Phantom Of The Opera, The (DVD)

I don't get it. I don't get all the furor over Gerard Butler's impassioned "Phantom of the Opera". When I hear his singing, it tells me everything I need to know about the character's yearning, hunger, pain, angst, and pathos. It reads as clear as untinted window glass into a convoluted soul that flips from control to mania to childlike discomfort at the adult feelings awakening for the pretty singer upstairs.

Does he hit every note? Thankfully--no. Otherwise, he should have been hired for the do-gooder, Raul. What he does do, is make the listener see into the twisted, tormented heart of the Phantom of the Opera--and leaves you with the hope that bad boys can be redeemed, if you love them.

So, here's to you, Mr. Butler. Keep working your mojo and know that a few of us "got it" and appreciate all your effort.

your username should be "just one more shill".

I completely agree with the above description of Butler's Phantom. You can see how into the role he is and how tormented/passionate his character is. He gives the phantom everythign he needs and more, teamed with Emmy Rossum and a great supporting cast Webber's music comes to life in the perfect on-screen adaption. That is except for the phantom's make up of course. When I see his face I think more of a bad sunburn than I do some horrific, disfigurement.

I liked Ebert's description of the music. He said it sounded like they were singing the same song the whole show.

John

well of course. Most of the songs use parts from others, they barrow from each other because they are all one big piece, but while they are all part of a whole I feel they all stand out individually and could hold their own no problem.

Being a fan of the Musical I was skeptical that they could do justice to it on film. After watching it however I am very impressed. Mr. Critic person thank you for giving this show the review you did (being unimpressed with Andrew Lloyd Webber and the Description of tedious referring to the original casts performance encouraged me to give this one a try) I must say I was happy adding this movie to my collection as it will be one that suffers through many repeated viewings. (I will not say it???s a good movie for everyone, because if your like the Critic and dislike Andrew Lloyd Webbers music, or are not all that fond of musicals you will not agree and for you it wouldn???t be a good movie (in my experience the worth of art isn???t defined in the critics eyes but in the eyes of the viewers)

so you're a relativisit with no desire to seek qualitative standards?

How can one view objectively a thing based purely off aesthetics? Film is just another manner of Artistic expression, being that artistic expression is derived of emotion not logic how can one justify the use logic to judge its validity being that the two contradict each other? (Aesthetically speaking I think Piet Mondrian was awful, I still refused to use logic to critique his work, yes, I was required to take a course in my schooling that did a nothing but critiquing and now well I don???t care for the whole idea)

just because a movie reviewer's opinions are more structured and more reasoned than the average person's "i liked/dis-liked this movie" critique doesn't mean that a critic should be dismissed. in fact, considering the amount of time that a writer puts into deliberating a work of art, one should respect him all the more for his efforts.

besides, basing opinions on pure emotions is idiotic. for example, trent lott once said that he liked "the cider house rules". when told that the movie has a pro-choice message, he shut up in embarassment. had he thought about the matter, he wouldn't have made his faux pas.

I never claimed to want anyone to disregard critics (I read them and watch the movie anyways with an open mind, actually in this case the critics negative opinion influenced my choice to watch it, being timid on things I love adapted, I have to deal with the same nervousness on the new adaptation of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) I like having critics around personally (the judgment methods are questionable) I just hate those silly enough to listen to a critic and ignore a movie they would have otherwise watched due to the opinion of said critic. As for Trent Lott Zealots aren???t prone to common sense (anyone who can???t tell cider house rules was pro choice is extremely ignorant, and ignorance isn't from basing an opinion off emotions its just ignorance). Hey give me a break I am an artist (who says artists are supposed to like critics?)

Saying Disregard critics, that???s just silly, since we are all critics to an extent, and I don???t think they do any better at withdrawing personal opinion from there views then the rest of us. (Example the above stated Critic wasn???t fond of Andrew Lloyd Webber (this doesn???t mean Webber sucks or even the critic Sucks it just means the music didn???t move him, this in turn clouded his judgment of the movie being that music plays a huge role in a musical)

vampyre,

your comments make no sense whatsoever. you acknowledge the validity of not liking webber's music but go on to state that not liking webber's music clouded john's ability to appreciate the movie as if it shouldn't have.

eddie

For the record:

I DID NOT like the music (it all sounded to me like a minor variation on a single tune.) One listen to "The Song That Goes Like This" from Monty Python's Broadway musical "Spamalot," and you'll recognize from the parody just how banal most of Andrew Lloyd Webber's music is.
I DID NOT like the actor in the main role.
I DID NOT like the musical's exaggerated melodrama.

I DID like the heroine.
I DID like the movie's basic story line.
I DID like the sets and costumes, although they overpowered what was already for me the weak music.

I gave the picture a 5/10, which in DVD Town's rating system is not a pan. A "5" signifies "A common, run-of-the-mill film with as many weaknesses as strengths." If you want to read a few pans, hop on over to Rotten Tomatoes, where they report that 66% of the nation's critics seriously panned the movie.

