deetus 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.)

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.

jmakeupartistry My summary title alone should say it all. As a Phantom fan, I was actually looking forward to viewing this. Well, my very first thought upon exiting the theater was, "That was 2 plus hours of my life that I will never get back." Andrew Lloyd Webber must have temporarily gone insane to have even thought that this drivel was on the same level as The Phantom. It is nothing more than a stupid, insipid soap opera that gets more grotesque and harebrained by the second.I felt absolutely no connection to Ben Lewis and his dry one dimensional performance, and I couldn't wait for him to exit the screen; and to even think that Ben Lewis "does the great Michael Crawford homage with his strong, clear voice." is an insult to Michael Crawford. Love Never Dies? This should have never been born.