Anyone see the movie? What did you think about it?

Personally, I liked it, although this could be due to the fact that I went to see it with extremely low expectations and I don't really like the 'main three' characters anyway.

My main problems with the movie were the following:

- I didn't like Gerry Butler (The Phantom) or Emmy Rossum (Christine)'s singing abilities. Butler's voice just didn't compare to the men I have seen perform the role on stage (I even liked Paul Stanley of the music group KISS better vocally). And Rossum had the annoying habit of not hitting the notes dead on and scooping up to it. I would have rathered either delaying production (for years, if need be) to get them time to improve their vocals or just plain casting other people.

- My least favourite scene was Masquerade. Half of the lyrics are about the colors, yet the costumes were all monochrome. When you think of the masquerade, you think of lots of people, yet it looked like the least popular party in the world given the amount of people there. Also, I absolutely HATED the dancing - I even saw some of Madonna's 'vogue' dancing in there!

- I also didn't like the choice of staging for Point of No Return. I think this scene could have been improved by just removing the flamenco dancers entirely as they totally distracted from the Phantom/Christine element of the song.

Things I loved about the musical:

- Mme Giry was amazing. She just stole every scene.

- Minnie Driver as Carlotta was wonderful, the only improvement that could have been made was finding someone who could act that well AND sing the part (Margaret Preece provided her vocals).

- The managers were great. Their acting and how they played off each other reminded me of the original managers in the Toronto production of the musical. The man who played Firmin just had a bit where I didn't like his singing as much, but it wasn't anywhere near the point where it totally annoyed me as much as Butler and Rossum (there's just one spot in Notes where he [Firmin] sounds like a foghorn).

And the person who plays Meg looks like my host sister in Germany... was really weird watching the movie as I kept thinking "She looks just like Pamela!"

So what do the rest of you think?

Well, hate to be the downer for the film, but I felt it was a thoroughly weak presentation. I've seen the musical in Broadway, and despite the fact the voices are obviously better there, I didn't mind the singing in the film. (although the music is fairly hokey at more than one interval) The visual work was, of course, spectacular, but everything else was boring drole. The story was much too simplistic to fill 140 minutes, and it gets drawn out to almost untolerable levels of lethargy. The characters are pretty weak, especially Raoul, who is so boring and rote that it's difficult to see why Christine would love him - thus, a sagging love triangle. Visual expertise is the only thing Phantom brings to the table, and it gets especially hollow when the film has to bring in "knock-em-dead" surges of camera, music, and emotion to essentially wake the viewer after fifteen to twenty minutes of sluggish proceedings. It was nice to look at, but just didn't manage to provide any sort of worthwhile story or characters.

Granted Phantom wasn't the only "long" film (more than two hours, fifteen minutes) to disappoint in 2004; there was also Ray, Alexander, Troy, and Vanity Fair - even The Aviator was a significant step below many of Scorsese's other films, which leaves only Million Dollar Baby to represent. Clearly it was a good film but it just so happened that 2004's best were leaner and meaner, most under the two hour mark completely. (i.e. The Incredibles, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Red Lights, Before Sunset, Hero, Touching the Void)

I think I'll stick with My Fair Lady for musicals. >_>

After hearing and reading so many critics 'pan' the film, I was anxious to see it so I could form my own opinion. I saw the Broadway show twice and loved it and, with Andrew Lloyd Weber involved in the translation to film, how bad could it be?

It was great! Long, but great. Real long. By the time it was over, I had no feeling in my buttocks and each leg was asleep. So I did my 'Quasimoto' impression (remember Charles Laughton in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"?) going to the parking lot, complete with drooling.

I think the variations in vocal quality made the film more realistic. Those actors cast with trained voices had as their vocation in the film the opera. So they should be vocally proficient. The Phantom, on the other hand, was an opera producer; his voice should not be as trained and as pleasing as the others.

I have no complaints about the film (once the blood began circulating) and, if I had to describe it in one word, the word would be 'lush'. Costumes, sets and scenery were all superb.

Which makes me wonder what film the critics watched?

I'm a musical nut (as Beth will probably remember *g*), and so I went to watch the movie as soon as I could. I must say, I was impressed. I really don't know why all the critics seem to hate it. Interestingly enough, though, the only real positive review I read was the one in my musical magazine (i.e. written by a musical expert), and they should know what they're talking about, right? Part of the reasons for the bad reviews here in Germany was probably the fact that they decided to dub the whole movie (rather than just using subtitles, as was the case with "Evita" back in '97). I didn't see the German version, so I can't really say whether it was really so bad, but I can imagine that it wasn't the best idea - the German translation is quite weak in part (other parts are quite good, however), and I really can't imagine Uwe Kröger as the Phantom, let alone his voice along with Butler's acting.

I liked the actors, though. True, Gerald Butler's voice is not a really trained one, but he fully redeemed himself in his acting! His "Music of the Night" was wonderful! Besides, don't forget that Butler is an untrained singer with a baritone voice singing a part composed for a (trained) tenor. My only point of criticism regarding him would be that he was too sexy - you can't really understand why Christine refuses him (but then, again, this is always the case, as Raoul's role is simply a little boring...)
Emmy Rossum was a little weak in the intonation, true, but I liked her voice - it was not an "ordinary" classical soprano, which made her singing a little special. Besides, her voice has a very warm tone to it, which I liked as well (sopranos tend to sound a little shrill sometimes). And she matched the role very convincingly.
Not much to say about Raoul (what was the actor's name again? Patrick something...); Raoul just isn't such a memorable part. But he was nice.
I agree with you, Beth, that Miranda Richardson (Giry) was the secret heroine of the movie (first time ever I saw her playing a role other than a wicked witch or something...). She was amazing! And Minnie Driver was simply hilarious - in every bit the Carlotta we know from the stage. And although she didn't sing, she did a good job in pretending to
The opening scene was excellent, and the additional bits interesting. I missed the "Don Juan" rehearsal, though; that's such a great scene.

OK, I'll stop rambling. Summarizing it all, I'd say it was a good adaptation. I'll certainly get the DVD