The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

I despise opera singing, and I detest chick-flicks. But I love phantomly films, and am a fan of The Phantom of the Opera — from the eerie 1925 silent version starring Lon Chaney, to the bloody slasher 1989 version featuring Robert Englund, I’ve always been at least somewhat entertained by the story.

It’s an undeniably ageless, engrossing screen story: One filled with drama, suspense, romance, and horror. It’s always been that way… until now. In Andrew Lloyd Webber’s The Phantom of the Opera, based squarely on the stage play (which I have not seen, by the way), you can subtract the suspense and horror and add a whole lot of glass-breaking high notes. Most horror fans will get their first clue by the words “Andrew Lloyd Webber’s” in the title, but for those who have watched Attack of the Killer Tomatoes one too many times and have thereby sizzled more than a few brain cells, consider this review a word of warning. It ain’t horror; not even a little.

The setting is Paris, 1870, in the Opera Populaire. The title character, a disfigured musical genius (Gerard Butler, whom you may remember as the Fanged One in Dracula 2000) who haunts the catacombs beneath the opera house is more handsome than horrible this time around. He wears a cute little mask and sweeps his swirly cape dramatically while he ardently pursues the object of his affection: a young, shapely soprano named Christine (Emmy Rossum, who played the doomed daughter in Mystic River). Standing in the way of their peculiar affair is the shrilly demanding diva (a typecast Minne Driver), and Christine’s former flame, Raoul (a petulant Patrick Wilson).

This version of The Phantom of the Opera is undeniably beautiful, in the visual sense. The sets are sumptuous, the costumes are lavish, and cinematography is glorious. All the pomp, plumage and pizzazz of the opulent bygone era is shown to overblown excess in the most pleasing possible way. Unfortunately, as you’re looking at all this glitz and glamour, you must also endure the ear-wrenching ballads and hearts-aflutter over-acting (which is, of course, in keeping with the feel of a stage production). The signature song, “The Phantom of the Opera”, is reduced to a soft rock tune timed to a collage of images showing Christine and the Phantom floating and canoodling through some sort of tunnel of love.

If you haven’t lost your lunch yet and you are still reading this review, then maybe you are curious to know how this movie works as just a film, not specifically a horror film. It’s OK. As I said, it’s very pretty-looking and it does have a lot of production value. It is a decent romance, if somewhat sappy and static. The acting is good, but none of the actors really stand out as the larger than life characters they play.

Unless you are a diehard romantic, an opera fanatic, or a lifelong fan of Andrew Lloyd Webber, you’re probably better off with a previous version of The Phantom of the Opera. Better yet, wait for this one to come out on DVD then watch yourself silly with a Phantom Marathon (among the best versions: the 1925 classic; the 1943 presentation with Claude Raines hamming it up as the cloaked killer; and the grand gugnal Dario Argento opus from 1998).

Reviewed by Staci Layne Wilson