Worst Movie Ever!!!

[Gn2Dlnd]

I paid good money (is there bad money?) to see "Phantom of the Opera" last night and I want those 9 1/2 hours of my life back! I've deliberately avoided all reviews and only seen the trailer, so who knows, maybe this movie's been getting trashed, but you'd think AMC Theaters would put up a warning sign.

Warning: This movie was edited by a papier-mache monkey, no attempt at logical storytelling has been made. Caveat: If you liked "Battlefield Earth" or "Light Magic," we bid you WELCOME and ENJOY! Fool.

Ok, real points:
Actions onscreen that contradict the words being sung
Nearly unintelligible lyrics
Continuity problems galore
Terrible lip-synching
No attempt at a story that makes sense (he's going to kidnap you, walk out of the theatre)
It's 2005, could we update the arrangements? A clap-track?!?
If they walked into the Phantom's hidey-hole why do they have to gondola out? Standing?

This movie was ridiculous on so many levels, and I had to restrain myself from
making smart-ass comments so often, I think, after a good 45 minutes are edited out, that it may have a future as a midnight movie.

"Well, don't you have anything good to say about the movie?"
Two things. It had a budget and Minnie Driver. That's it.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Awww, I really enjoyed it.

However:

1. The lip sync *was* off. LOL

2. The Phantom of the Opera looked like he got burnt blowing out the candles on his birthday cake, rather than looking like seriously deformed human being of Gaston Leroux's book (or, heck, even the make-up used in ALW stage productions...)

3. Emmy Rossum, I love your voice, and your look, but WHO goes to bed wearing what you were wearing? Women who wore corsets to bed sometimes died because of it. And those thigh highs? Are we watching a White Snake video here? Also, dear, please close your mouth once in a while. You sometimes looked...well...obscene.

Still, I really, really enjoyed it.

Ah, well.

[Gn2Dlnd]

...WHO goes to bed wearing what you were wearing? Women who wore corsets to bed sometimes died because of it. And those thigh highs? Are we watching a White Snake video here?...

HA! And backlighting her in that oufit! That's when I knew we were in for some bad directing choices.

[blueerica]

How come they couldn't get lipsynching together for the movie???!?!?!?!?!

Did you guys go to the same theater, I wonder?? Because that's rare... How sad!!!

What does everyone else have to say about it. I haven't seen it yet, and I don't want to be let down, so give me the lowdown!!

[Gn2Dlnd]

It was clear that the actor's weren't actually singing to the track, that always looks bad, the breathing is wrong.
Characters in impossible physical situations singing away with no extra effort also strained credulity. Look, he's tied to a metal gate and has a noose around his neck, which is being yanked around, and he's singing! What talent.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

How come they couldn't get lipsynching together for the movie???!?!?!?!?!

Did you guys go to the same theater, I wonder?? Because that's rare... How sad!!!

What does everyone else have to say about it. I haven't seen it yet, and I don't want to be let down, so give me the lowdown!!

I only noticed it in some scenes. I also know some of the tracks were actually live recorded. Actually, I think a lot of it was, or I read that somewhere. So, I was confused at times when the singing / mouthing seemed off.

I loved it, E, but I'm loathe to recommend it to people because I love the cheesy musical, and enjoyed the movie for what it is, sexy Phantom and all.

But, when it comes down to it, I'm in love with the book. The book is my first PotO love.

[Ponine]

Okay, I'll play.... I adored the book, and the musical, and think I could sing Emmy out of house and home... that said....

Yeah... they did pre-record the singing... and yes, the lip synch/breathe synch *sucked*

The backlighting... I hated that. HATED.

The stockings... yeah what was with that???? Nary a garter in sight... wrong on too many levels knowing the age of the actress and the character. Not to mention the time period.
Seems to me, that Christine, in the musical, wore a robe over the 'slave girl' costume when she went into the lair the first time..

I agree with Eliza, he wasnt deformed enough. And I didnt need the extra 15 minutes to explain his past... really I didnt. If anything it took any pity I had for him away.

what was the other thing you said... hmmmm...
Oh the lyrics....
I said that when I left the theatre, I had slight pity for my escort. She had never seen the show, and lord knows wasnt a theatre geek.
I wondered if anyone else could really understand what the heck was going on. I knew the words, and hence, could follow the lyrics.

But.. that said... i did like the movie, but knew better than to ask a man to accompany me.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

But.. that said... i did like the movie, but knew better than to ask a man to accompany me.

Much to my surprise, my father really, really liked it. But he's kind of a manly girlie-man type. Heh.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

But.. that said... i did like the movie, but knew better than to ask a man to accompany me.

Much to my surprise, my father really, really liked it. But he's kind of a manly girlie-man type. Heh.

Also, have you ever read Susan Kay's retelling? The first 3/4's are very, very good because she's so very faithful to the tidbits revealed about Erik by the Persion in Leroux's novel. The last 1/4, with Christine, starts to read a bit like Mary Sue fanfiction. But it's certainly, as derivative retellings go, worth the read for any fan of this story. It's out of print, so to the library you must go if you haven't read it and don't want to spend a fortune.

I'd like to see an actual opera based on the book. In French.

[Ponine]

Much to my surprise, my father really, really liked it. But he's kind of a manly girlie-man type. Heh.
Wow... I am not on Eliza's communication level today... :(
I knew better than to ask a person of male gender in my own age group and hetrosexual to accompany me. :cool:

wait... no... your dad's just cool... thats all there is to it. He could prob see the craft, and the spirit that was being put into the film, and the tremendous amount of work, and detail.

[Gemini Cricket]

There were several things just plain wrong with this movie:

1. Gerard Butler seemed to young to be playing the phantom. It seems like if he was training her since she was a kid and he would be like 18 or so when he started doing it... Seems off to me.

2. I don't agree with the casting choice of Emmy Rossum as Christine. She was wooden and pretty much had only a couple of expressions throughout.

3. Gee, the phantom's lair doesn't look like that bad of a place. What's he griping about? Not to mention, the mannequin of Christine behind the curtain is a little weird. It plays on stage, not on film for some reason. If you're going to show a dummy of Christine, don't have Emmy Rossum standing there like a dummy. Get Madam Touseau to make you a dummy look alike. Bleh.

4. Masquerade I: Masquerade was the worst piece of garbage I have ever seen on film. The costumes were great, the set was wonderful but that's it. In the context of the film, what was that scene all about? Think on it. You sing for a reason on stage and on film. The number had no point whatsoever. Here was my remedy for the scene: Instead of having a number of people (who are they by the way) suddenly burst into song, why not stage the scene as a little side performace before the big one they're going to see. Make it that the people funding the theatre come in for a fundraiser event and get entertained by the number in the lobby. There's a point then. They way it played was absolutely stupid. Also, people didn't vogue back then. Sorry. The queen voguing on the stairs like a carnivale Madonna had to go.

5. Masquerade II: Why was everyone shocked when the phantom appears? He's just another idiot in costume. He's shocking on stage because he's wearing a tremendous skull face that is repulsive. He looks rather good in his costume. Then he mickey mouses down the stairs. (Mickey mousing is a term in film where the music matches a person's actions as they're doing it. Someone gets hit in the stomach and a kettle drum is played as it's being done - mickey mousing.) With each step, as in the play, there is a beat. Bleh. It plays on stage, not on film. Why is he walking so slowly? Does he have a splitting headache? My remedy for the scene: The phantom walks in and slams a party guest into a wall. This startles everyone. Bang. The phantom shouldn't be messed with. Or, have him walk in pulling a dead guest behind him and throw him against the wall. That's a reason to stop voguing, you partying idiots.

6. Raoul is tied to the porticulus (sp?) in the phantom's lair. So? The play had him hanging in mid air, he was going to die unless Christine made up her mind. IN the film version, Raoul was in jeopardy of wrinkled feet. Not to mention the phantom somehow ties him up with one hand. Huh?

7. Phantom takes Christine to his lair. It's mysterious it's weird. It contains about ten guys in the walls holding candleabras through holes in said walls. What was that? It looks neat. But what is it? Is the phantom magic? Are there elves in the walls? Ralphie explained to me that it was a dream sequence. Okay, if it is, tweak the picture to show us it is. It wasn't. It was shot straight. Pretentious bladerdash.

