Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:57 am



Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 The Phantom of the Opera (2004) 

What grade would you give this film?
A 25%  25%  [ 4 ]
B 44%  44%  [ 7 ]
C 13%  13%  [ 2 ]
D 6%  6%  [ 1 ]
F 13%  13%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 16

 The Phantom of the Opera (2004) 
Author Message
Indiana Jones IV

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 10:09 am
Posts: 1097
Post 
Zingaling wrote:
I'm sorry, PE. I went through an hour of it, and turned it off.

It's definitely not my kind of movie. I won't even grade it.


=D> ...for some reason I find this funny

_________________
revolutions wrote:
that one dude with the giant ass mi:3 logo


Sun May 08, 2005 2:27 pm
Profile WWW
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:25 am
Posts: 18842
Location: San Diego
Post 
Schlomo wrote:
Zingaling wrote:
I'm sorry, PE. I went through an hour of it, and turned it off.

It's definitely not my kind of movie. I won't even grade it.


=D> ...for some reason I find this funny


That does not deserve applause. =; :razz:

publicenemy#1 wrote:

Anyways, I hope more people get to see it and at least like it.

*sigh*


Sun May 08, 2005 2:45 pm
Profile
Forum General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:53 pm
Posts: 8626
Location: Syracuse, NY
Post 
Upped my grade to a 9/10 (A-)

_________________
Top 10 Films of 2016

1. La La Land
2. Other People
3. Nocturnal Animals
4. Swiss Army Man
5. Manchester by the Sea
6. The Edge of Seventeen
7. Sing Street
8. Indignation
9. The Lobster
10. Hell or High Water


Sun May 08, 2005 5:25 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:25 am
Posts: 18842
Location: San Diego
Post 
movies35 wrote:
Upped my grade to a 9/10 (A-)


I love you. :wub: :razz:



Hehe. All these C's had me frightened. :ph34r:


Sun May 08, 2005 6:55 pm
Profile
Forum General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:53 pm
Posts: 8626
Location: Syracuse, NY
Post 
No problem :wink: It's an amazing movie that deserves to be loved.

_________________
Top 10 Films of 2016

1. La La Land
2. Other People
3. Nocturnal Animals
4. Swiss Army Man
5. Manchester by the Sea
6. The Edge of Seventeen
7. Sing Street
8. Indignation
9. The Lobster
10. Hell or High Water


Sun May 08, 2005 7:00 pm
Profile YIM WWW
2.71828183

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:16 pm
Posts: 7827
Location: please delete me
Post 
andaroo wrote:
I had a big review written, but I don't want to attack it, because I actually don't think it's as bad as people say it is. Rossom sings well (whether she acts well I won't get into here) and the rest of the cast differs (I really liked Miranda Richardson's Giry, and I absolutely hated Patrick Wilson's Raoul). But I'm getting off track! I'll guess I will just hone in on two things I did not like about The Phantom of the Opera.

One is in the first half, it delves into that mid-1980s disco-sounding pop music rock opera which completely, utterly takes me out of the film. I know, I know, I know... this is in the musical, but as an adaptation, they made the choice to keep it as part of this adaptation. When the Phantom is leading Christine through the swamps you can hear the drum beat, disco beat, and that STUPID electric guitar. The second half of the film stays more faithful to time and place, but this isn't satire and it isn't Moulin Rouge, and it takes me out of the film in a most unpleasant way.

The second beef with the film is that all the songs aside from "Masquerade" and "Point of No Return" are horribly shot. Most of them are the characters just standing there singing to each other. Witness the whole "Angel of Music" thing while Christine sits on the boat for 8 minutes while The Phantom prances around his cave. Or the rooftop encounter with Raoul singing to Christine as The Phantom hides behind a statue... OR Christine walking around in the (poor stage!) graveyard for 5 minutes singing. There is nothing visually interesting going on in these shots, and this is where the adaptation to film for totally fails. It's one thing to be watching a live performance, on stage, live watching the musical (which I have seen), it's another to be sitting in a theater watching a carefully edited piece of film that is trying be visually stimulating. Just poor film making here.

There are other problems too... like the lack of momentum, and the film being about 30 minutes too long... but I'd like to concentrate replies to my comments regarding the two issues above.


I completely agree on both points, especially poitn 2, it feel slike a stage played being filmed not a movie. They did not take advantage of the fact that they are not pinned down like they are on stage, which is a huge disappointment.


Sun May 08, 2005 7:52 pm
Profile
Top Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:47 pm
Posts: 5704
Post 
Even though pretty much everybody has been dissing on this movie recently, I have to say that, after re-watching it for a 3rd time recently, it has moved up to #2 of my 2004 list, and is in my top ten of the decade. Especially after watching the special edition dvd's documentaries, which highlighted just how huge of a visual, acting, and production improvement this movie gained over the stage version. However, I have to say that some of the amazing visuals that were so ambitious on the big screen did not translate as well onto the small screen.

btw, I don't understand, say, giving a movie like Moulin Rouge a positive review but then panning this movie? Did you guys actually find the story/dialogue/depth to be superior in that movie? Maybe just don't like the music (in that case, press the mute button on the remote, and see just how visually stunning it is as a silent film)? Or is everybody jumping onto the trendy anti-Schumacher/Andrew Lloyd Webber critical bandwagon?


Sun May 08, 2005 8:51 pm
Profile WWW
Rachel McAdams Fan
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:13 am
Posts: 14544
Location: LA / NYC
Post 
publicenemy#1 wrote:
movies35 wrote:
Upped my grade to a 9/10 (A-)


I love you. :wub: :razz:



Hehe. All these C's had me frightened. :ph34r:


I've given it a 10/10 (A+) since the beginning. It's my fourth favorite film of 2004.


Sun May 08, 2005 9:11 pm
Profile YIM
Extra on the Ordinary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:50 pm
Posts: 12821
Post 
alex young wrote:
Even though pretty much everybody has been dissing on this movie recently, I have to say that, after re-watching it for a 3rd time recently, it has moved up to #2 of my 2004 list, and is in my top ten of the decade. Especially after watching the special edition dvd's documentaries, which highlighted just how huge of a visual, acting, and production improvement this movie gained over the stage version. However, I have to say that some of the amazing visuals that were so ambitious on the big screen did not translate as well onto the small screen.

btw, I don't understand, say, giving a movie like Moulin Rouge a positive review but then panning this movie? Did you guys actually find the story/dialogue/depth to be superior in that movie? Maybe just don't like the music (in that case, press the mute button on the remote, and see just how visually stunning it is as a silent film)? Or is everybody jumping onto the trendy anti-Schumacher/Andrew Lloyd Webber critical bandwagon?


I know the story in Moulin Rouge was thin, but the visuals and all the spectacle were used to make the rest of the movie better, unlike Phantom of the Opera where that was all there is.

I cared for the characters in Moulin Rouge,


with Phantom of the Opera it was like watching a great spectacle but one that has a thick block of ice between itself and the viewer.

I jsut lost interest completely after a while.

_________________
Image

Best Actress 2008


Mon May 09, 2005 12:08 am
Profile WWW
Forum General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:00 am
Posts: 6502
Post 
alex young wrote:
Even though pretty much everybody has been dissing on this movie recently, I have to say that, after re-watching it for a 3rd time recently, it has moved up to #2 of my 2004 list, and is in my top ten of the decade. Especially after watching the special edition dvd's documentaries, which highlighted just how huge of a visual, acting, and production improvement this movie gained over the stage version. However, I have to say that some of the amazing visuals that were so ambitious on the big screen did not translate as well onto the small screen.

btw, I don't understand, say, giving a movie like Moulin Rouge a positive review but then panning this movie? Did you guys actually find the story/dialogue/depth to be superior in that movie? Maybe just don't like the music (in that case, press the mute button on the remote, and see just how visually stunning it is as a silent film)? Or is everybody jumping onto the trendy anti-Schumacher/Andrew Lloyd Webber critical bandwagon?


Uh, yeah.

Moulin Rouge may have had just as simple a story, but unlike this film, it had a little frantic, energetic passion thrown in with its stilted melodrama.

