StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2004-12-22 02:41pm**

Review: 'Phantom' a bloated nightmare
Big images, little charm in movie adaptation of musical
By Christy Lemire
Associated Press
Wednesday, December 22, 2004 Posted: 10:43 AM EST (1543 GMT)

(AP) -- You can't exactly go small when you're doing a movie adaptation of an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. (Although a cinema verite version of "Cats," shot with hand-held digital video and starring actual felines, could only be an improvement.)

But even walking in with expectations of grandeur cannot prepare you for the bombastic monstrosity that is "Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera."

Simultaneously amped-up and rock-and-rolled down, presumably to make it palatable to a wider audience, the film is far more interested in earsplitting crescendos than in subtly touching the heart.

It is shot sumptuously, though, and it's packed with rich details. Long before he was unfairly accused of destroying the "Batman" franchise, director Joel Schumacher was a window dresser at Bendel's department store in midtown Manhattan. Among the many films in his eclectic directorial collection is "The Lost Boys," so we know he's capable of evoking a dark, gothic mood.

And some of the now-familiar tunes can be lovely -- when the music isn't drowning out the vocals, that is -- particularly when damsel-in-distress Christine first sings "Think of Me" at the film's start. The actress playing her, the luminous Emmy Rossum (she also played Sean Penn's daughter in "Mystic River"), sang with the Metropolitan Opera starting at age 7, and it shows.

It's just really hard to take this "Phantom" seriously -- despite how seriously it takes itself -- perhaps because it's in a movie theater. Paying a few bucks to see it at the multiplex strips away the sensation of taking part in an "event" -- which is much of the allure of going to the theater.

Of course, there are many fabulous examples of movies that have been adapted successfully from stage musicals -- "West Side Story" and "The Sound of Music" spring immediately to mind -- but that was a different time and in different hands, namely those of Robert Wise. More recently, "Chicago" worked because it had edge, style and flair.

But when the Phantom (Scottish actor Gerard Butler) steps from the shadows of Paris' Opera Populaire and shows his masked face for the first time, it's hard to resist the impulse to laugh. It all seems so campy.

Rather than a force to fear from Gaston Leroux's novel, this Phantom (who's about 10 years younger than Michael Crawford was when he won a Tony Award for the role in 1988) comes off as a petulant brat at worst and an insecure control freak at best.

Rossum's character becomes romantically involved with the wealthy Raoul (Patrick Wilson).
Sure, he's Christine's "angel of music," having secretly mentored her from chorus girl to stage star (and helped her outshine the diva La Carlotta, played with intentionally over-the-top shrillness by Minnie Driver). But anyone can see that rather than being sucked in by the Phantom's creepy charms, Christine should be focusing her attention on the theater's wealthy patron, Raoul (Patrick Wilson). He's cute and he's into her and, um, he isn't a psycho stalker.

Their duet of "All I Ask of You," which takes place in the moonlight on the opera house's snow-dusted rooftop, is another of the film's musical highlights, despite its innate sappiness. (Wilson previously played Curly on Broadway in "Oklahoma!") But for every enjoyable tune, there are far too many productions like the overblown "Masquerade."

The Phantom gets a back story here, in Schumacher and Lloyd Webber's script, to explain his torment. Apparently, he was put on display like a circus freak as a child for his facial disfigurement, and the little girl who would go on to become the Opera Populaire's ballet mistress (played as an adult by Miranda Richardson) helped him escape and squirreled him away inside the opera house.

These additions will undoubtedly appall purists, the fervent fans of the show who call themselves "phans." Those who've never seen the musical may find themselves entertained, but they deserve better than this, a ghost of the real thing.

"Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera," a Warner Bros. Pictures release, is rated PG-13 for brief violent images.

Sorry Z- looks like we may have a mess on our hands. Had my suspicions with some of the shit I saw in the previews (in particular a three musketeers like sword fight)

Posted: **2004-12-22 03:08pm**

Ok, a few things:

