The Phantom of the Opera (2004) (Movie Review)

   Movie musicals have gone through various highs and lows over the years, and at one point between the mid-80’s and the 2000’s, it seemed that musicals were shinning brightest on stage, while the movie musical was all but dead. Then at the start of the new millennium, the musical genera sprung back to life with gigantic hits like “Moulin Rouge” and “Chicago”. Over the years, many of the classic stage musicals were given the big screen treatment, and most of them turned out quiet successful including “Sweeney Todd” and “Les Miserables”. One musical adaption that didn’t do so hot with critics was the 2004 movie “The Phantom of the Opera”, and is often regarded along with “Burlesque” to be one of the weaker musicals of the new millennium. I’ll admit, I was indifferent to the film upon my first viewing, but it’s kind of grown on me over the years, to the point where I don’t think it’s that bad. It has short comings, but it’s certainly not without some highlights. In general, despite the flaws, I’d still personally rather watch a movie based on the musical as opposed to all the other horror movie versions of the character.

  I’ll do my best to review this as a movie on its own, and not in comparison to either the stage musical, or the original novel, or the other horror movie versions. Adapted from the hit Musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber, “The Phantom of the Opera” tells the story of a dark and mysterious person who hides away in the dreary catacombs under a famous Opera House. 

In secret he coaches a new young actress named Christine Daae on how to be a talented Opera singer, and dose all in his power to make sure no-one else takes her spot light. Many at the Opera believe him to be a Phantasm of some sort, while Christine is under the delusion that she’s communicating with the spirit of her long lost father. Over time, the mysterious Phantom begins to fall in love with his winning student, and in return, she begins to develop feelings for her mysterious teacher. Soon, an old friend from Christine’s child hood named Raoul arrives at the Opera house, and it doesn’t take long before the two of them form a relationship of their own, which enrages the Phantom. Now, it’s a battle between lovers, with the Opera house caught in the middle. In the end, it becomes a classic tale of recognizing the ugliness within ones soul, and identifying what makes a man a monster.   

  Let’s start by looking at our star, The Phantom of the Opera played by Gerard Buttler. Let me start by saying that I like Gerard Buttler a lot, and he’s a powerhouse actor when given a character that’s suited for him. As far as his portrayal of The Phantom is concerned, he’s good in spades, but not as a whole. His best moments are when he acts through his emotions or with his facial expressions, as he can certainly convey both the pathos and subtle menace of the character. When he’s lurking through the shadows or on screen without any lines, he dose convey something of a presence. 

As for his singing voice ... well, Gerard Buttler never had any singing experience prior to this film, and it kind of shows. To be fair, I think he sounds a lot better than most other celebrities that are hired on to musicals because of their popularity, and not due to any real singing talents. I also like the effort to make the Phantom more intimidating with a deeper, more baritone singing voice, as opposed to the high pitch voice of Michael Crawford from the Broadway musical. I don’t mean to slam Michael Crawford, because he’s got a phenomenal singing voice, but personally, I just didn’t think his vocals worked for the character. With all that said, the one thing I could never get behind was the overall look, and design of the Phantom in this movie. Sure he has the famous mask, and is draped in black attire, but he’s just too polished, clean, and nice looking. I always pictured the Phantom as this dirty, frightening, and mysterious figure from the sewers ... not a handsome, well dressed guy with a third of his face covered. Heck, when he appears in the iconic “Red Death” costume, which is supposed to be really intimidating, he still looks more like a swashbuckling action hero. Even when his face is revealed, it just looks like a guy with a bad sunburn as opposed to a horrifically scarred face. 

      

  The remaining cast is kind of hit and miss. The two British Opera house managers are delightfully over the top, Miranda Richardson is good as the quiet yet mysterious Madame Giry, and of course Minnie Driver fits the role of the Opera Houses prima donna named Carlotta like a glove. 

Patrick Wilson plays the dashing Boy Friend Raoul, and he really puts his all into making this character as interesting as possible. Even in the Broadway play, the character Raoul was always the least intriguing, so kudos to the actor for giving him some dimension, and even a passable singing voice. The two actors are also capable of conveying a romantic chemistry. Of course Emmy Rossum plays our lead heroine Christine, and she’s perfectly fine, but maybe a little too wide eyed, and cute for the characters own good. Again, I always pictured Christine as someone beautiful and talented, but also terrified, yet capable of taking action when needed. While this portrayal of Christine certainly looks good and has a pretty voice, there’s not much else to her. She kind of gets led by the noise and doesn’t take any real action of her own choice until the very end. Her voice is also very nice, but she doesn’t have the same commanding vocals I feel the character needs. It’s like comparing a sweet singing voice to a strong one, and you can definitely tell the difference. In fact, I honestly remember watching a High school production of “The Phantom of the Opera”, and the actress playing Christine had these downright captivating vocals that entranced the audience.

  It's worth noting that Andrew Lloyd Webber, the creator of the Broadway play was also the producer, and screen writer for this movie, and apparently, this was a passion project he'd been trying to get off the ground sense the early 90's ... so it's cool that he finally got to see his musical on the silver screen. 

On that note, let’s talk about some additional scenes and content that were added in for the movie version, most of which I’m actually quite pleased with. First of all, I like how this movie occasionally cuts back and forth between the colorful present day story and a gloomy, black and white future. Those little snippets of the future help segue certain scenes, and it gives the movie a gothic atmosphere knowing that no-matter what the outcome of the present day story, there’s no escaping this depressing future that lies ahead. 