I mean, c'mon, guys. To those of you who liked it so much, I'm assuming that you found there to be more to the film than pretty visuals and pretty music. What, then, was it? Emotional investment? You actually felt some sort of urgency as Patrick Wilson was chained up against the gate in the phantom's lair and Christine had to make her "dreaded" decision between the two? WHAT!?

8-[

Okay, I'm calm now.

No, but really. Comparing Moulin Rouge with The Phantom of the Opera is like comparing a work of art with... (for lack of imagination)... Batman & Robin (oops, there's my trendy anti-Schumacher bias). :wink:

Someone prove me wrong, though. I don't know. Maybe by not being all too familiar with the show I'm overlooking something. Or maybe I'm just a meany.


Mon May 09, 2005 2:17 am
Profile WWW
You must have big rats
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
Post 
I did not dislike The Phantom of the Opera as many on here, but Moulin Rouge is superior to it. The combination of visuals and the music are ingenious in that one. The Phantom of the Opera had good music bits, but none of them really stunned me. The mixing of "Lady Marmelade" with "Smells like Teen Spirit" in the beginning of Moulin Rouge made my jaw drop (well, almost). The way the director employs music in this movie, combined with Kidman's acting (which was far superior to anyone's acting in Phantom) makes Moulin Rouge the great movie it is.

_________________
The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!

Image


Mon May 09, 2005 10:18 am
Profile WWW
Top Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:47 pm
Posts: 5704
Post 
THis will be a very ramblish (sorry) response to three posters whose movie tastes I actually kind of follow and like on these boards (so don't get mad please).

btw, I hope it does not seem like I'm panning Moulin Rouge in my comments, since I liked Moulin Rouge as well

Dr. Lecter wrote:
I did not dislike The Phantom of the Opera as many on here, but Moulin Rouge is superior to it. The combination of visuals and the music are ingenious in that one. The Phantom of the Opera had good music bits, but none of them really stunned me. The mixing of "Lady Marmelade" with "Smells like Teen Spirit" in the beginning of Moulin Rouge made my jaw drop (well, almost). The way the director employs music in this movie, combined with Kidman's acting (which was far superior to anyone's acting in Phantom) makes Moulin Rouge the great movie it is.


Moulin Rouge uses some of the most popular chart-topping songs in pop culture from the 70's, 80's and early 90's. And Come What May should have been a chartopper as well, even though it wasn't. Perhaps we were already pre-accustomed to already liking these types of songs whereas the songs in The Phantom of the Opera were just of a less familiar genre?

As for comparing lead actress performances, I personally found Emmy Rossum's performance to be simply breathtaking. I felt Kidman's performance was very generic and no more better than other similar performances by other actresses with the same stereotypical prostitute-with-a-heart-of-gold role. I found Kidman's performance here to be not as good as many of her other stunning performances (Birth, The Hours, Eyes Wide Shut, The Others).

But I certainly do respect your opinion, and take solace that you at least gave it a borderline B- in your initial grading (not sure if the hysteria of negativity has since influenced you to bring your grade down).

Dkmuto wrote:

Uh, yeah.

Moulin Rouge may have had just as simple a story, but unlike this film, it had a little frantic, energetic passion thrown in with its stilted melodrama.

I mean, c'mon, guys. To those of you who liked it so much, I'm assuming that you found there to be more to the film than pretty visuals and pretty music. What, then, was it? Emotional investment? You actually felt some sort of urgency as Patrick Wilson was chained up against the gate in the phantom's lair and Christine had to make her "dreaded" decision between the two? WHAT!?

8-[

Okay, I'm calm now.

No, but really. Comparing Moulin Rouge with The Phantom of the Opera is like comparing a work of art with... (for lack of imagination)... Batman & Robin (oops, there's my trendy anti-Schumacher bias). :wink:

Someone prove me wrong, though. I don't know. Maybe by not being all too familiar with the show I'm overlooking something. Or maybe I'm just a meany.


Hey meany :razz: j/k,

I wasn't too familiar with the show either before seeing the movie, so that shouldn't be a factor.

