Moviepro (www.moviepro.net)

We have taken some photos of "The Phantom of the Opera". They represent actual movie quality.

• Fantastic! posted on 13 Nov 2008

  Never having watched any musicals before I went to see Phantom of the Opera at the cinema, I surprised myself with an interest in the film, but I went to see it last week, acquired the soundtrack, listened to it frequently and then went to see it again last night for the last time before it finished. I really wish I could have seen it again! I thoroughly enjoyed the film and, not being able to compare it to the stage show, must say that it is not necessary to - the film is excellent in its own right. The film is hard to sum up in one word - it is full of good and evil, light and dark, subtlety and extravagance, romance and seductiveness... An absolute delight! I encourage anyone, no matter how little or how much experience of musicals, to go and see this as soon as possible!

• Cinematic misfire. posted on 13 Nov 2008

  When word came that a film version of 'The Phantom of the Opera', one of the most successful and entertaining Broadway musicals ever, was about to be made, many people were excited. Very excited.But then word came that Joel Schumacher was to direct.Known for his technicolour explosions and elaborate set designs, Mr. Schumacher may seem to be a perfect candidate to head this production; but we also get some of the worst editing ever committed to film, gaudy effects, horrid acting and an all-around disaster. Things start off well for 'Phantom', with an excellent introduction complete with Moulin Rouge-style "postcard" digital grading effect- an excellent tool for the subject material. Then we get a rousing sequence with the chandelier, and the excellent "Rehearsal for Hannibal". Then things quickly fall apart with the introduction of the film's female lead, Emmy Rossum. The character Christine is clearly meant to be a prodigy- someone that we are to gaze in awe over, someone that we are to get out of our seats and yell with an enthusiastic "Bravo!" Rossum, unfortunately, does not suit the bill. While an excellent vocalist, she is unable to capture the mysterious X quality that draws us to a character. She stands there with a vacant stare, one that is supposed to represent nervousness, or wonderment, or whatever. She is unable to show any real emotion, and it's more or less like watching a singing wooden plank. Think a young, female Keanu Reeves. Patrick Wilson as Raoul is similarly bland- although in the film's defense, it has always been that way. Such a shame, because this guy has the vocal chops.Ridiculously gaudy art direction suits the time and subject matter, and Schumacher pulls it off, much like Luhrmann did with the now-classic "Moulin Rouge!". But unlike Luhrmann's masterpiece, 'Phantom' tries too hard to take itself seriously- a big mistake. This is a pop opera, and the film completely misses out on this subtlety. Minnie Driver is perfect as the pompous Carlotta, but other actors, like the aforementioned Rossum, just don't get it. And when the production is supposed to take a break from all the overblown effects, like during "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again", Schumacher decides to fill the set with fake fog. Ugh.Now, my biggest problem here is the decision to change some of the vocals into plain spoken dialogue. What the hell were they thinking? "Notes" was brilliance in every production, yet here they decide to change half of it into spoken word. Once again, Schumacher misses the point of pop opera. By having everything to music, the play demanded your attention and allowed you to suspend belief- something that is required in this, considering some of the plot.And the editing. Oh dear lord, some of the sloppiest transitions ever. And this guy is an Oscar nominee in '81? He clearly did not age very well. And anyone else notice some very sour notes? And why, oh why, does the Phantom go from a full head of dark hair to a few strands of blonde as soon as his mask is taken away? Agggghhhhh! Keep the sets and costumes and re-do this. With a new cast, except for Minnie Driver, and for god's sake, never let Mr. Joel 'Batman & Robin' direct anything again.

