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
Article comments
1 - 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.
2 - 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.
3 - 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?