8. Graveyard scene. Bleh. Swordfight. Bleh. What's with the weird light coming from daddy's crypt? Did the phantom put track lighting down there for Christine's sake? And there was zero reaction from Christine for the swordfight scene. Is she torn? Is she rooting for someone? Does she try and stop them. No, no and no.

9. Loved the circus scene, but they could have saved that poor kid actor from looking like a bunny rabbit with the stupid bag on his head with the knots for ears. I didn't feel sorry for him, I laughed.

10. Phantom brings down the chandelier. How? By climbing on it and cutting it down with a knife? Nope. By untying a knot while he's onstage. Yuck. They should have let it fall where it did in the play. This was was uninteresting and odd. And, show that this is a big deal. Show people getting crushed. It intensifies the fact that the phantom is a off his rocker.

11. The 'All I Ask of You' scene. The kicker to the scene should have been the realization that the phantom was there listening to the whole thing and we didn't know it until the end. Like in the play. That moment broke my heart in the play. It killed my buzz to see the phantom react all the way through. Bo-ring!

12. This last one is an aspect that I had problems with in the play also. Christine is in love with the phantom and all that he's done for her. But that stops as soon as she sees he has a scarred face. What a shallow creature she is. The truth of not liking him should come after he does horrid things to others. Not because of his looks. She does come around to tell him she doesn't mind his face after all by kissing him, but she only does that to save Raoul.

On the whole, I give the movie a D minus.

A few positive points:

1. Miranda Richardson, Minnie Driver and Simon Callow were great.

2. The beginning with the chandelier and theatre rejuvinating itselves... wonderful.

3. Gerard Butler and Patrick Wilson - cute, cute, cute. (That's my little Christine moment there...)

****The golden rule for musicals in the 21st century: The songs need to be performed and sung for a reason. One can't just burst into song as part of the dialogue as was done before in "Wizard of Oz" etc. It doesn't work any more. Audiences think it's too cornball nowdays and feel that only animated features can get away with it. "Chicago" got away with it because we were in Roxy's head while they sang. "Moulin Rouge" used it as a parody tool. It poked fun at itself. "Phantom" took itself too seriously and it just didn't pay off. The only song that passed was "Prima Donna" because the whole thing was camp.****

[Ponine]

Wow... how to start on GC's post... (Who's in your avatar anyway?)

you said: Make it that the people funding the theatre come in for a fundraiser event and get entertained by the number in the lobby. There's a point then.

Thats how I saw that number.... you didnt? I agree that in film it had very little point, but I did see it as entertainment...
The Phantom being Red has had something to do with him shocking everyone all along.. but I have never truly understood why. The Mickey Mousing... well.. its was there, it worked, and really, had you not known the show/music, do you think you would have noticed it?

The lair, yeah, I can see how you thought it was cool.. and I did too, but really he wasnt complaining about his home, wasnt he complianing about his way of life?

Though the arms, and the manaquien ... ewwwwwwww

umm.... I agree about the Chandelier, and the All I ask of You scene...

As far as Christine... I think thats up to interpretation.. I never thought that seeing his face was that catlyst. When he scolds her for removing his mask, she;s sees a side of him that he is not familiar with, and it scares her.
She;s in love with Raoul anyway, thats a side line.
As a theatre geek who sang waay too much of the PotO songs.. I always felt she didnt turn on the Phantom until The Point of No Return.

ugh.. I have to stop, the phone rang... silly work getting in the way.
:cool:

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

"12. This last one is an aspect that I had problems with in the play also. Christine is in love with the phantom and all that he's done for her. But that stops as soon as she sees he has a scarred face. What a shallow creature she is. The truth of not liking him should come after he does horrid things to others. Not because of his looks. She does come around to tell him she doesn't mind his face after all by kissing him, but she only does that to save Raoul."

You and I feel wildly different about the movie, and I'm not up for debating it 'cause I can easily understand why a person wouldn't like it. But I'll only take issue with this particular comment because I think, even in the film, her character is far more sympathetic, and less shallow, than you think she is. Especially since, in the book, it's very very clear that this is a man who has manipulated her for months (in the movie - years - which was just ridiculous). She truly believed he was another being. And from her perspective, at least in the book, when she saw he had physical form, was expecting him to have a face to match. Shallow? Maybe. But when you expect one thing and what you get is a man in his 50's with sunken in eyes, no nose, and a horribly deformed mouth, reacting with a bit of shock and revulsion just makes sense to me.