The greatest transition of all is the opening scene itself when the once broken chandelier is raised, followed by the scene shifting from the dark future to the beautiful past, and all while matched to the sensational overture music. Not only does this scene look amazing, but it also builds on our excitement of seeing this story told, and what lead to that chandeliers, as well as the Opera Houses demise. I especially love that the falling chandelier was saved for this finale as opposed to the middle, and it is a gorgeous spectacle to view on screen.

I also really like how the movie is book-ended with a candle flickering on and off, and even though that’s a minor point, it’s those little details that I feel add a lot to the overall viewing experience. There's an original song titled "Learn to be Lonely" that plays during the end credits, and that was another welcome addition to the film. It even gave the movie an Oscar nomination of best original song. The Phantom is also given a much darker back story, where as a kid he was caged, and beaten by the people of a traveling carnival. It works in getting us to sympathize with the villain for a little, and I like how the flashback establishes his connections with another member of the Opera house. There’s also some small action scenes added in to give the film some excitement, and some times it works. I actually like the addition of a sword fight in the cemetery, and even though it’s not in character for the phantom to be a swordsman, it’s still cool to see him clash blades with our hero. Having said that, I do think the sword fight could have been shot, edited, and even choreographed a little better. 

  Of course, this movie adaption of the play was directed by Joel Schumacher, who also directed “The Lost Boys”, which is one of my favorite 80’s horror movies. In that film, Joel Schumacher directed it with a sense of euphoria, giving all the songs and transitions an atmospheric dreamlike quality. Some of that carried over into this film very nicely, most notably during “The Phantom of the Opera” song number itself. In this scene, our lead heroine meets the titular Phantom for the first time, and she seems to be in a perpetual dream like state. They walk through this hallway with candlestick holders that move on their own, but then vanish in the following scene when another character walks down the same hallway. This suggests that she has a very operatic imagination, which I found a welcome touch, and it’s just a plain cool visual. I also love the build-up to this song, as we see all the lights and candles going out in the Opera house, leading-up to his appearance in the mirror. This was also my favorite song from the play, and it was cool to see it brought to life in film form. Although, much like the previously mentioned sword fight, I think some of it, namely the final closing notes, could have been shot and staged a little better.

  This actually brings me to my biggest issue with the movie, while the production quality of the film is outstanding, I found the actual film-making on display kind of mediocre. Joel Schumacher is a director with a talent for showing-off his big elaborate set designs with lots of wide shots. Again, the set designs are great spectacles to behold, and the film rightfully got an Oscar nod for best Art Direction. 

The final “Past the Point of no Return” song number, in my opinion, is one of the best musical sequences of the film. I like the hellish red stage design, and it’s satisfying to have a closing musical number with both Christine and the Phantom on stage together. Unfortunately, while the wide shots do help submerse us into the setting, this also leaves little variety to the actual cinematography on display. Most of the time it feels like the camera is only stationary, while the cast just casually walk around their surroundings. While this works for a stage production, it makes the movie feel a little dull and tired at times. Personally, I feel that musicals shine best when the filmmakers play around with the camera, how it’s positioned, and how it moves. Here’s a perfect example, the set design of the cemetery during the song “Wishing you were Somehow here Again” is a thing of beauty to look at, but nothing else about this song number is engaging me on either a technical or even emotional level. The song “Music of the Night” of course is the most famous of all the numbers from the play, and while it’s a good song on its own, it’s also the most boring part of the whole film. This scene just drags itself on and on, with generic staging, and little else to engage the viewer. Once in a while “The Phantom of the Opera” has some good cinematography, most notably the scene in which our female lead takes a carriage ride to the cemetery. This scene was shot very well, and boasts some great atmosphere. Moments like this were just enough to give Cinematographer John Mathieson an Oscar nomination. 

  One thing this movie absolutely succeeded in was making the Opera house a character in of itself. It’s always a busy environment, with lots of movement, lots of costumes, and lots of details in both the foreground and background. In this respect, the film reminds me a lot of “Moulin Rouge”, which had an equally busy environment with lots of detail, but the one glaring difference between the two is that “Moulin Rouge” had a far more appealing color scheme. This leads me to yet another short coming for “The Phantom of the Opera”, as it just couldn’t decide what kind of color scheme should characterize the film. At times it’s not dark enough and other times it’s not colorful enough, instead it’s this horrible in-between colorization that’s not very appealing. The only way I can describe it is faded black mixed with the worst shade of yellow. Take the “Masquerade” ball number as a perfect example, it’s once again a lavish production with a very lively environment, but all the color is sucked out in favor of this ugly overblown yellow coloring. Now once in a while there are some fairly welled colored scenes, like the roof top song number “All I ask of You”. During this number, Christine’s bright red dress is a terrific contrast to the colorful dark-blue sky and glittering snow fall.   

  

  I realize my opinion in this review has been all over the place, but that’s kind of the film in a nutshell. In the end, despite all its shortcomings, I do still like this movie. I’ve been a long time fan of the Broadway play, and even though this film was far from perfect, it’s still very satisfying to see the musical brought to life in film form. To be honest, even though it’s not a classic like the first two horror movies based on the character, this is still the version of “The Phantom of the Opera” I've watched the most. He just feels like a character that was meant for a musical as opposed to horror films, but that’s just me. Also, the movie looks amazing, the songs are still good, and I remember the cast in their respected roles. This is a special case in which I’ve gradually grown to like a film over time, and while it doesn’t represent the best of what musicals from the new millennium have to offer, I also don’t think it should be completely ignored either.  

Thanks for reading my review of the 2004 movie musical “The Phantom of the Opera” ... and continue to enjoy both the movies and the musicals you love.