John

I never said it shouldn't have clouded his ability to like the movie (Not liking the music in a musical is a good reason to not watch said Musical, example I hate the Music in god spell so I will never watch it again, I love the Music in cats so I will, Music is the foundation of a musical this is a musical, being thus you can not tone it out like a regular movie so you have to like the music to appreciate the movie) you sir are misreading what I said. (His comment on not liking the music was what I said prompted me to watch the movie since it showed that they at least stayed true to the Music used in the Broadway production) if you twist my words please at least do it properly. (Now if you will pardon me, I am in the mood to watch another musical I love)
Signed the crabby critic basher (who wasn???t really bashing the critic being that I said an un-sarcastic thank you after all people are initialed to opinions. (A critique is nothing more then an opinion otherwise a negative review would mean everyone will hate it)

PS Nr. Puccio, If I came off as rude I do apologize, my thank you was sincere (you allayed the fear that they had butchered the music, after seeing the Phantom of the Opera preformed live I fell in love with the music and to me butchering the music is just like butchering a good book for an adaptation??. its just wrong)

No apology necessary and no offense taken. And it's just "John." The "Mr." got retired along with me.

John

This film, while not a complete bore, did almost put me to sleep. I liked, LIKED mind you, the cinematography, and liked the some of the tunes the first time around, but most of this film was too incoherent even for me. Unlike Moulin Rouge where you understand that it's a love story, I had no idea what the hell was going on in this flick. Who was in love with who, when and why? It felt like Emily Rossum was simply choosing a man as they presented some new sort of cutesy kindness or sentimentality that when the film drew to its conclusion and you thought she had one guy in mind she goes and starts professing her love for the other guy. Make up your mind lady, or at least be obvious about something. The music did not help at all, I don't mind almost totally sung productions, but I hate it when people merely shout out the words as if in song. Besides most of the time what the people say doesn't match with their lips! I found that so frustrating, I realize when you rerecord dialogue and song it can be hard to get it spot on but geez this film was unbelievable at times. Another point, the acting was dull, the characters non-existent. To say that they were 1 dimensional would be an insult to paper. I didn't even know the name of that Viscount dude who was in love with the girl. Everything in this film was just too briefly desribed to contain any semblance of story and significance, incredibly stupid for a film almost 2 1/2 hours long. Besides, did every song have to lead back into the ones previously sung? I didn't mind the return to a few once or twice, but by the fifth time on the Phantom theme I was fed-up. As well, the same Joel "Shoemaker" sillyness shone through many times in this film. For example: just how the hell did the Phantom manage to tie up that Viscount guy? He basically let the phantom tie him up, and what? the girl can't even attempt to save the man? All she can do is sing? Silly.

This film is alright... I will probably watch it again some time in the far future when I've completely forgotten it, but it is simply too flawed to be good.

As for the picture on the DVD, I found it incredibly glassy and blurry in almost every scene, similar to the transfer of LOTR trilogy, and no, it is not my TV as Fight Club and films even like I, robot (not really a sharp film in terms of grittyness) turn out fine. The audio never really punched in some of the songs, I really wished they were a bit more dynamic and louder (not in terms of "Oh my God my ear drums have exploded", but just a tad more ferocious). But when the actors let their voices rip it was a pleasure to listen.

Onijay,

Did anyone tell you that this movie warrants mutiple viewings to understand what is going on?;).

--Ranjan

The question is not of WHAT is going on, but whether or not anything IS actually going on. The answer is, in my opinion, a solid "no".

well, I believe that this film really captures the true being of the Phantom, his pain and his love for Christine. On that note, i think that Roul (the way he is in this movie) is a whiney little pipsqueak who barged in on the Phantom's territory and ruined everything, in fact, I would have cheered if the Phantom had stabbed his stupid heart in the swordfight in the cemetary. Okay I got, that out of my system. But in all honesty, i thought that the movie was excellant and very well done, and it made me think. which i think is the problem with the american cenima, most movies don't make you think at all. This movie makes you look deeper into the actual character and their struggles and it drew you into the passions of the love triangle that makes the movie and the stageplay so appealing, because even though most of us never experiance something like the Phantom did, you feel what he is feeling, and for some reason, you feel the compassion to his plight. I loved the movie, and for those who did not like it, well, that's your opinion. But what I don't understand is what the heck that rose on the cemetary was there for, and why. plus, why did christine want the monkey musical box with her? other than that, i felt that the movie was excellant, and Gerard Butler's voice and physical appearance was damn sexy!!

I tried to sit through this at home and it was the worst movie musical I ever saw. I think the musical version of LOST HORIZON had more life in it than this. Oh how I tried to like this movie. The last hour was torture. As much as MAN OF LA MANCHA was criticized and eventually forgotton, this is much worse.
People swear by the stage play, and on their good word maybe the play is something of merit. Unfortunately it did not transfer to this screen version.
Keep Away.

As bad as the film version of musical version of MEL BROOKS' THE PRODUCERS was received. I could watch that repeatedly than one screening of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA

This was a re-make of "Batman Forever" and "Batman & Robin".

Off the subject, I know, but as much as I resisted liking the new musical film version of "The Producers," I wound up liking it a lot.

John