• One of the greatest films of all time... posted on 11 Nov 2008

  I love this film. Need I say more. Coming from someone who has never seen the stage production, I loved it. The music, the actors and actresses, the set, the entire film was amazing. Emmy Rossum is one of the greatest young actresses around and she was inspiring and wonderful. She was perfect for the role of Christine and did a phenomenal job. Gerard Butler doesn't seem to get enough credit from most people who have reviewed this film. He was the perfect, ideal Phantom. I see what Andrew Lloyd Webber saw in him and wanted others to see. The Phantom needed to be sexy, yet mysterious and passionate. His voice was soothing and heartfelt. Andrew Lloyd Webber could not have had a better cast. I'm glad he chose actors who weren't that well known because it gives the movie more of a realistic truth. If he had casted well known actors, the film wouldn't have made it seem so real. You have a certain image of what certain characters are like and with these actors, I had that. It was almost like I had invisioned it, only so much better. It exceeded all my greatest expectations and desires. This is one of the most amazing films of all time. Though it didn't receive many awards like it well deserved, it's passion carries on and into the hearts of all of those who are inspired by, "The music of the night."

• Superb but overlong Andrew Lloyd Webber musicalization of the Phantom by Gaston Leroux posted on 11 Nov 2008

  The film illustrates segments of the well- known story about a phantom by staging sets, sumptuous Opera and drama to go along with the soundtrack.It concerns a deformed young(Gerard Butler)living into the sewers underneath of the Paris Opera House.He falls in love with a secondary chorus dancer called Christine(Emmy Rossum).Worshopping the young soprano he's demanding to the proprietaries that be given her the main roles substituting to lead singer(Minnie Driver),being terrorized the rest Opera.But Christine finds her childhood acquaintance(Patrick Wilson) who is now Opera's owner and she falls in love with him.The disfigured phantom is jealous and decides to abduct her and jail her in his lair.This lavish adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage musical is exuberant and stylishly staged with clever musical dance involving the classic story.It's an elaborated version but also plodding and with only occasional moments of terror.Overabundance of singing hurts this otherwise good musical remake of Phantom of Opera though remains enjoyable and fresh.Production values is high with overwhelming sets by Anthony Pratt and colorful cinematography by John Mathieson.As pageant,it works although there is no emotional center ,leaving the spectator aloof from its leading characters.Acting is great ,strong presence Gerard Butler who brings stunningly to life the disfigured young with scarred countenance.Emily Rossoun is charming ,she parades and sings well enough along with Patrick Wilson .The motion picture is deftly rendered by Joel Schumacher with grateful direction by way of some fine performances and songs especially by protagonist trio.The timeless Gaston Leroux novel has been smashing success in every form in which it has been presented as stage as cinema.

• No, its not Sarah Brightman and Michael Crawford, its BETTER. posted on 09 Nov 2008

  I know a lot of the fans are going to hate me for this, but tough.Emmy Rossum is a young girl, with a beautiful yet not-quite-there-yet voice. Which is what Christine is supposed to be, a young choir girl. She's not supposed to be the perfect opera singer, she's supposed to be someone with boundless potential that hasn't quite reached it yet. As such, Rossum played the role perfectly. She sings like an angel, but doesn't have that overly disciplined tone to her singing.And whats really going to have people hating me, but for an on-screen performance, Butler was just hands down the better Phantom compared to Crawford. Butler's voice is deeper, and it lends a much more appropriate darkness to the part. He also injects so much more emotion into his songs that Crawford ever did. Some people slight him, unfairly IMO, for his voice cracking there at the end. For me, that made him all the better. the Phantom is supposed to be in a state of extreme mental strain, where he's on the razor's edge between sanity and loosing it entirely, and then falls off of it. The cracks here and there really help portray that far better than Crawford's high pitched rendition did.Overall, Butler made for a darker, fuller, sexier Phantom than Crawford, and Rossum made the better naive young girl than Brightman. I've seen people saying they liked Rossum better, but wished Crawford had been cast as the Phantom. Yes, because we all know how well it would have gone over to have a 61 year old man groping a 17 year old on screen. Yeah...Phantom of the Opera is an all-time classic production. And this is the all time greatest portrayal of it on the silver screen, hands down. Crawford was better on stage, but Butler owns the screen.

