Starring Gerard Butler (as the titular phantasm), Emmy Rossum (as Christine), and Patrick Wilson (as a very fresh-faced Raoul), Phantom of the Opera (2004)’s road to the big screen first began back in the late 1980s when Warner Bros. Phantom 2004 may not be the most accurate take on the material from Leroux’s story, but it is most definitely a brilliant cinematic rendering of Webber’s musical, and I will always defend it to the bitter end, even its less-than-amazing parts (which are few and far between). In terms of what Joel Schumacher and Andrew Lloyd Webber set out to create with their collaborative efforts on bringing the stage play iteration of Phantom of the Opera to the big screen, to me, they not only succeeded, but they also managed to supersede any lofty expectations I might have had for it nearly 16 years ago when it was first released in theaters. Many of its critics faulted this version for being too faithful to the cultural phenomenon that is Webber’s crowning achievement in live theatre, but honestly, this wasn’t ever going to be the gothic horror show from Gaston Leroux’s original novel, and I’m not sure why anyone ever expected any differently from this rendition. The phantom of the opera movie series#Once again, I believe the original in this venue was the best: Michael Crawford.Originally, I was holding off on digging into Joel Schumacher’s 2004 adaptation of Phantom of the Opera until later on in this series, but with his passing a few months ago, I thought that it only made sense to make the next installment of my Phantom Thread series a celebration of Schumacher’s lavish and ostentatious adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical, showering it with all the adulation that it has always deserved. The second best "Phantom" portrayal and wonderful in its own way is the STAGE musical, NOT the 2004 movie. Chaney also made valuable contributions behind the scenes as well, thank goodness! It's a fact that Chaney and Julian did NOT get along, and I've heard that it was actually Chaney himself who directed the unmasking scene (among a few others) and who also insisted that all advance advertising had the unmasked Phantom's face covered).įor my next Phantom thrill, I'm looking forward to a full-size theater showing (usually found around Halloween) with complete theater organ accompaniment! Nonetheless I wanted to give the film 5 stars for what saves and immortalizes it: Chaney's great performance, supported best by the wonderfully creepy, shadowy atmosphere that is the Phantom's territory. Lest I sound like a blind admirer, know that I very much disliked the oft-mentioned "wooden" performances of Mary Philbin and Norman Kerry (Christine and Raoul respectively), as well as the botched, horrible direction by the mediocre director Rupert Julian, or the tragical re-editing and cutting of the original footage. For all the jaded folks used to modern CGI and horror effects, NO one still has accomplished anything like The Man of 1,000 faces Lon Chaney did here. My father first saw the original release in 1925 as an 11-year-old boy, and confirmed that the audiences indeed were scared out of their wits with screams, faintings, and general histronics. To fully appreciate it, one must try to avoid being over-exposed to the now-commonly-seen unmasked face of the Phantom, and know something about the times in which it was made. The phantom of the opera movie movie#A must-see film for anyone who loves the REAL Phantom of the Opera, Lon Chaney Sr., horror film history, or all of the above! I finally watched this movie again after 24 years of Chaney's Phantom scaring me nearly to death but I love the Phantom character and love silent movies, so I'm glad love conquered all and I finally got to see it AND enjoy it!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |