2hotFeature one of my absolute favorites!

Steineded How sad is this?

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

unruhka 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.

sugarcookie788 I actually really enjoyed this movie. Granted, I don't think that it's quite as good as the original but for what it is, it wasn't that bad. Since a lot of people hate this movie, I'm going to start by mentioning some points on the opposing side which I agree with.I understand the disdain for this sequel and sequels in general because it's rare to find a sequel as good as the original work. I myself have encountered several sequels that were less than faithful to the original works(Holly Hobbie and Friends: Marvelous Makeover!) I will also admit that a sequel to Phantom of the Opera is never something that I really deemed necessary but not everything that's unnecessary is automatically bad. Although I can tolerate and even understand what happened to Raoul, I think it was a bit excessive and unnecessary. It's obvious that the intent was to get the audience to root for Christine to choose Erik in the end. Although I felt that he deserved better than what he received in the end, I don't agree with him and Christine being romantically involved. There are two main reasons why I have such an opinion: 1. Erik and Christine are very far apart in age which makes things a bit awkward. 2. He's still very mentally unstable and emotional problems can lead to unhealthy relationships. It's hard to care about others when one person is still struggling with their own problems. I was also drawn to the idea of their relationship remaining more of a mentor/student relationship because the relationships between students and their teachers is something not often explored in entertainment. Many people (myself included) have known teachers who have had a great effect on them and have been positively shaped because of one special teacher. Although the music was by far my favorite aspect, some of the songs tended to drag on longer than I would have liked. The song "Beneath a Moonless Sky" was beautiful but also very awkward. I know that it was supposed to deliver a sense of awe and mystique but I'm the kind of person who would rather not hear about people's passionate exchanges. Although I liked Christine and admired some of her endearing qualities, she did slightly annoy me at times. An example of that is when she decided to leave her son, Gustav, with the same guy who had threatened to kill him. The final aspect that I didn't enjoy was the ending. The whole point of the movie was to give Erik a second chance and finally allow him to achieve some happiness. This is all blown out of proportion when Christine dies after being accidentally shot by Meg. It seems like nothing more than an intent to get an emotional reaction out of the audience. It certainly didn't help that the entire movie already had a bitter, angry, almost passive-aggressive feel to it. I know that the previous show wasn't exactly a fairy tale but at least the more lighthearted moments felt truly genuine and uplifting. In this show, even some of the more cheerful moments had an underlying vibe of bitterness and depression. Now that those points are out of the way I would like to offer a different view on some of the popular criticisms against this production. The first point that I would like to make is that although this movie wasn't necessary, it does deliver an interesting idea of following up with character that the audience knew from a previous story. Something similar to Fuller House or even Hook. The setting may seem unfitting or bizarre for a Phantom of the Opera sequel. However, I feel that the new setting offers the characters and the audience a differing view of disabilities and flaws. The Coney Island show seems to deliver the message that differences should be embraced and that there's beauty to be found in them. It also delivers an opportunity to display the colorful, creative visuals that come with the setting. I understand why people are upset about what happened to Raoul and Christine's relationship. However, keep in mind that they were both very young when they got married. It's likely that Raoul felt overwhelmed and lost when it came to handling the responsibilities of supporting a marriage and raising a family. As such, he might have tried to turn to other sources to try and escape his problems. Now that I've covered Raoul, I'd like to shift the focus to his wife (or ex-wife by the end) Christine. She is certainly naïve at times and doesn't always make the best decisions. However, I feel that this stems more from her desire to help those she cares about as opposed to being stupid or selfish. She knew that she had made a commitment to Raoul but she didn't want to crush Erik's delicate soul after all of the pain that he had been through. I've been mentioning Erik quite a bit but I haven't really gone into his character in depth. Many have said that he isn't as interesting or sympathetic in this movie because he is still distraught and enraged despite all of the positive attention that he is supposedly receiving. Keep in mind that he had experienced years of torture and harassment due to his facial deformity. As such, he developed problems with anxiety and depression. Praise and affection may bring some stability and happiness but they don't completely remove the problem. The attacks and threats made him feel vulnerable, threatened, and dehumanized. As such, he often feels the need to defend himself against anyone who he perceives as a threat to him or Christine. Because of his extreme internal conflict, he has to rely on the one person who he feels brings a sense of security to such an unkind world. He also feels the need to resort to threats and force so that he isn't perceived as weak or helpless and therefore won't have to endure anymore trauma.

