and while I liked the story in this, it was never one of my favorites either. But I have to say that for a musical play-to-film adaptation, this is probably one of the better ones. Yeah, it's cheese and over-the-top, but that's exactly what Broadway musicals (and especially Andrew Lloyd Webber) have always been, so you really have to go in expecting just that. If you're expecting anything else, you're not going to get it, so I was prepared for this movie. The only place I think it falls short is that it's nowhere near as 'personal' as seeing a live production of it...they're not singing to you, the audience, they're singing to each other on film, and because of that it feels kind of wooden. Still, the cinematography is gorgeous (look for the carriage ride to the cemetary that's shot all in blues and greys), the set designs are elaborate, the camera work is great, and the costumes are lavish and eye-catching. Also, the girl who plays Christine (Emmy Rossum) is really hot, so there's plenty of gratuitous eye-candy to keep you busy in the slower scenes. What I wasn't really sold on is how this could've happened in the late 1800's. No theater production was ever that extravagant at the time, and as a result it felt like it was taking place in modern times if not for the few flashbacks (or rather, flash-forwards) to an older Raul reflecting on his past. Slight spoilers: The 'laughable' scenes some people are talking about, such as the scene where the Phantom takes Christine to his underground lair and candelabras magically light themselves, aren't really laughable as much when you think about what you're seeing. People should take note that earlier in the scene, moving arms holding candelabras were lining the hallways behind the mirror, yet when Raul goes in there later, it's just plain stone walls. This is because the Phantom is an illusionist and magician, and a bit of a hypnotist as well; Christine was seeing these things with her imagination because the Phantom was preying upon her fantasies. All I can really say in general, like others in this thread, is that if you're into that kind of thing, you'll probably love this; It's an amazingly faithful adaptation. If you're not into that kind of thing, you'll probably hate it. If you think Webber's a hack and you can't stand over-the-topness, you'll probably hate it too. Me, I enjoyed it for what it was, and I got pretty much what I expected and maybe a little more. Pros: Great cinematography and set design, very faithful adaptation, good choices in casting. Cons: Less feeling than a live show, not a believable period piece, and you really need to expect it to be flamboyant and over-the-top before you go in. 4/5 PS: If you liked this film, or Leroux's original novel, or just anything relating to Phantom of the Opera's story, I HIGHLY recommend the book 'Phantom'. It's an amazingly well-told story about 'Erik', the man behind the mask, and his life that led up to the story we already know. It's sort of like a prequel, told from several different perspectives of the people who knew him in his life, and gives a lot of insight into the Phantom's motivations, insanity, and genius. Pick up a copy, you won't be disappointed. A movie made out of that novel would be the best thing ever. Bonk fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Dec 31, 2004 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2004 21:28
|
|
|
This was great. I think that the people who hate this movie also just hate musicals in general. And lets face it, Andrew Lloyd webber is a bit over the top at times. But I still enjoy his stuff. I was happy that it actually had a chance to go into more detail about the story that couldn't be touched by the stage show... They should have axed the candles coming out of the water, that was kinda silly, they did do exactly that in the stage production...but that was because it was the only way to stage it.. When you are dealing with film, you don't need to use staging methods the same way. Otherwise, I really enjoyed it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2005 02:26
|
|
|
I saw this on Christmas Day and was simply astounded by how great it was. I've always loved Phantom, I saw it about 9 years ago in Toronto. The best thing about this movie was it gave me a chance to actually see the musical. I had nosebleed seats, while I could still see I didn't have the detail the film had and allowed me to see. Pro: Excellent overall. Con: I felt that the Phantom was not very strong. He seemed off most of the time, and other times it was too soft to hear him. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2005 08:48
|
|
|
I've seen Phantom twice on stage (once with Sarah Brightman) and I actually prefer this movie to the stage version. I know, I know... It was brilliant and awesome and Minnie Driver somehow did a fantastic job. I have a couple of nitpicks, but this movie captures the grandure and spectacle of opera just as well as a live performance, and it has the ability to move in more dimensions. 4.5/5 Bravissimi!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2005 10:08
|
|
|
