The Phantom of the Opera finally makes it to the big screen after all these years, and the biggest compliment I can pay it, is that it is faithful to Andrew Lloyd Webber's smash hit musical. Sadly though, seeing it in movie form made me realize how overrated it truly is, and this is coming from someone who was fortunate enough to see it on stage with Michael Crawford.

Most of you are probably familiar with the story, so I won't bore you with the tiny details. I will tell you that the title says it all. A disfigured Phantom mysteriously appears and disappears in a famed opera house, and soon begins to fancy a young woman who he hopes will eventually love him for who he is on the inside.

Bringing the play to life is one of the most inconsistent film makers of the last twenty years. I'm referring to Joel Schumacher. With all due respect to our good friends over at thehollywoodnews.com (and I have plenty of it-this is one of my favorite sites), I have to disagree with Paul's assessment of Mr. Schumacher. While it is true, this film maker does have a somewhat diverse resume, admiration is not a word I usually associate with him. While this particular director has made some decent films through the years (Cousins and Tigerland immediately spring to mind), he will forever be known as the man that nearly destroyed the Batman franchise. Beyond that, it seems that time and time again, he takes what should be interesting material, and all but ruins it (8mm being a perfect example). With Phantom of the Opera however, Schumacher seems to be in his element. This is after all, over the top melodrama, and therefore allows the film maker to have an excuse to be flashy with this lavish production.

Gerard Butler plays the Phantom, and while he appears to look the part, he never entirely sells the role. For starters, he's far too pretty (in his defense, however, his glossy, too perfect look is part Schumacher's doing), but my biggest gripe with him (and I won't be the first to point this out), is that his singing voice isn't up to snuff. He isn't awful mind you, but his scarce moments of conviction are unable to hide the fact that he just doesn't have a very good singing voice, particularly when held up against the rest of the cast (most notably female lead Emmy Rossum). For the most part, he sounds like he's doing a weak impersonation of Jack Skellington (Danny Elfman, Butler is not). Dramatically, he only truly comes alive during a couple of key moments towards the end of the movie, and I never found him terribly captivating or scary (he can't hold a candle to Lon Chaney from the original Phantom or Crawford in Webber's stage version). Rossum does pull off young Christine, lending passion, beauty and emotional depth to the role of a woman who must chose between two loves.

I suppose my biggest problem with seeing Phantom on the big screen is that there isn't much to marvel at, because we all know how far film technology has come. Seeing it on stage by comparison is a much bigger deal, because the spectacle of it all seems more thrilling in a live setting. Save for the much talked about chandelier sequence (which occurs during the climax of the film version), I was fairly bored by this movie in spite of it's faithfulness. Yes, it's well shot, but there wasn't anything particularly noteworthy about the art direction, and in fact, much of the movie looks as if it were filmed in the Pirates of the Carribean and Haunted Mansion rides at Disneyland.

I wouldn't say Schumacher has made an awful film here, but he certainly hasn't done anything to bring in a new fan base. And this picture can't hold a candle to Moulin Rouge or Chicago. It's completely apparent that Schumacher and Webber have made a movie for all the people out there who were unable to afford tickets to see this musical on stage. And in the end, in both cases, it's painfully obvious that if you take away a couple of the lush musical numbers, you have nothing left. I would like it to be noted though, that I thank the good Lord above that Schumacher didn't put nipples on the Phantom suit.

Paul Heath's Take:

So, the musical version of Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom of the Opera finally makes it to the big-screen in glitzy Joel Schumacher style. The fan base is already there, with over $2 billion worth of box-office receipts. But is it any good?

A mysterious 'Phantom' haunts an opera house in 19th century Paris whilst tutoring a chorus girl named Christine (Emmy Rossum). When the lead soprano storms out of a production, Christine is given the lead role in a production one evening, she shines, so naturally, the original soprano played by Minnie Driver wants her part back, much to the dismay of the Phantom who demands that his student gets the part back. While all this is going on, young Christine falls for the theaters patron, the Vicomte de Chagny. Obviously the Phantom doesn't like this as he to loves the young lady that he has taught to sing for many years, so he kidnaps her with the intent on marrying her for ever more.

'Phantom' has to be one of the only musicals that I haven't seen on stage, so I'm a little unfamiliar with the source material (again), so I went in with fresh eyes, so I was able to judge the film for its cinematic quality, rather than from an adaptive point of view. In the same screening of the film as myself was my sister and her husband (who for some unexplained reason has been to see the stage musical four times), said that the plot and storyline is identical to the source material. It's noted that Lloyd Webber and Schumacher penned the screenplay together. Almost every scene in the film appears in the musical, so fans should be content with the job the duo have done with the screenplay.

Schumacher's direction is glossy, dynamic and engrossing and not too over the top to take away from the performances on screen, something which I think Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge suffered from. With a musical production, your eyes can be looking at anything on the stage before you, but with a cinematic effort like this, you're taken where the director wants you to go, and I think Mr. Schumacher succeeded in keeping this both authentic and different enough to make it a worthy film outing.

Out of all the filmmakers working in Hollywood today, Schumacher has to be one that I admire the most. Over the years he has proved that he can apply himself to all genres and styles, afterall, this is the director that has brought films like The Lost Boys, St. Elmos Fire, Tigerland, Phone Booth, Flawless, Veronica Guerin and even Batman and Robin to the big-screen. How varied a portfolio is that?

It goes without saying, the music in the film is simply awesome, right from the opening booming introduction to the exciting and truly emotional climax. I was surprised at how many songs I actually knew, like Masquerade, Music of the Night and the title song Phantom of the Opera. Lloyd Webber's music has made an excellent transition to the screen and the performances of the actors are spot-on. As it should, seeing at he supervised and conducted proceedings.

If there was anything negative in there, then it would have to be the rather overlong running time, where they tried to cram in so much into a little over two and a half hours. Like the musical, perhaps an interval was needed and your bum is guaranteed to be numb by the end.

The Phantom of the Opera will definitely appeal to the die-hard fans out there, of which there are many, as I've found over the past few weeks researching the film for the site, but there is something there for the rest of us too. As a non-Phantom devotee, I enjoyed it. It's not the best film of the year, but it's certainly far from being the worst. A good adaptation of a legendary musical. Worth a watch.