Review of The Phantom of the Opera (2004) by Zach B — 22 Oct 2011

Andrew Lloyd Webber. What can be said about him? He has created some of the most memorable musicals in modern day, helped make Sarah Brightman the singer she is, and recreated the complete enjoyment of musicals. But he has also been someone you will either love or hate. Love due to his investment in musical theater. Hated due to how overrated he is. My opinion is that he is talented and he does create rather good musicals. I have never, as I am writing this review, seen any of his musicals in person, but from what I have seen via internet and read, I know he is fantastic. The only main problem is with how people transition his work to the screen. Just, something is lost. In some respects, this is the case with The Phantom of the Opera.

Now, my introduction to this adaptation came from the legions of fans that go to my school who adore this film to no end. And by adore, I mean they know every line, every movement, and fall in love every time Gerard Butler is on screen (oh, don't worry. I will get to him). When I first saw the film, I was not impressed with anything. Yes, I like the musical arrangements, but nothing Schumacher done impressed me with the transaction with the story unto the screen.

The exception would be the set designs. Watching this film, I had the same feeling I did when I saw Interview With The Vampire: complete aw. The sets in this film are stunningly beautiful and well crafted. But, while I adore the sets and musical arrangements, what saddens me is that you can tell that the budget went to the look of this film and nothing more or less. And, well, that is what lead me to give this film the rating I will.

I will be open: I can't sing, and I know people who sing: the people in this film can not sing at all. EVEN more Butler. I mean, other then the obvious auto-tuning, he just is not impressive. Actually, I have no idea why they cast him in the role. I have asked people about their opinion on him, and the main reaction I get is that they love him for the sex appeal in this film. Okay, let me make this clear: The Phantom is NOT suppose to be a sex symbol! He is suppose to be a creature of horror whose face makes women faint and men angry to the point they want to put him out of his misogyny. Not to satisfy the sexual desires of people. Plus, he is not that much of a Phantom with how the mask is worn. The mask is meant to cover the face due to what is underneath. Not worn as a fashion item. Basically, the Phantom in this film is terrible. I hate this Phantom.

The rest of the cast is okay, but not all that good. To me, it seemed like they knew that this film was going to make money no matter what and they are all: to hell with good acting. We are all going to be getting our paychecks regardless. Well, for me, with no believable acting, I just got bored.

I know that this review looks like I hate this film. I don't. I just don't like the cast. What I do like is the glamour of the film and how beautiful the sets are and the instrumental aspects of the soundtrack. If you want to see beauty, watch this film. If you want to see a true Phantom, watch the original with Lon Chaney. If you want to see a true Phantom with the beauty, watch the stage play (original footage with Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman).