8/10
A good film criticized by Phantom Phanatics.
28 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
The problem with The Phantom of the Opera is that Andrew Llyod Webber has ruined any other representation of the classic novel. I love Webber's Phantom, but I also love the original Phantom. I have seen Lon, Claude Rains and now Robert Englund in the role of the Phantom, and I believe that this film (with Englund) is a fantastic adaptation of the story. Webber created his screenplay for his musical to bring out the romance of the Phantom while Gerry O'Hara and Duke Sandefur (The writers) did a great job concentrating on the less romantic phantom, but the obsessed genius who would do anything and kill anybody for the woman he was infatuated with.

Anyone who has read Leroux knows that the Phantom was a composer and not a singer, so the fact that this version did not have the Phantom singing opera was alright by me. As I said before, Webber has made too many high expectations for any other version of this story. What I really enjoyed about Dwight Little's Phantom is that it took place in a Opera and actually had Christine singing. Though I do not agree with the Phantom's 'Faustus' like background instead of being a circus freak, I can appreciate this movie.

The end was a bit 'blaah' and I don't know if I agree with the mixing of modern and flashbacks. I didn't like how they changed the place of Paris to London. I did however like how the ending did enforce the theme of this particular movie "Only Love and Music are forever".

I think anyone who enjoyed the book, the musical and has an open mind to other people's interpretations, plus a good love for horror (since Phantom of the opera -is- a horror/Gothic novel) should see this movie and forget the musical numbers and scores of Webbers before they view it, or their expectations will be unfulfilled.

8/10
24 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed