Love Never Dies

I loved it to all who were expecting it to like the first phantom it wasn't supposed to be it's a play all it's own And yes you cant really compare it the the phantom of the opera But it was dark, twisted, and riveting even more so than the first love the twists and turns of the whole story

very powerful, and moving had me in tears at the end the only thing i wish the same cast from the phantom of opera 25th anniversary would have been in it but that's OK the new cast did great

the new setting at coney island was intriguing the new songs were different but great loved the rock themes brought it right up to date with a new audience to appreciate musicals and this phantom story proves that love never dies

Okay, so, I watched this reasonably soon after having watched the Phantom of the Opera 25th anniversary performance--so a) it was fresh and b) I might be a little harsh.

The camera work was a little...interesting. There was only one shot (before the curtain call) that showed any of the audience, so it was easy to forget you were watching a play in a theater--except that you kept seeing stage lights in shots. Not a bad thing, but not ideal. The music is good, but rather weak in comparison to Phantom. Phantom is soaring and operatic... LND had me asking if Webber composed it in collaboration with Trans-Siberian Orchestra. The big thing for me, however, is the continuity disasters between LND and Phantom that fundamentally change the apparent story in Phantom. Full-disclosure, I think Love Never Dies would be perfectly fine in it's own right, but as a sequel to the awesomeness of Phantom of the Opera... I was a bit disappointed. I did appreciate the sporadic musical references to Phantom of the Opera in the score, however.

Much of the problem that I had watching this was to do with Love Never Dies itself. I am one of those who has appreciated Andrew Lloyd Webber overtime, especially as Phantom of the Opera is so good, but Love Never Dies is my least favourite musical of his by quite some way. Two or three of the songs are nice, Til I Hear You Sing Once More, The Beauty Underneath and Look With Your Heart, but the rest are completely forgettable. The story is also a mess, it is nowhere near as cohesive as Phantom of the Opera, is very bad soap-opera-ish and didn't engage me emotionally. The characters seem off, especially Raoul, and one plot strand(the one revealing when Gustave was conceived) actually distorts them, while the ending is ridiculously anti-climatic. This production is a slight improvement by excising that one plot strand, but other than that it does nothing to change my perception of the musical. The production is certainly not bad, the costume and set designs are just exquisite with beautiful lighting. The orchestral playing, chorus and conducting are also first-rate. And I thought the two leads were fine. Ben Lewis has a magnificent voice, and does his best making Phantom charismatic, edgy and tortured, it's not his fault that Phantom in Love Never Dies is too much of an obsessive businessman with a dark past, a much watered-down version of his former self really. Anna O'Byrne struggles with the title number- hardly surprising seeing as the song itself isn't that good anyway- but her voice is very angelic and rich with an unbelievable range, she also does elegant and diva-ish very well. The rest of the cast aren't as effective, good voices but dull. Well Simon Gleeson does have flashes where he allows Raoul to be dashing, but there is strong emphasis on flashes. It doesn't help that the drama is so overly-melodramatic, dull and emotionally cold, or that the relationship between Phantom and Christine is as tawdry as it is. And if you're struggling to believe that they actually hooked up, I don't blame you. The choreography was well danced but lacked drive and sparkle for my tastes. The camera work was a big, perhaps even the biggest, issue. There are too many close-ups and medium shots that are moved so fast, this approach is the very opposite of intimate(which I believe was intended), further ruined the dramatic flow and actually cried for a more expansive use of the stage and live-performance spontaneity. Overall, lavish but also disappointing. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Very entertaining film of the musical. Camera work left a lot to be desired, however: too much movement around action shots. Lighting was very dark, and much of the set was constantly in the dark. Yes, of course, much of the set is supposed to be, I guess, in this vehicle, but the people were poorly light frequently, and the focus seemed to be blurry. I wondered if they were trying to shoot "Mame" with Lucille Ball. Really nice score. Clearly a Weber opera with leitmotifs from other shows and particularly "The Phantom". Nice touches throughout. Pretty duets and ballads. Singing was quite fine overall. Anne O'Byrne was quite good. The opening Phantom ballad however was a bit stagy. He was trying to sound too hard, I thought, like the original with the wobbly voice.

Let's speak plainly: this musical came pre-loaded with baggage, its own cargo ship's worth, before it ever opened in London. The very idea of a sequel to Andrew Lloyd Webber's 'The Phantom of the Opera' raises a skeptical eyebrow; to read a one-line premise raises our hackles. Then we read the plot synopsis, and learn of the critical reception, and see the history of productions; while the tale may have been revised between London and Melbourne, frankly the differences are minimal, more cosmetic than substantive. Still, the question remains: How is the music? How is the show at large, in and of itself? Does it really deserve such infamy; could it really be so bad? Thankfully movie lovers, theater nerds, 'Phantom' aficionados, and general audiences can decide for themselves without necessarily shelling out cash for seats in the orchestra, balcony, or gallery, for this recording of the Australian production - in some measure better received with its rewrites than the original London show - gives us a look at 'Love never dies' in all its splendor, or alternatively, in all its notoriety. For better and for worse, we're able to begin forming an opinion very swiftly once we press "play." For my part I think this is enjoyable, and worthwhile on its own merits, but with significant issues that severely limit its lasting value.

