I'm not going to dwell about the most obvious mistakes, such as the over-directing, the waste of money on all-too-costly (and plastic) sets, the "modernization" of the soundtrack (a very unfortunate idea with an even more unfortunate result), the attempt to make soft porn, the mistake of placing it 1870 (why not use the stable year of 1789 while they're at it...) and everything else that pretty much makes this movie a 2,5 hours instruction video about everything that is wrong with Hollywood.
No, the major flaws of this piece are in the very core of the matter - the story, the characters and their performances.
We should remember the Phantom as one of the most intricate figures of modern time, a creature half man, half living corpse, whose distorted face and body is revenged in a supernatural voice "which was loud as thunder or soft as angels' voices, at will". In the same manner, his mind also has the great range between high and low, from the most exquisite genius to the warped madman, and his soul is capable of both callous cruelty and sublime compassion. Even though we are supposed to pity him from time to time, we should never be made to forget that he is a lost soul who will never be quite human.
It then goes without saying that anyone who portrays him on the screen should, first of all, be able to sing and, just as important, actually be a rather non-attractive man. The miscast Gerald Butler fails in both aspects, with no musical training and a face which, even without mask, is better looking than 99 out of 100 men in this world. It is of course the responsibility of the director and, to be fair, Butler is giving an effort within his own range, but has not understood the nature of his character and fails therefore to display the vulnerable madness of, for example, Michael Crawford (whether you like his voice or not, there is no denying that he is one of the most heartfelt and emotional actors of our time).
Christine is in the same way left to be nothing but a humiliating shadow of the girl from the book. The Christine we knew was indeed inexperienced due to her youth, but had more the character of a young person who suddenly finds herself caught in a complicated and dangerous situation in which her inner strength and moral convictions are put to the test. Trying to save herself, spare the Phantom and protect the clueless Raoul from his own naivety, she is faced with decisions where she finally, in an act of pity, let herself fall pray for the Phantom's obsession. It is clear from the book that she was mesmerized by his voice and moved by his sad fate, but she was never sexually attracted or romantically interested in him. Neither did he represent a father figure for her (a common misconception) - although he evoke in her a memory of a favorite childhood-legend, frequently told by her father.
Who then came with the idea to transfer her to one of the most stupid, vapid, weak and stereotypical female lead (and there are plenty to choose from in that category) the screen has ever seen? We are asked to care about an obviously retarded girl who without any willpower freely goes between two men depending on which one calls to her loudest at the moment. The characterization in this film is neither fair nor interesting and is made worse by the inadequate performance of Emmy Rossum, who is taking the art of failing to a new low. Where Butler at least tried to make something out of his role, Rossum displays no effort or will to give Christine a personality or even mobility. (In fact, she doesn't even take the effort to change her facial expression throughout the movie.) It is clear that someone told her the lie that if you are just beautiful enough you don't have to bother to do any acting (if such a stone face can indeed be considered beautiful - I suspect that those who finds her attractive in this movie are mostly males whose every romantic encounters have been with an inflatable doll, since that is what she is made to resemble).
We are then coming to Raoul, the third part of the threesome. Raoul has been constantly criticized for being the most inept excuse of a hero in ages, which is a very fair observation given that he was never supposed to be a hero at all. In fact, the original character is a sympathetic anti-hero who is just as young and inexperienced as Christine but who is yet willing to sacrifice whatever he can out of love for her (which he ends up doing in a rather clumsy way). But most of the time he is confused, lovesick and rather whining - far from the sword fighting savor on the white horse.
It is virtually impossible to give a review of Patrick Wilson's performance in this movie due to his anonymous role. I suppose he sings well enough to suit a musical and can pass as an actor. There is no charisma or much of a screen presence, but then again, how could it be different with Raoul? If a script is deficient, it takes a whole lot of heart to compensate and unfortunately this movies was made with focus on style rather than story. This could have been a chance to improve and make the stage version more complete, instead the audience is left cheated both of their time, money and expectations. Why this obvious contempt for your viewers, Webber and Schumacher?
No, the major flaws of this piece are in the very core of the matter - the story, the characters and their performances.
We should remember the Phantom as one of the most intricate figures of modern time, a creature half man, half living corpse, whose distorted face and body is revenged in a supernatural voice "which was loud as thunder or soft as angels' voices, at will". In the same manner, his mind also has the great range between high and low, from the most exquisite genius to the warped madman, and his soul is capable of both callous cruelty and sublime compassion. Even though we are supposed to pity him from time to time, we should never be made to forget that he is a lost soul who will never be quite human.
It then goes without saying that anyone who portrays him on the screen should, first of all, be able to sing and, just as important, actually be a rather non-attractive man. The miscast Gerald Butler fails in both aspects, with no musical training and a face which, even without mask, is better looking than 99 out of 100 men in this world. It is of course the responsibility of the director and, to be fair, Butler is giving an effort within his own range, but has not understood the nature of his character and fails therefore to display the vulnerable madness of, for example, Michael Crawford (whether you like his voice or not, there is no denying that he is one of the most heartfelt and emotional actors of our time).
Christine is in the same way left to be nothing but a humiliating shadow of the girl from the book. The Christine we knew was indeed inexperienced due to her youth, but had more the character of a young person who suddenly finds herself caught in a complicated and dangerous situation in which her inner strength and moral convictions are put to the test. Trying to save herself, spare the Phantom and protect the clueless Raoul from his own naivety, she is faced with decisions where she finally, in an act of pity, let herself fall pray for the Phantom's obsession. It is clear from the book that she was mesmerized by his voice and moved by his sad fate, but she was never sexually attracted or romantically interested in him. Neither did he represent a father figure for her (a common misconception) - although he evoke in her a memory of a favorite childhood-legend, frequently told by her father.
Who then came with the idea to transfer her to one of the most stupid, vapid, weak and stereotypical female lead (and there are plenty to choose from in that category) the screen has ever seen? We are asked to care about an obviously retarded girl who without any willpower freely goes between two men depending on which one calls to her loudest at the moment. The characterization in this film is neither fair nor interesting and is made worse by the inadequate performance of Emmy Rossum, who is taking the art of failing to a new low. Where Butler at least tried to make something out of his role, Rossum displays no effort or will to give Christine a personality or even mobility. (In fact, she doesn't even take the effort to change her facial expression throughout the movie.) It is clear that someone told her the lie that if you are just beautiful enough you don't have to bother to do any acting (if such a stone face can indeed be considered beautiful - I suspect that those who finds her attractive in this movie are mostly males whose every romantic encounters have been with an inflatable doll, since that is what she is made to resemble).
We are then coming to Raoul, the third part of the threesome. Raoul has been constantly criticized for being the most inept excuse of a hero in ages, which is a very fair observation given that he was never supposed to be a hero at all. In fact, the original character is a sympathetic anti-hero who is just as young and inexperienced as Christine but who is yet willing to sacrifice whatever he can out of love for her (which he ends up doing in a rather clumsy way). But most of the time he is confused, lovesick and rather whining - far from the sword fighting savor on the white horse.
It is virtually impossible to give a review of Patrick Wilson's performance in this movie due to his anonymous role. I suppose he sings well enough to suit a musical and can pass as an actor. There is no charisma or much of a screen presence, but then again, how could it be different with Raoul? If a script is deficient, it takes a whole lot of heart to compensate and unfortunately this movies was made with focus on style rather than story. This could have been a chance to improve and make the stage version more complete, instead the audience is left cheated both of their time, money and expectations. Why this obvious contempt for your viewers, Webber and Schumacher?