I haven't seen Phantom in the theater, but my wife has seen it in Toronto, and assured me that it was excellent. We've both seen Les Miserables twice, so I went in with high hopes. It was very lukewarm. A lot of the music was really well done, but the 80S NEW WAVE TECHNO was  . Really, you could have put the Beethoven 5th Disco Mix in there and done no worse.There were a few plot things that really didn't come across. I had to ask my wife about the Magic Candles and Automatic Grate, to which she said "It's magic, let it go." She later explained that his singing was supposedly enchanting Christine, but I didn't really grasp this from the movie. I though the whole thing with the Phantom was supposed to be an illusion. He wasn't really magic... he dissapeared from the Masquarade in a blaze of fire, but it was simply a trapdoor. In a nutshell, I had the impression he was kinda like Batman. Not really a superhero, he's just drat good. I was going to rate this a 3, but I have to deduct a half of a point for GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING SHAKEY CAM. JESUS gently caress, CAN'T WE HAVE A SINGLE GODDAMN MOVIE WITHOUT loving SHAKEY CAM? OH MAN, I'M SURE THAT WAS A HELL OF A SWORDFIGHT, TOO BAD I COULDN'T SEE A drat THING. I swear, I'm going to make a home movie of me scratching my own rear end IN SHAKE-O-VISION and it'll sell like hotcakes. 2.5. Jean Valjean is my homeboy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2005 18:13
|
|
|
If you like action movies and hate subtitles: 0/5 If you like a good, quality movie and dont mind if there arent any explosions, guns or T/A: 5.5/5 It really boils down to what kind of movie viewer you are. If you go to a movie to be entertained, this isnt for you. If you go to a movie to see the movie, then by all means, go, go and enjoy. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2005 23:49
|
|
|
i thought it was amazing, but that's just me. some people say it sucked compared to the musical version, but i liked it better
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2005 03:12
|
|
|
I went into this film with some experience with Phantom. I had heard some songs, and frankly, I despised them. I cannot stand the music of Andrew Lloyd Weber, but since I had heard so many mixed reviews of this film (It was either "It's the best movie I've seen in a long time" or "It's abysmal") I decided to go into it with an open mind. That being said, my mind started closing shut pretty quickly. Sure, it's a beautiful film, but very soon into the movie, one begins to realize that it is simply all flash and no substance. Sure, everything looks pretty, but you can only take that to a certain degree before you become overwhelmed by the images. However, the film has many other faults, the strongest of which being that it is very corny. The initial trip to the Phantom's Lair has to be my least favorite moment in recent memory, not only because of the 80's Guitar riff, hand claps, and synth-drum track, but because of the horse ride that lasted all of 20 feet, to a boat. Sure, you can say it's a homage to the original story, where a horse is used to take one down to the Lair, but it still doesn't belong where it is useless. The songs also don't help the movie either. The talents of Emmy Rossum (Christine) and Gerard Butler (Phantom) are wasted by the awful music. All the songs are very musically bland and repetitive, as well as completely devoid of any substance whatsoever. It's a love song, make us swoon, don't make us beg for it to end! (That is referring to "All I Ask of You," by far the worst full song in the film.)Most of the songs in the movie seem absolutely useless, particularly the songs like "Notes" and "Masquerade." The greatest problem with Phantom is the Phantom himself. While Gerard Butler is a surprisingly good singer (much better than Michael Crawford, in my opinion) he is too pretty to play the role of the Phantom. When Christine removed his mask the first time, I honestly thought that his only problem was some acne.You are supposed to pity the Phantom, not fall in love with him. That is why he is the Phantom, and not Raoul. Although, when Christine removes his mask at the end, the film does a very sloppy cut to where the Phantom is genuinely disfigured, it just doesn't work. You can't put what wasn't there, Mr. Schumacher.When you are begging for the antagonist to brutally murder the two lovers at the end of the film, there's a definite problem in character development. The well done parts hangings and Chandelier Crash, as well as Meg Giry's (Jennifer Ellison) clevageare indeed, well done. But they are not enough to save this abysmal film. I saw this movie on December 31, 2004, from 4:20 PM to 6:40 PM, and it made it just in time to be my least favorite movie of the year. Rating: 1.5. If you want a good musical, see Les Miserables instead. Zombie Sinatra! fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Jan 5, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2005 07:48
|
|
|
Pyxis and Meteorite go to the Movies The Good Sets, costume design, pretty people with pretty voices. Christine, Raoul, and mask-on Phantom are great eye candy. Minnie Driver as Carlotta is brilliant. The Bad Mr. Schumacher, you cannot cheat with the Phantom. Mask-on Phantom is an uber-sexy dude with a full head of gorgeous chestnut hair who happens to have a small portion of one side of his face covered by a mask. Mask-off phantom is a completely hideous freak with the ENTIRE half of his face completely disfigured. Mask-off phantom is also missing a good portion of his scalp that we previously saw covered with hair. The Ugly  tastically cheesy 70's synth techno set against Victorian backdrops. Drum machines and corsets don't mix.Good date movie. Would watch again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2005 21:44
|
|
|
It's probably true that if you already liked the musical, you would like this. I haven't seen the musical, but I'd heard the music and liked it. I'm not sure what the director took from the stage production and what he added himself. The characters fell flat and had no depth to them. A great deal of their motivation is just not presented. This makes the love scenes feel fake, and removes ability to sympathize with any of them. Sadly, the Phantom was not acted well at all. His rampages were done well enough, but the reasons for Christine's fascination were not present in Butler's acting at all. The movie said too much about him and tried too hard to create sympathy for him, sacrificing his mystery. The movie was over-the-top eye candy, which is fine. The visuals were well done and the actors seemed to be in a beautiful moving painting the whole time. In my opinion, however, it was gaudy beyond even my expectations. I had been warned. Perhaps if the rest of the movie hadn't been shallow, I might not have minded. The friends I saw this movie with also agreed that it should have stayed a stage production. The overall melodrama would have worked better than it did on film. I think we expect different things from a film than from a Broadway play. Summary: Christine seemed to be easily distracted by each of the male leads. One moment she'd be having a romantic scene with one guy, then the other would appear and she'd get this "ooh shiny" expression. The director seemed to expect the same thing from his audience. Pros: pretty to look at, singing decent, stays true to musical's score Cons: shallow acting, gaudy, tried really hard to be creative (ie flash-forwards) and failed 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2005 08:05
|
|
|
It was just released in a wide audience this Friday, I just came back from seeing it with my opera singer girl-friend, she loved it. She said nothing compares to the original Michael Crawford(!?) but she was in tears by the time we watched the credits. I was thorougly entertained throughout the entire piece. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2005 06:27
|
|
|
I liked the show, and I also liked the movie. I think it's important to keep in mind, as someone said before, that the phantom is an illusionist/magician and an especially good hypnotist. I think if you watch it with this in mind, a lot of the "plot holes" go away. I liked that the director kept a lot from the stage production, and I was very impressed with the masquerade scene. The unveiling of the chandelier at the beginning is also very very cool. The set designs were also amazing, but not as impressive as the show, since all the transitions happened live right in front of us. I think one of reasons I like the theme song so much is because of the cheesy 80s rock style. 4.5/5 Question about the movie: Who was that old lady bidding against Raoul for the monkey music box at the auction?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2005 03:57
|
|
|
quote:NashAsh came out of the closet to say: It's Madame Giry, Miranda Richardson's character. There's been a lot of discrepency over the fact that she should look older than that, blah blah blah. I think it's justified in that she is a former ballerina and she would have taken good care of her body and aged gracefully in that time. Also, Raoul is older then Christine, and it's assumed that Mme. Giry had Meg at a relatively young age, so the age gap between her and Raoul probably wasn't that large.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2005 15:33
|
|
|
Being the super phantom freak I am, I tore this movie apart and found many flaws. Regardless, it still brought me to tears at parts, and sent a shiver down my spine at others. Id like to repeat as others have, most of the cheesy stuff and plot holes come directly from the stage production, including the whole bit where the first time the phantom’s mask is removed he doesn’t seem disfigured, and then the second time he’s all messed up including his hair. Overall, the movie had lots of great and moving moments, However, lots of stuff to dislike. Below is my list of wtfs -Due to tempo and voice changes, a couple of the songs felt mangeled at parts. -Intercut of the lower class party during Masquerade was annoying. -Delivery of several phantom lines just sounded like crap and made me laugh. "Go now, leave me, forget all that you've seen, don’t let them find you" -The backup dancers during Point of No Return (OMG) -Sword fight went way to long, the random new music for it was annoying, and the whole new story progression didn’t quite fit (let him go, lets get him) -Extra "oh no I’m trapped under water" drama was painful to watch. -Breaking of mirrors = some horrible acting/special effects -New flash forward scenes really need to just go away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2005 08:46
|
|
|
quote:KH_BlanK came out of the closet to say: Seeing as how also am a Phantom freak, you have listed my WTFs to a tee. Some horrible lip syncing at times. Also, I've never seen a worse "staging" of Primadonna. Despite all my WTFs, I enjoyed it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2005 15:43
|
|
|
This movie rules, easily one of the best musicals of all time. Gerard Butler of 300 fame, probably the most intense Phantom ever. Classy stuff. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2009 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
Would have been a great film if the singing was any good. But it's not, it's goddamn terrible. Gerard Butler clearly isn't a singer at all as it's an incredibly amateur performance - poor pronunciation, off his notes, swinging around everywhere, has trouble with the shortest of sustains. He's literally out of tune quite often, it's horrible. Considering his lines have likely been recorded over and over again, then passed through a computer a number of times, it makes me wonder how truly horrendous they were before. Why can't Hollywood cast singers, not actors, in these roles? It's the Phantom of the Opera, his voice is rather important. No-one else seems to have mentioned this, so it seems the general audience doesn't mind, or doesn't notice. I'm a professional Opera Singer though (in Opera choruses), and I'm used to good singers. To me this performance is just unbearably bad. Go see the musical instead, it's pretty rad (and the singing is actually very good). 0/5 Data fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Mar 1, 2009 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2009 23:56
|
|