In terms of the passion of filmmaking, I found artistic passion put into every frame of The Phantom of the Opera. It wasn't as over-the-top as in Moulin Rouge, which I actually found to hinder its impact. As for emotional investment in the characters, I have to say I felt more for the characters in The Phantom than in Moulin Rouge, whose characters I found hard to sympathize with. I can understand if one says the romance in The Phantom is not believable, but not any less so than the romance in Moulin Rouge. Maybe it has to do with Nicole Kidman and Ewan being stars that we all love and recognize, while The Phantom of the Opera had an almost nameless/unrecognizable cast except with the possible negative attachment of "that vampire in Van Helsing" and "that teenager in The Day After Tomorrow"?

btw, yes, I did feel urgency when Christine had to make her choice between Patrick Wilson and Gerard Butler, as in the back of my mind I envisioned the possiblity of a tragic ending involving death of either Christine or the Phantom. But obviously, I was in a different frame of mind, eagerly watching the story instead of thinking of ways to make fun of it. If one uses the same critical frame of mind when watching Moulin Rouge, I dare say that one can find the "dramatic" moments, acting, romance, etc. to be just as laughable.

Rod wrote:
I know the story in Moulin Rouge was thin, but the visuals and all the spectacle were used to make the rest of the movie better, unlike Phantom of the Opera where that was all there is.

I cared for the characters in Moulin Rouge,

with Phantom of the Opera it was like watching a great spectacle but one that has a thick block of ice between itself and the viewer.

I jsut lost interest completely after a while.


Sorry that you feel that way. I guess it'll be hard to explain what exactly it was that made you lose interest. Was it a certain point in the movie that made you say "Okay, this movie is not working"? Or did you already anticipate to not like the film before seeing it, based on the negative hype of critics/reviews/other posters and then approached the film with the critical mindset of finding flaws? I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind the hate behind this film. Thanks.


Mon May 09, 2005 8:19 pm
Profile WWW
You must have big rats
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
Post 
alex young wrote:

Moulin Rouge uses some of the most popular chart-topping songs in pop culture from the 70's, 80's and early 90's. And Come What May should have been a chartopper as well, even though it wasn't. Perhaps we were already pre-accustomed to already liking these types of songs whereas the songs in The Phantom of the Opera were just of a less familiar genre?

As for comparing lead actress performances, I personally found Emmy Rossum's performance to be simply breathtaking. I felt Kidman's performance was very generic and no more better than other similar performances by other actresses with the same stereotypical prostitute-with-a-heart-of-gold role. I found Kidman's performance here to be not as good as many of her other stunning performances (Birth, The Hours, Eyes Wide Shut, The Others).

But I certainly do respect your opinion, and take solace that you at least gave it a borderline B- in your initial grading (not sure if the hysteria of negativity has since influenced you to bring your grade down).




Well, it's not really the genre of the songs, but much rather they way the songs are employed in the movie. Moulin Rouge simply seems to be more imaginative about it. If someone told me, they could mix a Nirvana song with Lady Marmelade in a way, that I'd like it, I'd have laughed at them. But I was stunned when I finally saw it. Moulin Rouge had even a disadvatage for me, as that was the one I saw at home, not in theatres, so the visuals were really impressive that they even impressed me on a small screen. After that, of course, I saw both Phantom and Chicago on the silver screen. The reason why I don't think the fact that the songs were pre-accustomed led to me liking it more, is that the songs in Chicago are not exactly pre-accustomed either (at least I never heard them before the movie) and yet I loved their execution more than in The Phantom of the Opera. It's just the way the music bits were arranged in the movie, the way how the actors/actresses acted in the music scenes...I felt The Phantom of the Opera really fell short there.

Emmy Rossum's performance was decent, indeed, but Kidman was amazing. I haven't seen many Oscar-nominated female performances that year, so I can't really say if she would have deserved a win or not, but she was at least worthy of a nom. The acting was one of the things that brought The Phantom of the Opera down for me. Patrick Wilson as Raoul was simply...bland. He and Rossum had zero chesmitry while Kidman and McGregor were oozing it.

