The 2004 movie (ALW version)

Scorp suggested the movie don't need an own forum, as the activity has been rather low on this subject the last couple of years. So I've created a topic here for everything concerning the 2004 movie. Be nice...

Just a suggestion. Shouldn't we discuss the 2004 movie with the other movies in the movie forum? It feels like just a thread in the stage forum could get lost.

Yeah, might be. I renamed the movie thread to "Phantom movies" and placed it here. Hope that'll work out.

The 04 version....well....I don't like it too much...at all really. I daresay that I'm one of the only young teenagers on the planet that does. Besides the obvious reasons, I don't care for what they did to the characters. They seem like polar opposites to the ones on stage. I especially did not like all the unneeded sexual themes. For instance, the Phantom rubbing his hands all over Christine or better yet, having her rub her hands all over herself. It just wasn't needed at all.

I could go into a whole rant about this, but I think that it would get offensive

I didn't start out disliking this version. In fact, I was eager to see it when it came out. I went to see it four times, something I seldom do since I took early retirement and have to watch my nickels and dimes. But the more times I watched it, the more I found myself wondering if it was really as good as I first thought. The quick answer is -- no. While this is hardly the worst version of the story I've ever seen (and I'm including all the film versions, not just ALW), it is not the best. I guess if I had to give it a grade, it would be a C+.

I'm probably preaching to the choir here when I say that Gerard Butler just was not my ideal for the Phantom, and every time I read on some board about how someone fell in love with the Phantom when they saw the movie because he was so gorgeous, I cringe. I'm not a Leroux purist by any stretch of the imagination, but (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)...isn't the Phantom supposed to be ugly?

That, and I have a real hard time listening to Butler sing. I agree that for the amount of time he had to train, he does an adequate job. (That coupled with electronic enhancements.) But it is obvious that he struggles during some of the songs, and that just ruins the whole effect for me. If he were handsome but could sing, I think I would have been able to handle it better...but being too good looking + not that good of a singer?

I could also rant about the lack of historical accuracy. I mentioned this in another thread, but the historian in me screams when I see such blatant anachronisms such as abound in this film--from the costumes to the fact that this movie is set during the height of the German occupation of Paris. (Sorry, but I'm really picky about historical accuracy. At least pretend there is some accuracy involved!) There are other things that annoy the heck out of me--from the overblown opulence of the sets, the in-your-face sexiness ("Oh, he's so hawt!"), Emmy's deer-in-the-headlights expression in almost every scene, and the countless bloopers and continuity errors.

With the money and resources involved in its making, this could have been a fantastic movie. Instead, it is only okay.

I think the cast is sooooooo wrong!!!! Gerard Bulter's voice is sooooo rough sounding and NOT phantom material at all!!!! They just cast him for his looks and not his voice. And did anyone else notice how Emmy hardly never closes her mouth though the whole movie!!?? lol

I really wanted to like this movie. I'd waited so long for it to be made...only to get this. Yes, Butler's voice is just wrong in so many ways. I want a Phantom with the voice of an angel...not some gravely, growly, screaming voice. I'm no musical expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I know what I like...and it's not Butler's singing.

And Emmy's vacant open-mouthed stare? Was that supposed to be awe? Innocence? Duh??

There were things I really liked about this movie--that chandelier-rising-time-rolling-back scene for one. Some of the costumes were good, some of the scenes were good. I liked the contrast in the hallways between when Christine saw them and when Meg saw them. I liked the rose on the grave at the end. I liked Raoul's flashbacks. Meg pleasantly surprised me. Emmy's voice is good. However...

Yes, those are some of the things that I liked, too, along with ALW's music. (How could I not like the music itself?) I don't think the movie is a total failure by any means. It's just that, as happens so often these days, the movie is aimed at a specific demographic -- that younger, late teens/early 20s group -- who are more likely to spend their disposable income. The casting of Butler was a business decision more than anything else.

I wanted to like it, too. And for a time I did like this movie. But eventually, I came to realize what I liked was Patrick Wilson and the orchestrations. The stage show is sexually charged, but it never bothers me in the show. In the movie, it does. Perhaps that's because it seems so cheap. Doing a film version of the show could have brought on so many opportunities to expand on the characters and yet, I find the stage show to reveal more depth.

It's a bummer.

I just hate Joel Schumacher period! He gave Batman a BAT CREDIT CARD!!!!!!!!!

