artwk

Given the fact that the makers had access to plenty of money, good costuming, and even to the locations (or convincing computer-generated substitutes), this could have been a very good historical movie.

Alas,the derogatory comments on this site regarding script, acting, and casting are perfectly valid. Who on earth cast Brian Dennehy as an oriental? There are established oriental actors who look the part — John Lone would be an obvious choice.

The real Marco Polo could speak Italian and French, and on his way to meet Kublai Khan may well have learned Turki, the language Kublai sometimes used in his written communications. But the ridiculous scene where they meet bears not the slightest resemblance to Marco Polo's real-life account, in which the great ruler was the soul of courtesy. Dennehy's grumpiness was pure fiction, like so much else in this tedious production.

The question that begs to be asked is: if one wants to make a historical epic, why present bad fiction instead of interesting fact?

Only at the end of this movie did I find the illogicalities of the plot annoying. It was as thought the writer and director started out with a very good idea, but could not resist embellishing it with complexities regarding the dreams, premonitions and mysterious symbols.

The result is that A leads to B, and B leads to C -– but then we learn that somehow C and B lead to A, and so on. What could have been a coherent, logical plot-line becomes a mess.

Having said that, I must admit that the movie is watchable to the end, and the actors are engaging and convincing within the constrictions of the storyline. Beatriz seems a little too naive and vulnerable for the revelations of her true intentions, and whoever gave her that appalling haircut should definitely not give up his/her day-job. The repeated references to "2001" seem unnecessary and distracting, and I feel that the same plot material could have been conveyed better in some other way.

Overall, the film could benefit by some judicious cutting, especially the pointless overhead sequence in the toilet, which has nothing to do with anything. Perhaps the director shot it as a student exercise, and couldn't resist shoving it into a movie somewhere?

However, despite its numerous faults, I recommend this movie as enjoyable and entertaining for the most part. Just put your logic on hold, and enjoy the acting and photography.

First, let me say that I enjoyed Superstar and Evita, on stage and on screen, so I expected "Phantom" to be good. With a spectacularly talented composer and an apparently unlimited budget, what could go wrong? The sets and costumes are magnificent, the photography first-class, and at least some of the cast, such as Miranda Richardson and Simon Callow, are always worth watching. Moreover, several of the songs are excellent, and memorable. Unfortunately, I was put in mind of the adage "Never mind the quality, feel the width". The dialogue in the recitatives is uninspired, and the melodies dull, the quartets/quintets/ umpteen-ets are messy and incomprehensible, like Sondheim at his worst unless one has the DVD subtitles on, whereas the patter duets sound like bad imitations of "My Fair Lady". The solo singing is variable — The Phantom is good when volume is not required, but when it is, he sounds like a fishmonger yelling. Carlotta's singing is bearable, but her screeching dialogue is painful. The "operas" being staged are clearly intended to be mediocre, but instead are excruciatingly bad. The photography is marred by the currently fashionable chopping-up into 2-second cuts. The Phantom's disfigurement, supposedly the basis of the entire plot, is hardly worse than the effect of a bar-room brawl, and becomes progressively less pronounced until it appears no more than a serious case of sunburn. The silly plot, acceptable in its original Grand Guignol setting, is blown out to utter absurdity. Self-exiled to the opera house, the Phantom has nonetheless mastered a series of difficult crafts without assistance — he is even a competent swordsman! Cut to about 90 minutes, the film might have been bearable. At 135 minutes, it seems to go on forever. I was thankful that I hadn't wasted money to see the stage show.