Starring: Gerard Butler, Emmy Rossum, Patrick Wilson, Minnie Driver
Directed by: Joel Schumacher
__________________________________________________________
My review of this movie is a bit pointless, as there are countless other places you can go to see it ripped to tiny little shreds. One such place is Phantommovie.com, the site that has for years been wisely lobbying
Warner Bros and Webber to cast Michael Crawford in the role he defined nearly twenty years ago now and, despite his age, would have certainly still done well at.
I wanted to write this review from the point of view of a fan of the show, and not just as a person who is critical of films (I am) and has seen the show on stage many times performed by the likes of Colm Wilkinson, Peter Karrie, etc etc.
Anyway, yes, the movie. Well, umm, let me start with a couple positives. Patrick Wilson wasn't bad. I didn't feel much of a spark between him and Emmy (Christine), but at least he could sing.
Emmy really surprised me. I'd only seen her in The Day After Tomorrow, and I knew nothing about her or her career, so I had no idea she could sing. And sing she can, decently, especially when compared to typical Hollywood actresses. And she's maturing very well; she looked beautiful as a grown up, whereas in The Day After she played a plain-faced high school kid. I don't think they could have done better with Christine.
I'm dying to tear this thing apart, so can I begin? Please? :-)
Let's begin by my listing some key flaws:
1. The Phantom: Mr. Butler. Why? I don't think that words can adequately describe what I'm feeling when it comes to this matter. When you audition someone for a SINGING role, even for, say, a touring company, wouldn't this person have to have to be a very talented SINGER?
Now imagine you are making a movie, the crown jewel representation of the show, you'd logically want the best sounding Phantom there ever was, right? The thought that Gerard Butler sounds better in any way than any other actor to sing this role and has had the luck to have been recorded doing so is as maddening as a trip through Alice's Wonderland.
His voice is actually capable of making you squint your eyes at times; you will cringe. I have no idea how Andrew Lloyd Webber is such a focused genius: he writes brilliant music; but was actually able to sit there, listen to this guy squawk out these scratchy vocal abominations and not one of his musically-enlightened brain cells twitched and was capable of saying "Hey, Andy, this guy can't sing!"
It makes no sense. I hereby nominate Emmy Rossum for the Academy Award for Best Actress, on the grounds that she was actually able to, at times, pull off convincing me that she was entranced by his voice.
2. Why did Joel Schumacher choose to have Christine do her vocalizations IN the boat at the end of the title song? The entire point and significance of this is lost. She is supposed to be entranced; the Phantom is nearly orgasmic over her voice as she stands there and sings higher and higher at his behest. It's a powerful scene and finish to the title song, and in the movie she is SITTING IN THE BOAT, and he ISN'T EVEN PAYING ATTENTION TO HER.
3. How hard was it to realize that at times people weren't moving their mouths at all to the voiceovers? "In sleep he sang to me, in dreams he came..." - her mouth never moves.
4. Why did Gerard Butler wear no makeup whatsoever until he was unmasked?
5. For what reason did Lord Lloyd Webber, Musical Genius, think he needed to go back to the arrangement of the original Steve Harley version of the song "The Phantom of the Opera" replete with its electronic hand claps and cheesy 80s electric guitar riffs flailing wildly during the finish? Because that's practically what he did. They nipped a verse out of the stage version and added some nice strumming to accompany the phantom's solo, but then added the electro crap from the 1985 pre-stage show version of the song.
Insane idea, and I would LOVE if someone involved with the film who knows ANYTHING as to why they might have done this would please e-mail me and explain. Seriously. My e-mail address is the following:
Okay, I'm really done complaining. What should have been done is this: less adherence to the stage show. You want the stage show? Go see it. They still should FILM THE STAGE SHOW with a good cast, like they did with CATS. I don't know why they haven't.
They should have told Schumacher, "Here's the music, here's the money; do what you will." Webber should have had little or no involvement. The only thing that should have been set in stone I say is this: Starring opposite Miss Rossum, the one and only Michael Crawford. I don't care if he is 65 or whatever years old. The constraints of trying to maintain too much continuity with something that has had unparalleled success on stage but might not work as well on film, hurt the film...
That, and the casting of the wrong leading man. Ah well. Your hands to the level of your eyes!!!
Jason Latona
12.28.2004