IamErik771 wrote:
Gerard's vocals, while impressive for someone with so little singing experience, just didn't fit the requirements of the piece. But the cinematography with the Phantom's scenes was what irritated me most. The first time we get a glimpse of him is in that "fly-down" in "Think of Me" – a really odd moment in the narrative and the song itself to be seeing him for the first time, and the shot of him from above/behind doesn't do him any favors in the "mystery" department. The second time is in the "Mirror" scene, which should be a visually spectacular moment... but instead, we see him appear in the mirror, which is in the background. Christine is in the foreground, which makes him seem tiny... Not very intimidating at all. And throughout the film, they seem to rely on wide-angle shots of him that continue to make him seem small and non-threatening; that must have been a difficult task, considering that Gerard is a pretty tall guy.

That's a good observation. I've never noticed or thought about that. Almost tempted to see the movie again and see if I agree. ALMOST.

operafantomet wrote: Almost tempted to see the movie again and see if I agree. ALMOST.

I am quite certain that I will never watch this film again. There is hardly a single frame in it that I actually like, and that includes the prologue/overture sequence which some people seem to find amazing (I thought that part was rubbish too...pathetically tiny-looking Opera House that doesn't exist anyway and disgusting garish gold bondage statues and a horrible happy joy overture lacking any creepy gothic atmosphere).

And re: the argument that I shouldn't be judging so harshly, the reason it IMHO should be judged according to such standards is that the title of the film is Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera. This has to imply that it is an incarnation of what opened in London in 1986, and by comparison to that, this is a beyond pathetic attempt. Hack director, a capricious composer/producer who doesn't seem to know what he wants (he even admitted in an interview that he was only rushing ahead with the project because RUG had bills to pay), and a completely unsuitable cast. And I don't even agree with TMCPMC's claim that Michael Crawford alone could have saved this project. No single person could have -- it was that bad.

Best part was getting all those stage version extras on the DVD release. The end.

Scorp wrote:

operafantomet wrote: Almost tempted to see the movie again and see if I agree. ALMOST.

I am quite certain that I will never watch this film again.

I haven't seen the movie since the summer of 2005. And, speaking as someone who initially liked it, I have no desire to. My partner James spotted it on the DVD shelf at the library and, since he knows I love anything Phantom, he suggested getting it. He was shocked by my horrified "Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!" Well, it's the thought that counts. He doesn't like musicals so it was nice of him to TRY to pick something he thought I'd like.

There is hardly a single frame in it that I actually like, and that includes the prologue/overture sequence which some people seem to find amazing

I liked that part well enough. But it doesn't hold up to seeing it more than a couple of times.

At this point, I can't even stand seeing clips of the movie.

I tried re-watching this several years ago, to see if maybe my first impressions were mistaken. I think I got about as far as MotN before ejecting the DVD in frustrated disgust, and haven't bothered with it since.

There were some parts of it I thought managed to work. The "Il Muto" segment is appropriately farcical, and some of the supporting cast--Patrick Wilson, Miranda Richardson (outRAEgeous akzent aside) and Kevin McNally (yes, it's sad when Buquet is one of the highlights of a PotO film)--put in a good effort despite Schumacher's mishandling of the material. But generally, the film for me embodies every criticism of the show itself--a gaudy, empty spectacle devoid of any real soul or passion. Most of the time I just ignore its existence.

~LCD

Taking a last browse through my Geocities files before it closes for good on October 26, I re-discovered some costume pics I took years ago. In November 2004 I met up with Josefine in London - super nice - and before we strolled down to Her Majesty's Theatre in Haymarket, we took a turn in Regency Street. Mostly to see POTO movie costumes and props on display. Despite my dislike for he movie, it was a beautiful exhibition, with every window carefully dresses, draped and decorated to illude scenes from the movie, and they also played music through speakers I wasn't able to locate.

I originally had tons of pics from the various windows, but I only uploaded a few on Photobucket and the rest is in my fathers long-gone PC... If anyone have the full-window-shots saved (from old Phantomfans.net), or even better some of the pics of me and Josefine, I would love to get a copy! I know I posted a lot more pics online, and I also emailed them to various people. But who...



The monkey musical box, plus one of the Princess costumes. It was almost identical to the one Carlotta wore, but with less elaborate headgarb, plus different "bra" details in the bodice.



Definitely my favourite item from the movie, and even prettier up close. It actually looked antique, with a shimmering greenish tone just underneath the white/silver fabric. And lovely lace! There were two wedding dresses on display in London; one in the "mirror scene" and one in the most indecent boat pose ever! Ha-ha. The boat pic is one of my favourite shots.



