Worst Movie Ever!!!

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Ponine

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.

Originally Posted by Ponine

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.

Originally Posted by Ponine

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.

Originally Posted by Ponine

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?

Originally Posted by Ponine

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.

Originally Posted by Ponine

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]

Originally Posted by Eliza Hodgkins 1812

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.)

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.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

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]

Originally Posted by Gn2Dlnd

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]

Originally Posted by Eliza Hodgkins 1812

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]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

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.