Love Never Dies (II) (2012) User Reviews

Weak plot, great cast and production team

[subscriptions-75702 · 7/10 · 30 August 2015]

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.

Not as good as the original but not bad.

[sugarcookie788 · 7/10 · 29 September 2016]

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.

Love Never Dies stands alone

[djtaco59 · 8/10 · 8 March 2012]

Andrew Lloyd Webber's Love Never Dies will not disappoint the Phantom faithful. The film version is an unfortunate necessity, as the live musical will not be played in the USA with its original cast. My only complaint with the filming of the musical is that instead of a broader, panned out view, the shots are very zoomed, leaving out other happenings on stage and exposing actors' microphones and hair pieces. Ben Lewis does the great Michael Crawford homage with his strong, clear voice. ALW triumphs with beautiful recurring themes and an exciting rock sound for songs like 'Beneath a Moonless Sky' and 'The Beauty Underneath', delighting Phans with the occasional riff from the original. Finally, the last half hour is consistently unpredictable, edge-of-your-seat exciting. Love Never Dies is sufficiently unique, yet powerful and unique to hold a flame to its precursor and stand alone as another spell- binding ALW show.

Good--not spectacular.

[xristosdomini · 7/10 · 4 February 2013]

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.

riveting

[smejr78 · 10/10 · 23 June 2014]

I loved it to all who were expecting it to like the first phantom it wasn't supposed to be it's a play all it's own And yes you cant really compare it the the phantom of the opera But it was dark, twisted, and riveting even more so than the first love the twists and turns of the whole story

very powerful, and moving had me in tears at the end the only thing i wish the same cast from the phantom of opera 25th anniversary would have been in it but that's OK the new cast did great

the new setting at coney island was intriguing the new songs were different but great loved the rock themes brought it right up to date with a new audience to appreciate musicals and this phantom story proves that love never dies

VERY entertaining

[IOBdennis · 7/10 · 8 March 2012]

Very entertaining film of the musical. Camera work left a lot to be desired, however: too much movement around action shots. Lighting was very dark, and much of the set was constantly in the dark. Yes, of course, much of the set is supposed to be, I guess, in this vehicle, but the people were poorly light frequently, and the focus seemed to be blurry. I wondered if they were trying to shoot "Mame" with Lucille Ball. Really nice score. Clearly a Weber opera with leitmotifs from other shows and particularly "The Phantom". Nice touches throughout. Pretty duets and ballads. Singing was quite fine overall. Anne O'Byrne was quite good. The opening Phantom ballad however was a bit stagy. He was trying to sound too hard, I thought, like the original with the wobbly voice.

A lavish disappointment

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 4 June 2013]

Much of the problem that I had watching this was to do with Love Never Dies itself. I am one of those who has appreciated Andrew Lloyd Webber overtime, especially as Phantom of the Opera is so good, but Love Never Dies is my least favourite musical of his by quite some way. Two or three of the songs are nice, Til I Hear You Sing Once More, The Beauty Underneath and Look With Your Heart, but the rest are completely forgettable. The story is also a mess, it is nowhere near as cohesive as Phantom of the Opera, is very bad soap-opera-ish and didn't engage me emotionally. The characters seem off, especially Raoul, and one plot strand(the one revealing when Gustave was conceived) actually distorts them, while the ending is ridiculously anti-climatic. This production is a slight improvement by excising that one plot strand, but other than that it does nothing to change my perception of the musical. The production is certainly not bad, the costume and set designs are just exquisite with beautiful lighting. The orchestral playing, chorus and conducting are also first-rate. And I thought the two leads were fine. Ben Lewis has a magnificent voice, and does his best making Phantom charismatic, edgy and tortured, it's not his fault that Phantom in Love Never Dies is too much of an obsessive businessman with a dark past, a much watered-down version of his former self really. Anna O'Byrne struggles with the title number- hardly surprising seeing as the song itself isn't that good anyway- but her voice is very angelic and rich with an unbelievable range, she also does elegant and diva-ish very well. The rest of the cast aren't as effective, good voices but dull. Well Simon Gleeson does have flashes where he allows Raoul to be dashing, but there is strong emphasis on flashes. It doesn't help that the drama is so overly-melodramatic, dull and emotionally cold, or that the relationship between Phantom and Christine is as tawdry as it is. And if you're struggling to believe that they actually hooked up, I don't blame you. The choreography was well danced but lacked drive and sparkle for my tastes. The camera work was a big, perhaps even the biggest, issue. There are too many close-ups and medium shots that are moved so fast, this approach is the very opposite of intimate(which I believe was intended), further ruined the dramatic flow and actually cried for a more expansive use of the stage and live-performance spontaneity. Overall, lavish but also disappointing. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Just don't compare it with the amazing original!

