I'm sorry, I have to be honest - while I am a huge fan of Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage adaption of Phantom, the screen adaption leaves a lot to be desired. I actually saw the movie before I saw the stage show, and so unremarkable I found it that it almost put me off watching the stage production (thank God it didn't). I appreciate that a screen version cannot rival seeing a live performance, but this falls way short. First problem being in the casting. Emmy Rossum is nice to look at and has a sweet voice, but she lacks range (I'm not sure how she got labeled a soprano), power and the operatic (or even classical) sound that one would expect to hear in Christine. And let's not get me started on her 'acting'. Gerard Butler, while a favourite among young "phans", did not have the vocal prowess to play the coveted Phantom role at all. The Phantom is supposed to sound powerful, hypnotic and commanding, yet I found myself torn between cringing and laughing whilst hearing this particular interpretation of the role. Nor did I think that the attempt to make the Phantom into an appealing and 'sexy' character was the right move, and frankly, think it makes little sense. I couldn't take the movie seriously. The characters come across as being flat and lifeless; very 2D. I didn't feel the awkward twist of simultaneous disgust and sympathy for the Phantom, I didn't feel a connection to Christine or feel her transition from a young girl to a woman, and Raoul (who is actually a lovely character when played properly) was like a piece of cardboard. I did not enjoy the way the characters were played at all, save maybe for Meg. My second major qualm is how they trimmed and changed songs, including cutting out an entire verse of the title song, a very synthetic-sounding cadenza, the changing of many originally sung parts into spoken word, and even the complete removal of some. A large part of what makes this show so spectacular on stage is the extravagant use of sets and sound, all of which become somewhat lost in a movie production since we come to expect that anything on the modern screen should have these things anyway. In short, you are left with a very mediocre presentation of a story that has the ability to be outstanding. I own a copy of this movie, but I avoid watching it at all costs. Perhaps I have simply set high standards as to what I expected from the modern screen version of Phantom.

I have just seen Andrew Lloyd Weber's The Phantom of the Opera last night and I still don't quite know how to feel about it. This is my favorite Broadway musical of all time. I have been privileged enough to see it twice on stage with the inimitable Michael Crawford. This Phantom is significantly different - both the production and the character. On stage, the Phantom is an older man who is missing most of his face. In this film, the Phantom is so young and so sexy we wonder why Christine would ever be interested in Raoul. The movie has more time and ability to go into the Phantom's backstory - the problem is the backstory makes no sense! In the book, it was explained that Erik was the son of a master mason who grew up to be one of the contractors who worked on the opera house. In the movie, he is a child who is rescued from a freak show by Madame Giry who has grown up in the opera house. (Perhaps that gave him time to install a pipe-organ single-handedly.) Joel Schumacher has tried to "humanize" the Phantom, which is the wrong decision because - like Hamlet - the Phantom is a larger-than-life character. The worst filmmaking decision is to have the Phantom swordfight Raoul...and lose! The Phantom is like Hannibal Lecter - he would NEVER let anybody get the upper hand on him. In the play, the Phantom spends most of the time off-stage, creating an air of mystery. Also, in the play, he has more of a devilish sense of humor. The movie phantom does not move in the same way the stage phantom does - gone are the balletic gestures that accompany The Music of the Night.

A fantastically sumptuous production! highly recommended

I loved this movie. It was well thought out and the set design was amazing. The cast is quite young which opens the story up to a whole new generation of viewers and while no movie could ever really live up to the live stage show ths one gives it a excellent go. The phantom is dark and brooding, Christine, young and beautiful and you can't help but enjoy Minnie Drivers portrayal of Carlotta. Gothic Romance at its best!