It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

I love Phantom of the Opera. It's a really good musical; I love the characters, I love the sets, and I especially love the music. It's Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, how can they go wrong? Oh yes, with Love Never Dies. This was one of Andrew Lloyd Webber's weaker musicals, an attempt to put a shipping fan fiction to the stage. Story: After the incident at the Opera House, Madame Giry and Meg take the Phantom to Coney Island. Ten years later, he's still pining for Christine who comes for a concert. She no longer loves Raoul and remembers that she loved the Phantom more. In fact, before the wedding she made out with him and happened to produce him a son, which he did not know about because he had left her after making (Music of the Night) with her. The Phantom requests her to sing one more song he wrote for her, bonds with her son, and bets Christine's love with Raoul. Is it just me or does the story already sound needlessly complicated? That's the first problem. The original story was simple: A psychotic killer loves a girl who is in love with someone else in the Opera House. I try to not be in the habit of comparing something like this to the original masterpiece, but apart from the original musical this has nothing to do with the book in any way. There was never a sequel story to it, and even if there was the Phantom had died already while Raoul and Christine happily lived together. The musical also did not always stay true to the novel in many ways, but on its own it's a masterpiece to behold with eyes and ears. The sequel has nothing to do with either other than keeping the main characters from the stories. Not only keeping the original characters but putting them entirely out of character: Christine's now a weak moronic damsel who lets other people choose for her, the Phantom's a creepy whiny Romeo with a mask, Raoul is a gambling drunk, and Meg is a stripper instead of a ballerina. What they did with Raoul and the Phantom is all wrong. The Phantom was a psychotic killer that killed off anyone in his way and Raoul was Christine's perfect hero. The only reason Raoul is made to look bad is so that the audience can route for Christine and the Phantom to get together. There are better ways to develop their characters in a likable way, but there was really no effort to convince us that the Phantom is not psychotic in this version and is worthy of Christine's hand. For all the faults of the story, the songs at least are interesting. It's Andrew Lloyd Webber, so most of these songs are intriguing. Sometimes some of the music comes from the first musical to remind us where this musical first came from. I don't know if that's good or not, because while it's nice to have a reminder of the better musical it's kinda sad that it's being wasted on a musical that has no purpose existing. However, some of the song lyrics aren't strong either. Take for instance "Beauty Underneath". It involves the Phantom taking Christine's son into his dark strange realm. If you heard the song by itself without any context, you would swear it sounded like he was seducing the child. I'm sure Webber or whoever wrote the songs did not intend for it, but he would usually think through what he writes.Now that you've heard my complaining, I'll now focus on the good stuff. The music, like I said before, is very seducing. I don't like the story much, but the music sucks me in, part of Webber's magic. It is gorgeous and intriguing. The sets are colossal and look amazing. Though nothing on the stage looks anything like the real Conny Island it all looks strange and like another world found only in the mind. The actors they got for the main characters do terrific for what they were given. The guy playing the Phantom is a terrific actor with such a seducing voice, that I have no problem believing he could be the Phantom (if the story was written better). The actress of Christine is also really good. It's Sierra Bogges so of course she sounds great and she has played Christine before in Phantom of the Opera. The child actor is not bad. He's obviously talented, but the way his character is written just rubs me the wrong way. However, with what he was given the young performer gave his best and you can really tell. I still believe this musical was not only pointless but does not deserve to be called a sequel to The Phantom of the Opera. Part of me is a sucker for musicals but most of me is story picky and in many ways this musical succeeds to either create fans or push away loyal fans of the first musical. Overall, I don't completely regret seeing it, but I still don't want to believe it's considered a sequel. It's complete fan fiction that made it to the public eye like Fifty Shades of Grey was. If it was its own story it might be a bit cheesy but it would be much better than involving the Phantom of the Opera in any way.

I won't talk about the plot, It was just horrible and unnecessary. POTO ended with Christine choosing Raol, end of the story. The music of LND is very good, i like many songs - "'Till I Hear You Sing", "Beneath the Moonless Skye", "What a Dradful Town", "Beauty Underneath" and of course "Love Never Dies".There are things, that didn't work for LND. First - location. I mean move it from Paris, one of the most romantic cities on the world, to New York? I don't find New York very romantic. There are many European cities more suitable for romance - Venice, Prague, Wienna, Budapest... And the shift from opera to... what? A circus. It could have worked in the opposite way, not this way.And the characters...Raoul: Maybe he was spoiled, but to turn him into drunkard? I don't think even him was so reckless, plus, he loved Christine.Christine: She may have loved Phantom, but in the end, she was more frightened of him, though she took a pity on him, but searching for him and have a child with him? Really?Phantom: He may have burned the opera down, that's like him, but I don't think he could ever be chased down by the mobs? And he was hiding from the world and now he works in public normally? ALW lost his mind.And the Giry's...Madame Giry: She loved Christine in POTO "I think of her as a daughter also" was the movie phrase. She did care for her. And now? Nothing. She led Raoul to Phantom's lair to rescue Christine and now she blames her, for choosing him? What a nonsense. And she also feared Phantom and wanted to stop him. Now she loves him and idolize him? Seriously? That doesn't even make sense.And Meg, poor, sweet Meg: She was a dancer, not a singer, really. And her trying to impress Phantom was pathetic. But the revelation, she was sleeping with rich men... just awful. Not to mention she shot Christine.

Truly a disgusting disappointment. Andrew Lloyd Weber consistently does fantastic work, from Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat to Phantom to Evita. This is a dark, disgusting smudge on his impeccable record. It is cheesy, and almost insultingly baseless. The set and melody may be adequate, but the lyrics and plot have no depth or meaning. There is no logical motivation for any of the characters, not to mention abundant plot holes, and completely overhauled personalities.If you have any respect for Phantom of the Opera (or Andrew Lloyd Weber), DO NOT WATCH THIS. It has permanently damaged my perception of ALW, and the original Phantom of the Opera.

Since the time I went to SAO PAULO in Brazil and watched the Phantom of the Opera, I could confidently say that I was another lover of this story. The phantom of the opera is a set of beautiful sceneries, with beautiful music and a thrilling story. Nevertheless, as another author who got a little extra excited with the money made, Andrew Lloyd Webber created a sequel, based on a book that was just a floppy sequel for "the phantom of the opera" according to reviewers. Fortunately, who created this second book was not Gaston Leurox, which means, this book was pretty much a fanfic story. What to expect then? A new musical based on a fanfic story? Another big flop. "Love Never Dies" kills all the characters from the original, destroys the poetry existent in "The Phantom of the Opera", and in addition to it, it is full of clichés with a bad end. Nothing against New York, I particularly love this city, but not as a setting for "The Phantom". Music is just not as memorable, except for the "Till I hear you sing". The end, BLEEH, just made me cry. I was so disappointed with ALW. In my particular experience with theater, yes I have too agree they have SOME beautiful sceneries with lots of modernity. But the story is not just sceneries, and the big point that made the Phantom of the Opera the second most watched musical over the world was the truth behind the story; the passion that ALW created the musical, inspired by his ex-wife's (Sarah Brightman) voice. That's what lacks in "Love never dies"; the truth behind the characters, the love that just increases as the story goes by. I still think that ALW will get into his wits once again, and will get this story out of the theaters. Until there, the poetry from the original story will be trying to survive from this big shot in a hospital for killed dramas.