BN.com Gift Guide
Customer Reviews for

The Phantom of the Opera

Average Rating 4.5
( 275 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(225)

4 Star

(28)

3 Star

(14)

2 Star

(6)

1 Star

(2)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

Most Helpful Favorable Review

8 out of 8 people found this review helpful.

Best musical ever and NOW best musical movie ever!

Phantom of the Opera is very deep and emotional. I give props to anyone who can watch that movie and not cry. The story obviously intrigues people since it's been the best selling musical ever and the question was could this movie hold up to that masterpiece? The answer...
Phantom of the Opera is very deep and emotional. I give props to anyone who can watch that movie and not cry. The story obviously intrigues people since it's been the best selling musical ever and the question was could this movie hold up to that masterpiece? The answer is yes! The actors voices are amazing! At the time, the lead characters weren't big names. In fact most of the cast wasn't which really added to the feeling of reality to the movie. The acting was so well done. This movie brought the scenes from the play to life! It is truly one of the best movies I have ever seen. All the elements that make this movie fantastic go hand in hand, from love to singing to revenge. It all just goes so well together. I recommend this movie to everyone!!

posted by ClassicRock_Chick on October 1, 2010

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review

Most Helpful Critical Review

1 out of 6 people found this review helpful.

Complete Trash

I'm really suprised to see so many good reviews of this movie. I was so anxious to see this movie at the beginning, but by the end I was actually angry about the movie. This is such a beautiful story and they wrecked it. It just seemed so cheap, like the lantern on the...
I'm really suprised to see so many good reviews of this movie. I was so anxious to see this movie at the beginning, but by the end I was actually angry about the movie. This is such a beautiful story and they wrecked it. It just seemed so cheap, like the lantern on the back of the boat was being bumped around as if it were plastic and the candelabras practically rattling as they rose out of the water. The development of the characters was severaly lacking. I saw a made for TV version several years ago and it was so much better than this one even though I'm sure the budget for this movie was several times as high. Overall, I wouldn't waste a dime on this movie.

posted by Anonymous on October 1, 2010

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing all of 14 review with 3 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Get over Brightman

    This movie isn't great no but it's not horrible either. It seems that the people who bad mouth it do so because they wanted Sarah Brightman to be Christine, the problem is the character is suppose to be a teen and she is well past 40. while that can work on stage it doesn't work on movies with close ups of the actors. So get over it. There is no way she could have played the part, move on.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Disappointing

    This movie was not at all what I expected. A huge fan of the original cast, I expected someone more like Michael Crawford in the title role rather than someone who's singing voice is terrible and raspy. The Christine has talent, but she was no Sarah Brightman. This show needs a lot of work, though I loved the scenic design, and I have to admit, the acting was great, but it just didn't completely live up to the original.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Oh Puhleeze! Get a Grip! It's Only a Movie.

    The stage show was stagey. That's why they're called stage shows. Movies of stage shows should be cinematic. Otherwise why bother? Okay, so maybe the ticket prices are a bit out of whack for both on and off Broadway productions and don't often make it out to the hinterlands on tour, but realistically, why translate a successful theatrical piece to film without adding anything except about 50 more musicians in the orchestra and enough work to keep the entire set-dressers' union occupied for a decade? That's really all there was... curtains, candles, and costumes. And as for the performances: the Phantom's appeal comes from his mystery, not his face. I thought Roger Ebert's comment about him being a "slightly scarred babe magnet" to be hilariously on point. Gerard Butler was just fine and if not an accomplished singer, he did have the stage moves. Perhaps too stagey: you could see them from the last row of the balcony (oops! this is a movie, you don't have balconies any more and the exaggerated moves aren't necessary...). But the biggest disappointment was Christine. Emmy Rossum is, I'm sure, a fine girl and a good singer, but not a great one. Both Minnie Driver and Miranda Richardson were far more appealing. Her Christine was dull, her voice was thin, (amplification and reverb tried and failed give it fullness) and her one-note acting range got to be fairly tedious by the end of this epic. She came across more like a Stepford Wife than an ingenue. Jeezus girl: blink once in a while! But I liked it. Why? Because of the music. Critics have called it repetitive and overdone, but you can't argue that it's not melodic and memorable, to the point of not being able to get it out of your head.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    I love PotO...

    but the movie was quite disapointing...Emmy didn't do a great job and her singing could have been better, Gerard...no he shouldn't have been Phantom, his singing is horrible and he didn't look the part, I loved Carlotta, she was the best one and i feel the only one absorbed into the character, but otherwise they could have made the movie so much better than they did...the technical stuff like sets and costumes and make up were amazing though!!

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Melodramatic at most

    This movie was very nice to look at, with elegant costumes and rich colours and majestic settings, but otherwise it doesn't dare take risks and instead retreats to the regular, Hollywood archetype. For one, the Phantom is supposed to be a tortured, deformed waif, not a muscular, fashionably-scarred stud. The plot line wandered around, stopping for some entertaining but superfluous songs, and eventually reached a disappointingly standard ending.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    VISUALLY ENTHRALLING!!

    Began magnificently; then the singing started. Butler needs a coach or to be dubbed. His music ruined an otherwise wonderful and faithful adaptation. These are obviously not classically trained singers.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Not bad but still not like viewing the stage version.

    Overall, I enjoyed the movie, but, having seen the stage production, I found that the movie really lacked the passion that comes through with the stage version. Emmy Rossum was good and will be an amazing voice as she continues to mature in her vocal performance. There were times that the cast lip syncing were not up to par, though the recorded vocal performances were well done for the most part. The filmography and special effects were wonderful, easily taking the audience from present to past in a blink of the eye. The sets were great and really bring the Opera House alive. The only thing I was somewhat dissappointed in was Gerard Butler's performance. His performance lacked the vocal strength of many stage Phantoms I have seen or heard. His style is somewhat grating, which I personally do not care for. He also lacked "presence" on film, and did not really make me feel any pity or sympathy for the character like those that portray the role on stage. Really, none of the cast truly came across with as much passion as I expected from the story. Overall, the film is acceptable, but probably could have been much stronger with stronger cast performances and direction. Many things that are outstanding in the stage production, such as the falling chandelier, are hard to really bring across on film, as there is no way to feel part of the moment as there is with a live production. Still, not a bad film and probably worth having in ones library. Regretably, it could have even been better. If you really like the film, see the stage version if you can, it is mesmerizing and will blow you away even more. Musically, probably one of ALW's best.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Theatre production FAR better

    For those of you who never saw the Phantom performed live... DO IT!! Sure, the movie is passable, but there's too many inconsistencies. If I had never seen the play live, I might have enjoyed the movie more. But the play will spoil you for anything else. I also agree with another reviewer that after hearing Michael Crawford sing... NO ONE else is going to come close to that. He IS the Angel of Music!

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    All right

    I saw the Broadway production of it three times and the movie doesn't quite capture the dark and mysterious atmosphere of the show. I was extremely disappointed with the casting. The Phantom is supposed to leave you with your mouth open when you hear him sing. When I saw the movie, my mouth did drop, but only because the Phantom was a terrible singer! He did not even meet a single bit of the standards of the Phantom that Michael Crawford set. Emmy Rossum was okay for Christine Daae but her voice wasn't developed enough to reach the high notes. However, the sets were amazing and the story was planned out amazingly. If the casting was a little better, I believe this movie would've been amazing.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted December 16, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted January 28, 2009

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted January 10, 2009

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted June 17, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted November 17, 2008

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing all of 14 review with 3 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1