Instant Favorite.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

I must first say that I wasn't thrilled with LND when I first saw it. I was comparing it to another show and it suffered for my bias. But I couldn't forget about it and checked it out a second time from the library. Seeing it long after I'd seen the other show, my eyes and ears were more open to this production, and I love it! Just a few plot points could improve it, though. Why would the Phantom wait ten years? Why would he have used an opportunity created by Hammerstein rather than creating his own? At one point he tells her to take the boy and go. Be free. But then he immediately goes to Raoul and places a bet with him. I believe this js because, instead of walking away, she promises to sing before she leaves and they both sing of their souls being whole and alive once more, and he decides that, while he's giving her freedom, he's still wants her to choose him and will do just about anything to give himself more of an edge. This could be clarified. Otherwise it looks like he told her to go and be free and then changes his mind. I would rather the ending have not been his fault, indirectly. He is a genius but he mentions Christine while trying to talk Meg down. And then pulls the gun towards everyone when trying to get it away from Meg, which results in Christine's death. I think my biggest issue is that she dies. I hate sad endings and they waited so long to be whole again. I just love Ben Lewis' portrayal of the Phantom but did think a little extra time could have served to explain things better.

I would first like to state that I should've listened to everyone. They told me that this "sequel" was awful, but I wouldn't listen! I wanted to experience it for myself. Let me tell you now: if you like the original, DO NOT WATCH THIS!!! It pretty much ruined the magic of the original. As someone who's watched the 2004 movie multiple times, the silent film, the stage productions multiple times, and read the book, (needless to say, I'm a BIG fan. The 25th anniversary production actually inspired me to go into musical theater!) I believe I have room to talk on this subject. Now that I've gotten that out of the way, let's start the review:The opening scene is pretty good. It really gets you excited for what's to come (as someone who wanted Christine and Erik together). But then you're shown some freak show members singing. I'll be honest, I thought I was watching a trailer for a new Five Nights at Freddy's game. It was so bizarre. But, whatever. Once Raoul was introduced, I was like, "Here we go, another awful sequel that's gonna ruin the original's reputation!" Like honestly, a drunk? Bad father? Bad husband? Can it possibly get any more cliché?! I guess they were trying to get us to feel sorry for Christine for picking Raoul. (I had wanted her with Erik but was okay with her going with Raoul because I thought she'd be happier being with someone she loved. But I guess that's out the window!) Madam Giry hating Christine? Meg in love with the Phantom? What?! What happened to the beloved characters from the original? Can you tell I'm angry?! Well, I am! I'm angry that someone didn't stop this movie's production in its tracks and slapped some sense into these people! You couldn't pay me enough to have my name on it! This movie really had me wanting Christine to stay with Raoul! The actors really missed capturing their characters' personalities or anything besides a stiff board! This movie didn't need to exist! Why would they ruin such a wonderful thing?! Why?!After finishing the movie the only thing I could think of is, "A complete train wreck!" If Christine really loved the Phantom, she would've picked him in the first place. All of that was settled in the first! Now all of a sudden she has a change of heart?! Now she chooses the Phantom?! I don't think so! Christine chooses Erik?! Meg kidnaps the child and shoots Christine?! At this point anything could happen! I honestly wouldn't have been surprised if after Christine died, Erik and Raoul got married and raised the kid together! In fact, I would've rather seen that instead of this slap in the face!!!In conclusion, DO NOT WATCH IT!! (The music was pretty good, though.)