To the credit of all involved, there really is much to admire here in most every regard. Pretty much everything we love about musicals as a class of live performance, and about cinema as an audiovisual medium, are alive and vibrant in these two hours. The costume design is truly gorgeous, and the hair and makeup, too; the sets are lovely, and the choreography fetching, and stage director Simon Phillips is to be roundly commended for such a splendid, finely-tuned piece. By and large the cast is terrific, treating us to superb singing and lively, engaging, laudable acting. Broadly speaking the music in and of itself is delightful, with some selections being extra nice and enticing, and the same applies to the lyrics. Why, if we consider the narrative at its core, then alongside the music, performances, and overall spectacle it's easy to get swept up in the saga: a famed singer traveling with her rakish husband and young son to a new engagement, where they will encounter old friends, confront the past, and have their lives forever changed. There are times throughout when I really do see the brilliance of the best potential this may have had. And it's worth observing that this 2012 feature is a credit as well to filmmaker Brett Sullivan, the camera operators, the editors, and all others who put in the work to bring the stage musical to our screens. Some recordings of live performances are better than others at visualizing the entirety, and at making the show matter, and whatever we think of 'Love never dies' as a musical, I believe this rendition of it is counts as one of the better examples of a port to the screen.

All this is good, or even wonderful, not to mention encouraging, entertaining, and satisfying. So what, then, could the problems be that have given Webber's work such a sorry reputation? Well, let's start with the acting. I mean it when I say that everyone on hand is terrific, by and large. However, everyone also has their moments - some more than others - when they unquestionably come off as overacting and chewing scenery with overly severe, forceful delivery and comportment. In fact, this fault of the acting kind of exemplifies an overarching issue that plagues the whole endeavor, for in too many ways, and at too many points, there is a glaring lack of subtlety, tact, or thoughtful care being applied in the fundamental construction. Just as some of the lyrics are superb, some are terrible; just as some underhanded musical callbacks to 'Phantom' are fantastic, whatever their form, the most overt counterexamples mostly feel cheap, chintzy, and desperate; just as the music at large is swell, with some especial highlights (even as small as a few bars), there are also more dubious phrases or themes, and in a title built for drama, the worst instances actually inspire laughter. The storytelling itself also has distinct weaknesses, not least as the pseudonym "Mr. Y" belongs in Saturday morning cartoons, not a would-be prestige theatrical production; I'm less than enthused about some of the characterizations as they present, dovetailing into issues of some numbers ("Bathing beauty") and where they fit into the story, and shifts and disparity of tone ('The beauty underneath"). To top it all off, the plot development seems shortchanged, in that two hours fly past too quickly, insufficient to shoulder the weight that the plot and its conflicts should ideally carry. Yet we've not even talked about the elephant in the room.

It's as simple as this: the root plot, and the flavors of carnival, sideshow, and funhouse that adjoin the principal drama and romance, are stupendous, promising foundations for a musical, and for a motion picture. The trouble is that 'Love never dies' is a sequel to 'The Phantom of the Opera,' and I emphatically believe that it should have been its own standalone creation with no ties to that prior creation, nor any other. Worse is that 'Love never dies' is a sequel that demands enormous leaps of logic and presuppositions for the plot to work. I'll stop short of saying that the 2010 successor retcons its progenitor; it IS possible that following the previous events, Raoul turned out to be a louse, Madame and Meg Giry developed closer ties to the Phantom as they relocated, and jealousies and dark passions would stir as lives collide once again. For all these things to be true is too much for the 'Phantom' aficionado to take in stride, however, and above all, if we're to believe that 'Love' truly follows 'Phantom,' the central conceit of a love affair between Christine and the Phantom exceeds all limits of suspension of disbelief. These supposed narrative connections also ultimately inform our view of most other facets here: the carnival flavors are out of touch with the prior material, and while "The beauty underneath" is striking in and of itself, it heavily clashes with the tone of the rest of this production, let alone the predecessor; the last stretch of the second act, following Christine's aria, resolves the continued saga in a manner that feels hastily and poorly written, and which is unconvincing and dissatisfying, particularly as the beats place even greater strain on reworked characterizations that are already thin. With some retooling the show could feasibly have been phenomenal as a singular entity; as a sequel to one of the most cherished musicals in the world, it direly struggles.

And here's one more thing: there is no song in 'Love never dies' that comes anywhere near to matching 'The Phantom of the Opera.' All are good, and some are excellent, but whereas every tune of years before is a revered classic, there is nothing here that stands out in a fashion that will endure in memory. There is no showstopper to receive thunderous applause; Christine's big number in the second act - that which kind of held to be the crux of the whole tale - is okay, but doesn't really make a big impression.

I repeat that there really is a lot to like here. Everyone specifically involved in the Melbourne production did a marvelous job, and all are to be congratulated. At its best, we are reminded of why we love 'Phantom' as 'Love never dies' tries so, so hard to recapture that magic. I cannot and will not say that I dislike this musical, or got nothing from it, or would recommend against it. What I will and must say is that there is no arguing that the Melbourne production, praise-worthy as it is, is the best possible interpretation of something that even on paper leaves us actively doubting; it's the musical equivalent of screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg, and filmmakers Catherine Hardwicke, Chris Weitz, David Slade, and Bill Condon, adapting Stephenie Meyer's 'Twilight' series to the Silver Screen. I'm glad for those who find it even more enjoyable, or who possibly take no issue at all with the material. As far as I'm concerned, it's just that the flaws and failures are as readily evident as the advantages and successes, and any discussion of the title must be lengthy and comprehensive as to what it does well and where it goes wrong. Don't take my harshest criticism to mean that you shouldn't watch 'Love never dies'; take it to mean that you should watch with a very open mind and active awareness.