• Wonderful Film, but the Show was way better. posted on 09 Nov 2008

  In 2001, I had the extreme pleasure of seeing "The Phantom Of The Opera" on Broadway with my sisters and mother. Like everyone else I saw the show with that night, I was blown away. Everything about it was amazing. When we heard that they were turning The Phantom into a movie, we were so psyched. Flash forward to a month ago when we all saw the movie (with some of our friends tagging along). Let me just say the film was wonderful. They kept almost every song, and only changed a couple of things (they changed the timing of when the chandelier falls). I thought that the film was perfect... until the Phantom began to sing. Something about his voice bothered me. I think that his voice was way to deep for the phantom, and frankly his voice wasn't that good at all. He was also too angry. I look at the Phantom as a misunderstood man, but he portrayed the Phantom as an angry man who wanted revenge on the world... I don't know, maybe he's supposed to be that way. Other then that, the film was wonderful. Emmy Rossum as Christine was excellent, as well as Patrick Wilson was as Raoul. I give it a 9 out of 10.

• Loved It posted on 07 Nov 2008

  I have never seen the play but I had listened to the music from it and read books on the play. So when the movie came out I just had to see it. I personally enjoyed it. I must admit it's pretty much a woman's movie. Lots of Romance and all. I took my husband , son, daughter to see it along with her boyfriend. The men at first complained about it being a musical and there were even some men in the audience who had fallen asleep during the performance. Kinda comical! But the women in the audience loved it. Most were crying at the end. I asked the men in my group what they thought and they admitted they liked it. I thought they were just saying that cause we were there. But afterward at home I found my husband listening to the music from the play and my daughter's boyfriend exclaimed he really liked the Phantom's theme music.I guess the beginning of the movie really stuck in his mind when the theater came to life and the music was pounding away. So I would say to those who are contemplating seeing it. It's almost like seeing the play with singing and few said words. It's emotional and goes straight to the heart. May be too corny for some. But I love romance! DO NOT expect it to be exactly like the play with the same actors in it. Thats just silly. One thing for sure is the actor who plays the Phantom in the movie is much more Macho then the play actor. If you love musicals you will love this movie.

• A Wonderful Experience posted on 07 Nov 2008

  There is so much debate about this film from so many corners. Of course, you have the purists out there who are forever loyal to Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman and are unwilling to accept any other actor in their place. Then you have the stage enthusiasts who refuse to watch any film adaptation of a musical because it is not a "live" performance.Quite frankly, I've seen this story both on Broadway and on film and I can honestly say the experience has been equally extraordinary. At the very least, you have to begin with the exquisite sound of Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical score, which for me remains his most passionate masterpiece to date. I was first introduced to the Phantom as a sophomore in high school when we played selections from the score in band. I immediately became hooked and bought the CD's. From there, I spent the next ten years picturing what this show must have looked like on Broadway. Several years ago, my wife and I finally had the opportunity and it was worth every minute of the wait. Crawford and Brightman were long gone, but the soul of the play was still intact: an extraordinary score coupled with a heart-wrenching love story. I was overwhelmed.Seeing the film was just as overwhelming. The best advice I can give anyone is don't go into this film expecting the Broadway show. You're more than likely to leave disappointed. Rather, enter knowing that there is a phenomenal sound that awaits you with a lavish, eye-popping visual parade that will have you completely enchanted. Though many would have preferred Crawford and Brightman to reprise the roles that made them so beloved by fans, the filmmakers managed to bring some new, raw talent to the front. Put simply, Emmy Rossum was a gift from God. She was the right age for Christine, she could act and absolutely stole your heart whenever she sang. As for the Phantom, I thought Gerard Butler did an admirable job. Albeit, they went for the more younger, "sexier" Phantom look, I think it worked for today's film audiences. Both of these talented thespians had very tough shoes to fill. Minnie Driver was absolutely delightful as Carlotta. Patrick Wilson had the dashing good looks for Raul but unfortunately lacked the charisma of a knight in shining armor for Christine. Joel Shumacher was the ideal choice to direct this film, combining a skilled visual style with passionate storytelling. There are so many moving moments in this fable which worked on both mediums and it all comes down to a timeless, tragic love story that continues to haunt us long after we've left our seats. So if you continue to say, "well, he wasn't Crawford" or "well, it wasn't the show," then you're simply denying yourself a wonderful experience. In this day of assembly line film-making where quantity is demanded more than quality, "Phantom of the Opera" allows us to slow down and worship the magic that keeps us going to the movies.