General Feeling: Kinda Liked it.Standing point: I do not believe this can be called a sequel but rather fan-fiction and I will treat it as such.The Music: I actually liked the music a lot. I do believe that there are some jewels in the soundtrack (Love Never Dies, Devil Take the Hindmost Quartet, Beautiful, Beauty Underneath, My Dear Old Friend...). Especially in My Dear Old Friend and Devil Take the Hindmost Quartet, Andrew Lloyd Webber's ability to combine voices shines. There are some wonderful moments when sequences from the original musical are hidden into the music which work as beautiful reminders of a fantastic musical. There are parts of the music which reminds me of songs I already know, for example the chorus of Beauty Underneath reminds me a lot of Pink's Get This Party Started. But that is to no consequence, I do believe it is a beautiful song. Famously The Phantom of the Opera's famous intro turned out to be from Pink Floyd, but the song itself had nothing to do with Pink Floyd and it works, so I don't care. Enough time has passed to tell which one survived the test of time better. (And if others can do it, why not Andrew Lloyd Webber? >> Rue's Whistle from What is a Youth by Nino Rota; The Anthem of Panem seems to have inspired It Must Be Believed To Be Seen from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory The New Musical). All in all, I love it, and I'd add it to my Spotify playlist if only I could.The Characters: The characters have changed a lot it seems. And one would expect them to in the 10 years it claims to have passed. All throughout the musical it seemed that the characters were more like lifeless puppets singing some tunes. I do believe that improving on that would have given the songs the punch that would have made this musical the next Phantom of the Opera. But unfortunately, it's like they don't even exist. Breakdown:Christine is a shadow of the character she was in Phantom. As one of, what I deem to be, the most important female leading roles in musicals, that does her no justice. The only way in which we can actually see her as an actual character is to think back to Phantom, but it is not easy as the role seems lifeless. The only characteristic I noticed was her care for her son. Raoul is nothing like the Raoul we rooted for in Phantom (well, most people at least). People change with time, but the extent to which he has seems superficial. He is a downright asshole. Doesn't pay attention to anyone, doesn't care about his own son or his wife, drunk and gambler in a lot of debt and with little to no dignity. I suspect he was intended as such, so that the audience would root for Christine to leave him. Making him a villain seems superficial and not well explained. The Phantom has changed too. He lacks the genius and torture that made him so appealing in the first place (I know I wanted Christine to stay with him in the end of Phantom). The character seems unstable, not in the sense of him being unstable but of his characterization being so. He oscillates from kind to evil. Meg being so little characterized in Phantom seems to be the most loyal to the original description and I do believe her to be the most believable character in this musical, actually the only one. She represents the struggling actress who would do anything and has in order to get some recognition, and in many ways she is a character with which a person can relate to. She is rounded up, and actually represents something. Madame Giry seems completely foreign. She used to love/care for Christine, and suddenly nothing. There is little to tell her motivations in Phantom, but surely she doesn't seem so Machiavellian in Phantom. The characters are poorly written. They have little to do with the originals, and one could easily change about a few names and details and then consider them different characters.The Story: There are so many inconsistencies. Christine is supposed to be born in 1854 and to die in 1917 if one were to remember the gravestone at the end of Phantom. Phantom takes place in 1881, making her 27 years old in Phantom, a bit older than we are lead to believe. Even so, ten years later would have been in 1891, so 16 years earlier than when the musical is set. We can believe that the Phantom meet with Christine in those 16 years then. At the same time it mentions them bedding on Christine's wedding night. I would find it hard to believe that it took Raoul 16 years to marry Christine. Even so it would mean Christine had a child around the age of 43, which simply didn't happen back then, nor now. (Not to mention when the Phantom says that the boy is 10 years old he completely forgets of the 9 months of pregnancy somehow - almost a year). This is pure fan fiction and bad fan fiction too. There are more things wrong with it than timing. The writing is bad to say the least. With a few switches one could make this a standalone story.My Conclusion: The music is lovely so don't think too hard about it, listen and enjoy.

I am a huge phantom of the operas fan. I seen old versions even not greatest one, and seen few Broadway shows. For people who seen 2004 version of Phantom of Opera may not enjoy this all due this very much different casting, then from what they may seen. This movie not as bad many people say music is amazing, story may not be most solid but I came for the music the story just a bonus. In my opinion I recommend this movie if you love Phantom of the Opera you watch this movie, rent it first i recommend to the ones who only watched 2004 movie, or if your still unsure about the movie. If you like it buy it. Thats what I did. I admit i wouldn't mind maybe seeing the 2004 Phantom of the Opera movie crew do a version of this, but unsure if that will happen but overall. I give it 10/10 8 for the music, and 2 for the story. The story does continue off the original movie idea but just in this movie few characters seem a bit dry, i have watched other versions its not that bad, just depends on the actors and actress.