Phantom of the Opera
AsSiMiLaTeD
Posts: 11,728
We watched this last night. Overall, I was dissapointed, here's my thoughts. This is just my take - I didn't like it and am going to say bad things about it below, so if this is your favorite movie or you're going to get pissed off about bashing this movie, you should just stop reading now - there are some good things in here also though.
We liked the scenery for the most part - it's kinda neat to see some of the visuals I've imagined when watching the broadway version, obviously there's alot they can do with film that they can't on a stage. From this perspective, the movie is good and overall well-done.
The singing was really bad for the most part. Granted, no performance will ever equal that or the original cast with Sarah brightman and Michael Crawford...and I didn't go into this movie expecting that caliber of performance. But I did expect it to at least be decent. It was not. The show I say in new York last year with some people I've never heard of was leaps and bounds ahead of the movie.
Christine is supposed to be a great singer...that's what the whole story is based on, her angelic voice and above normal ability to sing. The girl playing Chrstine (think it's the girl from Day After Tomorrow) has a very edgy voice and REALLY struggles with notes in the higher register, she did not do a good job singing this part. her pitch was on for the most part, but she just doesn't have the voice for the higher notes, when she did hit those notes, her voice was very thin and almost nasal...almost falsetto. I think she's on OK singer, and could probably make it in today's pop music industry, but she was NOT the right choice for this role.
Raoul (sp?) - He just couldn't hold a note to save his life. He was all out of tune, as much as a half-step at times. I don't even know how he got picked for that part - probably the worst performance in the movie IMO.
Phantom. Like Christine, he's not necessarily a bad singer, he just didn't do a good job in this role. His emotions while singing were either non-existant of completely over-acted and corny - there's a good place in the middle that's just right for the phantom character, and he just didn't get it. I actually felt embarrased for him in some parts of the movie because of the overacting. At the end of the movie, there's a transition where the phantom goes from his cruel self to a more compassionate and then sad character. This is a very critical point n the movie, and he butchered that transition pretty bad...his cruel self is played pretty well, but the compassionate version is just too much over-acted, almost like he immediately turns into a big cry-baby - that's not the way that scene is supposed to work. At the end of that scene, you're supposed to feel compassion for him, and in the movie, you just feel embarrassed.
OK, so the singing was bad, how about the music? The score was actually done really well. He had some changes on the original theme, but they were all done well and in good taste for the most part.
What about the story? I have mixed emotions here. They fleshed out the story a bit beyond what you'll find in the musical, and for the most part, they did a good job. I liked the extra explanation that was provided.
One thing that REALLY irritated me was they put some things out of order, and without reason. The first Act (or first half of the movie roughly) was pretty dead on with the original broadway version...up until the point where they didn't include the chandellier crash. They did put the crash in the movie, but included it in the wrong spot..should be earlier, before the Masquerade ball. I know they did this on purpose, because they changed the lyrics of the Masquerade song. In the original, the thing crashes before that ball and they reference getting a new chandellier in the Masquerade song...now they moved the crash towards the end of the movie and changed the lyrics to remove the reference to the chandellier. What I don't understand is why...it didn't add anything to the movie. It's like Lucas changing the Star Wars movies, except worse because there's just no good reason to move that. There were several such changes to the story in the movie, but this one pissed me off the worse.
Overall, I think most people will enjoy this movie, especially those that don't really know or care about the broadway version story, and those that aren't too particular about the singing.
After we watched the movie, I pulled out the CDs from the original cast version...and even my wife agreed that the movie is pretty awful in comparison.
We liked the scenery for the most part - it's kinda neat to see some of the visuals I've imagined when watching the broadway version, obviously there's alot they can do with film that they can't on a stage. From this perspective, the movie is good and overall well-done.
The singing was really bad for the most part. Granted, no performance will ever equal that or the original cast with Sarah brightman and Michael Crawford...and I didn't go into this movie expecting that caliber of performance. But I did expect it to at least be decent. It was not. The show I say in new York last year with some people I've never heard of was leaps and bounds ahead of the movie.
