20%
OFF
OFF
  | Andrew Lloyd Webber, Richard Stilgoe and more - The Phantom of the Opera (2004 Movie Soundtrack) (Special Extended Edition Package)
| ||||||||||
| |
Average user rating:  | |
 Amazing intro - Learn to love a classic | |
| Why do so-called Phans have to be so petty? This is a lovely production of Phantom that lives up to the praise. Ok, some "purists" hate it, so what? Michael Crawford doesn't play the Phantom anymore, get over it. | |
| A legend immortalized | |
| Before I review the film itself I want to say a word or two about its detractors. (And no, not EVERYBODY who dislikes a movie is a detractor) I want to respond to those who can't even spell Gerard Butler's name right, to those who are blind Michael Crawford fanatics (A species that is mocked among TRUE Phans) and those who just don't get that a inch-per-inch reproduction of the stage-version would not have worked because a movie is an entirely different animal altogether. And the LIE that ALW stole music from Puccini? Laughable! And then the "fan" of Gaston Leroux? I wonder why she didn't write her diatribe on the original recording with MC as well because most of her complaints belong THERE as well. To get through this as listed:
A) If you are going to bash an actor you could at least do your homework and spell his name right. Then all the "singers" who suddenly pop up here and say the most inaccurate and unmusical things...Tsk Tsk! As for this Anna-person who thinks she's speaking for all true music lovers: Dear, I love opera and singers like Callas, Caruso, Sutherland etc. All of them beat Michael Crawford by a mile. So there. B) Michael Crawford can hardly be blamed for some of his...shall way say "more intense" fans who went as far as to pester ALW, WB and Schmuchacher with their demands, campaigns and sometimes flat insults. Then some of them acted like insulted primadonnas because Schumacher said that if MC-Fans didn't like it, they should stay home. IMHO he was completely right. No I'm a fan of MC, have heard his Phantom several times (Not the dull studio-recording where he really doesn't shine as much as he did live) and I've seen him play the Phantom too and was entranced, even though he wasn't half as god-like as some Phans were swearing he was. I was irritated by his high-pitched voice and at time he sounded downright nasal. Am I bashing MC? No, but if people feel free to slaughter Gerard Butler's Phantom to glorify MC I want to set the record straight. C) Now as for those moaning and whining that the movie isn't "faithful" to the stage-version...or even Leroux for that matter.... First of all the stage-version isn't faithful to Leroux...not at all. Second of all, what works in theatre often looks tacky and overblown on the big screen. Yes, yes, POTO is a spectacle and Schumacher keeps it as such, even if he does mellow it here and there. The interesting thing is that nobody seems to mind some of the glaring oddities in the stage-version (When did that get the impeccable status?) and yet they use them to malign the movie? Hello? You can't have it both ways! Yes, Schumacher did alter the story to suit his vision but so did the director of the "classic" with Lon Chaney. Some "Phans" behave like savages, meaning that only THEIR vision of the Phantom counts but here are some news for those persons: There have been countless interpretations of Leroux's shocker and there've been some where the story has been altered more, beyond recognition. I don't think that having a younger Erik is bad (Seeing 16 year old Emmy Rossum with 63 year old Michael Crawford would have been icky indeed) and as for the deformities: Does it always have to be Freddy Krueger to satisfy the crude and bloody imagination of those who think they know everything about Phantom? The deformity they put on Gerard Butler's face is based on a real disease unlike the mockery of a deformity that is used in the stage-version. What we see is only half of it as it is sometimes accompanied by severe headaches, fevers, loss of eye-sight etc. It depends on how severe it actually is. Now I love the stage-version and wouldn't alter a thing about it but I'm pretty darn impressed by the horror that can be created with subtlety. And in all honesty, Lon Chaney wasn't that deformed either as Erik btw. D) The ignorant lie that ALW stole music from Puccini is not only ignorant but also STUPID. I know all of Puccini's operas and ALW used none of their great melodies. I am disgusted and angered by such foolish ignorance. As for the "review" asking why it's still Nr.1 (It just reclaimed Nr. 1 after being Nr. 2 for a few hours) violates Amazon's guidelines and should be removed ASAP. E) I don't care for hypocrisy and I certainly don't care for double-standards. If "Gaston's fan" was that much of a "purist", he/she/it would have posted this diatribe at the OLC as well. This "review" is nothing more than another lash against a new interpretation from someone TOO close-minded to get it. Now to the movie and soundtrack itself. I love it for what it is and would never make the mistake as to compare it to the stage-version. Apples and oranges, don't some people get that? I liked Gerard Butler as the tormented Phantom and I do not get those who were unmoved by his portrayal. The way he looks at Christine during Masquerade or as she comes back to return the ring in the end are acting at its very best. He suffered a great deal while shooting this movie and his sincerity never fails to move me. As for the discussion on his voice... I love it. A wonderful baritonal timbre bursting with vocal colours and a myriad of feelings and emotions. Yes, Crawford has the better training but on the official studio-recording he lacks emotion, raw intensity and madness. All that Gerard Butler offers in abundance, coupled with a fresh interpretation that is DARING enough to defy tradition and create something new, something unheard