Worst Movie Ever!!!

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

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]

Originally Posted by Eliza Hodgkins 1812

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.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Eliza Hodgkins 1812

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

Originally Posted by Eliza Hodgkins 1812

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]

Originally Posted by Gn2Dlnd

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.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Eliza Hodgkins 1812

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.