• ONE of the GREAT MOVIES of our time posted on 07 Nov 2008

  The last thing I can remember about this movie was 3 to 4 yrs back when I heard they were casting for the film, and I remember being upset that Michael Crawford had been ruled out. However I should have realized that Andrew Lloyd Weber knew what he was doing. A year ago when it was released in theaters, I didn't bother to see it, because I only heard what most of the highly biased critics were claiming.We happen to have a 96" front projection hi definition LCD front projection system, allowing us to watch movies as they were shown in the theater, however this requires waiting for films to be shown in Hi Definition on our cable system which fortunately also permits (Digital Video Hard Drive) recordings of a film - something very useful as DVD hi definition is still 6 to 12 months away, allowing us to see the same film over and over. Note in practical terms (sharpness, color intensity, and overall impact) such a high definition setup can exceed even that of a typical commercial film showing. The good news is that this technology is now very inexpensive, meaning nearly anyone can afford to eventually see this film equal or better to the quality of the theater experience. When we watched this film in large screen hi definition, it was as if we were basically there in person, in that 19th Century Opera house in Paris.We saw this film for the first time on our home theater around Christmas, about a week ago, when our cable company (one of the biggest in the USA) first decided to air the movie in hi definition. It has been awhile since any film has stunned me this much in terms of the visual effects, excellent story, combined with sensational music. It was everything most of the critics said it was not - basically a magnificent work of art.There are so many great moments in the film, they cannot fully be described, for example Christina's first performance in the movie, when the movie (using a time shift) suddenly converts from her in the tryout/rehearsal to the actual performance with the Opera House. Her voices is so great, and the cinematography is stunning.Aside from the obvious highlights of the film, I will focus on several scenes that I thought were amazingly well done.Consider how Christina (being forced to choose between Raouls death or The Phantom)is heard asking for Gods help to help me make sure he is not alone, as she then slips the ring on her finger, and kisses him in the mouth. While he has murdered, she understands his loneliness has driven him to partial insanity- and only a divine intervention (not necessarily just herself) will save him. Of course as we find out - God in effect does step in causing The Phantom to do the right thing.Five minutes later comes one of the most beautifully photographed scenes in film history and one of the saddest moments of the film. This works particularly well with widescreen (hi definition) as we see The Phantom singing to his musical box (the clapping monkey with the cymbals) and the camera moves to the right - with Christinia appearing on the far right of the film, with the Phantom now at the far left with his head turned toward Christinia - where he tells her he loves her. All should note that when Christinia first puts her hand on the ring (a sign she is about to give it back) The Phantom is still focused on her face - he seems not to notice what she is about to do - and it seems as if he is still desperately hoping she is about to change her mind. Note when she draws closer how he reacts when she looks down at her ring finger, before she takes its off - as he has now finally realized that all hope is gone - as he realizes she is about to return the ring, which she then places in his hand. This scene is so typical of the futility that love can often bring, as one party will sometimes keep hope alive no matter how impossible, right to the last moment.A moment later, a brief shadow runs across The Phantom's face and when the shadow leaves, and with his head bowed down, lips quivering, the tears running down his eyes - as this man is a lost soul. This version thus being a sympathetic version of the The Phantom - a man driven to insanity by his unconsummated love for this young woman.When this comes out in Hi Definition DVD - we will be buying a copy and enjoying if for years, meanwhile I hope others finally find out how great this movie really is. Andrew Lloyd Weber and everyone associated with this film should be commended - as they have managed to put together a true work of art

