I'm not really here to give critique on the movie itself. Rather, I'm here to address almost everyone's view on the portrayal of the characters.
Look, the movie was very, very different from the stage version, I'll say that much, but it does have a shine of beauty on its own. Seriously! The reason why a lot of you didn't like it is because you probably kept comparing it with the original version and the original cast (Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman). You really shouldn't, guys.
Isn't it obvious that Gerard Butler would definitely not have Michael Crawford's clarity and power? Why? Because firstly, Michael Crawford is a trained singer and Gerard is not (which gives me great admiration for him because he dared to take on such an iconic role without professional singing abilities), and secondly, Michael starred in the stage version, and everyone should know the power and clarity needed for stage, which far surpasses what's needed for screen. In my opinion (which might not matter to most of you), Gerard did a fantastic job. Fantastic. His voice had a lovely rocky quality that suits the character of the Phantom, and he played it with far more emotion and passion than Michael ever could. Just compare his Music Of The Night with Michaels's. Sure, Michael's is smooth, easy to listen to, and in a word flawless, but Gerard's has so much passion (and he IS able to reach a lot of the notes well) and passion is what should tell a good actor apart from a bad one.
Don't criticise Gerard for putting his guts out there to play the Phantom, a character that we all love. It's not like... Brad Pitt did it. That would be gross, by the way.
There's nothing much to say about Emmy Rossum (Christine). Most of you guys liked her performance, as well you should.
Please... watch this movie (and watch it again if you have already seen it) with an open mind. Go in and forget about the stage version. Focus on it as a movie on its own, and you'll realise what a gem it really is... because it is a gem, and it's a movie that's worth watching time and time again.
Look, the movie was very, very different from the stage version, I'll say that much, but it does have a shine of beauty on its own. Seriously! The reason why a lot of you didn't like it is because you probably kept comparing it with the original version and the original cast (Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman). You really shouldn't, guys.
Isn't it obvious that Gerard Butler would definitely not have Michael Crawford's clarity and power? Why? Because firstly, Michael Crawford is a trained singer and Gerard is not (which gives me great admiration for him because he dared to take on such an iconic role without professional singing abilities), and secondly, Michael starred in the stage version, and everyone should know the power and clarity needed for stage, which far surpasses what's needed for screen. In my opinion (which might not matter to most of you), Gerard did a fantastic job. Fantastic. His voice had a lovely rocky quality that suits the character of the Phantom, and he played it with far more emotion and passion than Michael ever could. Just compare his Music Of The Night with Michaels's. Sure, Michael's is smooth, easy to listen to, and in a word flawless, but Gerard's has so much passion (and he IS able to reach a lot of the notes well) and passion is what should tell a good actor apart from a bad one.
Don't criticise Gerard for putting his guts out there to play the Phantom, a character that we all love. It's not like... Brad Pitt did it. That would be gross, by the way.
There's nothing much to say about Emmy Rossum (Christine). Most of you guys liked her performance, as well you should.
Please... watch this movie (and watch it again if you have already seen it) with an open mind. Go in and forget about the stage version. Focus on it as a movie on its own, and you'll realise what a gem it really is... because it is a gem, and it's a movie that's worth watching time and time again.