Christine is supposed to be a great singer...that's what the whole story is based on, her angelic voice and above normal ability to sing. The girl playing Chrstine (think it's the girl from Day After Tomorrow) has a very edgy voice and REALLY struggles with notes in the higher register, she did not do a good job singing this part. her pitch was on for the most part, but she just doesn't have the voice for the higher notes, when she did hit those notes, her voice was very thin and almost nasal...almost falsetto. I think she's on OK singer, and could probably make it in today's pop music industry, but she was NOT the right choice for this role.
Raoul (sp?) - He just couldn't hold a note to save his life. He was all out of tune, as much as a half-step at times. I don't even know how he got picked for that part - probably the worst performance in the movie IMO.
Phantom. Like Christine, he's not necessarily a bad singer, he just didn't do a good job in this role. His emotions while singing were either non-existant of completely over-acted and corny - there's a good place in the middle that's just right for the phantom character, and he just didn't get it. I actually felt embarrased for him in some parts of the movie because of the overacting. At the end of the movie, there's a transition where the phantom goes from his cruel self to a more compassionate and then sad character. This is a very critical point n the movie, and he butchered that transition pretty bad...his cruel self is played pretty well, but the compassionate version is just too much over-acted, almost like he immediately turns into a big cry-baby - that's not the way that scene is supposed to work. At the end of that scene, you're supposed to feel compassion for him, and in the movie, you just feel embarrassed.
OK, so the singing was bad, how about the music? The score was actually done really well. He had some changes on the original theme, but they were all done well and in good taste for the most part.
What about the story? I have mixed emotions here. They fleshed out the story a bit beyond what you'll find in the musical, and for the most part, they did a good job. I liked the extra explanation that was provided.
One thing that REALLY irritated me was they put some things out of order, and without reason. The first Act (or first half of the movie roughly) was pretty dead on with the original broadway version...up until the point where they didn't include the chandellier crash. They did put the crash in the movie, but included it in the wrong spot..should be earlier, before the Masquerade ball. I know they did this on purpose, because they changed the lyrics of the Masquerade song. In the original, the thing crashes before that ball and they reference getting a new chandellier in the Masquerade song...now they moved the crash towards the end of the movie and changed the lyrics to remove the reference to the chandellier. What I don't understand is why...it didn't add anything to the movie. It's like Lucas changing the Star Wars movies, except worse because there's just no good reason to move that. There were several such changes to the story in the movie, but this one pissed me off the worse.
Overall, I think most people will enjoy this movie, especially those that don't really know or care about the broadway version story, and those that aren't too particular about the singing.
After we watched the movie, I pulled out the CDs from the original cast version...and even my wife agreed that the movie is pretty awful in comparison.
Post edited by AsSiMiLaTeD on
Comments
-
i saw it on broadway when i was in middle school- around 89 i think- i loved it. After that, i really got into broadway.
mostly i agree- some things just don't gel on the screen as much as on broadway.
I still like the movie b/c it's the closest i can come to seeing the now defunct musical.
the reason they put the chandelier scene at the end was to add impact and drama to the "point of no return" scene- i think this was a smart move.
it could have been worse. the 98 Les' Mis movie was awful- precisely b/c it DIDN't have music and the dialogue was wooden.
(EDIT) and yeah, Michael Crawford puts that other cat away.
and I think only the hardcore fans will at least Like it- i think people who have never heard the CD's or seen the musical on broadway before will come away from the film thinking it's weird, offpace, and campy. -
I saw the play with Sarah Brightman and yes, her voice is one of the most beautiful I've ever heard. I have several of her other cd's as well.
As for the movie, both my wife and I really enjoyed it. I thought it was well done in every aspect. The singing, the cinematography, the music, the acting...all very enjoyable. Nothing like the talent from the stage play but then it could never be that. All in all I gave it a 9 out of 10.If...
Ron dislikes a film = go out and buy it.
Ron loves a film = don't even rent.
