MPAA Rating: PG-13
Original Review Date: August 11, 2005
Reviewed by: Erin, Movie Muse
In a Nutshell: Missing some of the magic (and singing talent) of
the stage version, but still excellently done. If you don't
think you'll get to see the stage production, then definitely
see it. Everyone should experience Phantom in his or her
lifetime, and this is a very good way to do it. However, if you
have the chance, see the stage version first, then this very
good film can remind you of how amazingly great the stage
production really is.
Quick Plot: Christine, a chorus girl in the Paris Opera, is
being secretly coached by someone she refers to as the Angel of
Music. When the company's top diva stalks out, Christine takes
her place, wowing management and audiences alike, thanks to her
new tutor, who is actually the man known as the Opera Ghost, or
the Phantom of the Opera. He is also none too fond of
Christine's new suitor, who is threatening to ruin the Phantom's
plans to have Christine serve as his own Angel of Music,
forever.
In Detail: First, my apologies to those who have not seen the
stage version. Much of this review will involve comparisons
between the two, so if you have only seen the film, you will
think I am speaking in some kind of code. But most of the
points are still relevant, even if you don't know exactly what
I'm talking about. It also got a lot longer than I thought it
would. Sorry. I'm very passionate about Phantom, so I found I
had a lot to say. Here goes!
It was really very well done. Having seen the stage production
at least three times (might be four, I can't remember now) in
the last 10 years, and having listened to the CD more time than
I can possibly count in the last 15 years, I know it pretty
well. Yes, some things have been changed, mostly for time
reasons, and a few for dramatic impact. I will discuss those in
just a minute, marking the beginning and end of the spoiler
section clearly so as not to ruin it for those who don't want to
know. So, please know that I liked it a lot, and it is
definitely worth seeing, probably even buying. And before I go
any further, I want to talk about absolutely THE best moment in
the film: the opening, immediately following the auction (you
know the one I mean). It is just amazing. The way everything
alters and is swept up, it really is like turning back time,
almost like time-lapse. I made a specific point of seeing this
movie in the theater back in February so that I could experience
that opening chord crash in full-blown surround sound, and it
did not disappoint. That entire scene just blew me away.
Unfortunately, the rest of the film just couldn't *quite*
measure up. It tried admirably, and it is still very good, but
the opening was just.... WOW! And it was my brother who pointed
out that, unlike the usual flashback convention, it is the
"present" that is in black and white, while the past is in rich
and vivid color. A very nice touch. All that being said, here
are the things I didn't like or I found disappointing:
My biggest complaint, which is admittedly not huge, is Gerard
Butler's voice. Hey, I've been listening to Michael Crawford
perform those songs for almost 15 years now (man, I am so old!).
No one will EVER compare (though Josh Groban has a chance).
But, I still think they could have chosen a better voice. His
isn't bad, don't get me wrong, and I understand why they went
with his style of voice (the more raw and passionate, to counter
the very young, clear, schooled voice of Raoul), but they could
have found a better one, IMO. To me, their mistake was going
with actors who can sing, instead of singers who can act. They
were going with no-names anyway (intentionally), what was there
to lose by picking some Broadway folks? It was okay to go with
lesser voices in Chicago, where #1) I think those actors had
better voices, and #2) it wasn't intended to be "that kind" of
musical, so more raw and "gritty" voices were fine, even better
probably. But for Phantom? The whole point is that it's like
an opera (within an opera, no less) about an opera company.
They should have had the best voices around (except for Piangi,
LOL)! That's what makes it funny and ironic. The voices they
have for everyone are fine, they just aren't awesome like I
think they should be. I recently saw the trailer for Rent.
*Those* voices blew me away! Gave me chills. Amazing what
happens when you cast (many of) the original Broadway stars,
isn't it? And to me (no offense to Rent fans), the voices in
Phantom should have been even.... better isn't the right word,
but it's the best I can do. The caliber of the voice should
have been at least as good as the cast for Rent, even higher in
my mind, simply due to the *style* of the two musicals. I
understand why they couldn't go with the original London Phantom
cast here (that's what you get for waiting so long; should have
made this film in the early 80s), but there are plenty of
current cast members who could have done a much better job,
singing wise. Also, the lip syncing was off noticeably in
several places, though Butler probably did the best job at that.
It's a musical, people! I shouldn't be able to tell so easily
that you're not really singing.
My second complaint is (believe it or not) very short and sweet.
