I got a free ticket to a sneak preview yesterday and really enjoyed it. Thoughts:

It stayed very consistent with the stage version. Other than a few cuts, and some very minor timing of events, it was the same. The performances were very good, although it was somewhat distracting to see the actors lip-snyching their songs. The "Thats All I Ask of You" scene on the rooftop was very good.

The movie seemed to drag somewhat (its over 2 hours). I didn't feel that way seeing a live performance, so I guess some of the impact gets lost when watching a non-live show. There were some good special effects that can only be done in a movie - like the destruction of the chandelier. The director took some different interpretations that were interesting. The Phantom seemed very human, and not very spiritual. After the live show I remember wondering whether he was supposed to be a man or a ghost. He's definately man in the movie.

Overall I'd recommend it for fans of the show, or people who are somewhat interested but don't want to shell out the bucks for a live show.

Just a quick question: are you male or female?

Seriously ... I like some of the music, but I don't want to sit through a 2.5 hour musical and lose my man card.

[This message has been edited by AGnCS (edited 12/21/2004 3:32p).]

---SPOILERS------



Just got home. I'm a female and have seen the show ~6 times on Broadway. A big fan to say the least.

I thought they did a very good job. A few quibbles:
1. The black and white scenes of Raoul in 1919 that were interjected throughout. I thought they were jarring to the flow of the movie and completely unnecessary. What was the point?
2. The Phantom totally had the sex appeal to make it believable that Christine would want him. I was disappointed in his voice; the weakest of the three leads (Rossum and Patrick Wilson both sang their roles and were excellent). Maybe it's because I've seen it live so many times and have Michael Crawford on CD, but the Phantom's voice is so integral to his seduction of Christine. Butler really struggled through "Music of the Night" and the one amazing note at the climax of the song was clearly over-dubbed. He was an excellent actor though. Phantom's make-up didn't make him all that deformed either. If he didn't keep killing people he'd have no trouble getting chicks!
3. Why wasn't Christine singing through the first verse of Pof the Opera? It was weird that her voice was singing the verse but she was just walking along. Same thing at the end.

I loved the shot of the chandelier coming back to illumination at the beginning, and had no big beef with them moving the crash to the end rather than at the end of the first act.

All in all, I give it a B to a B+, and will definitely see it again.

Clarke...

Like you, I'm a big fan of Phantom. I've seen it twice, both times on Broadway, and I have the Michael Crawford CD. My thoughts...

I was pleased that the movie stuck to the script. Yeah, it took a few liberties, such as the several scans throughout the movie to the year 1919. But I personally liked that (the black & white added a neat touch to it don't you think?).

I was very disappointed in the Phantom's voice and Raoul's voice. That's probably my biggest knock on the movie. Then again, how does one match Michael Crawford?

I loved Minnie Driver as Carlota.

I liked the added humor throughout the movie.

I really enjoyed the transition from the old, worn out opera house in 1919 to the state of the art house in 1870. It reminded me of the scene in Titanic.

Christine...At first I didn't like their casting of the actress. But as the movie developed I came to really enjoy her. In fact, she exuded a sensuality that added to the movie.

The costumes and cinematography were excellent.

Raoul...maybe I'm old school but I could have done without the long hair.

I loved the ending...in fact, it tied up loose ends that the play doesn't. After seeing it on Broadway I always wondered, "does that mean Christine married Raoul?" (It was especially confusing when one considers the auction at the beginning of the play). Maybe they took liberties in the movie that weren't appropriate.

All in all, I went in thinking I would be greatly disappointed with the movie. I wasn't. I'd give it a solid B...which is pretty good, considering it is indeed Phantom.

I really enjoyed the Phantom when I saw it on stage, I just didn't feel that the film did the stage production justice. Does anyone know if they were in-fact lip-syncing?

The movie really started off slow for me, it took me a good 45 minutes to get into it. Actually, if it werent for the great music, I don't think I would have stayed. All the nonsense with the black and white parts was really hard for me to sit through. I'm not a film critic or anything, but I give this one a C+. The saving grace was that I knew the story and the music was excellent.

[This message has been edited by thacktor (edited 12/27/2004 9:09a).]

I know for this movie, and for most musicals produced in movie format, the actors were the ones actually singing, and they do sing while the work is being filmed. HOWEVER, the final vocal product is added in during editing.

Essentially, the actors record the vocals in a sound studio, but they do actually sing while filming occurs so that they get the marking, etc. correct. So it's not *really* lip-syncing... but it sort of is.

I'll be damned.