Friday, December 24, 2004

Two opinions of Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera, in a Q&A format.

I thought it would be fun to give my opinion of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s The Phantom of the Opera in a question and answer format. Also, I thought that it would be good if you got another opinion of the movie, so I’d like to thank my sister for her willing assistance in that area.
Many thanks, as well, to Joel, for his provision of these thoughtful and though-provoking questions. (it should also be noted that Joel is in no way responsible for the answers to these questions, so if there are any knife-wielding Phantom fans out there who don't like what you read here, blame me, not him) Alright, on to the good stuff:

First my sister's answers:

1. Was it well cast?

Yes. All the actors did a great job portraying their characters personalities.


2. Did it go an original route or did it look like the stage play on
film?

Original, it didn’t look like someone sneaked a video camera into the play.


3. Did it use the original music?

Yes, as far as I know; I’ve only heard bits and pieces of the Broadway soundtrack.


4. Was it more style or more content?

Probably style.


5. Did it have good character development?

They concentrated on the Phantom and kinda left the rest alone.


6. Was it sappy or interesting?

Interesting. I didn’t feel like I was about to cry instead I wanted to know what was going to happen next.


7. Was it well directed (shots and such)?

Yes, the director did a great job moving from one point to the next without confusing me.


8. Was it worthy of more stars than CT online gave it?

Yes, out of four stars I would give it three and a half.


9. Is it worthy of one or more academy awards?

Yes, the costume and sets were incredible and the music was great.


10. Is it worth seeing more than once?

Yes, I would like to see the acting again now that I know what the story’s about.


============================


Now mine:

1. Was it well cast?

I think that the character of the Phantom will always be the most intriguing to me no matter what adaptation I’m watching (or reading) so it’s no surprise that I found Gerard Butler’s performance to be the most worthwhile aspect of this film

As for the rest of the cast they (for the most part) did a fine job with the material they were given; Emmy Rossum (who plays Christine) pulled off an impressive performance especially considering here age (only 18!) and Minnie Driver was entertaining as a spanish diva. Patrick Wilson however gets the short end of the stick with the character “Raoul”, I use the term ‘character’ lightly.


2. Did it go an original route or did it look like the stage play on
film?

It certainly did not look like a play on film, which is to the director’s credit but this had little effect since the film very much felt like a Broadway play trying to make it’s way onto the big screen.


3. Did it use the original music?

Yes it’s all here, from the bombastic main theme to the dated drum machines, though I wish it wasn’t, for I was made painfully aware from the moment Lloyd Webber’s music muscled it’s way into the movie that I was not watching The Phantom of the Opera but *ANDREW LLOYD WEBBER'S* The Phantom of the Opera . A fact I wasn’t allowed to escape for the rest of the film. It was the film’s greatest weakness.


4. Was it more style or more content?

Style definitely trumps content in this film. I did not feel like the filmmakers were trying to say anything through this movie, which is too bad since the original story naturally lends itself to many topics and themes.


5. Did it have good character development?

Despite the actors best efforts, we are often left with no clue or insight into the characters actions or motivations.


6. Was it sappy or interesting?

Neither, really. It tries to knock us over the head the characters' emotions (which are never exactly “sappy”, instead they’re usually a mix of awe/admiration/desire that gets old after awhile), I would have enjoyed the movie a lot more if it had opted to show instead of tell.


7. Was it well directed (shots and such)?

Though his direction is not award-worthy, Joel Schumacher, like the actors, does an adequate job using the material he is given.


8. Was it worthy of more stars than CT online gave it?

No, I think two out of four stars is a fair rating.


9. Is it worthy of one or more academy awards?

It had very high production values, that is to say that there was a lot of talent going into the look of the movie but, beyond awards for these things, I don’t see it winning anything big come Oscar time. Thank goodness.

10. Is it worth seeing more than once?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

11 comments:

eucharisto said...

So my final question is, since I know all of this now, is it really worth spending upwards of $20 (price of gas going 30 miles there and 30 miles back in gas guzzling Chevy Suburban + price of discounted movie ticket + Popcorn) just to see it? Tell me that, if you will.

Queen of Arts and England said...

I am going to see it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, Joel, you should see it, but you can save on the Popcorn.Yucky.

Foolish Knight said...

Joel, it's your call. If you're looking for something intellectually or spiritually satisfying I would advise you to look elsewhere, however if you're a fan of the play then nothing I say would stop you anyway.

CowPrincess said...

I saw it today with my best friend Stephanie. We drove all the waay to Opry Mills because that was thw only place that was showing it in Nashville. I cried though the whole movie! Yes I know that sounds chesey, but you see I have been like the Phantom of the Opera sense for ever. I loved the movie! I will watch it again and again! The movie was great! It was undougtably the best movie I have ever seen!

Queen of Arts and England said...

The insanity!!!

penny lane said...

Joel, despite the criticism of Foolish Knight 's review you must watch the movie . one must not make a discision on whether or not to watch this movie based upon a Foolish review . you simply must make that discision on your own. there is more to this film that makes it worth watching than Foolish Knight placed into account . I don't care who you are you will love and appreciate this film it is worth watching and it is worth watching at the theater do not wait until it comes out on rental watch it now! I garuntee you will love it!!!! P.S. if you need someone to make the experience more emotional I'll watch it with you . te, he, he!

Anonymous said...

Not to say you shoudn't heed the advice of one who knows more about it then you do. (you bieing Joel)

Anonymous said...

Joel,
Even though I did enjoy the movie VERY much I should say like Knight said I too have seen more thought provoking movies. I wish the movie developed the characters more then they did.

A.E.P.

P.S. About that gas guzzler, if you got a Mini Cooper you wouldn't have to spend so much on gas.

eucharisto said...

amen to that (having a mini cooper. I'm working on that, lol!). Ok, yeah, we'll probably see it when it comes out on DVD. no one here has said much in the way of seeing it in Theatres. By the way, "A.E.P.", you ought to get a blog so you can post with an identity (and say interesting things while posting)!

Anonymous said...

Joel did you just say lol? I can I never saw that coming from you.

midnitcafe said...

I can't say that I have seen, read, or listened to any version of Phantom. It sounds like an interesting story, and I am more inclined to read the book or watch the old, non musical, versions before I see this. I've never been a fan of Lloyd Webber (although the wife enjoys this one). And if I had to choose one word for Joel Schumaker it would be hack. If I had two words it would be hasbeen hack. If I had three words...well you get the picture. So I guess you could say I won't be venturing to the theatre for this one anytime soon. That's not to say anyone else shouldn't. And hey, if you enjoyed it more power to you. It's just not my thing.

I really enjoyed the Q&A from two perspectives.