Miscellaneous Movie Musings the Sequel

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

What did you think of the play VS the subsequent movie verison of Phantom of the Opera?

Phantom as a play? Terrific fun, and I liked several of the tunes before I became permanently tired of them. But, I'd go again if someone bought me a ticket.

The movie? I like Gerard Butler, but he was miscast here. That high note in Music of the Night is a real cringer. Also, I wish he had actually been pathetically ugly, not incredibly handsome with what looked like a bad sunburn on only part of his face. I liked the lush production values, but found the whole thing lacked energy. Also, I didn't care for the habit of replacing sung recitative with spoken dialog, especially as they didn't re-write it AS dialog. They just spoke lyrics in a very stilted self-conscious way. (Almost like they were ashamed to admit they were making a sung-through musical! I hope the makers of Les Mis simply commit to the form and sing out throughout.) Not disastrously bad, but never thrilling either. It just kind of thumps along, very expensively. (Also, Minnie Driver seems to be the only one having anything like a good time with the material - maybe a little bit TOO good a time? I could have made a decent sandwich out of that ham!)

As for the film of Evita, as mentioned by Strangler Lewis, I like that one a lot more, and thought the montage impressive, telling lots of story visually. But, yeah, I could see how that could be exhausting.

Has anyone here checked out the Phantom musical sequel Love Never Dies? Now, THAT is some mighty bold musical misfire! (Based on a focused listen through of the cast album, not an actual viewing) I bet it never gets anywhere near a movie screen, and good thing, too.

[Alex]

Far overshadowed by the movie and eventually ALW but the novel Phantom of the Opera is worth a read as well.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Alex

Far overshadowed by the movie and eventually ALW but the novel Phantom of the Opera is worth a read as well.

I read it several times during my "monster kid" youth. (I also built the Aurora plastic model and frequently checked out the 8mm highlights reel of the Lon Chaney version from the public library.)

[Strangler Lewis]

As for Phantom as a play: when we did Hamlet in high school, Euro played the Ghost standing backstage and using a microphone. I don't remember anyone saying, "Ghost sounded like a guy backstage coming over the loudspeakers." Yet that is exactly the feeling I had seeing Phantom at the Orange County Performing Arts Center some years ago. Perhaps it could not be otherwise, or perhaps their sound engineer was unsubtle, but it was not very phantomy.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

The movie? I like Gerard Butler, but he was miscast here. That high note in Music of the Night is a real cringer. Also, I wish he had actually been pathetically ugly, not incredibly handsome with what looked like a bad sunburn on only part of his face. I liked the lush production values, but found the whole thing lacked energy.

Agreed, but more so. Gerard Butler RUINED the movie for me. I enjoyed it on first viewing, but find it almost unwatchable since because I simply can't stand a Phantom that can't sing. Worst Phantom since Franc D'Ambrosio.

Production values kicked ass and the rest of the movie is great. I'd consider a rewatch if someone ran the play soundtrack over the film's soundtrack.

Also, I didn't care for the habit of replacing sung recitative with spoken dialog, especially as they didn't re-write it AS dialog. They just spoke lyrics in a very stilted self-conscious way. (Almost like they were ashamed to admit they were making a sung-through musical! I hope the makers of Les Mis simply commit to the form and sing out throughout.) Not disastrously bad, but never thrilling either. It just kind of thumps along, very expensively. (Also, Minnie Driver seems to be the only one having anything like a good time with the material - maybe a little bit TOO good a time? I could have made a decent sandwich out of that ham!)

Again agreed. I *hate* that Hollywood doesn't trust American audiences to a true musical.

They'd better not so much as attempt that with Les Mis. It's a through-composed musical and I can't see anything but disaster resulting from inserting spoken lines.

As for the film of Evita, as mentioned by Strangler Lewis, I like that one a lot more, and thought the montage impressive, telling lots of story visually. But, yeah, I could see how that could be exhausting.

Except for the part where they took all the best/funniest lines out and gave Madonna the song that belongs to the mistress she kicks out.


Alex: Agreed on the novel. Good read.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Sorry, Morri- but I disagree with your assessment of the book. I think perhaps to many people who have become accustomed to soundbites and synopsis it can be considered "ponderous",* but to me every word in that story is where and how it should be- to excise anything from the original story only serves to diminish it. I love the musical, but the original story is one of the greatest novels ever written, second ( imho) only to Flaubert's Madame Bovary.



(* Not directed at you- just at all of us who have had our brains altered by the computer age).

To be fair, I was like 14 when I read it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Production values kicked ass and the rest of the movie is great.

Really? I thought the cinematography was absolutely abysmal. Particularly during the big music numbers which were all filmed from a half mile away to be sure you couldn't possible get a glimpse at any sort of emotional performance from the actors (though perhaps that's more a commentary on the actors than the cinematographer.

[innerSpaceman]

Saw Source Code over the weekend. A really fun flick making good use of a pretty good gimmick. Not quite up to Duncan Jones' debut feature (Moon), in my opinion, but a damn good movie nonetheless. I've heard some criticism that the ending defies the film's stated internal logic, but that was the entire point of the exercise, and anyone who didn't see it coming is really kinda stupid when it comes to films.

Oh, and Jake Gyllenhaal sporting a 3-day stubble throughout the proceedings as a heroic sweetie is a super-plus!

[Alex]

The ending didn't defy the films logic, but it did leave unexplained something that the movie seemed to think it had explained. It also raises a few subsidiary considerations that aren't necessarily relevant but I'm curious whether they were thought through at all.

I enjoyed it. It was well paced which is good since the ending was obvious so too much clutter on the way there would have been a problem.

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, you don't see many mainstream movies clocking in a 90 minutes. That was a smart move, as was not going back to the 8-minute train loop too many times. I don't pay too much attention to internal logic McGuffin gobbledeegook talk, so I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to, Alex.

Spoiler tags, perhaps?