The Phantom of the Opera

When I got this version from my local library, I had no clue what it was. When I got it and watched it,I was a bit confused. I now got it for a second time and realized it was good for what it is. Just know that it is a musical but it's as though someone brought a camera into a show and taped it. David Staller portrays a very pathetic Phantom and Elizabeth a very conflicted Christine. Staller's voice is very passionate,even though sometimes he over acts the part,he is still a very wonderful Phantom. And even though the beginning of this is a bit odd because they only dance and you hear voices though the performers lips never move,it is still a very good version.

This is not ALW's version of the Phantom! How can I tell: It's much worse! Although, it wasn't the worst film I've ever seen, (that would been Solaris), it was very bad. When I rented this, I didn't know what to expect. I hoped it would be ALW's version, but from the first opening scene, I knew I had made a mistake.

I was surprised that it was a filmed play instead of a movie. The acting was okay, and it seemed to be a bit more comical than the ALW version, but it could never compare. This Phantom seemed to be more villainous than Gerard Butler's Phantom. I will admit, it has a somewhat similar story line, and you do get to see more about the characters' backgrounds than in ALW's, but the music is NOT the same! The music did not sound very good, but the passion was there. It's closer to the book, but I still didn't like it very much.

If you're really interested in the Phantom, and want to see all the versions, see this one, so you know how bad it is. If your into romance, the ending will have you wondering what exactly was the Phantom thinking?!

I hated it. I think Ms. Walsh has a lovely voice and a decent face/figure. My advice to her is keep at it. Oh, and do not put this on your resume. Mr. Staller was a cool voice as well. As to his looks, well, he was covered in stage make-up and a mask so i have no idea. His voice was good and anyone who can slowly lower himself from a standing position on a piano bench in time to the music must have wicked leg muscles! The song Perfect Music, Perfect Love was pretty good. He was fairly sexy and creepy all at once.

I hated it. I own it simply because I'm a Phantom Phanatic and must own everything Phantom related. However, it was a waste of money and an insult to audiences everywhere.

I actually liked this version and I have noticed that all the other reviews were made by what is termed "weekend fans" that is to say, fans who ONLY like the awl version. Yes, I know. If awl cant get Erik's name, why should I get his? The truth is, the explicit nature of awl's work is only one form of theater. Now think of another: Sondheim, who is equally talented, but more often implicit and less commercial. It is very easy for a newcomer to musical theater (or one who frequents only major touring productions) to be humanly dazed coming out of the Webber/Hal Prince production and then expect the rest of the theater world to deliver similarly muscular musicals.

The million dollar question remains: Is theater a visceral roller coaster set in two acts or can it challenge an audience to think? If the latter, what is the appropriate size and presentation to evoke thought? Lawrence Rosen and Paul Schierhorn's Phantom of the Opera is limited in size, budget and, yes, talent. In fact, it seems to live in a time capsule: a small regional musical inspired by Victorian operettas with no sense that it exists under the shadow of a late-twentieth century pop giant. Having seen many Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, the moderate song/dialog/song structure feels common to its form. Instead of rejecting its technique, I found myself quieting my commercial sensibilities in order to appreciate its low-key interpretation. (Just like Christine, I, too, have been trained to hear only Webber's grandiloquent music.) But it made me think! Bruce Falstein's book to the score presents a striking philosophic debate absent in most Phantom interpretations: What is passion? Should it be driven underground, symbolically like a monster? And what is passion without liberty (a timeless French theme)? In a superficial world, there is little room for the passionate genius to express himself freely, to create angelic music. Will even the genius be driven underground, cursed to deformity by conformity? This Phantom, without gargantuan sets and heroic harmonies, made room for a few universal themes previously overlooked.

The romantic triangle between Christine, Erik and Raoul is open to multitudinous interpretations and I'm ready to watch them all. Webber's gilding of Gaston Leroux' novel (already pervasively Gothic) with baroque artifice is sensational, indeed. I love theatrical excess! But I wonder if its truthful. Lawrence Rosen and Paul Schierhorn's Phantom is financially restrained but a purer narrative and in the end it struck me that Christine's choice to follow the fashionable Raoul is an obvious choice, but is it a courageous one? For me, viewing this small musical was my choice, like staying at a bed and breakfast for a change instead of the Hilton. Now what's yours?

Well not if you have seen "Beware: Children At Play" From Troma Entertainment. That was Awful. But I digress.

This Phantom of The Opera was not meant to be a movie. It was originally a very low budget Play. It was for a Benifit in Florida. The Set was Cardboard , and the Sound was horrible. But David Staller's Acting was once again awesome. He is the only reason to see this movie. Elizabeth Walsh was O.k The woman that Played Carlotta, played a very good Carlotta. Everyone else was just bad, really really bad. If your expecting to see a blockbuster hit, you will be sadly mistaken, but, if your a David Staller fan, Like I am, It's bearable enough to watch just to see him. He's the only good thing about the movie. But than again, As a David Staller lover, I offer a Biast opinion. I would like to see him do Andrew Lloyd Webber's play.