[kwinrockz · 8/10 · 30 July 2013]

I was cautious to watch this sequel to "The Phantom of the Opera" because of how much I loved the original. I was shocked by how much I enjoyed it. The cast is great and really embrace their characters and their character's way of thinking, feeling, and position. The music is fabulous and the main reason I enjoy it. "Till I hear you Sing" is by far my favorite. Although I like Ramin Karimloo's voice as the phantom better. But take what you can get right? Just watch it with an open mind and you will enjoy it. Don't look for continuity issues with the first. All in all it was well put together somethings I would change just because I like happy endings in everything. Be prepared you will in fact cry if you are a cry baby like me. Be prepared to hear music that will blow you away. And be prepared to be opened up to a whole new area and the world of The Phantom of the Opera.

A few plot additions for clarity would improve the story.

[unruhka · 7/10 · 8 February 2018]

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.

A beautiful spectacle and nothing more

[svleonard · 4/10 · 24 May 2012]

Beyond the spectacular singing, beautiful costumes, and amazing set design, Love Never Dies was a great disappointment. The story is simply not good: plot holes, out-of-character actions, and an absurd ending. I found it difficult to sympathize or identify with the characters. The plot also lacks narrative cohesion, almost as if the entire story is a weak collection of character vignettes. The conflicts of the plot are too dispersed to create a strong narrative. The lyrics also leave something to be desired. The whole thing came off as a musical version of a mediocre fan fiction. This was a very poor follow-up to the incomparable Phantom of the Opera.

Starts a little rough, but definitely doesn't disappoint

[edenney01 · 8/10 · 13 March 2012]

First let me say that the primary review on the IMDb page is pretty much spot on. I agree with everything the author said, particularly about the constant close-ups that deny you the audience's perspective and reveal flaws that the audience would otherwise never notice. I was particularly irritated by the way the cast's Mics were worn, giving the appearance that each person had a large birth defect at the peak of their forehead. I'm sure the audience couldn't even see the Mics from their seats when worn in this fashion so I understand why they did this for the live stage performances, but the camera close-ups made it particularly unpleasant (for me at least).

More importantly though, the close ups and the overhead angles provided a view that was just never meant to be seen, and I can tell it took away from the overall performance even though I've never seen it live. I'm pretty sure the rotating stage and sets would've been much more impressive from the audience perspective, rather than the top down view where you clearly saw the separation in the floor and don't get to see the sets shifting the way you should. I would've preferred the majority of the shots to be wider with an occasional close-up, so you can take in the sets and scenery not to mention the other cast members.

I consider myself a pretty big Phantom Phan, having seen POTO on tour in multiple cities over the last 15 years, and having watched the movie and listened to the soundtrack countless times. I'd already heard a little bit of the LND soundtrack, so I was a little excited but very skeptical when I sat down to watch the Blu-Ray, like most Phantom Phans would be I'm sure. IMHO the opening song and 1st Act is MUCH weaker than POTO (one of my biggest criticisms of LND), but it gets better and better with each passing minute and delivers with a 3rd Act that very much lives up to its predecessor. In the end I really enjoyed LND and I'd definitely watch it again.

Since I hadn't listened to much of the soundtrack before I watched the movie, the best part for me was not knowing how the sequel was going to play out, particularly the third act and the ending. If I'd known the whole story before I watched/listened to the Blu-Ray, I would've been hugely disappointed (so I recommend not listening to it beforehand if you haven't already). Most of the songs themselves are just OK IMHO, but aren't nearly up to par with POTO (how could they be?). There are a few diamonds in the rough however, and there are some distinct nods to some of the original POTO scores sprinkled throughout. Unlike POTO I'm fairly sure I won't find myself listening to the soundtrack very often if at all, but I'll definitely watch the live performance on Blu-Ray again.