• Great Movie posted on 05 Nov 2008

  I was lucky enough to see the LA production of Phantom several times during it's run and I am pleased to say that anyone who has seen the play and loved it, will truly enjoy and love this movie. So far I've seen the movie twice with friends. My 9 year old niece loves the music and the enchantment of the story. Go see this movie and I promise you will not be disappointed. It is in many ways even better than the play. Joel Schumaker and Andrew Lloyd Weber have truly made an incredible film! It is a rich production. The cast is great! I love Michael Crawford and Davis Gaines as The Phantom so I expected to be not happy with the choices made in casting. I was wrong. Don't listen to the critics. Once again the people who PAY to see the movies have better taste about a movie than those who are paid to see the movie.

• An original take on a Broadway favorite posted on 05 Nov 2008

  This is not the same Phantom that so many know and love-- but it is nonetheless lovable. The film version is necessarily very different from the stage production; not in the lines -- almost all of the dialog and lyrics were Broadway verbatim -- but in the framing and presentation of those lines. Everything just seems a lot...closer.For example, close-up shots are taken for granted by film watchers, but they are a treat in 'Phantom' because obviously in the stage version, the audience members are always at a fixed distance from the performers. These closeups immediately gave the film a tangible sense of intimacy and emotion in a way not possible on the stage. Special effects in the movie were well-done and artistic, tasteful, and never overbearing. A very few lyrical lines have been converted to normal speech in the movie, but this actually improves the transitions from action and talking to music and singing. There aren't any awkward places where the performers suddenly burst into song. The Phantom's lust for Christine is also particularly evident in the film, but in a sexy sorta way. Another aspect well-done.The singing is probably the single largest problem in the movie. Specifically, Gerard Butler's singing. I don't mean to compare him to anybody else, because that's not fair-- I just objectively don't think he's got the kind of singing ability suited to THE Phantom. I don't think he's got the range or the cold, piercing tone. But, he did do a decent job, and I won't dwell on this one trespass too long; nor should anyone else.A good, original movie in its own right. I give it 8/10.

• The Phantom Movie is HAUNTING - 01/28/05 posted on 05 Nov 2008

  I just watched the movie for the second time! And I could walk right back into the theater and see it again and again! Now 27, I have been a Phantom fan for 14 years...and this movie does -everything I've ever seen about the Phantom of the Opera -exceptional justice! In one word -HAUNTING! Goosebumps overwhelmed my body throughout the entire film, even the second viewing. The cast is incredible, the scenes are breathtaking, the story a legend! A must see for phantom fanatics, and phantom virgins alike. The music is encrypted into my mind...my very soul - without a doubt the BEST movie/musical of 2004/2005! If you haven't seen it....GO, if you have seen it....GO AGAIN!!

• Superb in every way posted on 05 Nov 2008

  This movie was mesmerizing. The music phenomenal, the sets extraordinary, the costumes absolutely beautiful. I have watched it many times and I am still seeing things I hadn't seen before because I am so entranced with these wonderful performers and their superb voices. Joel Schumacher does a wonderful job transforming this from play to movie, it is dark and mysterious when necessary but always beautiful. The casting was perfect, this phantom has a deeper/richer voice which blends so beautifully in the finale with the higher voices of Raoul and Christine and adds darkness, mystery and power to his portrayal as well. Minnie Driver is a gem in her role as the prima dona, funny and extremely full of her self.

• Surprisingly Superb posted on 05 Nov 2008

  I had never considered watching this film and I assume most other sixteen year old students had the same attitude as myself. I just thought,'Boring, old musical with classical music'. But one day my friend came into school handed me the DVD and told me to watch it saying that she loved it. I reluctantly took it.That evening I sat down with my parents to watch it. It took a while to get started and at first I was thinking about turning it off. But not long after I found myself hooked. The movie surprisingly had sucked me right in and I was so pleased that I had actually watched it.However, my parents thought differently. My father didn't mind it but said that he would probably never watch it again. My mother, on the other hand, didn't like it at all. She called it 'boring'. And by the end of it she was nearly asleep.Overall, I loved the movie and I think that people should put their thoughts of operatic music aside and watch the film anyway. The music is quite catchy and I actually ended up buying the CD. It won't be for everyone but you won't know until you try.

