Review Phantom of the Opera (2004)

The Seeker

Member: Rank 6
I’ve never seen the musical in the theater. I have heard “Music of the Night” before though. I did like the songs a lot, but the rest left something to be desired. Gerard Butler was miscast. The Phantom is supposed to have a voice like an angel, whereas Butler is passable but not that great. He’s incredibly handsome. Which is WRONG!!! The Phantom is supposed to be hideous, that’s why he’s hiding in a dungeon and trying to bewitch Christine instead of going up to her and asking her for a date. (Or whatever men did in those days.) When you do see his face, after that sliver of a mask gets pulled off, it looks like he has a bad sunburn or something. Hardly anything to go nuts over, the way Christine does earlier in the movie when she first sees him without his mask. A couple of other problems:

His backstory - the reason he’s pointlessly evil (was there really any reason to kill Joseph Buquet? Because he peeps into the girls’ dressing room??) is because as a child he’s implausibly kept in a cage and exhibited in a freakshow, which scars him for life. That seems unnecessarily dramatic. The original book had a Persian talking about how he built trapdoors in the Shah’s palace, and he told Christine that his mother never kissed him - that was the extent of his background story. Nothing mawkish. Plus as badly as the Phantom behaved, he didn’t act like a psycho spoiled brat the way he did in this movie.

The other thing that really, really, really pissed me off is how they made the Phantom such a joke. He appears at a masquerade, decending the stairs like a toddler stamping his feet, and instead of being menacing and eerie he just looks so ridiculous and insignificant. Why would anybody take him seriously? And that swordfight with Raoul - mercy me! The Phantom SHOULD NOT LOSE A SWORDFIGHT, especially with a wimp like Raoul. In real life any red-blooded woman would take the Phantom, sunburn and all, over this guy.

Something else amusing of note - a commenter on the defunct IMDb forum said the Phantom was like a guy who wore a cape to the grocery store. Took the piss right out of him.
 

chainsaw_metal1

Member: Rank 8
The movie isn't great, but it is beautiful to watch. I have long been a fan of the music, having a copy of the original Broadway soundtrack (Michael Crawford certainly does have the voice of an angel). Honestly, I don't ever expect Hollywood to do justice to a Broadway show (except for Fiddler on the Roof - I have seen that show live twice, and the movie is fantastic. Anyone who says otherwise is itching for a fight). Yes, the casting all around could have been better, but as a film, it's worth the $5 I spent on it. As for the actual story of The Phantom, I will stick with the Lon Cheney version.
like a guy who wore a cape to the grocery store
Hmmm....(Chainsaw reads this, and rethinks past life decisions)

(Oh, who is he kidding? Capes are lovely evening wear, and should be brought back in vogue.)
 

The Seeker

Member: Rank 6
The Lon Chaney one was the best of the lot. The only thing I don’t like about it is that horrid ending. In the book Erik just let Christine go and died alone. They felt the need to have pursuers with torches and pitchforks put an end to him. They were afraid the audience wouldn’t be satisfied if the Phantom lived - were people in the 20s that stupid, or were they (as always) underestimating the audience?
 

chainsaw_metal1

Member: Rank 8
They were afraid the audience wouldn’t be satisfied if the Phantom lived - were people in the 20s that stupid, or were they (as always) underestimating the audience?
I think this reflects more the idealized Hollywood storytelling, in which the villain always gets his comeuppance. It's more poetic to see Erik live unhappily and die alone, but more dramatic to see him killed, to even go out in his own blaze of glory (cue Jon Bon Jovi). This is certainly realized in that scene where Erik fakes the mob out by making them believe he has some sort of weapon or surprise in his hand, only to reveal it is empty, causing them to pounce.

But you are indeed correct. Hollywood - be it the producers or writers or directors (although, here, I always place the blame on the producers, who usually want things their way, be it right or not) - tends to underestimate the smarter members of the audience, always playing down to the lowest common denominator. That's why films that are more intelligent usually don't perform as well as a film full of dick and fart jokes.
 

The Seeker

Member: Rank 6
They feed into each other don’t they? Producers make films for stupid people. People keep watching them and they infect their brains, making them either stupid or stupider. They keep on making stupid films, people growing up on those films are conditioned to be stupider and stupider, and before you know it Trump is president.
 
Top