She rapidly recovers herself enough to care about the pain he's in. And she proceeds to stay in his lair with him for *2 weeks*.

Shallowness is an issue, but I also think it's just human nature to react violently to that kind of shock or difference in appearance.

I believe she remains sympathetic towards him througout her ordeeal, though. And does love both him and Raoul for different reasons. One of my favorite moments in the book is when Raoul basically asks her whether she'd care for him (Raoul) if the Phantom was handsome? And she basically asks him not to ask her something she's not willing to ask herself.

The actual writing was *far* better than my paraphrasing.

As for the play, I really didn't think she behaved so superficially. I really felt that aside from her initial revulsion and disappointment, she was just painfully hurt by the fact that her Angel turned out to be some talented, manipulative man, flawed man.

Kinda like finding out the Wizard of Oz is just some crackpot from your home town, yo'.

[Gemini Cricket]

Wow... how to start on GC's post... (Who's in your avatar anyway?)
His name is Giuseppe San Rio. I think he stars in some weird soap opera in Costa Rica.
Thats how I saw that number.... you didnt? I agree that in film it had very little point, but I did see it as entertainment...
I didn't see it that way at all. There was no audience watching the performance.
The Mickey Mousing... well.. its was there, it worked, and really, had you not known the show/music, do you think you would have noticed it?
Yep, I would have. This is the kind of music that's played when Inspector Clousea (sp?) is sneaking around in the 'Pink Panther'. It shouldn't be used to show how imposing someone is.
The lair, yeah, I can see how you thought it was cool.. and I did too, but really he wasnt complaining about his home, wasnt he complianing about his way of life?
He seemed to be trapped like a rat, but was his cage all that bad?
As far as Christine... I think thats up to interpretation.. I never thought that seeing his face was that catlyst. When he scolds her for removing his mask, she;s sees a side of him that he is not familiar with, and it scares her.
I see your point. It just seems that the reaction was about his face and not so much the madness of the phantom.
I always felt she didnt turn on the Phantom until The Point of No Return.
True.


I really don't mean to pick on this film a lot. I used to study film and I love analyzing films. Especially like pulling apart films and seeing how I, if I were a producer, would have made it better.
:)

[Gemini Cricket]

But I'll only take issue with this particular comment because I think, even in the film, her character is far more sympathetic, and less shallow, than you think she is...
In the film, though, there isn't much age difference. There isn't the idea that this man is a father figure. There is the idea that her father sent her an angel. Wouldn't this be more of a reason to be with him if, in fact, she thought her father wanted it that way? So, why not settle for the phantom after all? She doesn't, she goes for Raoul. (Who is also loaded.) :D

In the play, did she stay with him for 2 weeks? I thought it lasted a song and a half and that's it... Meaning, one day or so.

I think in the end she realizes that he's mad (ie. 'It's in your mind where the true distortion grows...' or something like that...) but her acting like all the rest did/do paved roads his madness too, no?

Also, I always got the feeling that ultimately if the situation was different, she should have been with the phantom. I mean, 'modern day' Raoul didn't seem to be letting go of what happened, focusing more on what she was so torn about than anything else. It always seemed to me that there was regret in Christine's choice (she goes back for one final moment with the phantom - something that in the play and the movie I loved, loved, loved) and a longing in Raoul's sad 'old man character' that seemed Christine's life afterwards was unfulfilled (him clutching onto artifacts of the past to remind him of her etc).

[Gemini Cricket]

By the way, I don't think "Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera" is the worst movie ever. That still is "Monkeybone" in my book.
:D

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Also, I always got the feeling that ultimately if the situation was different, she should have been with the phantom. I mean, 'modern day' Raoul didn't seem to be letting go of what happened, focusing more on what she was so torn about than anything else. It always seemed to me that there was regret in Christine's choice (she goes back for one final moment with the phantom - something that in the play and the movie I loved, loved, loved) and a longing in Raoul's sad 'old man character' that seemed Christine's life afterwards was unfulfilled (him clutching onto artifacts of the past to remind him of her etc).

The lack of age difference was a problem. Also, the lack of severity in his deformity, but someone also pointed out to me that even as he was in the film, people of that time, in France, would have still shunned him. I don't know. I just don't know. *I* certainly wouldn't have had a problem with it.

And his youth in the film also erases all the life he had lived prior. He was in a carnival, but he escpaed and traveled the world. Was a magician, an architect (he helped design the Opera and was involved in its construction), etc.

I think the film did a really good job at showing that Christine was torn at the end. She's like a Persephone. The book goes into a lot more detail about how Raoul's family was opposed to a union with Christine since she was a lady of the stage. And it's very sad that, after they marry, she never goes back to the stage. Knowing she gave up on what was essentially her life's purpose/passion etc. seems to indicate that her story was also a somewhat tragic one, even if she found happiness in marriage.

And, you're right, in the film and play they were together for an evening . But they spent a lot more time alone together in the book, and she did really care for him, though he terrified her.

I do like that the story is a sort of coming of age in every version I've seen. There's Raoul, the child, virginal lover. Christine, the child and virginal heroine. The Phantom...the dark, mysterious prince of Hades who turns out to be just a very unhappy, messed up man, but a man who is unparalleled in his intelligence and various talents. He's the father figure and the sexualized lover of the piece, but this is perverted by his corpse-like appearance and eventual maddness brought on by the temptation of Christine; this sudden desire he has to join the world again.

I think Christine, through her interactions with the Phantom, becomes a woman. But she cannot choose him, and in choosing Raoul she is a woman marrying a man who is still an innocent boy in many ways. She's gone beyond him. And aspects of herself cannot flourish in her presence.

But the life the Phantom would have offered her was one of wish fulfillment (I can live above! I want to join people again. I have masks that look like real faces! We can be married and hold hands and be normal! I don't want to live seperate anymore!) is bleak and unstable. But they would have had a communion in music.

[Chernabog]

Look, he's tied to a metal gate and has a noose around his neck, which is being yanked around, and he's singing! What talent.

Hahahha I laughed so hard at that part..

Raoul (with noose around neck): *GAG**GAG*GAG**ACK*I FOUGHT SO HARD TO FREE YOU! *GAG*

it came off a bit silly.

My problems with the movie stemmed from the Phantom not having the upper hand at all points prior to the very ending (i.e. that swordfight scene?). He was *way* more menacing in the stage version. Also, the Phantom's appearance should have been much more grotesque. I mean, come on, the Phantom was HOT. I would have bent over for the Phantom long before the admittedly cute (yet brainless) Raoul. Also I agree that the Phantom's reaction should only have been at the END of the "All I Ask of You" sequence.

However, I generally enjoyed the movie. It didn't transcend the play in any way, but it was still enjoyable because I liked the stage version.

Most of the negative reviews of the film I read had to do with the insipid lyrics and repetitive music. Well, DUH. But the music/lyrics are what they are. If you didn't like the play, then the movie isn't going to redeem Phantom.

Also, with a note to the pre-recorded singing/lip sync/"they aren't breathing correctly!" stuff -- all musical films have pre-recorded soundtracks. Very VERY few performers actually sing the music along with the track (Judy Garland is actually the only performer I can think of that did that), and so it's never going to look perfect on screen....

[Chernabog]

The lack of age difference was a problem.

But can you imagine Michael Crawford at 60 wanting to get shagadelic with Emily Rossum at 16?

Eew. Eew. Eew.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Also, with a note to the pre-recorded singing/lip sync/"they aren't breathing correctly!" stuff -- all musical films have pre-recorded soundtracks. Very VERY few performers actually sing the music along with the track (Judy Garland is actually the only performer I can think of that did that), and so it's never going to look perfect on screen....

See, I read that - at least with Think of Me - it was recorded live. What we see in the movie was the actual filming they did. I wasn't sure if that applies to any more of the film, though.

Rex Harrison did it for My Fair Lady. Granted, he did that sort of speak-sing thing.

