In the movie adapation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera,whenever Christine takes off Erick's mask...I so wasn't shocked...I mean the movie was incredible,but the unmasking scene I was thinking something along the lines of Lon Chaney's Phantom,but it looked like all Erick had was a bad rash
2006-12-21 10:11:43 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
Leave it to Hollywood to hold back on making a handsome man too ugly.
2006-12-21 10:19:17 · answer #1 · answered by rag dollie 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree that the play doesn't even compare to the book because the book made it seem that the Phantom could have existed. In the movie and the play, it's more of a fantastic illusion. He's portrayed as a romantic (he won me over, that's for sure), but in the book, he's a delusional man who thinks he loves this young girl because no one has ever loved him. Not even his mother. Gaston Leroux is a genius, totally, and Andrew Lloyd Weber is more of the type to twist around what Leroux said to make it more appealing. Lloyd Weber does imply at certain points things that you wouldn't understand if you hadn't read the story. Although, I find the actual story much more compelling, the romanticist idea appeals to a much wider audience. I loved it all, personally, though.
2016-05-23 07:29:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The original theatrical makeup was fantastic. Perfectly designed for the theatre, where you have to be able to get the effect from a distance. I agree that Gerard Butler's makeup in the film was a bit of a let-down, though.
2006-12-21 12:23:22 · answer #3 · answered by Banana Ray David 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I haven't seen the movie but I've seen the play 7 times on Broadway. I have never been disappointed as it was fantastic!
2006-12-21 11:30:58 · answer #4 · answered by Incognito 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