The Phantom Of The Opera
I subscribe to the philosophy that says "it will always be better onstage." However, this does not mean that the movie-adaptaion of Andrew Lloyd-Webber's "The Phantom Of The Opera" (ALSO produced and written by Lloyd-Webber)was anything but extraordinary.
I first saw the musical at the Bass Hall, the largest, fanciest theater in downtown Fort Worth, and I was blown away. While I have always been a fan of musicals, I especially liked this one. I thought the music was excellent, especially the Phantom's theme, I thought the direction, the singing, the acting, was all excellent. All in all, it was a great show.
This afternoon, all of the Plaskoni (our term for the plural of "Plaskonos") and Grandpa went to see it, and I was not disappointed. In fact, I was quite pleasantly surprised when I saw the show, because I did not realise that it was the movie version of the musical; I thought it was just suspense/drama or something. What is funny is the way I was able to tell: at first, the movie had no music; it opened with an auction, and the winner of a particular item walks way and you hear his voice-over talking, but with a slight cadence that has an almost musical quality.
That was when it hit me; I mentally went, "OHHHHhhhh..."
Anyway, I thought the movie was excellent, but this brings me back to my original point: it was better live. However, there is no escaping that, because no major theatrical performance is better on a screen. However, most can try to at least counteract this by upping the visuals, like the special effects. In this case, it worked great, because the visuals were so great that it made you go, "wow, this is great, its ALMOST as good as live, but not quite."
The things about this topic is that it requires experience to understand fully; if you have seen both the Broadway version and the movie-adaptaion, then you probably know what I'm talking about. If not, then you probably don't.
Anyway, I would HIGHLY reccomend seeing this movie. It is well worth the money to see it in the movie theater.
I first saw the musical at the Bass Hall, the largest, fanciest theater in downtown Fort Worth, and I was blown away. While I have always been a fan of musicals, I especially liked this one. I thought the music was excellent, especially the Phantom's theme, I thought the direction, the singing, the acting, was all excellent. All in all, it was a great show.
This afternoon, all of the Plaskoni (our term for the plural of "Plaskonos") and Grandpa went to see it, and I was not disappointed. In fact, I was quite pleasantly surprised when I saw the show, because I did not realise that it was the movie version of the musical; I thought it was just suspense/drama or something. What is funny is the way I was able to tell: at first, the movie had no music; it opened with an auction, and the winner of a particular item walks way and you hear his voice-over talking, but with a slight cadence that has an almost musical quality.
That was when it hit me; I mentally went, "OHHHHhhhh..."
Anyway, I thought the movie was excellent, but this brings me back to my original point: it was better live. However, there is no escaping that, because no major theatrical performance is better on a screen. However, most can try to at least counteract this by upping the visuals, like the special effects. In this case, it worked great, because the visuals were so great that it made you go, "wow, this is great, its ALMOST as good as live, but not quite."
The things about this topic is that it requires experience to understand fully; if you have seen both the Broadway version and the movie-adaptaion, then you probably know what I'm talking about. If not, then you probably don't.
Anyway, I would HIGHLY reccomend seeing this movie. It is well worth the money to see it in the movie theater.