I think people that are fans of musicals in general will like LND, but as far as Phantom Phans go I think it's safe to say the results will be mixed, just as they were with the POTO motion picture (something that I happened to like). There are a LOT of Phans that just don't want the original story and music touched, period, while there are others who have always wanted more, and in particular for the Phantom to "get the girl". The way I see it, the purists that liked the original don't have to watch the movie or LND, and there's a phenomenal Blu-Ray available from the 25th anniversary performance at Royal Albert Hall that they can watch over and over again. For those that have longed for the story to continue (or end differently perhaps), LND offers them this. I certainly wouldn't spoil LND by giving any hints about how it plays out, but I will say that it's not at all predictable and the ending definitely delivers.

Unnecessary sequel with great music

[lich-98683 · 12 February 2016]

I won't talk about the plot, It was just horrible and unnecessary. POTO ended with Christine choosing Raol, end of the story. The music of LND is very good, i like many songs - "'Till I Hear You Sing", "Beneath the Moonless Skye", "What a Dradful Town", "Beauty Underneath" and of course "Love Never Dies".

There are things, that didn't work for LND. First - location. I mean move it from Paris, one of the most romantic cities on the world, to New York? I don't find New York very romantic. There are many European cities more suitable for romance - Venice, Prague, Wienna, Budapest... And the shift from opera to... what? A circus. It could have worked in the opposite way, not this way.

And the characters...

Raoul: Maybe he was spoiled, but to turn him into drunkard? I don't think even him was so reckless, plus, he loved Christine.

Christine: She may have loved Phantom, but in the end, she was more frightened of him, though she took a pity on him, but searching for him and have a child with him? Really?

Phantom: He may have burned the opera down, that's like him, but I don't think he could ever be chased down by the mobs? And he was hiding from the world and now he works in public normally? ALW lost his mind.

And the Giry's...

Madame Giry: She loved Christine in POTO "I think of her as a daughter also" was the movie phrase. She did care for her. And now? Nothing. She led Raoul to Phantom's lair to rescue Christine and now she blames her, for choosing him? What a nonsense. And she also feared Phantom and wanted to stop him. Now she loves him and idolize him? Seriously? That doesn't even make sense.

And Meg, poor, sweet Meg: She was a dancer, not a singer, really. And her trying to impress Phantom was pathetic. But the revelation, she was sleeping with rich men... just awful. Not to mention she shot Christine.

An excellent performance of a troubled musical

[I_Ailurophile · 7/10 · 13 April 2024]

Let's speak plainly: this musical came pre-loaded with baggage, its own cargo ship's worth, before it ever opened in London. The very idea of a sequel to Andrew Lloyd Webber's 'The Phantom of the Opera' raises a skeptical eyebrow; to read a one-line premise raises our hackles. Then we read the plot synopsis, and learn of the critical reception, and see the history of productions; while the tale may have been revised between London and Melbourne, frankly the differences are minimal, more cosmetic than substantive. Still, the question remains: How is the music? How is the show at large, in and of itself? Does it really deserve such infamy; could it really be so bad? Thankfully movie lovers, theater nerds, 'Phantom' aficionados, and general audiences can decide for themselves without necessarily shelling out cash for seats in the orchestra, balcony, or gallery, for this recording of the Australian production - in some measure better received with its rewrites than the original London show - gives us a look at 'Love never dies' in all its splendor, or alternatively, in all its notoriety. For better and for worse, we're able to begin forming an opinion very swiftly once we press "play." For my part I think this is enjoyable, and worthwhile on its own merits, but with significant issues that severely limit its lasting value.