Some things I liked, with regards to the lyrics, was opting to make certain passages speaking. There wasn't a lot of dialogue in the play, and I liked "Come, those two fools....." being spoken, as well as some of the Raoul/Christine stuff that I always thought was silly being sung.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

But can you imagine Michael Crawford at 60 wanting to get shagadelic with Emily Rossum at 16?

Eew. Eew. Eew.

Well, he's between 50-60 in the book. Though I think Christine was about 20. In the book Raoul is 20-21, and Christine is supposed to be around the same age. Rossum was 17 when they filmed, but I think she was meant to be older.

Also, I'm alright with the director's decision to use a younger, sexier cast. He wanted a Phantom that was appealing enough for an audience to have hope on his behalf that Christine will choose the crooning broodster, while also - because of his actions - understand why she'd go with the safer, full deck of cards Raoul.

Me? A little eye droop would not have gotten in my way of mounting Butler Phantom like the sex pony he is.

Book Phantom? No nose, skull-like appearance Phantom?

Well, there might still be mounting. I have SUCH a thing for magicians.

Heh.

[Chernabog]

See, I read that - at least with Think of Me - it was recorded live. What we see in the movie was the actual filming they did. I wasn't sure if that applies to any more of the film, though.

Rex Harrison did it for My Fair Lady. Granted, he did that sort of speak-sing thing.

Some things I liked, with regards to the lyrics, was opting to make certain passages speaking. There wasn't a lot of dialogue in the play, and I liked "Come, those two fools....." being spoken, as well as some of the Raoul/Christine stuff that I always thought was silly being sung.

LOL I dunno about the Think of Me sequence... actually that was one sequence that I thought she was "off"... also because of numerous takes/angles/extra noise, it seems odd that they would want to film any singing live since it would require lots of unnecessary work :)

I felt the opposite about the speaking lines in the movie versus singing lines in the play. But that's prolly cuz I have the whole damn play memorized, and so hearing singing words spoken was slightly jarring. :p

[Chernabog]

Well, he's between 50-60 in the book. Though I think Christine was about 20. In the book Raoul is 20-21, and Christine is supposed to be around the same age. Rossum was 17 when they filmed, but I think she was meant to be older.

Aaah ok... I only read the book once a long time ago. Still... EEEW. :) hehehe


Me? A little eye droop would not have gotten in my way of mounting Butler Phantom like the sex pony he is.

Amen sister!

[Gn2Dlnd]

Disclaimer: I am, in fact, a musical-theatre loving (and performing) homo, but not a big fan of Webber. I have never seen the stage production ($ and the aforementioned aversion to ALW) so I was particularly irritated that the film worked better for my friend who had seen the show. Storytelling should not rely on you having seen another version of the story to get it, which also happens to be my main criticism of Alladin at DCA.

[Gn2Dlnd]

I'm gonna rent the Lon Chaney version. (Lynne Cheney would be interesting, too.)

[Ponine]

okay... this is what it says on the Official Site, and in the CD . I took this to mean that they were constantly recording, but that they were also always lipsynching...
Eliza, do you interpret differently?


"Shooting any music-driven movie involves a great number of challenges, but filming Phantom was even more demanding than the average musical. As Wright explains, "On every other musical movie I've made, you rehearse, then pre-record the whole soundtrack and shoot from there. What we did with Phantom was stay just one step ahead of the shooting schedule, so that the playback tracks could accommodate performances that were growing and developing during rehearsal."

This recording and re-recording process was continuous; a recording studio was even set up in Lloyd Webber's office at Pinewood Studios, whereby actors could, at any time, be whisked away to record a new vocal and the playback track be altered for the next scene. It was a totally organic process for the actors and the music team alike – but this didn't come without its difficulties. "When we started production, we were three weeks ahead of schedule, but by the end, we were three hours ahead of what was being shot!" Wright says. "It would be six in the morning and we would be pre-mixing something that was going to be shot at nine."

[Ponine]

so I was particularly irritated that the film worked better for my friend who had seen the show. Storytelling should not rely on you having seen another version of the story to get it, which also happens to be my main criticism of Alladin at DCA.
I was also irritated with this...

