Thread: Review: Phantom of the Opera

i always knew that having my heart surgically removed was a bad idea. -- i walked out of this movie. i have a great appreciation for this kind of music... but after the electric organ started and was followed by the electric guitar in the scene where she's taken to the phantom's underground layer (which by the way had way too many freaking candles, and a very large oak bed that needed to be carried through various corridors on the back of the horse that lives its life underground...) i lost any respect i might have had for the film. finally after the tremendously cliché fight in the graveyard i walked out with my date (who wasn't enjoying the film either).

nothing special about this movie... in fact i think it's a bastardization of the genre.

maybe i'm justing being negative because i gave $17 total to see it.

As someone who can recite the entire original soundtrack by heart, while I did manage to sit through the whole thing, I also loathed it, quite plainly. Perhaps I'm biased....

How's this for a WTF? After my cousins and aunt went to see it, they came over and said, "The movie was great but the singing was bad."

The SINGING was bad!? THAT'S THE HEART OF THE WHOLE FREAKIN' STORY!!!

I also thought it all seemed terribly rushed -- I guess they had to condense it a little from a two-act musical to an appropriate movie-length, but that's just dumb. Look, if you can't make something good into something else without seriously deteriorating the quality, then DON'T DO IT. PERIOD.

Worst movie I've ever seen in my entire life. More here:

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic....=movie&start=15

Originally posted by Amethyst Star
If you don't like music, don't see it. But for all of the living, breathing human beings out there, I promise that unless your heart was surgically removed or you are deaf, you will love this movie.

I'm going to have to completely disagree.

Actually, I liked this movie...I thought it was great. I usually hate movies like that, but for some reason, I loved that one. I would love to see the actual broadway show.

Being a fan of the phantom before the 2004 movie, I was somewhat disappointed when I saw this film. Unfortunately, I never had the chance to see the original 1986 show, as it was before my time and across the sea. I've also never seen the Broadway show, which will haunt me forever until I do.

I was first introduced to The Phantom of the Opera at 7 years old, when my mom brought me to a Fox theater production. It was one of the first musicals I had ever been to, and I immediately fell in love with it. Although I might have been too young to understand the storyline, I adored the music and the way it was presented. For years after the show, my mom and I would constantly be listening to a cassette tape of the original 1986 production with the singing of Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman.

Then the movie came out. There was so much hype about it...the music, the singing, the acting. So I went and saw it for myself, and was overall displeased. Sure, the acting was exceptional, the cinematography was great, and girls of all ages swooned over the phantom. But the music just wasn't there. The whole heart of the film was essentially gone because the actors just didn't have the voices to pull it off. Yes, Emmy Rossum has a pretty voice, but that's all it is...pretty. It's not strong and assertive; it doesn't demand your attention. Gerard Butler...well, the only thing I can say is that he’s just not as good as the original, Michael Crawford. No need to stir up any GB vs. MC fights, so I’ll just leave it at that.

To sum it up, I think musicals are better portrayed on stage than on screen. It’s just something about live acting that really intrigues me. :nod:

Bringing up an old topic, but I personally liked the movie. Even though, I admit dumb ol&#39; Joel "Sex It Up" Schumacher messed it up. <_< I have WAY too much to say about POTO itself for it all to fit on here, so if anyone cares to hear my views (unlikely) PM me.