subscriptions-75702 When I watched this the first time, I was also taken a bit aback by it. But after thinking about it for a few days and watching it again, I saw why.When POTO starts, the audience is introduced to the Opera Ghost, someone unseen yet powerful and threatening. At POTO's conclusion, the Opera Ghost is reduced to a mere human, looking for love but not knowing how to find it. It's the human Phantom in this sequel, with the child-like emotions of someone who grew up alone and abused. Be prepared for that.The freak show he runs on Coney Island is definitely different from the Paris Opera House, but it makes sense: he can be visible, he can be in control, and he can also work out whatever demons he has from being in one as a child (though this isn't dealt with in the show that I could see). I just wish they'd finally given the Phantom a name (doesn't have to be Erik) instead of a silly pseudonym.The laughable part is that Lloyd Webber uses Hammerstein's new Manhattan opera house as the reason Christine Daaé is coming to town. Whether or not Hammerstein did open an opera house at that time is irrelevant to me. The moment I hear the name, I see the Alps, and hear the hills singing with the sound of music followed by a chorus of O-O-O-O-Oklahoma! It broke the world Lloyd Webber was trying to create.I also didn't like how Rauol, Mme. Giry, and Meg Giry were rewritten. They feel like they were re-constructed solely to have sub-plots. I found the sub-plots boring and unnatural, because of how the characters were written. The actors, though, are phenomenal. Even felt sad for Raoul at the end.However, the Christine-Phantom-Gustave triad completely enthralled me. Yes, it's melodramatic, but show me one scene in POTO that isn't. This is Lloyd Webber's style. This triad, though somewhat soap-opery, delves deep into the psyche of the Phantom, which the original could not. I loved the bar scene with Raoul and the Phantom. One thing the original was missing which the 2004 movie and now this sequel developed was more interaction between the two. The fact that Ben Lewis towers over Simon Gleeson helps in this scene, especially when Raoul declares that the Phantom doesn't scare him, and then he shows up out of nowhere.And I'm completely taken in by The Beauty Underneath. Love the haunting feeling it gives you. It also explains beautifully how music affects the Phantom.I thought the ending was a cop-out, though. I don't like it when someone is shot for what seems to be dramatic purpose. Let her live through the decision she came to: to stay with the Phantom and leave Raoul behind. The ending was also a bit over the top for me. Touching, but too many clichés.Ben Lewis and Anne O'Byrne, though, have a chemistry on stage that I haven't seen in a long time. Both of them deliver an incredibly powerful performance. You can see the passion and conflict Christine and the Phantom feel throughout. Lewis gives us a full range of emotions - the Phantom is indeed a human being who's not sure how to get what he wants. But he's also capable of love and simply wants to be loved and remembered when his time is up. O'Byrne portrays a Christine with a backbone - she knows what she will and won't do. She's not on stage to look pretty (though she is incredibly stunning), she's on stage to show us all in the inner workings of Christine, and she does it wonderfully. I'd love to see both of them live someday.

xristosdomini Okay, so, I watched this reasonably soon after having watched the Phantom of the Opera 25th anniversary performance--so a) it was fresh and b) I might be a little harsh. The camera work was a little...interesting. There was only one shot (before the curtain call) that showed any of the audience, so it was easy to forget you were watching a play in a theater--except that you kept seeing stage lights in shots. Not a bad thing, but not ideal. The music is good, but rather weak in comparison to Phantom. Phantom is soaring and operatic... LND had me asking if Webber composed it in collaboration with Trans-Siberian Orchestra. The big thing for me, however, is the continuity disasters between LND and Phantom that fundamentally change the apparent story in Phantom. Full-disclosure, I think Love Never Dies would be perfectly fine in it's own right, but as a sequel to the awesomeness of Phantom of the Opera... I was a bit disappointed. I did appreciate the sporadic musical references to Phantom of the Opera in the score, however.