But overall.. I enjoyed myself immensly. Doenst mean I wont have fun analyzing the movie piece, by piece, by piece. :cool:

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Disclaimer: I am, in fact, a musical-theatre loving (and performing) homo, but not a big fan of Webber. I have never seen the stage production ($ and the aforementioned aversion to ALW) so I was particularly irritated that the film worked better for my friend who had seen the show. Storytelling should not rely on you having seen another version of the story to get it, which also happens to be my main criticism of Alladin at DCA.

Well, if I stepped back to write an actual critical review of the movie, I'd have a lot of flaws to point out. But since as to my own enjoyment of the thing, I don't mind relying on my previous experiences with the story - book, plays, other movies, etc., to affect (and even better) my enjoyment of this particular adaptation. Particularly because there were neat little nods to the book (the trap door leading to the mirrored torture chamber for one) that really, really delighted me.

That said, it bothered the CRAP out of me that the writers and directors of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban made an near perfect movie but managed to f**k up the most important scene from the book. And even having read the book, and almost knowing the scene by heart, the poorness of its portrayal on the screen irked me a great deal. So, I've got an inconstant set of standards, it seems.

And I totally get people ripping the Phantom a new one.

Me, I'd rather just get a little drunk and have casual sex with the movie.

I'm so shallow!

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Ponine, how it reads to me is that some aspects of it were live and others were the prerecorded elements, or a mixture of the two.

At least I think that's what it means.

Huh.

[Gemini Cricket]

That said, it bothered the CRAP out of me that the writers and directors of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban made an near perfect movie but managed to f**k up the most important scene from the book.
Which scene? I'd love to know.
:)

[surfinmuse]

Phantom the movie reminds me of what I did not like about Evita movie: there were way too many "off" moments where the song and/or underscore did not fit the images on screen. I like that they beefed up the orchestrations for the score, but the movie itself was lacking.

I've seen the stage production (West End & Bway), and I loved it, but there is definitely a sense of reality distortion involved in that kind of thing; a darkened movie theatre weaves a different kind of magic.

I wonder what's next... Sony Pictures presents "Miss Saigon" directed by Martin Scorsese?

[Tref]

I can't wait to miss it!

[Ponine]

Oh, dont even get me started on the Evita movie

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Which scene? I'd love to know.
:)

The Shrieking Shack scene at the end. No real explanations for anything. Snape's "Oh, sweet...sweet...lovely revenge."

Why does he want revenge?

Ah, whatever, we'll just skip that part.

The Mauraders? The animagus stuff?

Eh, who cares?!

Once scene from the book that had dialogue that would have translated perfectly to the screen, but insteado of taking 10 minutes to give us the informatio we most needed, we got to watch Harry's homoerotic Buckbeak flight. Which, don't get me wrong, it was purty. But if we lost essential info over some added purties, it sucks.

[Ponine]

It had been so long since I read the book that I was sure I had imagined that I knew more about that scene, thank you for clarifying!!!!
Yes, that brings it full circle.. the rest of the information would have been useful. I suspect that they will have to dole it out for us in the next movie.

[flippyshark]

Well, for what it's worth, I'm a heterosexual guy (in my late thirties), and I liked the ALW Phantom on stage, quite a bit, really. Now, the movie? I'm really torn, because there are things I liked about it, and I generally want to be a booster for musical films. But there are some staggering missteps in this movie.

Exxagerated and hyper-real, it used its stylistic choices as an excuse for bad plotting and staging. (One horrid example - during one of the best songs, "Past the Point of No Return," the main characters are completely upstaged by clusters of black-clad dancers gyrating around in what looks like bad wanna-be Martha Graham style. And what was with the "Vogue" posturing during the Masquerade?!?)

So, the movie wants to have it both ways - to be a tear jerking romantic classic, and a highly stylized fanastmagoria. But it's too silly for the former, and not nearly delirious enough for the latter. Alan Parker might have made good on a more straight-forward version, and Ken Russell would have been the man to bring us an energetically lysergic take.

I will probably enjoy having this on video as an imperfect but serviceable record of the play, but as cinema, I doubt it will win many people over.

(I sure hope that Les Mis is made into a much better film than this, if it ever gets made at all.)

[surfinmuse]

Well, for what it's worth, I'm a heterosexual guy (in my late thirties), and I liked the ALW Phantom on stage, quite a bit, really. Now, the movie? I'm really torn, because there are things I liked about it, and I generally want to be a booster for musical films in generaal. But there are some staggering missteps in this movie.

