Love Never Dies (2012)

That was an excellent one.

Good start, but then it gets ruined

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

I really regret watching Love Never Dies because ALW horrendously butchered the characters just to make a "fanmade sequel" to Phantom. Love Never Dies is a crappy non-canon fan fiction in my mind. It is nothing more than a stupid, insipid soap opera that gets more grotesque and harebrained by the second. It is an awful, awful musical, flawed on so many levels I can't count them, funny when it's not supposed to be, entertaining in much the way that Plan 9 from Outer Space is entertaining. I bet my review is going to be complicated and slightly incoherent because there are so many flaws on so many levels at so many points.I don't like this musical. Sure, I like the idea of Erik and Christine being together, but this musical doesn't succeed in its delivery of that. The plot is bad, characters that we previously liked (minus in Raoul's case...poor guy) are turned into jerks, and some of the songs are so awful, you can't help wanting to throw up.The whole productions seem to be rather goofy (the whole thing looks like a Tim Burton fever dream staged by Cirque de Soleil), but the Phantom screaming "TEEEEEN YEEEAAAARRRRSS OOOOOLLLLDDD" has to be the most ridiculous, cringe-worthy thing I have ever seen in a musical.I don't know what Webber was thinking when he penned this pile of muck, but he should be ashamed of himself. If you love The Phantom of the Opera - then please DON'T WATCH LOVE NEVER DIES. SIGH!!! I look forward to being able to forget Love Never Dies exists.

Unlike the 2004 movie, I actually have something to talk about with this movie, aside from pure gushing, so I will review this one. Let's get the negatives out of the way first. If you consider this a sequel to the 2004 movie, there are so many plot holes. Heck, even if you consider it a sequel to the Broadway there is still one glaring plothole: Madame Giry should not hate Christine for choosing Raoul when in the movie and the Broadway she helped Raoul find the Phantom's lair to save her. In fact, the Giry's characters in general felt so off. I already mentioned Madame Giry however, I did like her characterization in the finale. It shows her love for her daughter. As for Meg, her characterization could be seen as her simply losing her way and forgetting what's really important. This is further proved in the finale when she is horrified at what she had done. However, she still didn't seem quite right to me. It didn't seem like Meg to let her jealousy and bitterness take advantage of her like that. However, I will admit that her character arc does tie in with the others quite nicely, even though her and Madame Giry's subplot wasn't very interesting. Thankfully, it got little screen time. Also, it kind of bothered me that the fact that the Phantom was a murderer never even came up ONCE. Yeah, I know that's a minor thing but it was bugging me throughout the whole movie. Lastly: Beneath a Moonless Sky. Now before you kill me, I will admit that it is a good song and is needed exposition. However, the context disturbs me. That's all for the negative let's move onto the good stuff, because there is quite a bit to cover. Let's get the obvious thing out of the way: the music is fantastic. They're not as fantastic as the Phantom of the Opera songs but to be honest, some do come pretty close. The title song is the most obvious and yeah, I do love it but I my favorite song is Beauty Underneath. The visuals and passionate singing in that song just blew me away. That's another thing, the visuals in this are very impressive and I even forgot it was a stage performance at times. Also, outside of the Girys, the characters were actually handled very well. The most controversial is Raoul but unlike Meg, I can easily believe he just lost sight of what was important. Alcohol tends to do that to people. As for Christine, she was kind of bland in this but I do like her relationships with the other characters. The Phantom might've been a bit too nice but it has been ten years so it's still believable. Also, I love his relationship with his son Gustave, who was adorable by the way. That's another thing, the characters play off each other beautifully. I mean, the Phantom and Raoul actually interact here! While that wasn't needed in the original, it was nice to see here. Heck, I even kinda liked the Phantom and Christine pairing here. I see why people ship it and I even ship it here, just not in the original. Yeah, about that. This movie doesn't feel like what actually happened after the first movie or the Broadway. It feels more like a retelling than a sequel. So that's how I accept this movie, a retelling taking place in a completely different universe than the movie. Then again, it would kind of have to be that way in order to work. Overall, I do like this movie. It's not as clever or thought-provoking as the original but I do enjoy it as it's own thing.

I would first like to state that I should've listened to everyone. They told me that this "sequel" was awful, but I wouldn't listen! I wanted to experience it for myself. Let me tell you now: if you like the original, DO NOT WATCH THIS!!! It pretty much ruined the magic of the original. As someone who's watched the 2004 movie multiple times, the silent film, the stage productions multiple times, and read the book, (needless to say, I'm a BIG fan. The 25th anniversary production actually inspired me to go into musical theater!) I believe I have room to talk on this subject. Now that I've gotten that out of the way, let's start the review:The opening scene is pretty good. It really gets you excited for what's to come (as someone who wanted Christine and Erik together). But then you're shown some freak show members singing. I'll be honest, I thought I was watching a trailer for a new Five Nights at Freddy's game. It was so bizarre. But, whatever. Once Raoul was introduced, I was like, "Here we go, another awful sequel that's gonna ruin the original's reputation!" Like honestly, a drunk? Bad father? Bad husband? Can it possibly get any more cliché?! I guess they were trying to get us to feel sorry for Christine for picking Raoul. (I had wanted her with Erik but was okay with her going with Raoul because I thought she'd be happier being with someone she loved. But I guess that's out the window!) Madam Giry hating Christine? Meg in love with the Phantom? What?! What happened to the beloved characters from the original? Can you tell I'm angry?! Well, I am! I'm angry that someone didn't stop this movie's production in its tracks and slapped some sense into these people! You couldn't pay me enough to have my name on it! This movie really had me wanting Christine to stay with Raoul! The actors really missed capturing their characters' personalities or anything besides a stiff board! This movie didn't need to exist! Why would they ruin such a wonderful thing?! Why?!After finishing the movie the only thing I could think of is, "A complete train wreck!" If Christine really loved the Phantom, she would've picked him in the first place. All of that was settled in the first! Now all of a sudden she has a change of heart?! Now she chooses the Phantom?! I don't think so! Christine chooses Erik?! Meg kidnaps the child and shoots Christine?! At this point anything could happen! I honestly wouldn't have been surprised if after Christine died, Erik and Raoul got married and raised the kid together! In fact, I would've rather seen that instead of this slap in the face!!!In conclusion, DO NOT WATCH IT!! (The music was pretty good, though.)

This film, on the one hand, continues the well-known story of 'The Phantom of the Opera'. On the other hand, it is the next episode of "The Phantom of the Opera at the Royal Albert Hall", produced on 2011 by Weber. As I went through the reviews, I realized that most of them have a comparative mood, based on the two items that I mentioned above. It seems a bit unfair to judge a movie based on other successful works. However, when the authors and producers decided to shoot such a movie, they should have anticipated such biased reviews. I, myself, am on the comparative side and I think this is a weak offspring of what we watched before. Most of the elements, from music, acting and manuscripts to cinematography and cutting are awful compared with the precedents.