Absolutely the worst movie.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Well, let us be honest. I never watched this on the account of really wanting to. Yet, since I adore the original story and the esquisitely done silent, I have to complain about this one. Firstly, the introduction was a bit off, and it went down from there. Of course, you could rave about the costumes, but most weren't that accurate for 1870 (except Christine's masquerade gown). Christine's costumes were reminiscent of Ella Enchanted glitter parties, and Raoul was wearing romantic/I'm so snazzy motorcycle outfits. Then, they decided to add in these new characters and change the cast. And where was the Persian? He is my favorite, and he didn't even make an appearance. Yes, my biggest fit is with the "off" characters. I feel as though the director felt they couldn't deal with the true, gritty nature of the story. Christine wasn't beaming with innocence, or was she in a state of great perplexity concerning the Phantom's nature. Mary Philbin captured Christine perfectly I think, in the 1925 film. Here, the actress is more, "I am going to sing a very lovely song, and I will be in love with all of you, but I don't really care...sorry." And the Phantom wasn't some ugly, beast of a man; mysterious to all, unloved and feared with his seemingly magical powers and his peverted, disgusting nature. Instead he is more " I am trying the David Bowie deal, and I seem kind of tough, but I am really fuzzy inside. Christine, love me! I have great legs. Calling all girls, love me!" Far too romanticized, too transparent, and soft. This is where the biggest mistake is I think. And Raoul? He is still on a motorcycle/white horse with randomly long hair. Also, they skip the best scene, which is the touture chamber... who skips the touture chamber? As I said, all the gritty horrors which make the story beautiful and less high school theatre are gone. The true beauty of the film and story have been erased by Hollywood ideals. Still, people obsessed with musicals with high budgets and romantic stories will enjoy this. Yet it is really bad if you have read the book or watched the silent ( and a historical costume nit-picker).

The best part of a musical movie is not only can you take away the iconic and most memorable lines- but also the songs that you sing and listen to even after the credits are done rolling. Back in 1986 Andrew Lloyd Webber blessed us with Phantom of the Opera. To this day, the musical has proved itself as timeless and continues on tours all across the USA. In 2004, Hollywood gave us easy access to view the musical by turning it into a movie. Emmy Rossum plays Christine, member of the ensemble in the Opera who has yet to show her full potential to her superiors. The Phantom, played by Gerard Butler, lives in the depths of the Opera house and captures Christine as hostage to convince the owners of the Opera to make her lead role. The visuals of Joel Schumacher's Phantom of the Opera (2004) do a great job of convincing me that I'm back in the late 1800's. The costumes and makeup are elegant and well thought out. Emmy Rossum never failed to take my breath away with each close-up or each gown she had on. Her voice was easy to listen to and had me siding with the Phantom that she should be lead role. Gerard Butler, while cheesy at times, did a wonderful job at portraying the vulnerability and loneliness of the Phantom. His red tuxedo worn to crash the masquerade had me weak in the knees, and so did the change of the music's key playing upon his wake. The movie shows us how timeless and beautiful the story of Phantom of the Opera truly is. A man traumatized by the experiences in his childhood, with a disfigured face to prove, only seeks acceptance and the best for the Opera house in which he resides. The acting is almost just as theatrical and overbearing than if you saw it on Broadway, and I don't mean that as necessarily a bad thing. It is great to see how Hollywood transfers musicals into movies and gives those of us who can't see these live shows a chance to watch the story. Now, "All I Ask Of You" is to go watch and enjoy it for yourself.

