Today on Blogcritics
Home » Movie Review: The Phantom Of The Opera

Movie Review: The Phantom Of The Opera

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Nominated for three Academy Awards and three Golden Globes, including Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy, The Phantom Of The Opera is one of the most talked about movies of 2004. Taking the smash commercial success of Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage production to the big screen is no easy task, but long-time Hollywood director Joel Schumacher is more than able to get the job done. He takes an otherwise poorly written screenplay (minus the awe of a live performance, no less) and manages to thrill the audience with the visual aspects of a film chiefly intended to rehash a successful stage musical. The costumes and set are simply magnificent, and Art Director John Fenner (Raiders Of The Lost Ark) helps Schumacher put together a fabulous production that's well worth a movie-goer's time.

The Phantom Of The Opera centers around a mysterious character who dwells underneath the Paris Opera House, imbibing the music that emanates from above. Known as The Phantom (Gerard Butler), he wears a half-mask to cover the hideous facial scars that have plagued him since birth. A musical genius, the phantom is infatuated with the opera, and when he falls in love with the voice of a young chorus girl named Christine (Emmy Rossum – The Day After Tomorrow [2004], Mystic River [2003]), this love of the opera morphs into an outright obsession.

The phantom provides Christine with one-on-one voice lessons, while during his spare time, he terrorizes the opera house in an effort to land his protégé the opera's leading role. When Christine finally rises to that position, however, she is reunited with childhood friend Raul (Patrick Wilson), and the two begin a torrid love affair. Vengeful and jealous, the phantom kidnaps Christine and holds her prisoner in his underground lair, and Raul is the only one who can save her.

Onscreen, The Phantom Of The Opera is weak by the standards of a traditional film. The cast does its best to make the most of a screenplay peppered with rigid dialogue – a script designed to sell "the music of the night." The supposed magnetism between Christine and Raul is non-existent and not really believable. As such, the audience is forced into believing that the phantom (who, by contrast, is quite charismatic in this rendition) would end up playing second fiddle to a man who makes Al Gore seem animated. Overall, however, other aspects of the film make up for this flaw.

Based on Gaston Leroux's 1925 novel of the same name, The Phantom Of The Opera loses much of its original edge given the phantom's transformation from a frightening and mangled lunatic to a watered down half-scarred/half-babe-magnet figure complete with likeable characteristics. But inevitably, that's the mark of an enduring franchise – its malleability in the realm of numerous genres and the public's willingness to embrace such changes. But arguably, the small changes in the original novel's plot were necessary to achieve Lloyd Webber's goal of a melodramatic and stirring Broadway musical boasting mass commercial appeal.

In a year in which the Oscar nominations were mostly dominated by lower-budget, surprise hit films (such as Sideways, Million Dollar Baby, and Finding Neverland), The Phantom Of The Opera holds its own in many aspects (given its pre-production designation as a commercial success). But those who have not seen the stage version are unlikely to be won over to the ranks of the franchise's numerous fanatics. My advice is to definitely see the film if you've ever seen the stage performance or listened regularly to the soundtrack – otherwise, you might be disappointed. After all, no matter how good The Phantom Of The Opera translates to the big screen, there's a reason musicals are not the dominant genre in Hollywood.

Britt's Rating: 8.1/10

Powered by

About Britt Gillette

  • Cindy L.

    Thanks for the review! I was one of those people who loved the stage production & old soundtrack and who looked forward to the big screen adaptation. I too was won over by Gerard Butler’s portrayal of the Phantom (and by comparison, wondered how I could have ever rooted for Raoul in the stage show). Thank you for a well-rounded review that was able to point out the flaws without being mean to the cast and for praising the good work done by the director, the cast and crew.

  • http://www.webspawner.com/users/ambersilverstar/index.html Amber Silverstar

    I just finished watching the DVD of Phantom of the Opera for the third time. I saw the movie twice. I liked your comments and I agree with the observation about the chemistry lacking between the two young stars. I thought there were several sexual overtones in the plot making the phantom a replacement of the father figure Christine had lost. She did seem willing to go with the Phantom at any cost even into the darkest areas of his world. It was as though she represented the “White Lady” of purity and innocence being seduced for the first time. There seemed to be incestuous overtones; the orphaned daughter seeking to reunite with the lost father. The production for me was haunting, elaborate and mystical. I have only seen the movie and the DVD and not the stage production. But I loved the music, the movie sets, the color and costumes, the acting. Thank you for your review, I will check out your web site.

  • Jack

    Having seen the movie and read some of the reviews out there I think I am living in a world of critical and tasteless idiots. In my humble opinion the show was extroardinary in every possible way, kudos to Shoemacher, Rossum and Butler & Company. This was wonderful entertainment. I’m glad that you shared in something of the magic of the production as I did and found some words to express it. However, your lack of effusive acclaim is less than what this great musical deserved. That a exceptional movie of such merit be held by the critics in such low regard is remarkablly telling. Movies should be an experience, both intellectual and emotional. This movie does achieve both. What have we become?