To the credit of all involved, there really is much to admire here in most every regard. Pretty much everything we love about musicals as a class of live performance, and about cinema as an audiovisual medium, are alive and vibrant in these two hours. The costume design is truly gorgeous, and the hair and makeup, too; the sets are lovely, and the choreography fetching, and stage director Simon Phillips is to be roundly commended for such a splendid, finely-tuned piece. By and large the cast is terrific, treating us to superb singing and lively, engaging, laudable acting. Broadly speaking the music in and of itself is delightful, with some selections being extra nice and enticing, and the same applies to the lyrics. Why, if we consider the narrative at its core, then alongside the music, performances, and overall spectacle it's easy to get swept up in the saga: a famed singer traveling with her rakish husband and young son to a new engagement, where they will encounter old friends, confront the past, and have their lives forever changed. There are times throughout when I really do see the brilliance of the best potential this may have had. And it's worth observing that this 2012 feature is a credit as well to filmmaker Brett Sullivan, the camera operators, the editors, and all others who put in the work to bring the stage musical to our screens. Some recordings of live performances are better than others at visualizing the entirety, and at making the show matter, and whatever we think of 'Love never dies' as a musical, I believe this rendition of it is counts as one of the better examples of a port to the screen.

All this is good, or even wonderful, not to mention encouraging, entertaining, and satisfying. So what, then, could the problems be that have given Webber's work such a sorry reputation? Well, let's start with the acting. I mean it when I say that everyone on hand is terrific, by and large. However, everyone also has their moments - some more than others - when they unquestionably come off as overacting and chewing scenery with overly severe, forceful delivery and comportment. In fact, this fault of the acting kind of exemplifies an overarching issue that plagues the whole endeavor, for in too many ways, and at too many points, there is a glaring lack of subtlety, tact, or thoughtful care being applied in the fundamental construction. Just as some of the lyrics are superb, some are terrible; just as some underhanded musical callbacks to 'Phantom' are fantastic, whatever their form, the most overt counterexamples mostly feel cheap, chintzy, and desperate; just as the music at large is swell, with some especial highlights (even as small as a few bars), there are also more dubious phrases or themes, and in a title built for drama, the worst instances actually inspire laughter. The storytelling itself also has distinct weaknesses, not least as the pseudonym "Mr. Y" belongs in Saturday morning cartoons, not a would-be prestige theatrical production; I'm less than enthused about some of the characterizations as they present, dovetailing into issues of some numbers ("Bathing beauty") and where they fit into the story, and shifts and disparity of tone ('The beauty underneath"). To top it all off, the plot development seems shortchanged, in that two hours fly past too quickly, insufficient to shoulder the weight that the plot and its conflicts should ideally carry. Yet we've not even talked about the elephant in the room.

It's as simple as this: the root plot, and the flavors of carnival, sideshow, and funhouse that adjoin the principal drama and romance, are stupendous, promising foundations for a musical, and for a motion picture. The trouble is that 'Love never dies' is a sequel to 'The Phantom of the Opera,' and I emphatically believe that it should have been its own standalone creation with no ties to that prior creation, nor any other. Worse is that 'Love never dies' is a sequel that demands enormous leaps of logic and presuppositions for the plot to work. I'll stop short of saying that the 2010 successor retcons its progenitor; it IS possible that following the previous events, Raoul turned out to be a louse, Madame and Meg Giry developed closer ties to the Phantom as they relocated, and jealousies and dark passions would stir as lives collide once again. For all these things to be true is too much for the 'Phantom' aficionado to take in stride, however, and above all, if we're to believe that 'Love' truly follows 'Phantom,' the central conceit of a love affair between Christine and the Phantom exceeds all limits of suspension of disbelief. These supposed narrative connections also ultimately inform our view of most other facets here: the carnival flavors are out of touch with the prior material, and while "The beauty underneath" is striking in and of itself, it heavily clashes with the tone of the rest of this production, let alone the predecessor; the last stretch of the second act, following Christine's aria, resolves the continued saga in a manner that feels hastily and poorly written, and which is unconvincing and dissatisfying, particularly as the beats place even greater strain on reworked characterizations that are already thin. With some retooling the show could feasibly have been phenomenal as a singular entity; as a sequel to one of the most cherished musicals in the world, it direly struggles.

