Well, first and foremost, YOU will want to know whether or not you should bother seeing this movie. And to that I can readily answer, "YES! This movie is worth seeing!" Now is it better or worse than this or that? Some would argue that studying muddy toads is the most fascinating thing for a person to do. OK. Sorry. I'll get off the whole toad bit.

Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical is perhaps the most popular and most beloved musical of them all, with a possible exception being The Sound of Music. The music is haunting and lingers in the mind long after the show is over. The story of passion, romance, and unrequited love is exciting, moving, and full of sorrow. The famous Opera House of Paris is purchased by two men eager to get into show business. However, little do they know that this Opera House is haunted by the mysterious Phantom, or Opera Ghost as he likes to sign his letters, who controls every aspect of the theater. The Opera showcases its own diva in Carlotta. However, the Phantom has been grooming his own female to take over the stage...Christine. The love he holds for Christine is overshadowed only by his ruthlessness to impose his will upon all associated with the Opera. He demands that his newly authored Opera be performed, and that Christine occupy the lead role. Christine is taken in by his mysterious ways but even more so by his powerful and haunting music. Their love is soon complicated, however, by the appearance of Christine's childhood sweetheart, Raoul. As the Phantom's jealousy burns, quickly crumbles his dominion and control over both the Opera and Christine. The stage is set for bitterly impassioned confrontation and conflict.

I did enjoy the movie. It is more entertaining than most other movies out there, and it expands upon the musical most notably in two areas. Firstly, we seem a bit closer to the characters because the screen can be filled with a single face, showing us the nuances of their expression. Secondly, the musical is confined with fixed sets while the movie takes us through and around the Opera House and its location in Paris. The best example of this is the scene in which we see the Phantom preparing the ropes and chains high above the stage for one of his disasters. It is something that only the movie version can offer and is shot in such a way that the camera takes our "eye" through several stories of the building to watch it unfold. Another great example of this is seen in the gondola ride to the Phantom's cavernous lair. The movie also adds a bit to the story found in the musical. We get more background into the Phantom's character, seeing him briefly as a child in a flashback. We also dive deeper into Madame Giry's character. In addition, we see more "behind-the-scenes" with some of the Phantom's "magic." We see that it is primarily about preparation and illusion rather than some sort of black magic or mysterious power as the musical would have us believe. Finally, the movie gives us an alternate, and very touching ending. In the musical, the Phantom disappears and the show ends. In the movie, we are taken forward in time to the grave of Christine Daaé and see that perhaps the Phantom still lives, as evidenced by a single rose left there.

However, disappointing to me was the music. And this is for several reasons. First of all, I get the sense that this movie was cast based on looks or acting ability and not at all on musical talent. The most egregious example of this is Minnie Driver's role as Carlotta. Ms. Driver's singing voice isn't even heard in the film; she lip-synched that part of it. With that said, she is entertaining, through irritating as she should be in this role. Emmy Rossum is actually pretty good as Christine. There are two things, in particular, that I really liked about her, and some of you may be able to guess what those are. ;) However, the big disappointment and letdown comes with the casting choice for the Phantom, Gerard Butler. The Phantom should have one of the most powerful and soulful voices ever heard. Each time that I have seen the musical, I have been absolutely blown away by whomever was portraying the Phantom. The same is true for any recordings that I have heard. Michael Crawford, the original Phantom, has an amazing voice. However, Mr. Butler's voice is soft at times when it should be bellowing out, trumpeting his love, or his anger, or his rage. Butler is fine in his acting, mannerisms, and appearance, but his voice leaves much to be desired. In my opinion, the makers of this movie, including director Joel Schumacher, were too concerned with the visuals. They did a great job in this department, but The Phantom of the Opera is and should be more about the music and the sound. Another final gripe of mine is with the title song, "The Phantom of the Opera," in which the Phantom leads a captivated Christine to his underground castle. Towards the end of the song, where the Phantom commands Christine to "Sing for me!", an electric guitar comes blasting in, drowning out Christine's beautiful voice. Don't get me wrong, I love electric guitars (I have a Fender American Stratocaster). But this was the MOST INAPPROPRIATE use of the instrument that I have ever heard.

In summary, The Phantom of the Opera movie is better than most movies, more expansive than the Broadway musical but at the cost of much poorer musical performances, and is, to be perfectly honest, really nothing at all like a toad wallowing in the mud on a cloudy day.

A superb movie despite a degradation in musical performance.