Phantom's unmasking was not grotesque enough. In the musical,
he is hideous. Partly, he has to be, in order for it to be seen
at the back of the theater. But, the man has been in hiding
almost his entire life due to his deformed face. IMO, he should
have looked truly and shockingly deformed. He doesn't, and it
makes all of the hoopla seem silly. He could have been walking
the streets looking like he did. Other than being slightly
startled at first, I seriously doubt anyone would have held it
against him. It should have made you gasp with its ugliness;
instead I just went "that's it?" Disappointing.
My final complaint is simply with some of the changes they made
and some of the differences between it being a film and being a
stage production. None of these are spoilers (there are no
specifics), so it's okay to keep reading for now if you haven't
seen it. First off, some of the sung lines are changed to
spoken lines. This is rather annoying to those who know what it
is "supposed" to sound like. For the most part, it's just a
line here or there, and it's okay, as the musical is just that,
a musical, not a pure opera where everything should be sung.
*However,* if you are going to change a line to being spoken,
then speak it normally, like any other line of dialog. Don't
speak it in rhythm the way you would have sung it to the music.
You sound stupid! And I think too many chunks were changed as
well. Again, it's a send-up of opera, thus it is specifically
*designed* to be mostly sung, not spoken. If you wanted to
speak the lines, you should have done a movie, not a musical.
(snort) /end singing rant Next are some of the changes that
happened simply by virtue of it being a movie, not a stage
production. For example, the boat ride through the candles.
It's just not magical. It's a movie! If you want a boat to
ride through an underground river intertwining amongst a bunch
of candelabras, then you can. What's the big deal? But doing
that on stage, making it look like a real boat moving magically
across what you know to be a solid stage, with hundreds of
candles rising up out of the floorboards.... it is stunning to
behold. The same goes for Raoul jumping into the river later
on. Ooo, the actor jumped down into some water. Woo-hoo.
(Note the dripping sarcasm.) But watching a man jump from 10
feet off the stage into the swirling fog below and disappear
without a sound, never hitting the floor, it always brings gasps
from the audience. It is those kinds of moments that are lost,
simply by virtue of changing the presentation media, and I think
the film is poorer for it. It's not detrimental by any means,
but it was disappointing. And my last one is Phantom's
Masquerade costume. You know, THE signature costume? They
toned down the costumes for everyone in that scene quite a bit,
but his was the most drastic change, and it is disappointing.
Basically, he's just in a fancied-up tux with one of his
more-or-less regular masks on. Just wanted those familiar with
his *awesome* stage costume to be prepared, instead of utterly
disappointed like I was.
The upcoming section has spoilers in it, for those who want some
more specifics on the differences. It will be short, and it
will be marked by the words "begin spoiler warning" and "end
spoiler warning" in all caps buffered by several lines of *****
to avoid "contamination, so that those who wish to skip this
section may do so safely. Ready?
Okay, the biggest change that was made was the placement of the
falling of the chandelier in the film. They basically swapped
that moment with the hanging of Buquet, which I will
*grudgingly* admit does make more sense from a story
perspective. But we all know that this wouldn't really work in
the stage production, as #1) no one would be paying attention to
what was going on up on stage with the chandelier falling, and
#2) the necessary stage stuff couldn't happen with the
chandelier sitting there! LOL It also means that the "to the
new chandelier" line in Masquerade had to be changed, I think to
"to our friends who are here." Also, there is only one "notes"
section, instead of two. The rehearsals where the piano comes
to life has been cut, and most of that info is instead folded
into the Masquerade scene. Other than the fact that I love
Piangi repeatedly singing the line wrong ("my way is better!"),
it really doesn't suffer from that missing scene. Those are the
two biggest changes that come to mind. The sword fight at the
Daae mausoleum seems quite a bit unnecessary and over the top,
but I agree that that particular scene in the musical does
sometimes seem a tiny bit lacking sometimes. There needs to be
a happy medium. There are also two added parts, one in the
middle-ish that gives a touch of back story on how he came to
live in the opera house and why Giry knows about him. The
second bit is at the end, and while I understand why they wanted
to put it there, it bothers me for the simple fact that Phantom
of the Opera should end with a shot of the mask. This one
doesn't, and I missed it.
Will I Buy It? Most likely. I wasn't sure at first, but the
more I think about it, the more I think I will. I enjoyed it,
and it will hopefully keep me satisfied until the next time I
get to see "real" Phantom on stage.
