Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
My thoughts
22 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was absolutely wonderful.

I love the black-and-white "present day" photography. It totally makes the past, or Raoul's memory, more vivid and fantastic. I enjoyed the by-play between Raoul and Meg (not her Mom, see end comments) during the auction and throughout the other glimpses of the present throughout the movie.

I knew this was going to be a great movie when I first saw Carlotta (Minnie Driver) on the stage in that ridiculous make-up, singing those ridiculous lines from Hannibal. La Carlotta always was such a flamboyant character in my memory, and to see how ridiculous it could get acted out by such a wonderful actress made her character more real to me.

I think that Gerard Butler was an excellent choice for the Phantom. Why, you ask? Because he brought his own interpretation to the character. Everyone online seems to be screaming "Michael Crawford is the only Phantom we want," but I must say that they should give Butler a chance. I have read in many places that Crawford "became" rather than played the Phantom, and I would argue that Butler does the same. It is obvious through the work that you see in this film that he is quite an accomplished actor, and he brings a youthful desire and intensity to the character of the Phantom that I have never seen before (and I have seen two separate productions--NYC in 1999 and London (John Owen Jones!) in 2004). The disfigurement was much more real for me, seeing that it was truly a strong birthmark rather than the "gray skin, ugly" stuff we see in the musical production. It makes me wonder: If the Phantom was real, and was born in modern day instead, what would he be able to accomplish as an architect, designer, musician, and writer?

The Point of No Return scene was absolutely wonderful--very sensual and dark, and the acting was superb. I think the decision to give the Phantom the black mask instead of the cowl/hood that hides the face was a poor design choice. I know that they wanted to show the Phantom's eyes (gorgeous intensity!), but the idea of keeping it a secret that Piangi's dead and it's really the Phantom singing with Christine was a major part of the scene for me. I think it could have been better if the hood/cowl had been used and the Phantom imitated Piangi's accent for the first part of the song (like JOJ does).

Another thing that I have to complain about is that by the end of the confrontations in the Lair, when Christine and Raoul are finally leaving, I had a different feeling than I did at the end of the musical. I actually wanted Raoul and Christine together, and felt that the Phantom should be "tracked down" and put into prison for his crimes (murder, etc...). At the end of the musical, I always felt Christine made the wrong decision, and that Meg would have a chance to follow in her footsteps, but "poor Phantom" would never have what he truly deserved and desired. The musical blinded me to the fact that the Phantom had murdered (twice!) because you never see him actually commit the crime, but the film affords the audience the opportunity to see him tighten the noose around both Buquet and Piangi (of course, three victims in the movie). AND the entire Opera house catching fire from the chandelier tends to make me a little more opposed to the Phantom's cause. (By the way, that fire stuff was GREAT---of course the chandelier would be lit by candles, and when it falls, it would spread the fire, duh! That never made it into the musical.)

However, when we think back to seeing Meg at the auction (first scene---no way that could be her Mom, it's 50 years after the season at the opera that started all this, it's got to be Meg. People didn't live that long, and her Mom would have been 80 years old if she had survived!), we can think... "did Meg bid on the music box for the Phantom, but give it up for Raoul's sake?" The mirror imagery was wonderful, too. Going through the mirror in Christine's room, the mirrors in the Phantom's Lair, the mirror room below the grand staircase, the mirror from Raoul's carriage reflecting Meg on the steps of the Opera house... the use of water as a mirror in the confrontation (the Lair) was one of my expectations, once I saw the heavy use of mirrors in the first part of the film, but I guess it's okay that it got passed on.

In conclusion, the last scene made the whole movie worth it (besides the awesome music throughout! FINALLY a modern MUSICAL to see in the movies!) because of the rose imagery. Just knowing that the Phantom had been there before Raoul could get there suggests in my eyes that the Phantom never stopped trying to be better than Raoul... and I'd like to think that the ribbon was the original one the Phantom tied to Christine's rose all those long years before.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Russian Doll (2001)
A treat for HW fans
28 September 2003
Well, I was thoroughly pleased with "Russian Doll." Two main reasons: 1) Hugo Weaving (as Harvey) does a superb job as the disenchanted p.i. turned novelist, and 2) the plot was interestingly developed. There are a lot of good points to this movie. The most important is that it makes you laugh at all the right times. I watch this movie in the afternoon-time, not at night, because it's meant to be a fun, afternoon movie, not the main event for the night. (At night, you watch something like Lord of the Rings or Matrix to catch Mr. Weaving's fine acting.) Added bonus was David Wenham (Ethan), who I had never seen before, and he does a marvelous job with the character of Ethan, who is enduring an early mid-life crisis. (He's in LOTR- Faramir, you know.) So, all in all, I enjoyed this movie for what it was meant to be- a light-hearted romp to give you appreciation for your own life which should never be so complicated.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stigmata (1999)
Do you appreciate movies that make you think? *SPOILERS*
28 September 2003
Warning: Spoilers
"Stigmata" is not a horror movie, but it is a religiously-centered suspense thriller that makes you think about your own faith. If you don't, then this movie is not for you. I loved this movie because I was able to sit through it and it made me think about my own walk with Christ.

I think there are so many negative comments for this movie from Americans because it is easier for modern audiences to sit down and flame a movie for what THEY WANT IT TO BE rather than WHAT IT IS.

This movie is about a lot of things; love popping up in the strangest places, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and finding the truth for yourself through your own hard work.

On a personal note, I think Arquette (Frankie Paige) and Byrne (Father Andrew Keirnan) did a fine job bringing their characters to life, and Pryce (Housman) was truly convincing as the Cardinal who wants to keep everything secret. Byrne was the true treasure of the piece- his Father Keirnan was very convincing as a questioning religious scientist.

The confrontation scene at the end between the spirit of Father Alemeida and Keirnan was very poignant and intense. Some people claim that the garden scene from the end is a let down (What did you expect, a mad tongue war in the garden of the church diocese?), but maybe you didn't see the statue of St. Francis and notice the parallelism to Frankie's clothing. She was dressed a lot like St. Francis. Something to remember is that St. Francis was a radical... like Frankie, an atheist who eventually comes to have faith (so says the spirit of Father Alemeida) in Christ and God.

The DVD has an alternate ending that is especially touching. I am glad that they didn't use it, though- it would have made me cry.

This movie made me investigate more into Stigmata- you should too. I'm not even Catholic, but I found a lot of insight into deeply spiritual people through my research.
22 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed