The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

A musical? Can it really be that good? Yes It can and it is. This movie has a dramatic plot and the filming styles really helped stress that. There are a lot of close ups and medium close ups that really display the passion and emotion between the so seen love triangle of the Phantom, Christine and Raul. This movie proved to be very powerful, from the music and characters to the messages that it sent. One of the many powerful scenes in this movie are near the end of the movie when things are getting chaotic and Christine is venting to Raul and laying it all out there and Raul sings this beautiful song to her that comforts her and then they kiss. This scene is what really sells you on this couple. It shows his deep love for her. The moral message of this is that we should be careful how we treat those who are different from us. We don't know what they went through, the trials they have had. The other thing that I learned from this movie is that music can stir up emotions like no other. I truly believe you can not watch this movie with out feeling anything. The internal conflict of this movie is both pride and ignorance. The owners of the opera house were too prideful to listen to the demands of the much wiser and cunning Phantom who made them pay dearly for that. This movie was captivates, moves, and teaches you. If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend it. 9/10 for me.

Phantom of the opera is a better good movie i really enjoy this one it some good acting i thought it was better then the play

As I prepare to see another live version of Phantom at the Smith Center here in Vegas, I thought I'd watch the DVD again ("Maybe it's not as bad as I remember"). Now I remember why I justifiably hate this incarnation. First the good things.. 1) Emmy Rossum as "Christine". As much as I love Sarah Brightman's portrayal of Christine and her bell-like voice (a requirement for the role), I actually prefer Emmy's "Christine" to Brightman's. Part of this is due to the fact that with cinema, you can take advantage of subtlety in facial expressions and Rossum performs those very well. She's is anything but a one-dimensional ingenue! Her voice is excellent, and her acting is stellar. 2) Supporting Cast. The Managers are far more interesting in this version than in the musical. They have fine "pipes" and play their characters well. The same for Miranda Richardson as Madame Giry and Minnie Driver as Carlotta. 3) More "true" to the original story. The mirrored room, labyrinth, and the Phantom's "lair" can be more fully fleshed out on screen than stage. As a film adaptation of the STORY, this is one of the very best, and worth it for that much. 4) Sets, Set Decoration, CGI, costuming. ALL of these are stupendous and exactly what a West End/Broadway-to-Screen spectacle SHOULD be! The opening scene's transition back in time is nearly worth every penny spent on the Blu-Ray. In fact, the entire beginning of the movie - up through "Little Lotti" is precisely what you want from a movie adaptation of a musical drama.Then comes "The Mirror" and the movie crashes quickly. GERARD BUTLER CAN'T SING to save his life. Sorry but it's true. Oh, he can screech, scream, growl, and under-hit his notes, but he can't sing! This is especially a problem when the character he's playing is supposed to be a MUSICAL VIRTUOSO!! He is a master of music, so when he sings, it should be perfection! Butler sings like someone who is afraid of the notes, hedging them, resorting to patter and yelling instead of belting. I would even have preferred a 61-year- old Michael Crawford to reprise the role. Which brings up the second biggest problem with Butler's casting - he looks too young! Sure, Butler was 35 when he was cast, but with his Hollywood looks, he comes across as early 20's... FAR too young to have become a master architect, designer, musician, and make-up professional! He seems to be a contemporary of Raul rather than an older master. As someone who loves the character in both the film and the book, Butler doesn't do EITHER version justice. He never comes across as a man confident due to his complete control over every situation. In fact (and this blame goes to Joel Schumacher more than Gerard Butler) the entire CHARACTER of the Phantom is a plastic one- dimensional OGRE! The nuance Michael Crawford brought to the role was incredible (and probably responsible for most of the musical's success.) On stage, he is a flawed, loving, though damaged and hurt man. In the movie, there is really no sympathetic side of him - from the moment he brings Christine through the mirror, he is portrayed as a scheming, manipulative, narcissistic stalker-type. The stage presentation, on the other hand, presented a much more complex character struggling with true love, compassion and admiration for Christine (NOT just a drive to possess and ???? her!) I recall an interview where Michael Crawford spoke of intentionally NOT touching Christine because to do so would introduce a "sleazy" and "base" aspect the Phantom would consider rude and intolerable. This Phantom, on the other hand has his hands all over Christine which makes him creepy. The one part that SHOULD be creepy (the scars below his mask) are SO disappointingly understated, it looks like he had a bad night on the town after beating up his hair-dresser. If the big screen allowed ANYTHING in terms of improving the stage production, it would be in giving a wonderfully vivid, grotesque face to the Phantom. I've seen more frightening visages on a Freddy Kruger doll! Unfortunately, in Phantom Andrew Lloyd Webber does what he seems to do best - ruins a perfectly crafted stage production in their transition to the big screen. He did the exact same thing with Evita (except his major problem there was emasculating Che and making him some kind of jilted ex-lover). In his movies, Webber often improves his female leads while sacrificing his male characters in search of "box office draw" - which is the only justification I can see in casting Gerard Butler. The result a beautiful, enchanting feast for the eyes - ruined by a Phantom that is neither true to the character we fell in love with, nor can he carry a solid note in a paper sack. Had someone with even the vocal qualities of Ewan McGregor been cast, my rating would probably have been up between a 7 and a 9 (depending on his performance). But a movie about the Phantom lives or dies by the Phantom himself, and with all the movie has going for it, nothing can save it from Butler's presence as The Phantom.

Loved this adaption. I only watched this movie now in 2016 and was surprised with all the bad reviews Butler had at first when this movie came out. I thought he was Very captivating as the Phantom and it's hard not to fall in love with him. His body language and the way he sang with emotions added a lot of depth to the character, we can actually feel what torture he was going through. His eye contact behind the mask, scary and seductive in one. Emma is top as a very sweet Christine with a gorgeous angelic voice. A great render of the theatrical musical, I enjoyed every bit, the costumes, the music, the acting and the settings. By now, they are probably thinking of doing a new remake but for now Butler takes my award of best Phantom!