of. One of his greatest moments in the vocal corner is the deleted scene "No one would listen" where he spins glowing pianissimi that not even Crawford could top. I don't believe that there'll ever be a performer who'll be THE undisputed Phantom (No, not even Crawford qualifies) but I am open-minded enough to enjoy different interpretations of the character that fascinates me that much. So, Gerard Butler, is he a great Phantom? In my book, yes. Many seem to love his interpretation and I'm glad they do. Emmy Rossum is a vocal diamond in the rough with certain edges but all in all I prefer her to Brightman because she's more youthful, innocent and less jazzy-operatic. Her best piece is, IMHO, "Wishing you were somehow here again" where she sounds gorgeous to the max. Her acting is sincere and charming, her appearance is delightful and gorgeous. Her partner as Raoul, Patrick Wilson, isn't a bloodless ninny like in the stage-version but fleshed out to the max as a MAN and not a stupid boy. He sounds fabulous as Raoul but all in all I do prefer Steve Barton from the original recording. I love "Learn to be lonely", I love the music to be played by a HUGE, lush-sounding orchestra (Compared to that the stage-version does sound a little bloodless), I love this endlessly entrancing story of love and redemption, of loss and regret, of beauty and wretched fears... This movie will be loved by generations to come as it will be snubbed by some, hated by so-called "purists" and adored by those who just want to feel the love, the fear, the solitude, the hope and the compassion that this story has inspired in so many and will continue to inspire as long as women love, men care and human beings still believe in what is so rarely found: A love as pure as breath, as permanent as death, impeccable as stone! (Quoted from Sondheim's Passion) | |
 What were they thinking? | |
| As a fan of the book, I realize the Andrew Lloyd Webber's production is absolutely nothing like Gaston Leroux's novel, therefore, I will not even begin to talk about how completely different the story line is... (other than the fact that it steers as far away from the book as possible... and quite frankly I'm sure Gaston is doing multiple flips in his grave right now.) However I will comment on this film by saying that Andrew Lloyd Webber created a young, sexy fantasy for younger fans by casting what he believes to be a handsome man. (The TRUE phantom smelled like death and was horribly disfigured from head to toe.)
The phantom, if you are truly familiar with the story, is supposed to have a voice like that of an angel. If you call Gerard Butler's "fingernails against the chalkboard"s, overly echoed, yell as loud as you can voice, the "angel of music", then you might as well have gotten "William Hung" to play the phantom. It was horrendous. (Give me a break people... this is supposed to be set in the Paris Opera House... Gerard Butler would NEVER be allowed to set foot on that stage, except if he were taking a tour.) Emmy Rossnum has a sweet "pop star" voice, she does portray a "young, pretty starlet"... but NOT an opera singer. Sarah Brightman's voice, even though she has been compared to Minnie Mouse on steroids, has a more operatic, mature voice and vocal range. I'm not her biggest fan, but I will take her rendition over Emmy's any day. Minnie Driver as Carlotta... all I can say about that is her comedic timing is just fine... that's it. She WAS dubbed, so there isn't much I can say about her voice. Her acting was a bit "over the top", and they gave her a bigger part than what was written for her in the book. Just to add dramatic effect and give comic relief. The Phantom of the Opera is NOT supposed to be a comedy. Nor is it supposed to portray ANY "romantic feelings" between Christine and the Phantom. Christine was supposed to be TERRIFIED of Erik (for those of you who never actually READ the book, he's the Phantom), who was a lonely, murdering, stink like death, deformed recluse. Christine took PITY on him at the end of the story, even though she was scared of him, and she also called him a monster. She never had the slightest romantic feelings for him. He loved her, she didn't love him. She thought of him as her teacher and mentor... that's it. You AREN'T supposed to look at the Phantom as a sex symbol... that's nauseating. True fans of Gaston Leroux are still waiting for a movie that does the book justice. The closest so far has been Lon Chaney's 1925 silent version. (Which this should have been.) If you want to make a musical, pick actors who can sing. I am a huge fan of Michael Crawford. Yes, he IS too old, but they could have picked a younger actor who could actually sing. Don't let Gerard Butler's "good looks" fool you into believing he can sing. Even his own mother was in shock when she found out that Gerard Butler was going to portray the Phantom, as he said in an interview, when he gave her the news, she asked him if it was the non-musical version. That should tell you something. If a director is reading this... PLEASE make a version that is true to the book. These romantic portrayals of a broken man is sickening, and Gaston Leroux's wonderful story should be shown to this generation as it truly was. Also... one last thing... why destroy a work of art simply to sell romance to the younger generation? Why not make a movie that will inspire the younger generation to read works of art... classic novels. THAT should be the goal... NOT to fill young people more romantic ideas... especially since they get enough of that on TV as is. Inspire reading... that's the key. And if any of our youth DO see the movie, and pick up the book, they will be so disappointed that the Phantom is not more romantic... why destroy a classic like that? Ridiculous. | |
People who bought The Phantom of the Opera (2004 Movie Soundtrack) (Special Extended Edition Package) also bought ... | |