• Excellent posted on 01 Nov 2008

  Being a great fan of musicals, and a rather obsessed musician myself, I was a little wary of this movie due to what film can sometimes do to a masterpiece. Well, I didn't have to be. While many have been bashing this film for a number of different reasons, I strongly think that this is one of the best films I have seen in a very long time. Even if the music hadn't been as wonderful as it was, it was visually incredible, and I can't even begin to imagine how much work went into it. Hats off to Joel S.; I think he did a fabulous job. I loved the atmosphere that was created, and the way the characters were portrayed. The depth of the Phantom was made very clear, as was his immense power and control over Christine. Many people have been cutting down the Phantom's singing, but honestly, take it in context with the story. He sings very much in character, displaying a hint of deranged madness in his voice. And face it, he's got high expectations to live up to. We all know Micheal Crawford is amazing, but that doesn't mean you have to sound as good as he does to deliver a fantastic performance. Emmy was also wonderful; what seems to be being said about her is that she was somewhat emotionless. I do not agree at all; she carried her role beautifully, in an entranced, almost bewildered state. I thought this movie was absolutely beautiful and I would definitely see it again. And again.

• Visually Lavish and Generally Enjoyable posted on 01 Nov 2008

  The rise of the musical in the theatre in recent years has coincided with a decline of the musical in the cinema. During the 1950s, possibly the golden age of the Hollywood musical, musicals in London's West End were greatly outnumbered by straight plays. Today, theatreland is dominated by the likes of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Cameron Mackintosh and it is straight plays that are in the minority. Lloyd Webber may be Britain's greatest living composer of musicals, but they are rarely filmed. The works of America's greatest living composer of musicals, Stephen Sondheim, have similarly been neglected."Phantom of the Opera" is the first Lloyd Webber musical to be filmed since "Evita" in 1996, which in turn was the first since "Jesus Christ Superstar" in 1973. The plot is set in the Paris Opera House in the 1870s and revolves around the two men who are in love with Christine, a beautiful young opera singer. One of these is Raoul, a conventionally handsome young aristocrat. The other is the Phantom himself, a man with a disfigured face who has escaped from a circus freak show and has hidden himself in the Opera House ever since. The Phantom is also supposed to be a musical genius who has taught Christine how to sing; where he acquired his musical knowledge is something that is never explained.One of the difficulties of filming this story is the baroque nature of the plot, which smacks strongly of the penny dreadful. The film-makers deal with this problem by avoiding any attempt at realism; the whole atmosphere of the film, with its subterranean caverns complete with underground lakes and rivers, mediaeval vaults complete with stained-glass windows and snow-bound cemeteries (that scene reminded me strongly of a Caspar David Friedrich painting) is that of a Gothic dreamworld. The imagery of the film, like its plot, is centred upon death, sorrow and loss, an impression strengthened by the opening and closing scenes which are set in a neglected and dilapidated Opera House in 1919 and shot in a grainy black and white.The film has two great advantages. One is Lloyd Webber's music, the other is the performance of Emmy Rossum as Christine. The composer has a great gift for writing melody; some of the tunes in this show, especially "All I Ask of You", would be worthy of a Tchaikovsky. The role of Christine is a difficult one to cast because the character is both a brilliant opera singer and an innocent teenager. This is a combination not generally found in nature, if only because the female voice does not normally develop to its full advantage until later in life. Charlotte Church may be an exception, but even she was not taking the lead in operatic productions at the age of sixteen. The film-makers therefore had two possibilities, either of casting an older and more experienced singer in the role or of going for a young girl who could better suggest Christine's freshness and innocence. They went for the latter option, and in my opinion they were right to do so. Emmy Rossum is not only strikingly attractive, with the looks of a young Julia Roberts, but also has a lovely voice. True, she does not sound much like an authentic operatic diva, but that does not matter. "Phantom", although it is set in an opera house, is a musical rather than an opera and calls for a quite different style of singing. (Some opera stars can sound embarrassingly florid when they try and cross over into the musical theatre). There were also good performances in minor roles from Miranda Richardson and,surprisingly, from Jennifer Ellison, hitherto better known as a tabloid pin-up than as a serious actress.Unfortunately, the film also had some disadvantages, quite apart from the lurid plot. The lyrics of the songs are unmemorable and not in the same category as Tim Rice's lyrics to some of the earlier Lloyd Webber musicals. Neither of the two male leads were as good as Emmy Rossum. Patrick Wilson made a capable if uninspiring Raoul, at his best in their duets, but Gerard Butler's voice was not equal to the demands placed upon it by his role as the Phantom. He is also insufficiently ugly; his supposed disfigurement, revealed when Christine removes the mask that has covered one half of his face, is hardly serious enough to earn him a place in a freak show. My overall impression, however, was of a visually lavish and generally enjoyable production, despite these weaknesses. 7/10

• STUNNING movie! posted on 01 Nov 2008

  I feel that everyone has already said what I wanted to say, but the movie was so exquisite that I just HAVE to comment! I have never read or seen a stage version of Phantom of the Opera, and I knew next to nothing about the plot when I saw this movie. I was worried that I would hate it and find it boring, because I'm not that fond of musicals, but my family really wanted to see it so we rented it and I sat down to see if I would like it.LIKE it? I LOVED IT! I wish I had seen it in the theaters! All the flashing colors, amazing costumes, and fairy-tale like words and story would have been even more fascinating if I had! Every second of this movie has your eyes glued to the screen in awe of something or other, whether it be the intricate costumes, vibrant colors, or suspense of the story. I was at the edge of my seat with excitement the whole time, the mystery of who the Phantom was and what Christine's choices would be driving me crazy.Emmy Rossum was a very beautiful Christine, with youthful features and lovely hair, but gosh, her VOICE was by far the most beautiful thing about it! The first time I heard her sing a song on stage, the high, angelic notes rising ever higher, I was SO amazed! The drama of this story becomes even more so when the Phantom of the Opera enters. The actor who played the Phantom, I forget his last name, he was astounding! Not only did he have a jaw-dropping voice (whoever says his voice wasn't good, they have something wrong with their ears), but he played the sad/loving/genius/insane personality of the Phantom SO well! I found his character had the most depth to it.SPOILER AHEAD...The actor who played the Phantom, in my opinion his best moment was when he first brought Christine to his lair and sang a song to her, about the angel of music and the place of music. There was one moment where he talked about her heart soaring, and on the word "soar" the note he held was SO high (especially impressive for a man) that I almost dropped off the couch in shock! END OF SPOILER PARAGRAPH.I cannot compliment this movie "The Phantom of Opera" enough. It weaves everything that makes a movie fascinating into one complete, stunning, unique and aesthetically pleasing whole. The visuals are realistic, colorful, they make you feel like you are THERE. The costumes and stage sets make it not difficult to imagine how opera was done back in the 1800s. The characters were full fleshed out and stunning to behold in both their looks, the way they portrayed their characters' emotions and personalities, and, of course, the singing parts of the performance... were the most ethereal, tear-inducing, jaw-dropping, awe-bringing parts of the whole movie! For anyone who loves adventure, anyone who loves romance and a good story, anyone who is curious about the raving behind Phantom of the Opera, anyone who loves hearing beautiful voices at work, THIS it the movie for YOU! Go see it! Quick! It will be an experience I am sure you will not regret.

• Stage Performance is Just as Wonderful posted on 01 Nov 2008

  I saw the stage performance of The Phantom of the Opera in London, England, at Her Majesty's Theater, and I must say that the film almost did not do the stage production justice.The live performance is just like the movie, except your actually there. It's awesome. Different. Three-dimensional.I loved the chandelier. It was there, right above my head, because I was on the second level seating and I was right below my head.I loved it and recommend it.So if you haven't seen the real production, try to see it before your days on earth are over.