As for my rating, it didn't go down. I keep it with a B-. I did like many aspects of the movie (which was one of my ten most anticipated last year), it just that it didn't quite live up to its potential. In my next posting I'll write a mini-review of it.

And as a matter of fact I follow your movie taste on the boards as well, actually. :) I believe you were the one who had the movie Blue Car very high up on your favorites of 2003 list. I haven't heard anything of the movie before, but decided to check it out if I get a chance. So I finally rented and watched it last week (it wasn't released too long ago over here). I must say, I liked it quite a lot.

_________________
The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!

Image


Mon May 09, 2005 9:02 pm
Profile WWW
You must have big rats
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
Post 
It's not a secret that some time ago used not to be a fan of musicals at all. When I say "some time ago" I mean "before Moulin Rouge". I thought movies like West Side Story were just okay, but not much more. Moulin Rouge, however, made me curious and I must admit that the movie is really good. Not as much of a masterpiece as many perceive it to be, but still a very well-made movie with good music and a great cast. Then Chicago was released and whther you believe me or not, I liked it just as much as Chicago. If I had to pick, I'd probably even go with Chicago because while visually Moulin Rouge is superior, I found Chicago's characters more interesting and the songs slightly better.

Now I thought the trailer for The Phantom of the Opera was much better than the trailers of Moulin Rouge and Chicago, so that movie easily made it onto my list of my Most Anticipated Movies of 2004. After two great musicals, I was hoping for another one to deliver the goods. I'll say it right away: I was disappointed. You all know the story of the movie more or less. The Phantom of the Opera (Gerard Butler) is a deformed, but ingenious composer that lives in the caves below the Parisian Opera. He falls in love with a young singer Christine (Emmy Rossum) and wants to make her a big star of the Opera. She, however, has hard time deciding between him and the love of her youth, Raoul (Patrick Wilson).

In my humble opinion, the story had much more potential than Joel Schumacher took out of it. Certainly, I am not a hater of Schumacher. While I am not a huge fan of Batman & Robin, I actually like Batman Forever quite a bit and Phone Booth was one of the best movies 2003. Visually, The Phantom of the Opera is one of the most beautiful movies of the last year (among the few that looked even better were Hero and A Very Long Engagement). The art direction is amazing and the same goes for the costumes, the editing and the cinematography. The make-up, however, is not always very successful. Phantom's face deformation often looks like a bad case of acne. On the whole the techincal aspects of the movie are all to be applauded. Acting-wise, however, the movie is rather average. Emmy Rossum is good in her first big role, but she's not as much of a revelation as many see in her. Gerard Butler was a good Phantom, but Patrick Wilson's Raoul was horribly bland. The chemistry between him and Rossum was almost non-esxistant and the movie suffers a lot because of that. There is also little chemistry between Rissum and Butler (even though still more than between her and Wilson). Therefore, the decisions that Rossum's character makes in the movie are often hard to understand. One of the movie's highlight's, however, is Minnie Driver in her short, but great turn as as an exaggerated diva.

As far as the musical bits of the movie go, they range from average to good, but none of them achieves the level of Chicago or Moulin Rouge. The songs themselves are good, some of them even extraordinary, but the music bits are just not put well in scene.

To put it in a nutshell, the movie starts off very promising, but then goes down pretty fast only to imporve towards the end of the flick. It is really nice to watch for its visual brilliance and some of the songs even gave me goosebumps (in a good way), but the movie suffers under the lack of chemistry between the leads and a not-so-perfect screenplay. Therefore, the movie is more of a mixed bag that leaves more desired than what it delivers.


B-

_________________
The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!

Image


Mon May 09, 2005 9:46 pm
Profile WWW
Where will you be?

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:50 am
Posts: 11675
Post 
Well I'm only halfway through, but I had to turn it off from it being so late. The production design was nice but I have three big issues: 1. How come NOTHING happens while they're singing? They just stand there and sllooooowwwwllly walk around. C'mon, it may work for the play but that just puts me to sleep! 2. The lyrics. Jesus god almighty, the lyrics. They are seriously awful. 3. Emmy Rossum can belt out her voice pretty well, and that Raul guy, I'm not sure yet. But Gerard Butler? What a terrible, terrible singer. It rises and falls like a teen that just hit puberty. Cringe worthy.