I'm already set up to not like the guy playing the Phantom that much because he's not Michael Crawford (which I mentioned either in my Phantom thread or in the Willy Wonka thread).
I was ok with not liking the new Phantom because I was ready to dislike Raoul more. He's a sissy and looks like a woman and his character is (or is supposed to be) very weak, especially in comparison to the Phantom.
Minnie Driver is Carlotta?!
'Masquerade' is supposed to be overblown. I understand that it might come across differently on a movie screen as opposed to in the theatre, but it's gotta be there. The amazing, screaming-trumpet transition from 'Masquerade' to 'Why So Silent' is one of the best moment of the show, and hopefully wasn't butchered/taken out of the movie. It has to be big to work.
Who the hell was in charge of music that the orchestra drowns out the solo voices? It's not that hard to balance tracks.
I was trying not to worry about the fact that Joel Schumacher was the director for the same reason the author of the article, the fact that he'd done dark flims before. I'll have to see it to accurately comment, but if it's about a lack of heart, that's more on the actors than the director, I think (since it at least appears that they used dialogue from the show).
The deal with the swordfight--where is that supposed to fit into the story? At the end, when the Phantom, Christine and Raoul are all in in the Phantom's lair?
Bleh. I'll just have to go see in on stage again after I catch the movie.

Posted: **2004-12-23 02:34pm**

Erik is supposed to be frightening and pathetic, not a sexy anti-hero.

Posted: **2004-12-23 06:48pm**

I read another review of it earlier today, and it was slightly better but not by much. The author wrote about how he hadn't even seen the show, and now didn't want to after seeing the movie. THAT'S the worst part about this goddamn movie. Those of us who've seen how amazing the stage show is can dismiss the movie because we know the goods are on the stage. But people who go to see this movie to see if they'd be interested in maybe going to the theatre to see it? SHIT. They're just going to get turned off by it. That's the worst bit of it. Bleh.

Posted: **2004-12-23 09:44pm**

My great-great-great-grandfather's aunt's second cousin must be rolling in his grave.

Posted: **2004-12-24 12:12am**

It's Andrew Lloyd Webber, one of the greatest travesties to music theater. Need I say more?

Posted: **2004-12-24 12:47am**

Review: 'Phantom' a bloated nightmare
Big images, little charm in movie adaptation of musical
By Christy Lemire
Associated Press
Wednesday, December 22, 2004 Posted: 10:43 AM EST (1543 GMT)

[...]Long before he was unfairly accused of destroying the "Batman" franchise[...]

Huh?

Posted: **2004-12-24 02:00am**

Sriad wrote:
Review: 'Phantom' a bloated nightmare
Big images, little charm in movie adaptation of musical
By Christy Lemire
Associated Press
Wednesday, December 22, 2004 Posted: 10:43 AM EST (1543 GMT)

[...]Long before he was unfairly accused of destroying the "Batman" franchise[...]
Huh?

He's right. Schumacher sucked, but Burton was never really that great as director either. Batman was decent, but not as good as Superman or the better films from the recent crop of Marvel flicks. Batman Returns just sucked flaming donkey balls. He got the visual style right - though it pisses me off when hack critics who've never read a fucking comic book pontificate about how original Burton was in bringing the film noir atmosphere to the movies - but forgot the great characters and interesting stories.

Bad as Schumacher was (though I must confess Batman Forever is a guilty pleasure of mine), the movie franchise was never that fantastic to begin with. The animated series and the movies based on it completely blow the Hollywood crap out of the water.

BTW, I'm not trying to knock Keaton. I think he was the best thing about the movies.

Posted: **2004-12-24 03:43am**

Saw it tonight, was pretty decent, and I don't really like Webber. As Stewie says to Peter about his rendition of The King and I; "You, you're the worst thing to happen to musical theatre since Andrew Lloyd Webber."

I liked the sets, the costumes, the colors and the music. Didn't like the actress playing Christine... pretty voice, terrible acting. Got really tired of her wide-eyed blank/adoring/sad stare. Also it really seemed to drag in the middle section of the movie.

Who the hell was in charge of music that the orchestra drowns out the solo voices? It's not that hard to balance tracks.

I don't know what the reviewer was talking about with the orchestra overpowering the solo voices thing. I thought the balance between vocals and orchestra was excellent, maybe it had something to do with the sound system in the theater he viewed it in.

Masquerade' is supposed to be overblown. I understand that it might come across differently on a movie screen as opposed to in the theatre, but it's gotta be there. The amazing, screaming-trumpet transition from 'Masquerade' to 'Why So Silent' is one of the best moment of the show, and hopefully wasn't butchered/taken out of the movie. It has to be big to work.

Screaming trumpet is there, and the "Masquerade" section is my favorite part of the entire movie.

The deal with the swordfight--where is that supposed to fit into the story? At the end, when the Phantom, Christine and Raoul are all in in the Phantom's lair?

Nah, it's in the graveyard scene. Christine goes to visit her father's tomb, and the Phantom and Raoul have a sword fight. It's pretty well done, and if you don't like it, it's not that bad since it's a pretty short fight.

Posted: **2004-12-24 11:15am**

Zaia wrote:
I'm already set up to not like the guy playing the Phantom that much because he's not Michael Crawford (which I mentioned either in my Phantom thread or in the Willy Wonka thread).

But he played Dracula in Dracula 2000?

He was pretty cool in that even if the movie was kind of boring.

Also was in: Tomb Raider II: the Cradle of Life, Reign of Fire, Timeline that's what I know off the top of my head. IMDB says that he's going to be Beowulf in Beowulf & Grendel.

Anyway, I think he seems like an okay actor and could probably be a good action star but I don't see why they went with him as the Phantom. I was actually surprised that it wasn't Antonio Banderas because that's who I kept hearing it was going to be if it wasn't Michael Crawford.

Personally, I never got this musical. I've seen several of the old movies and I always thought the story was sad and depressing with the Phantom getting screwed at virutally every turn. So I wasn't exactly jazzed to see the musical version in the first place and then they started selling recordings of the music on TV.

There's some signature piece that the Phantom sings and I absolutely hated the bit that I heard of it.

I'm not a big "Broadway" fan anyway so.... won't be seeing this. I probably be actively avoiding even accidently seeing or hearing parts of it.

Posted: **2004-12-24 12:09pm**

While Phantom is a great musical to be experienced in the theatre, Les Miserables is the musical that deserves a movie. Les Mis has alot more going on storywise, and it's grandiose nature is more fitting for a major motion picture than Phantom.

Posted: **2004-12-24 01:48pm**

irishmick79 wrote:While Phantom is a great musical to be experienced in the theatre, Les Miserables is the musical that deserves a movie. Les Mis has alot more going on storywise, and it's grandiose nature is more fitting for a major motion picture than Phantom.

Les Mis was made into a movie in 1998, but not with any of the music from the stage show. Val Jean was played by Liam Neeson, Cosette was played by Claire Danes and Javert was played by Geoffrey Rush. Since Les Mis is probably my favourite musical, I wasn't a big fan of the film version.

Posted: **2004-12-24 08:44pm**

irishmick79 wrote:While Phantom is a great musical to be experienced in the theatre, Les Miserables is the musical that deserves a movie. Les Mis has alot more going on storywise, and it's grandiose nature is more fitting for a major motion picture than Phantom.

Seconded, Les Mis needs a musical movie. It's three hours long, but some of the banter entre the students can be axed and probbaly bring it down to 2 and a half. With the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter being that length, someone should get a cast together and film it. And Philip Quast had better be Javert, or there'll be hell on.

Posted: **2004-12-25 12:38am**

Tsyroc wrote:Also was in: Tomb Raider II: the Cradle of Life, Reign of Fire, Timeline that's what I know off the top of my head. IMDB says that he's going to be Beowulf in Beowulf & Grendel.

Fist three are shitty movies all and the last I expect to bw as well. Forgive me for not epecting much from this guy.

Posted: **2004-12-25 04:34am**

Kuja wrote: Fist three are shitty movies all and the last I expect to bw as well. Forgive me for not epecting much from this guy.

He's okay, just doesn't choose the movies he's going to be in very well.

Posted: **2004-12-25 05:47am**

Well, it wasn't as bad as I thought it might've turned out, given Schumacher's film history. There were a few up moments and several down moments. Overall, it was.....mmok. I left the theater without the same feeling that I did when I walked out of the musical version when I first saw it. The previews that I had already seen really had me thinking this might actually be a good movie, but alas....not all goes as we hope.

I really much enjoyed the elaborate costumes and the sets are quite amazing. There's several cinematographic moments that were really quite beautiful, in particular the snow top roof of the opera house, the crumpled rose and a few others. The actor who played the part of Raoul, I particularly enjoyed his voice. Butler, the Phantom, however, I can't say. As a singer, I easily recoginized several moments were Bulter dipped; they were like nails on a chalk board to me. His voice was also a little lacking of emotion and wasn't really invoking.

