There was nobody but me in the cinema when I viewed 'Phantom'. It should have been a first hint of what was about to come. At first I thought, "great, now I can bark along" as I know the lyrics by heart, but as soon as the on screen characters started singing, my jaw dropped and all I could do was stare at the screen in utter amazement.
It didn't look or feel like the actors were singing and what made it even worse is that it was completely out of sync for most of the movie! As a retired projectionist, at first I thought it was due to faulty threading of the film in the projector, but the rest of the sound proved me wrong on that.
And then there was the scene I was anticipating the most: the shows title song, Phantom of the Opera. Now why on earth did the production designer and director decide to use that one set (that corner where Erik and Christine (on a horse?) keep coming down) at least three times? They might have spent a little more effort on this showstopper. How come Christine looked like she was hypnotized or drunk and just why didn't this scene have the same overwhelming effect it had on stage? And what about the scene where Raoul is caught under water? It was obviously filmed in a different image ratio then the rest of the movie and in the (digital) cutting room stretched to fit the screen. The producers might have taken the effort to at least 'pan-and-scan' those shots.
Miss Rossum may have a nice voice to some, but, like child-star, by some called opera singer Charlotte Church, it has in no way matured. When I would have been presented at a performance of the Dutch Opera with an understudy like her Christine, I'd probably be throwing tomatoes at her at the end. Besides that, for her next assignment in a movie she should at least try to act. Just a reminder: acting, that's trying to move or convince an audience by pretending. Mr. Wilson, who was so believable in HBO's 'Angels in America', looked clueless, running around like a very handsome but spoiled brat. I must blame the director for that. And as for his singing career, well, in this flick Mr. Wilson should have kept his mouth shut, like the dumb blonde in a movie often does.
Now as for Mr. Butler, well, I can be brief on his performance. It stinks. Michael Crawford, the actor that originated the title role on stage would have stunk too for that matter. People that say Crawford has an 'operatic voice' should have their ears checked or should try and sit through 15 minutes of a real opera. Where Crawford relied on microphones and amplifying on stage Mr. Butler's performance was lost on the DUBBING stage!
I am not at all surprised the movie was withdrawn from the Amsterdam cinema's after a two week run. How come I loved the stage version so much and find myself hating this movie adaptation? How come that most comments on the IMDb I read are favorable and yet the movie is an international flop? Why do some comments say the critics were wrong when it is obvious that even the die-hard fans that saw it on stage have so obviously refused to buy tickets for this cinematic disaster? No matter how much one likes the original show, it's okay to dislike this film version. As a matter of fact, that's what I liked about the movie. Every now and then I need to see something trashy, just to remind me how good other productions are. To quote an other Andrew Lloyd Webber classic: It's fun to see how bad, bad writing can be...
Think of how much cash the DVD will make at the souvenir shop in the theaters where the show is still playing, next to the coffee mugs, T-shirts, pins, masks, CD's and books.
Think of it! Andrew Lloyd Webber certainly did think of it - fondly
3 out of 8 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends