The Phantom of the Opera
|
List Price: Our Price: $17.71 You Save: $12.24 (41%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.49 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of The Phantom of the Opera
Movie Review: WORST Version of POTO (Spoiler)
Summary: 1 Stars
After ten minutes of this show I seriously wished that it would end soon. I was excited by the fact that it said on the back cover it was close to Leroux's book which is the original "The Phantom of the Opera". I was sadly mislead this book only contains a few items that were had any similarities with the book. One of them is the beginning when Raoul as a little boy gives Christine back her scarf. Secondly they decide to keep The Persian or "Daroga" as he is called in this show. After that there is nothing in common with Leroux's version. There's not even the chandelier falling! They make Erik (Phantom) look idiotic, (putting two ropes as a trap...he would be A LOT smarter than that where's the torture chamber?). The ending is so horrendous I can barely talk about it. First Raoul comes then instead of Erik trying to kill him or harm him he just lets him come in and Christine of course chooses him. Then Erik and "Daroga" almost fight which is very unlikely because in the book Daroga actually saves Erik's life. And after Christine chooses Raoul, Erik goes after a ballet corps girl, (this is highly unlikely I'm pretty sure he loved Christine alone). The middle is just as ghastly. Erik dances with Carlotta in a flirtatious manner. Carlotta doesn't end up croaking like a frog but sings like a man. The Masked Ball scene was horrible as well with Erik instead of appearing as the Red Death he came as a dragon or some other sort of beast. Joseph Burquet is killed with an axe; there is no mention of any Punjab lassos. And the original scene with Christine and Raoul on the Opera house's roof is marred like the other scenes with Erik not on top of the statue but hiding somewhere and just comes out of no where to confront them. He abducts Christine right then. The sound quality wasn't that great either I had to turn my television's voulume as loud as possible and still couldn't make out some of the sung words. If you like Leroux's original novel or the Andrew Lloyd Webber's version you will hate this one. I would only watch it if you are a devoted "phan" just to have said you have. Please rent from your local library before wasting your money on this.Movie Review: Don't waste your money!
Summary: 1 Stars
This is a very, very poor film. The acting is laughable, the dialouge boring, and the original music is the most forgettable I've ever heard. For those who say it is closer to the Leroux novel- ha! Some of it yes, but then they go in completely other directions. There is no chandelier crash, the Phantom has only half a mask, there are no operas performed in the show, only people singing alone (to save money, no doubt). The ending is simply ridiculous. The Phantom threatens no one, and doesn't put anyone in any real danger. He simply asks Christine who she'd rather be with and thinks she'll pick him, but guess who she picks? It isn't hard to figure out.
The biggest problem here (and what makes it so distant from Leroux's novel) is the Phantom's character. He is much to egotistical, which isn't like the book. He really doesn't have any qualities that make you pity him. Actually, he comes across as a real jerk, regardless of face deformity or not. It doesn't help that the actor is ridiculously over the top. But the worst example of twisting Erik's character around comes at the final scene, where he starts preying on a ballet girl. "Who are you?" she says. Erik replies- wait for it- "I am...... Whatever you want me to be! HAHAHAHAHA!" Excuse me, what?!? Christine rejects him, and two seconds later he's moved on to some other girl. The most centrally important character trait to any Erik is his undying devotion to Christine. None of that here. It just makes Erik look like a big creep.
This movie is just so bad, I don't know what they did to get the live audience to sit there the whole time. The original music is terrible, and so is the acting. Even the ballet girls are horrible at both dancing and singing. Spare yourself! If you want good music, go see ALW's. If you want close to the book, buy Lon Chaney's. It's as simple as that.
For informative (and hilarious) reviews of all Phantom films good and bad, including this one, go to Phantom Reviewer's youtube channel. You're in for a real treat there!
Movie Review: Amateur Hour Phantom
Summary: 1 Stars
Today it is vital that "Phantom of the Opera" be about MUSIC. The Lon Chaney version is marvelous as a dramatic presentation, but a viewer does miss the music (even if they have a version with an instrumental sound track). This awful production does not have one decent or memorable song. In fact, you wish it were a silent version. The only memorable piece of music is the classical "Danse Macabre" played at the masked ball. The "original" music for this production is a waste of time. There is not one number that can be remembered even 10 seconds after is has been played. After hearing the first number, you want to grab the remote and push the "mute" button whenever another song is started.The script is unbelievably inept. Not one scene builds to a dramatic climax. They just sort of end without reason or emotion. One of the great things about any other version is that the audience is made to care about Eric (the Phantom), Christine and Raoul. The only feeling this script envokes is BOREDOM. A few scenes are mildly (and I stress "mildly") amusing, but this is the only emotion a viewer can hope for.
In the novel, Christine and Raoul go off and their future is not revealed, but it is stated that the skeleton of the Phantom is discovered years later wearing the ring he had given Christine and she returned when she left. There is none of the "pick the next Miss Phantom Girl" that ends this version. Even with Eric being a monster both in looks and actions, there is a certain pity for him in all other versions. This version leaves you with a feeling he got what he deserved when Christine left.
It was filmed before a live audience and even their reactions are only half hearted, applause after some scenes and songs, no reactions after others. It almost seems that the audience is in disbelief about what they are seeing. The sets are all small and cheap looking. The theater stage obviously could not accomodate decent settings.
This is the worst version of "Phantom" that can be imagined. Even if you find it in a half priced bin, skip it.
Movie Review: ... alternate to those once elusive Bway tickets
Summary: 1 Stars
This Phantom was made just two years after the REAL Phantom arrived on Broadway, and by golly it shows. It was as though someone got to finally see the show and decided to "help" all those who still couldn't get seats. This so-called "musical" is a total ... [copy] of Andrew Lloyd Webber's work. If you've seen the London or Bway version at least once (like me--I don't count those who have seen it some obscenely obsessive number of times) you can see what I am talking about. Apparently, this version borrows more from Leroux. However, the half-mask was not described in the original novel for the Phantom! It was uniquely designed for the ALW Phantom so that the Phantom could sing better. Here, the Phantom also has a half-mask, but to try and keep from being sued, it's painted some hideous silver color. Also, this Christine lacks the emotional depth that the role on Bway has. Surprisingly, there is no falling chandelier, probably because they couldn't afford one. Probably the most obvious ...[copy] is their half hearted attempt at re-creating a "Music of the Night" sequence between the Phantom and Christine. He tries to overcome her while singing about "Perfect Music". One look at the staging and I'm surprised production wasn't shut down for total copyright infringement.Movie Review: I'm not happy
Summary: 1 Stars
The cover of this DVD make you believe it is the Webber version but with a different cast. It is until you have it in your hands that you realize its not. The music and the quality of the production is not nearly as good as the Webber version and I think the cover should not mislead by saying that David S. is as good as Crawford and Elizabeth W. is warmer than Sarah Brightman. This makes people believe that in fact it is the Webber version with a better cast than Crawford and Brightman when it's not.
I'm not saying the cover should say in big that this is not the Webber version, but why not to say who's version it is? The only answer I find is that they want people to think so.
The truth is that I wish I could return it.