| Better than you may expect |
|
| written by talltale |
May 4, 2005 - 3:04 PM PDT |
|
2 out of 3 members found this review helpful
|
When I originally saw PHANTOM OF THE OPERA on Broadway, I remember thinking, "This might make a better movie than a theatre piece." Indeed it does. Its own special high-kitsch sensibility merges perfectly with that of director Joel Schmacher's, so (almost) scene for scene the movie is a superior piece of entertaining, would-be-high-toned schlock. (Have I contradicted myself here? So be it: "Phantom" is rather an original in this regard.) The beginning and first 30 minutes are surprisingly restrained, in fact. But then "Music of the Night" arrives, and the film falls briefly apart.
Not only does Gerard Butler (or whoever voiced his singing) not have strong enough vocal pipes, for some reason the director decides at this point to simply film his actors singing on and on and on, rather than doing anything interesting visually. (It doesn't help that the underground set is ridiculously garish, with candles that rise, lighted yet, out of the water!) Butler redeems himself wonderfully by the end; he's quite moving in his final scenes. Emmy Rossum sings beautifully, looks yummy and acts acceptably, given her indecisive role; ditto Patrick Wilson (although you do wonder why his character keeps insisting the Phantom doesn't exist right after the masked man has announced himself visually with a speech to the entire opera house).
On balance, the movie is an up-and-down experience. When it's good, it's very good and then--clunk--the lyrics hit you over the head like a ton of retarded bricks, or they reprise another melody two times too many, or a scene (one on the roof or the first in the cemetery) goes on far too long.
Interestingly, the lesser songs actually fare better here because they're handled with more visual flair and the supporting cast is top-notch (Simon Callow, Ciaran Hinds, Minnie Driver, Miranda Richardson). Fans will love it and Lloyd-Webber-loathers will most likely hate it still. Overall though, this is a better job than many of us nay-sayers thought possible. |
| Unless you're a Webber fan, don't bother |
|
| written by marleigh |
May 3, 2005 - 7:45 PM PDT |
|
4 out of 4 members found this review helpful
|
If you're a Webber fan, don't bother reading this review. Just click the "rent" button right now. Not that you should, I'm about the pan the thing, but I know that won't stop you. I know your type, you're like me, and you won't be satisfied until you've seen the darn thing. Just go ahead and get it out of your system. For the rest of you, there's this lovely little review to try to convince you that your viewing time is better spent elsewhere.
There was a time when this would have been a fine little movie. That time is generally referred to as "The Eighties." Ah yes, the eighties, when the Phantom of the Opera first came out and was the musical everyone was talking about. If you were like me, you had the music memorized and saw it performed in the theater at least once. They could have put anything on the screen, and I would have filled in the blanks with my own imagination, glossed over every mistake, forgiven every misstep. But it's not the eighties anymore, and the Phanatics of yesteryear grew up and moved on. This movie had to win back the audience, and it failed.
The movie is basically a straightforward adaptation of the show, and yet somehow, the magic didn't translate. Dramatic moments come off as hokey and the musical numbers are uninspired. You can't help but giggle as Raoul charges about on a white horse. Emily Rossum, while quite picturesque, comes off as slightly stoned for the duration of the film. Her voice is pretty, though it would have been of great benefit if someone took her aside and explained that scooping notes is an easily overused technique. The one segment I truly enjoyed was Minnie Driver's interpretation of Carlotta, the Spanish prima dona. In the play, I usually found her to be annoying, but in this show she's great fun, hamming it up to the point of caricature.
It's easy to blame the medium for the state of the film, but we've seen successful musical adaptations before. Just think about Chicago. Perhaps in the hands of the right director, it could have been a wonderful thing.
Or maybe it just came out about 20 years too late. |
|
|
Your cart
© 2006 All Media Guide, LLC. Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide®,
a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC.