The Phantom of the Opera

Well not if you have seen "Beware: Children At Play" From Troma Entertainment. That was Awful. But I digress.

This Phantom of The Opera was not meant to be a movie. It was originally a very low budget Play. It was for a Benifit in Florida. The Set was Cardboard , and the Sound was horrible. But David Staller's Acting was once again awesome. He is the only reason to see this movie. Elizabeth Walsh was O.k The woman that Played Carlotta, played a very good Carlotta. Everyone else was just bad, really really bad. If your expecting to see a blockbuster hit, you will be sadly mistaken, but, if your a David Staller fan, Like I am, It's bearable enough to watch just to see him. He's the only good thing about the movie. But than again, As a David Staller lover, I offer a Biast opinion. I would like to see him do Andrew Lloyd Webber's play.

It should be noted that this is NOT the infamous musical of Andrew Lloyd Webber.

All in all it was a bit "campy"- filmed live in a Florida theater, I believe. The score is not very impressive, but the actors voices are good quality. The storyline follows truer to the novel of Gaston Lerouxwith a few liberties here and there. The character of the Daroga is in this version, much to the delight of Leroux fans! If you see this movie, you will probably not that some song titles- like "Spirit of Music"- are similar to ALW, but keep in mind that there aren't too many synonyms for phrase "angel of music."

Rent it or buy if you you consider yourself a die-hard "Phan" or if you want a little change from the ordinary.

I actually liked this version and I have noticed that all the other reviews were made by what is termed "weekend fans" that is to say, fans who ONLY like the awl version. Yes, I know. If awl cant get Erik's name, why should I get his? The truth is, the explicit nature of awl's work is only one form of theater. Now think of another: Sondheim, who is equally talented, but more often implicit and less commercial. It is very easy for a newcomer to musical theater (or one who frequents only major touring productions) to be humanly dazed coming out of the Webber/Hal Prince production and then expect the rest of the theater world to deliver similarly muscular musicals.

The million dollar question remains: Is theater a visceral roller coaster set in two acts or can it challenge an audience to think? If the latter, what is the appropriate size and presentation to evoke thought? Lawrence Rosen and Paul Schierhorn's Phantom of the Opera is limited in size, budget and, yes, talent. In fact, it seems to live in a time capsule: a small regional musical inspired by Victorian operettas with no sense that it exists under the shadow of a late-twentieth century pop giant. Having seen many Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, the moderate song/dialog/song structure feels common to its form. Instead of rejecting its technique, I found myself quieting my commercial sensibilities in order to appreciate its low-key interpretation. (Just like Christine, I, too, have been trained to hear only Webber's grandiloquent music.) But it made me think! Bruce Falstein's book to the score presents a striking philosophic debate absent in most Phantom interpretations: What is passion? Should it be driven underground, symbolically like a monster? And what is passion without liberty (a timeless French theme)? In a superficial world, there is little room for the passionate genius to express himself freely, to create angelic music. Will even the genius be driven underground, cursed to deformity by conformity? This Phantom, without gargantuan sets and heroic harmonies, made room for a few universal themes previously overlooked.

The romantic triangle between Christine, Erik and Raoul is open to multitudinous interpretations and I'm ready to watch them all. Webber's gilding of Gaston Leroux' novel (already pervasively Gothic) with baroque artifice is sensational, indeed. I love theatrical excess! But I wonder if its truthful. Lawrence Rosen and Paul Schierhorn's Phantom is financially restrained but a purer narrative and in the end it struck me that Christine's choice to follow the fashionable Raoul is an obvious choice, but is it a courageous one? For me, viewing this small musical was my choice, like staying at a bed and breakfast for a change instead of the Hilton. Now what's yours?

This movie is a filmed version of a stage play. The music is fairly good, and the chemistry between the Phantom and Christine is evident. With the goofy managers bickering and Carlotta's constant whining it is also quite funny. If you like musicals this will be a good one for you. It is not the Leroux telling of the story, but it is an entertaining story none-the-less.

This is not ALW's version of the Phantom! How can I tell: It's much worse! Although, it wasn't the worst film I've ever seen, (that would been Solaris), it was very bad. When I rented this, I didn't know what to expect. I hoped it would be ALW's version, but from the first opening scene, I knew I had made a mistake.

I was surprised that it was a filmed play instead of a movie. The acting was okay, and it seemed to be a bit more comical than the ALW version, but it could never compare. This Phantom seemed to be more villainous than Gerard Butler's Phantom. I will admit, it has a somewhat similar story line, and you do get to see more about the characters' backgrounds than in ALW's, but the music is NOT the same! The music did not sound very good, but the passion was there. It's closer to the book, but I still didn't like it very much.

If you're really interested in the Phantom, and want to see all the versions, see this one, so you know how bad it is. If your into romance, the ending will have you wondering what exactly was the Phantom thinking?!