So yeah, I'm debating whether I should stop or if I should keep going.


Thu Jun 02, 2005 10:27 am
Profile
Where will you be?

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:50 am
Posts: 11675
Post 
What a wretched excuse for a movie. This was TERRIBLE. Yeah, the production design was nice, but the movie itself was just horrendous. Garrishly tawdry, shockingly fake, and filled with some of the most boring and poorly shot musical numbers ever to disgrace the screen, The Phantom of the Opera is completely unsalvagable. Emmy Rossum is one of the few bright spots in this mess, and aside from Minnie Driver the only cast member that can sing. Then again, Driver's grating character easily cancels out whatever talent she may have. However, it is a far cry from the sheer, unparalled awfulness of the Phantom himself. I don't know what Joel Schumacher was thinking, and I'm quite the apologist for him, but despite hiring a half decent actor, Butler is completely lost. His voice is completely under par and the fact that the lyrics are an absolute mess doesn't help. Honestly guys, there's a difference between singing and having a conversation with your voice going up and down. "Helllloooooooo Duke, I was just stepping out to PUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUKE!!!!! is about the best we're offered. Masquerade was much better then most, but the fact that we suddenly get some dipshit jump on the set and start doing the robot reallllly doesn't help. Though the movie does have some noticable bright spots, it is one of the most excruciatingly boring and painful movies to come out of Hollywood in years. D-/F

PS: Funny thing is, I loved the trailer and the music in it and backed it completely.


Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:22 am
Profile
Killing With Kindness
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:57 pm
Posts: 25020
Location: Anchorage,Alaska
Post 
BJs Grade:

C

I was so sure I would love this film, what a let down, nearly fell to sleep almost everytime a character started singing. It was ok, but not one I would watch again.

_________________
The Force Awakens

Image


Fri May 19, 2006 12:12 am
Profile WWW
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 2:48 pm
Posts: 4684
Location: Toronto
Post 
This movie made me cry... The acting was horrible! The best actors were Minnie Driver and The one who played Raoul.

The phantom and especially Emily Russom (sp?) All she did throughout the entire movie was open her mouth. Seriously, watch it again and count how many times her mouth is closed... It never is.


Fri May 19, 2006 12:21 am
Profile WWW
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 2:48 pm
Posts: 4684
Location: Toronto
Post 
bradley witherberry wrote:
Phantom of the Opera: It's Officially The Worst Musical I've Ever Seen!

Well, like many people of my generation, I had been a good cultural consumer and went to see the stage show of Phantom of the Opera back in the early 90's. At the time, my review was that it was the worst stage musical I had ever seen. (Just for context, the best stage musical I ever saw was Les Miserables). Worse even than all the other Andrew Lloyd Weber musical's - which is really saying something! But in the intervening years, I began to doubt my opinion; I thought to myself, maybe I was sitting to far back in the theatre. So try as I might, I gave in to my resistance and went to see the new movie version last night.

At the beginning, I thought perhaps my doubts were true - I quite enjoyed the first half hour up till the part that Christine had to substitute for the lead role in the opera and sang a beautiful classical sounding opera song. The actress they have playing Christine has an awesome look and a great voice. However, as soon as the Phantom came on screen, the whole enterprise went straight in the toilet. The two lead male roles are played by abominably bad actors and singers, and the story itself is laughably simplistic and unromantic. Plus, it might have been nice if Weber had seen fit to write more than two songs for this lengthy production - seriously there is only the title track and "Music of the Night" and they are repeated over and over amidst some joyless little filler ditties. This is one bad musical - be it stage or film!

On the other hand, after the movie, I heard a group of 20-something women down front sobbing uncontrollably. I overheard them say they react that way every time they see it because it is so "impossibly romantic". I asked myself what could possibly be causing this polar opposite in our reactions? After all, I loved Moulin Rouge (it's on my top ten all-time favorite movie list), and it's another romantic musical - so what gives? I just couldn't fathom this reaction, but later my significant other suggested it might be due to an Elektra complex (the male version of the Oedipus complex, i.e. an unhealthily strong fixation of a woman on a father figure), and what with the Phantom raising Christine since he rescued her from the circus as a child, there's gotta be something going for that theory. So that may explain some of the so-called "phans" who have seen this musical multiple times.

So bottom line - if you're a big "phan" of the stage version, and/or you have unresolved psychological issues with your parents, then by all means check out the movie version - you've got the best seat in the house.

To everyone else - the Phantom is really scary!

1 out of 5.


Bradley, the more i read your reviews, the more scared i get.. lol


Fri May 19, 2006 12:35 am
Profile WWW
Star Trek XI
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:40 pm
Posts: 331
Post 
I hate musicals. But I like this movie. It's not as much of a musical as say, West Side Story. And the music isn't annoying. I haven't seen Moulin Rouge or Chicago. Maybe I'll give them a shot.


Fri May 19, 2006 1:32 pm
Profile WWW
Extraordinary

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 15197
Location: Planet Xatar
Post 
jedimaster193 wrote:
I hate musicals. But I like this movie. It's not as much of a musical as say, West Side Story. And the music isn't annoying. I haven't seen Moulin Rouge or Chicago. Maybe I'll give them a shot.

This post frightens me... A LOT!!!

:shocked:


Fri May 19, 2006 5:22 pm
Profile
Star Trek XI
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:40 pm
Posts: 331
Post 
bradley witherberry wrote:
jedimaster193 wrote:
I hate musicals. But I like this movie. It's not as much of a musical as say, West Side Story. And the music isn't annoying. I haven't seen Moulin Rouge or Chicago. Maybe I'll give them a shot.

This post frightens me... A LOT!!!

:shocked:
:tongue:


Sat May 20, 2006 8:43 am
Profile WWW
Wallflower
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:53 am
Posts: 34875
Location: Minnesota
Post Re: The Phantom of the Opera
THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA - 7/10 (B-)

The first hour would have been an 8/10 (B+), but I found the second half to not be as good and the music got sickening. I'm not a fan of opera music, but enjoyed some of the songs, especially ones that Emmy Rossum sang. She has a beautiful voice and was very beautiful in the movie. She reminded me of Anne Hathaway. There were far too many that I couldn't stand though and they seemed to go on forever.

The sets were fantastic and it was very well-done, and the movie certainly wasn't as terrible as I once thought it would be, but it was still just "good."


Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:11 pm
Profile
Top Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:47 pm
Posts: 5704
Post Re: The Phantom of the Opera
Andrew Lloyd Webber will be on American Idol next week and I wonder if the idols will do a better job than the performers from this movie. Gerard Butler is now a known star while Patrick Wilson gained indie credibility from Hard Candy and Little Children. Perhaps its time to revisit the film and see if their performances were really as horrible as you all say it was? Methinks it was just very fashionable at the time to hate on this movie. With a preconceived mindset to not take the movie seriously, it is very easy to unfairly classify then unknown actors as poor performers.


Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:56 am
Profile WWW
You must have big rats
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
Post Re: The Phantom of the Opera
alex young wrote:
Andrew Lloyd Webber will be on American Idol next week and I wonder if the idols will do a better job than the performers from this movie. Gerard Butler is now a known star while Patrick Wilson gained indie credibility from Hard Candy and Little Children. Perhaps its time to revisit the film and see if their performances were really as horrible as you all say it was? Methinks it was just very fashionable at the time to hate on this movie. With a preconceived mindset to not take the movie seriously, it is very easy to unfairly classify then unknown actors as poor performers.


As some might remember, I was one of the posters on here who really really anticipated this film, yet it just feel a bit flat for me. None of the actors really impressed me. It's not that they were bad, but they never stood out either. The set designs, the music (well, it's not original, but ah well), the costumes...all that top notch. But the film itself is just mediocre.

_________________
The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!

Image


Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:37 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.