The Elissa/Sissi dress looked lovely up close, I liked it better on display than in the movie. The pink... thing... on the other hand, looked quite sad up close. So flat and dull, and the silver decorations in front reminded me a lot of the kind of retroflector you put on sports clothes. Bleeeh. Looks much more fun in the movie.

I dislike the movie but I do like most of the costumes from it. Having seen pictures of this exhibition I wish I could have been there and seen it myself, it looks great!

I really like this one

operafantomet wrote:

I was thinking about this costume and I thought wouldn't this be considered risque for the 1800s???? I coundn't see girls back then wearing this in an opera. I would think back then people would have considered the costume indecent exposure or something like that.

I have mixed feelings about the costumes in the film. There are some I really like, but I like them on their own, not in Phantom. They just seem inappropriate for the film. Christine's Elyssa dress for example; is that really something a Carthage queen would wear?

Becky wrote:Christine's Elyssa dress for example; is that really something a Carthage queen would wear?

No.

That swooning boat scene photo is just so wrong.

I think the Hannibal slave girl costumes would have been a little too risque for a legit opera. I could easily see such a costume figuring in a more high-end burlesque musical hall type production, though.

As for the Elissa gown, funny but I was thinking about that recently. It doesn't fit in with the whole Queen of Carthage business. I know that the argument has been made that it's OK because it's a gala and maybe they're not performing the whole opera that night. I don't buy that because they still have the stage all set with the backdrop, the random horses, etc.

I watched the movie in French the other night and was actually able to make it through "Music of the Night" without becoming nauseous. Of course, I also realized that I've learned nothing from my French teacher.

phantomphan1992 wrote:I watched the movie in French the other night and was actually able to make it through "Music of the Night" without becoming nauseous. Of course, I also realized that I've learned nothing from my French teacher.

Just as well, otherwise you'd have laughed at how awful the Region 1 French translation is (yeah, I meant it when I said there's nothing I like about this film ). Seriously though, it's baaaaaaad. Guess how they translate the "Christine you must have been dreaming..." line (which IMHO shouldn't have been used anyway given there's a much superior line that's been used on stage for the last 21 years...)? Meg tells Christine she just needs more sleep and should head to bed. The Region 2 translation they did for the actual French release (i.e. in France) is marginally better but numbingly boring and unimaginative and nothing rhymes.

What am I doing? This film doesn't exist. Must refrain from posting here.

Scorp wrote:

phantomphan1992 wrote:I watched the movie in French the other night and was actually able to make it through "Music of the Night" without becoming nauseous. Of course, I also realized that I've learned nothing from my French teacher.

Just as well, otherwise you'd have laughed at how awful the Region 1 French translation is (yeah, I meant it when I said there's nothing I like about this film ). Seriously though, it's baaaaaaad. Guess how they translate the "Christine you must have been dreaming..." line (which IMHO shouldn't have been used anyway given there's a much superior line that's been used on stage for the last 21 years...)? Meg tells Christine she just needs more sleep and should head to bed. The Region 2 translation they did for the actual French release (i.e. in France) is marginally better but numbingly boring and unimaginative and nothing rhymes.

What am I doing? This film doesn't exist. Must refrain from posting here.

Actually, that's pretty much the only thing I understood. But that was just funny to me. Nothing about the English version is funny.

Gerard Butler was in Oslo yesterday, to promote his newest movie. I missed him. Oh no.

The author of the article linked to below wrote:After waiting nearly a decade for this film to be made, Joel Schumacher ripped the original show to threads, switched scenes that actually changed the progression of the plot and made lines usually sung spoken for no reason whatsoever. Then again, that might have been a good call, considering the poor casting job that put then 34-year-old hottie Gerard Butler in the role of a 50-something hermetic opera ghost. Cinematography and costuming were this production’s only saving grace.

Agree up to the last sentence -- I thought the costumes were very disappointing (and sometimes totally random, e.g. WHY wear an Austrian empress' dress in Carthage?!).

Link to source: http://bit.ly/3UNAx0

operafantomet wrote:Gerard Butler was in Oslo yesterday, to promote his newest movie. I missed him. Oh no.

Oh no, hope it didn't make you to sad that you missed him.

EarlFan wrote:

operafantomet wrote:Gerard Butler was in Oslo yesterday, to promote his newest movie. I missed him. Oh no.

Oh no, hope it didn't make you to sad that you missed him.

I'll survive.... somehow...

operafantomet wrote:

EarlFan wrote:

operafantomet wrote:Gerard Butler was in Oslo yesterday, to promote his newest movie. I missed him. Oh no.

Oh no, hope it didn't make you to sad that you missed him.

I'll survive.... somehow...

How is that even possible? I admire you...