Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: December 22, 2004
8.7
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 575 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
491
Mixed:
39
Negative:
45
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characteres (5000 max)
6
grandpajoe6191Sep 30, 2011
"The Phantom of the Opera" isn't much of a entertaining movie. The acting isn't good and the story is just obedient to the musical. Its the music that you'll like, just the music.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
MissionDensityAug 17, 2010
It's curious so many critics panned this. Pretty watchable, if predictable, with timeless, catchy tunes. The female lead, Emmy Rossum, was very good. Think a strange hybrid of Moulin Rouge and Frankenstein.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
MovieGuysMar 9, 2014
The Phantom of the Opera remake is decidedly uninspired and not very enjoyable most of the time. The visual spectacle is definitely there, but the magic stops there as well.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
WJSDec 6, 2014
Very lavish production full of amazing costumes and sets but even the fantastic music can't help this melodramatic, overwrought elephantine film as it lumbers across the screen. It seems to be miscast to me with the very stagey performancesVery lavish production full of amazing costumes and sets but even the fantastic music can't help this melodramatic, overwrought elephantine film as it lumbers across the screen. It seems to be miscast to me with the very stagey performances just not able to keep up with the spectacle of it all. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
GagaForGhibliJun 3, 2012
Sadly This Movie Does Not Catch Your Eye At The End.. Or Really Any Place In The Movie..
The Cast Is Very Bland And Boring As The Movie..
Minnie Driver Does A Good Job Though..
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
lukechristianscApr 4, 2014
A good movie . but not that much violence. the movie is okay but the musical is just to annoying and not something to enjoy about this . Grade C+ ....
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
4
MelissaK.Jan 10, 2005
This was one of the worst films I've ever seen, and the only one to make me almost leave the theater. I'm insulted that so-called opera numbers were dumbed down to nothing more than pop medleys. I can't believe there are This was one of the worst films I've ever seen, and the only one to make me almost leave the theater. I'm insulted that so-called opera numbers were dumbed down to nothing more than pop medleys. I can't believe there are people who are actually voluntarily listening to the soundtrack! Sad day for arts in America. Save your money - see the stage show or rent the silent version. And read the book - it's better than anything else! Collapse
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
TeeS.Jan 3, 2005
Melodramatic. Wishy washy characters. Cheesy 80's guitars and synths. The 4 rating is strictly for costumes and sets.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
warisillJan 9, 2005
Gerard Butler can't sing. Weber should be ashamed. This guy is tone deaf and wooden.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DanielleR.Feb 1, 2005
This movie was mediocre at best. It was lacking in everything, expecially emotion. The cinematography was ineffectual. It got no higher than the middle grounds in every aspect. The visuals were beautiful, but maybe a little bit too much, and This movie was mediocre at best. It was lacking in everything, expecially emotion. The cinematography was ineffectual. It got no higher than the middle grounds in every aspect. The visuals were beautiful, but maybe a little bit too much, and not properly focused on. There were parts that were cheesy. The movie's emotional tone fluctuated a little, and I only felt strong emotions at the very end for the Phantom. This movie had potential to be great, but never reached it. The singing wasn't phenomenal, and at points, in the first half of the movie, there was comedy. Unfortunately, they did not follow through on the comedic note, making the comedy seem rather misplaced. The actors were decent, but their potential to shine as actors was wetted down by the overall tone and visual extravagence of the movie. If you're easily entertained though, then you most likely will like this movie. And as a by-note, I did not notice the people's lip-synching. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
WAKOJAKOJan 14, 2005
The movie was OK, just passing grade OK for me...nothing really as thrilling as the stage show. And what was Lloyd Webber thinking letting a non-singer into one of the most coveted SINGING-ROLES of the century??? Gerard Butlers acting really The movie was OK, just passing grade OK for me...nothing really as thrilling as the stage show. And what was Lloyd Webber thinking letting a non-singer into one of the most coveted SINGING-ROLES of the century??? Gerard Butlers acting really sucks, and his singing reeks...He's worse than Antonio Banderas, and at times sounds like a bad immitation. At least Banderas' singing in Evita did not require operatic dimensions. Emmy Rossum was OK, though she does have a rather whispy, airy voice, for a rising opera star... As a whole, the movie lacks passion and imagination, just plods along at a snails pace, and at best it merely tickles the imagination about what a good director, not to mention a virtuoso storyteller, might have concocted with such juicy material. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ShamaK.Jan 15, 2005
What I liked about the movie was exactly what I liked about the opera- the music. Otherwise, neither Christine nor Raoul came across as engaging, charming lovers. The phantom was only slightly better. There were some promising scenes and the What I liked about the movie was exactly what I liked about the opera- the music. Otherwise, neither Christine nor Raoul came across as engaging, charming lovers. The phantom was only slightly better. There were some promising scenes and the decor and costumes were excellent. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ArthurK.Mar 27, 2005
Very nervous and disjointed first half. Camera flies around on details, made me dizzy. Second half is better. I liked the use of black and white of the auction and trip to the cemetery and the movie being mostly a flashback.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MarcM.Mar 8, 2005
Lush visually and musically but barren emotionally.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
RobertL.Dec 30, 2004
Beautiful photography, nice music that we all know, and it just doesn't make it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
LeeD.Jan 14, 2005
Musicals have to overcome the obstacle of being overly whimsical and false if they are to be made for the screen. In order to do this, there must be a certain rawness to the production, an over-the-top, tough, rough power that makes you gaze Musicals have to overcome the obstacle of being overly whimsical and false if they are to be made for the screen. In order to do this, there must be a certain rawness to the production, an over-the-top, tough, rough power that makes you gaze in wonder. Unfortunately, The Phantom of the Opera is so glazed over with fickle prettiness that it has become just a precious, porcelain ornament of fragile worthlessness. There are occasional moments of splendour, but it all just gets deflated as soon as they fade away into the night. And like these scenes, The Phantom of the Opera will just dissolve out of your hands every time you try to pick it up and get a good look at it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
KatyLJan 16, 2005
This was pretty bad. I'm hard to displease, but here it is. I won't say that I'm sorry I went because it's always fun to see how someone new interprets for a new medium (the screen) something that was such a cultural This was pretty bad. I'm hard to displease, but here it is. I won't say that I'm sorry I went because it's always fun to see how someone new interprets for a new medium (the screen) something that was such a cultural phenomenon some years ago. Emmy Rossum did well, but her voice isn't nearly as fresh sounding as it was in Songcatcher. Minnie Driver was hilarious. Gerard Butler was a cheesball and a HORRIBLE singer. Patrick Wilson was just kinda there. I was really disappointed with Shumacher's interpretation of the "Masquerade" number. The song's lyrics evoke images of swirls of color, beautiful visual chaos. But the choreography was booorrrring, the costumes were noncommital (not colorful, not black & white, not silver & gold). If you feel you must see it, go to a matinee at the cheapest theater you can find. It's still better to see it on the big screen than to rent it later. Just be ready for something very trite and cheezy in that Celine Dion kinda way. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MarkB.Jan 19, 2005
What they do to Minnie Driver is perfectly indicative of everything else that's wrong with this wildly elaborate but terminally forgettable filmization of the smash Broadway musical. She's extremely funny as an egotistical What they do to Minnie Driver is perfectly indicative of everything else that's wrong with this wildly elaborate but terminally forgettable filmization of the smash Broadway musical. She's extremely funny as an egotistical diva--easily giving the best performance in the movie--but could've been even more so if the makeup crew hadn't buried half her face in pseudo-Kabuki glop that succeeded only in making me temporarily associate this normally beautiful woman with Divine in any zero-budget 1970s John Waters opus. The rest of the movie is far less substantial than Driver; the three leads (Gerard Butler, Emmy Rossum and Patrick Wilson) are pretty and sound nice, I suppose, but are completely lacking in oomph factor; the story is wispy and inconsequential and takes forever to get there. As for the score, well, let's just say that the reason I'm not a huge Andrew Lloyd Webber fan is that, unlike Rodgers and Hammerstein, Lerner and Loewe, Frank Loesser and Stephen Sondheim (and Jesus Christ Superstar notwithstanding), Webber seems to work on the philoophy of why leave the theater humming the entire score when just one hit song per show will do just fine? Don't blame Gaston Leroux, who originated the powerful, elemental source material: the atmospheric 1925 silent with Lon Chaney still works today, while Brian DePalma's rock satire Phantom of the Paradise and Dario Argento's wildly stylized horror film Opera are tremendously imaginative reworkings that hold up under repeated viewings. There's not much real imagination at work here, so director Joel Schumacher buries what little there is in increasingly ornate but pointless spectacle. (You know something's not working when we visit the Phantom's lair, which is decked out with as many candles as Carrie White's mom filled the house with before the final showdown, and despite the events going on in front of them, all I could think about was how did they all manage to stay lit in the cold, damp air?) Some critics and film buffs believe Schumacher to be the biggest hack currently working; I fully disagree: the Lost Boys is a wonderfully entertaining pop vampire movie; Cousins is one of the very few Americanizations of a foreign film that almost matches the original; his two John Grisham movies are examples of extremely competent, watchable storytelling, and the Michael Douglas thriller/social comment Falling Down is, quite simply, one of the most underrated movies of the 1990s. With Phantom, however, we're treading dangerously close to the "bad" Schumacher: the one who put nipples on the Batsuit. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SteveG.Dec 28, 2004
It has enough spectacle, some memorable music and interesting moments - and yet it fails in all sorts of ways. It is of course a stage show and although it springs from a truly great stage show it shows its origins all too plainly at times. It has enough spectacle, some memorable music and interesting moments - and yet it fails in all sorts of ways. It is of course a stage show and although it springs from a truly great stage show it shows its origins all too plainly at times. As a movie the psuedo-opera 'exchanges' and inconsistent characterisations didn't fit the medium too well. Emma Rossum's inability to decide whether she should go with her childhood sweetheart or fall for the grotesque murderer was agony to watch, but there were other problems including the poor graveyard fight scene. The back-stage richness you might expect from such a lavish production was largely missing and the dancing failed to captivate as it really should have, given the potential for amazing costumes and large sets. In the end, I was grateful for Minnie Driver and to a lesser extent Miranda Richardson and Simon Callow for relieving the monotonies that crept up from time to time. But while the phantom himself should have been riveting, sadly he wasn't. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
Spielberg00Sep 15, 2011
First and foremost, the Broadway musical production is (ha!) SO much better than this. Not to say that it was a bad adaptation: Gerard Butler sure did a fantastic job as the titular character. The main thing that really angered me about thisFirst and foremost, the Broadway musical production is (ha!) SO much better than this. Not to say that it was a bad adaptation: Gerard Butler sure did a fantastic job as the titular character. The main thing that really angered me about this is that a lot of the scenes were scrapped and/or changed--some of which would have even made more sense on camera than onstage, such as the graveyard scene where the Phantom throws fireballs at Raoul. Some of the altered scenes, I can say, were clearly done to make it appear as a film rather than a direct copy of a Broadway musical, such as the opening scene and the final scene (neither of which I will give away, because the majority of the film is in a flashback, so technically, giving away the beginning would be partially giving away the ending). Cinematically, though, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is captivating and brilliant, if, as noted above, flawed. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
nahtan1244Mar 25, 2016
This was a fine production I seem to be in the minority here but here me out. It's Not nearly as bad as critics are making out to be but i do have to agree with them on this movie somewhat. First off Emily russum was very good as Christie sheThis was a fine production I seem to be in the minority here but here me out. It's Not nearly as bad as critics are making out to be but i do have to agree with them on this movie somewhat. First off Emily russum was very good as Christie she has a wonderful voice. She can act, sing and you can feel her struggle. The costumes are exquisite and sets lavish and beautiful so are the visuals. Patrick Wilson shines as raoul and is a good component emily russom. They are both such good singers. The score is hauntingly beautiful and has now become one of my favorites The beautiful visuals however try to distract the viewer from a lackluster script. The story is fleshed out kinda nicely but the stong visuals distract from creating a even more solid story so you end up being left with a story that doesn't smooth quite as nicely with what the rest of the film has to offer. Aslo Gerald butler was a fantastic actor but not a very good singer. He didn't know how to sing from the begging so that should have been a red flag not to cast him sense the movie is mostly singing. Hugh jackman would have been better after his performance in Les miserables. The rest of the cast did better than butler but worse than Patrick Wilson and Emily russom. So Phantom of the opera is a well acted and mostly well sung with a beautiful and amzing soundtrack, and is alot better than rent or mama mia but worst than into the woods Les miserables or chicago. It isn't bad it just could be better Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews