Warning: This post was published more than 12 years ago.
I keep old posts on the site because sometimes it's interesting to read old content. Not everything that is old is bad. Also, I think people might be interested to track how my views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured!
But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:
- My views might have changed in the 12 years since I wrote this post.
- This post might use language in ways which I would now consider inappropriate or offensive.
- Factual information might be outdated.
- Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.
Many thanks for your understanding.
I’ve just been to see this, and I thought it was really good. As a big fan of the stage production I suppose I’m rather biased, but I was concerned that the transition from stage to screen wouldn’t work terribly well. But they really pulled it off. Despite what some reviewers might tell you.
Okay, I accept that the Phantom wasn’t played by the best person in the world (far too nice, if you ask me), and they had messed around with bits (with good reason), but I enjoyed it and would certainly recommend it. Though given the choice between the stage version and the film version, I’d still choose the stage every time. But hell, you can’t keep an entire cast and theatre in a little box by the telly for when you’re bored on a rainy afternoon. So bravo.
Those of you who know me may also be interested to know that I’ve had my hair cut today. Therefore, it is now much shorter than it was yesterday. Just, you know, to let you know.