• Better than expected..... posted on 30 Oct 2008

  I came onto this site to read the comments left by other users before seeing this movie. Some of the comments were quite negative, and so I went into the film a bit more jaded than I was previously. I'm a fan of the musical, so hearing that it was disappointing to other fans made it a bit hard to get into the movie at first...but after the Phantom appeared, I was hooked.What worked: you can see the characters up close. Although the singing voices of the 3 main characters weren't as impressive as the stage actors, I think that they made up for it in believability of the characters. I was particularly impressed with Gerard Butler...he played a role that's definitely not a run-of-the-mill type...and succeeded beautifully in bringing out the humanity in a man who was truly only a monster on the inside. Emily Rossum...I was impressed with her ability to hold her own against the other older, more experienced actors. And Minnie Driver was a hoot as Carlotta. It's too bad she isn't given more character roles, because she really shines in this one! It was also really nice to get the back story behind the Phantom, to see he why he's that way, and to give him a bit more humanity. I saw more than just a disfigured person then...I saw him more as someone who is seriously psychologically damaged and has been neglected by the world. It gives a "little" justification to some of his actions.What didn't work: my main concern here is the actor that played Raoul. Although he is supposed to be a bit of the classic young, dashing prince, I felt he still was a bit weak. I couldn't put my finger on it what it was in particular, but it might be partially because his character wasn't as developed as Phantom or Christines. I haven't decided if this is a good thing or a bad thing yet...but in a way I found the Phantom to be almost too good looking. I also tended to picture him being a bit older as well, but I wasn't necessarily complaining either...he was eye candy with the mask on. It could have been intentional....that this was a man who could have lived a perfectly normal life, if he hadn't been scarred in such a way. I would have maybe had someone other than Joel Schumacher do the movie, maybe Sam Mendes or someone who is a bit more "arty," but I was pleasantly surprised that he didn't make it an over-dramatic disaster.Overall, it's a good movie, but Phantom still works better as a stage production. I liked being able to see the characters up close for the first time....when I saw the theater production I had seats up in the 3 balcony, back row so naturally I couldn't see much. Also, I think some of the fans have been a bit too harsh on the movie. Really now, to have Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman...would have worked 15 years ago but now they're getting a bit long in the tooth to play the characters believably. And yes, these actors are not as high of caliber singers, but I think they did a great job still and in some ways infused more emotion into the song then the stage actors.Finally...all I can say is I'm glad that Joel Schumacher didn't completely mess this one up!

• Visually stunning; but probably not for everyone posted on 30 Oct 2008

  I am a little disappointed in this movie, but not because it's not beautiful (it is) or because it's not true to the stage show (it's not, exactly). My fear is that it won't appeal to as broad an audience as did "Chicago" and that may discourage future conversions of musical shows to the cinema. It isn't a comedy and, since it is an opera, there is very little spoken dialog, both of which may limit its appeal.Clearly, most of the energy (and money) was spent on the visuals which are truly stunning. It is incredible to look at and to listen to. Unfortunately, in my opinion, more time and effort should have been spent on casting. Gerard Butler, in particular, was a poor choice for the Phantom. I feel his voice just wasn't up to it and his emoting couldn't make up for it. He showed more emotional range in "Attila" and that's no complement,either. On the other hand, Minnie Driver practically stole the movie and that comes from both experience and star power. By the way, her voice is just as much a pleasant surprise here as Zellweger's and Zeta-Jones' were in Chicago. There should have been a few more like her in the cast.I enjoyed this movie, for the most part, and I'll see it again and I'll even buy it when it comes out. But, I'm a die-hard fan. Unlike the movie "Chicago", which surpassed the stage show, Phantom doesn't quite measure up. Then again, 80,000 people have seen the stage production and if they all see the movie, it will be very successful. I hope so, because I'd like to see more stage shows made into movies and it ain't gonna happen if they don't make money.