(I sure hope that Les Mis is made into a much better film than this, if it ever gets made at all.)
Flippyshark, agree on the stage vs movie comparison.

FYI, there was a critically-acclaimed theatrical release of Les Misérable, in 1998 starring Liam Neeson & Geoffrey Rush. Very handsome production. I think the DVD is readily available on Amazon.com and such.

[flippyshark]

A quick addeneum to my comment above. I thought I was responding directly to a long-ago post from Ponine that ended with this quote:

"I knew better than to ask a person of male gender in my own age group and hetrosexual to accompany me."

And that is why my above post begins the way it does. I didnt; realize at the time that there were two more pages of posts between that comment and my own, so I hope no one is wondering why I thought it necessary to start right off with a disclaimer about my lifestyle preference and age.

I haven't figured out the whole "Quote" function on this system either. I'm something of a cyber-klutz, and probably always will be. My apologies to everyone if I come off as confused, behind the curve and naive. It's because I am.
Thanks,
DP

[flippyshark]

Surfinmuse,

I thoroughly enjoyed the "Les Miserables" movie with Neeson and Rush, and I thought they embodied Valjean and Javert marvelously. But it wasn't the musical, which I think could one day make a fine film. (But, as it's a three hour all-sung drama, it could just as easily make a royally crappy movie, too.)

[Ponine]

A quick addeneum to my comment above. I thought I was responding directly to a long-ago post from Ponine that ended with this quote:

"I knew better than to ask a person of male gender in my own age group and hetrosexual to accompany me."

And that is why my above post begins the way it does. I didnt; realize at the time that there were two more pages of posts between that comment and my own, so I hope no one is wondering why I thought it necessary to start right off with a disclaimer about my lifestyle preference and age.

Noted, and intriguing. I have three hetrosexual men in my life, all over 30, one over 40...two of them wouldnt even entertain the thought of going, the last, I just plain knew better than to even try.
When I saw the movie last Saturday, the theatre was fairly full, yet there was only one man who looked under 50, and he was about 12.

And no worries... There's a great many of us that arent very good at quoting other posts.

[surfinmuse]

I thoroughly enjoyed the "Les Miserables" movie with Neeson and Rush, and I thought they embodied Valjean and Javert marvelously. But it wasn't the musical, which I think could one day make a fine film. (But, as it's a three hour all-sung drama, it could just as easily make a royally crappy movie, too.)
Yeah, the underscore for that 1998 Les Misérables" by Basil Poledouris was brilliant.

Did you hear that they're currently adapting Stephen Sondheim's Sweeney Todd, with Sam Mendes helming as director? That should be interesting (and somewhat promising).

[Ponine]

Really? Now that I had not heard. I wonder how that will translate to the screen.
It's not one of my favorites, merely becasue of the morbid story topic.

[Gn2Dlnd]

More hot pies!

[surfinmuse]

How about a little priest?

[Not Afraid]

And that is why my above post begins the way it does. I didnt; realize at the time that there were two more pages of posts between that comment and my own, so I hope no one is wondering why I thought it necessary to start right off with a disclaimer about my lifestyle preference and age.



Have I mentioned lately that I adore you? ;) :cool:

[Gemini Cricket]

I agree with your take on the film, flippyshark.
(I sure hope that Les Mis is made into a much better film than this, if it ever gets made at all.)
Seeing as how I felt 'Evita' and 'Phantom" bombed, I do not have high hopes for 'Les Mis' nor 'Rent' (both I adore, 'Rent' changed my life).
But 'Rent' will have the director from 'Chicago' at its helm, so maybe there's a ray of hope. But like it was said here about 'Les Mis's' plot, 'Rent's' plot is depressing, too.
So, who knows? I have my fingers crossed.
:)

[Kevy Baby]

And here, I thought this was a thread about The Pirate Movie (http://imdb.com/title/tt0084504/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnxzZz0xfHR0PW9ufHBuPTB8cT10aGUgcGlyYX RlIG1vdmllfG14PTIwfGxtPTIwMHxodG1sPTF8bm09b24_;fc= 2;ft=9;fm=1)