Released in 2004, Joel Schumacher's adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's legendary stage production was a long time coming. The play first began in 1986, with singers Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman as the Phantom and Christine, respectively. Webber later married Brightman, and had planned on her reprising Christine Daae for the silver screen. But their eventual divorce put an indefinite hold on the project; it would remain unfulfilled for over a decade. Webber had chosen director Schumacher ("Batman Forever", "Phone Booth") for "Phantom of the Opera" back in the early 1990s, due to his talented use of color and music. Eventually, a deal was struck with Warner Bros. Studios, and the two filmmakers agreed on two things: the cast's overall ages would be reduced in this version (the stage actors were mostly in their late 30's to mid-40's), and all of them would do their own singing. This caused a slight problem with the addition of Minnie Driver, Webber's only choice for the role of Carlotta. Webber dubbed her in-picture singing with a professional soprano, and gave Driver her own song for the film's ending credits. In the main principal roles were actors Gerard Butler as the Phantom, Emmy Rossum as Christine, Patrick Wilson as Raoul, and Miranda Richardson as Madame Giry.Thus is the basic story for the making of the film; upon its release, it was a commercial success in many respects, as fans of the stage musical were excited to see their beloved characters in a new form. The songs, costume designs, sets, and historical representations were all praised...and in my opinion, the film definitely deserves it. However, those unfamiliar with the tale should be cautious. Based on a novel by French author Gaston Leroux, both the musical and the film tell a story deeply mired in themes of romance, love, faith, (in)justice, and death. As such, it's especially important for discerning hearts to be wary of a few elements.Visually, the film's biggest areas of concern are sex and violence. Unlike many films which revel in them, this film thankfully avoids that trap...and while the presence of such elements are important to the story, what's more imprtant is for viewers to know ahead of time what they'll be getting themselves into. Regarding sexual situations, the most obvious one is likely the many nude statues and carvings which adorn the walls and lobby of the opera house. While the camera doesn't excessively linger on them (mostly presenting them as historical art pieces), their inclusion helps to sell the mood of the time in which this tragedy takes place. Costumes worn by many female characters are designed to enhance their curves, particularly above the waist. As for the violent content, the most extreme moments concern the murders of Joseph Buquet and the Phantom's childhood abuser (the latter is shown in flashback). As for Piangi's death, it is mainly done in a quick cut away, and his lifeless form appears shortly thereafter, embraced by a weeping Carlotta.Non-visually, the other theme which fuels this story is the spiritual nature of music. Christine often likens the Phantom to her deceased father's promise of sending her an "Angel of Music", which could be interpreted as an allusion to Satan. Among the dark character's many lines of song are phrases such as "let your darker side give in"; he also refers to himself as a "gargoyle who burns in hell, but secretly yearns for heaven", a "repulsive carcass", and a "beast" or "monster". In the Don Juan performance scene, lyrics such as "when will the flames at last consume us" are present. Overall, an underlying message of this film is one of emotional and spiritual suggestion through the power of music. Used properly, music is a wondrous thing...but used irresponsibly, it can be a greater danger to people than a knife or firearm. Both sides of the collective canvas are presented, so people should know that going in. As a whole, this film gets a 8.5/10 in my book.

There have been many versions of the Phantom story over the years, some great, some not so good. This one is slightly different in that it's a film adaptation of the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, rather than being just another remake or version of the Gaston Leroux novel. I enjoy watching musicals from time to time and I have to say I liked this one. Obviously the quality of the songs is what makes a good musical and they're all absolutely fine here, with some wonderful breathtaking moments dotted throughout the lengthy production.Joel Schumacher can be a hit and miss director, but he seems to have come on more strongly in the past decade, counting PHONE BOOTH and 8MM among his successes. This is one of his better films, a fine adaptation that makes good use of the genuine vocal talent of the leading actors and actresses. Emmy Rossum is astonishing as Christine, and she's ably matched by Gerard Butler as the Phantom; this is Butler in a star-making role, and very good he does too. Some overbearing supporting actresses flesh out the cast – Minnie Driver, Jennifer Ellison – while Simon Callow and Ciaran Hinds have a fine comedy double act although they just kind of disappear towards the end of the movie.The film is shot through with Gothic sensibility and makes repeated use of beautiful visuals. The scene in the snowy graveyard is a highlight and of course the catacomb climax is another strong element. Complaints were made that the costumes were toned down for the movie but I can understand this; the camera's close up to the action rather than sitting away like an audience and bright red hats and skull masks would have become a distraction unlike in the theatre. In all, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is a solid musical and a film I enjoyed.