Change Your Image
Zephayra
Reviews
Corpse Bride (2005)
Stunning eye candy but missing something more.
Like many of those who have already commented, I am no stranger to Tim Burton's work. I grew up watching Beetljeuice and the spin off cartoon that followed, along with Edward Scissorhands, Batman, Sleepy Hollow and of course, the masterpiece Nightmare Before Christmas.
When I walked into the theater, I already knew not to expect anything like Nightmare Before Christmas and it seems most people have. This is unfair to compare two different films, though they are made in the same manner. And this is where the movie starts to fail, as people come out of the theater and proclaim "It was okay, but it was no Nightmare".
Corpse Bride delivers exactly as it says. However, it was lacking so much character development that once the end arrives, you know the movie is too short. Who are these people? Who is Victor? Why does he like butterflies? Who is Victoria and why does she fall for Victor so easily? What about the Corpse Bride? They give us a measly explanation but there is still so much missing from these main characters that it is criminal. What about the villain? Great villains need background and development too. The plot seemed a bit rushed which was tragic and probably led to the lack of characterization. And as for the people who complain about wanting more about the Underworld...what more do you want to see? It's full of dead people. There isn't much more you can explore there.
Despite its flaws, Corpse Bride is a cherished Tim Burton movie. He brings all the essentials in this package, delighting the fans of his work with familiar faces like Depp and Elfman, along with the key theme to most of his movies; the Outsider. Don't see this film because you want to see a great story -it is a predictable one. Instead, go and see it because of its beautiful animation and its homage to those who enjoy the taste of the morbid.
The Phantom of the Opera (1989)
A good film criticized by Phantom Phanatics.
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