The actress who played the role of the Italian soprano...good god, ok, we get it...she's a bitch and a spot light whore. If there's anything I can't stand when it comes to acting is overacting; it reaks of a lack of creativity, bad directing, and just plain suckiness. The actress who played Christine had a nice voice but as with Butler, her voice was a bit lacking of emotion and intensity. It was like a women giving a man a hand job and then leaves in the middle; it pisses you off and you feel unsatisfied. In addition, I just couldn't stand those wide eyes after so long.

I actually kind of liked the grave yard scene with the sword fight, but then again, I'm biased towards swash buckling. But the sword fight was all that I really enjoyed of that scene, the addition of the Phantom luring Christine into her father's tomb was a bit irritating.

All in all, the acters didn't really get into their character until much later in the movie. It had great potential but was ruined by poor directing and some poor casting. Congradulations to the costume designer, though, for an outstanding array of dress, uniforms, and outfits. I enjoyed the little bits and pieces of interlude back to the "present" with the Viscount; it makes it more clear than the musical version that it was him in the begining.

Now that I've seen the theater version now, I must go watch it again at a performing arts center to to cleanse the filth of Schumacher.

Posted: **2004-12-31 02:09am**

I saw it tonight and I haven't seen the musical and I thought it was decent. I enjoyed the music and the other things and I thought it was pretty good.

Posted: **2004-12-31 04:15am**

Actualyl I agree with pretty much everything Stravo's source said. I hadn't seen the musical, so I came to it "fresh"...

My review is here.

In summary:

This Burton fangirl thinks Schumacher sucks
Way over-produced. The cinamatography tries too hard
OK, we get it, capes go *swish*!
Christine takes time out in the middle of being kidnapped to change corsets.
Christine has comedy slipping shoulder straps.
At times when you're supposed to feel sorry for the Phantom, I had to fight an urge to point and go "HAha!"
It did make me re read Maskerade by Pterry. This is a good thign.

Posted: **2004-12-31 02:28pm**

As a fan of the musical (it's probably my favorite), which I saw on a marching band trip to New York a few years ago when we went to perform in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade (the trip being one of the sole redeeming things about my marching band experience), I was cautiously excited when I heard a movie was being made. Haven't seen it yet, but it will be interesting to see what I think of it compared to the reviews I've read when I do.

InnerBrat wrote:My review is here.

Interesting.

I was particularly interested in the whole "you're supposed to be cheering for the Phantom" discussion at the end.

While I disagree with the poster who says that Raoul was supposed to be a stupid prat (or at least, I never thought of him that way), I *did* cheer for the Phantom. Now why is that?

Let's look at the character. True, he is obviously intelligent, and has a terrible disfigurement of no fault of his own. But he is also jealous, vindictive, self-pitying, emotionally maladjusted, anti-social (in both the common and psychological definitions), and a text-book stalker. He kills two people in cold blood. At most one should really feel a sort of pity at his condition tinged with disgust at what it has helped turn him into. Basically what Andrew J. said.

Now, I partially base the fact that I sympathize with the Phantom because I myself am not an entirely well-balanced individual; I also am a bit self-pitying, obsessive, not well-adjusted, and have a tendency to blame the fact that girls fall for the "popular", well-adjusted guy instead of the withdrawn intellectual because of shallowness rather than some sort of failure on my part (or at least, I used to). However, surely my personal foibles cannot account for the long-standing popularity of the musical, and I highly doubt that only messed up people cheer for the Phantom.

So, then, why do they? I ask because this is a particular topic of interest with me lately: creating and presenting characters who, if you met them in real life would not be sympathetic, but in a fictional work are. It has to do with a story I am attempting to write.

Posted: **2005-01-01 09:18am**

The Prime Necromancer wrote:So, then, why do they?

Because Andrew Lloyd Webber made the phantom too sexy. He shouldn't be able to become amazingly attractive just by putting on a little half-mask. He also took away Erik's original backstory, so that he used to be a tortured circus freak instead of an Iranian assassin.

The moral of the story is: Andrew Lloyd Webber is a fucking hack.

Posted: **2005-01-01 12:47pm**

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... t=#1370595

That's my pre-viewing rant from another thread.

As soon as I get around to seeing it, I'll give you the post-view. That probably won't be for a good 2 weeks because I'm seeing the actual show on Broadway on the 12th and don't want to ruin it for myself.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

For Zaia: Phantom of the Opera - Bloated Mess

For Zaia: Phantom of the Opera - Bloated Mess

Re: For Zaia: Phantom of the Opera - Bloated Mess

Re: For Zaia: Phantom of the Opera - Bloated Mess