And here's one more thing: there is no song in 'Love never dies' that comes anywhere near to matching 'The Phantom of the Opera.' All are good, and some are excellent, but whereas every tune of years before is a revered classic, there is nothing here that stands out in a fashion that will endure in memory. There is no showstopper to receive thunderous applause; Christine's big number in the second act - that which kind of held to be the crux of the whole tale - is okay, but doesn't really make a big impression.

I repeat that there really is a lot to like here. Everyone specifically involved in the Melbourne production did a marvelous job, and all are to be congratulated. At its best, we are reminded of why we love 'Phantom' as 'Love never dies' tries so, so hard to recapture that magic. I cannot and will not say that I dislike this musical, or got nothing from it, or would recommend against it. What I will and must say is that there is no arguing that the Melbourne production, praise-worthy as it is, is the best possible interpretation of something that even on paper leaves us actively doubting; it's the musical equivalent of screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg, and filmmakers Catherine Hardwicke, Chris Weitz, David Slade, and Bill Condon, adapting Stephenie Meyer's 'Twilight' series to the Silver Screen. I'm glad for those who find it even more enjoyable, or who possibly take no issue at all with the material. As far as I'm concerned, it's just that the flaws and failures are as readily evident as the advantages and successes, and any discussion of the title must be lengthy and comprehensive as to what it does well and where it goes wrong. Don't take my harshest criticism to mean that you shouldn't watch 'Love never dies'; take it to mean that you should watch with a very open mind and active awareness.

Two hours wasted out of my life

[Clothahump · 1/10 · 17 October 2014]

This movie flat out sucks pondwater. There are so many things wrong with it, I really don't know where to begin.

Spoilers below-----------------

Christine had a kid with the Phantom? Really? Especially after they very specifically said in POTO that the Phantom was impotent.

Meg kills Christine? Good grief.

Raoul is a drunk who abandons Christine? Kinda doesn't fit with the opening of POTO, does it?

I don't know what Webber was thinking when he penned this pile of muck, but he should be ashamed of himself.

a must for ALW's fan, I mean, for its music and songs rather than the filmed show

[THEgongoozler · 7/10 · 3 February 2022]

As a long time admirer of of Andrew Lloyd Webber for his genius, LOVE NEVER DIES (2012) didn't impress me much when it first came out. Although several numbers are truly great, musically, even by ALW's standard, but the whole story and production are obviously inferior to the (near) perfect THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (the musical, the original London cast version in particular).

Years gone by and after viewing of the show and countless listening to its music and songs, I found that my slightly harsh perception towards LOVE NEVER DIES has faded. Thank to ALW's composition, basically. The man is a grand master of music. Period.

Now I'm quite objective in comparing the two Phantoms. As musical, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is better than LOVE NEVER DIES, by a lot. As movie, LOVE NEVER DIES (2012) is better than THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (2004), by a bit.

Romance with whimsy

[dualsboo · 9/10 · 3 April 2012]

Saw it live in London in October 2010 and was mesmerized by it. The cast was very different sadly but the story is still the same. I was blessed to get pictures of the cast after the performance and it is one of my favorite musicals altogether. Am glad to see it on film, though the impact is a little weakened. Nevertheless, Christine and her Phantom live again at last, for all of us, we are blessed to have Sir Andrew's gifts carry on their lives. Was disappointed in the removal of it from London completely and if you want to see it live Melbourne is the only place that is showing it. I still have the score rolling through my mind and am touched at the way the new and the old meet paths. Worth a watch and a box of tissue.

Lots of emotion, but totally different from the first!

[ashleyhaldane · 6/10 · 25 June 2020]

As you might know, this is the sequel to Phantom of the Opera (2004), and so after watching POTO and seeing the West End show, I must admit that Love Never Dies itself is a bit of a let-down. To be honest, the only people who would really be suited to watching this is super die-hard fans that want to see an ending where the Phantom and Christine end up together. One thing I will say is that the Phantom was absolutely excellent, and really portrayed the emotions very well. Made me cry more than a few times, and not just a little! I loved his portrayal of such a complex character. The music is also absolutely beautiful, albeit a little haunting at times - however this only serves to strengthen the Phantom's character and make it more emotional. It is very deep in this respect, with more emotional details than POTO (in my opinion). On the other hand, the style of the whole show/film is totally different from the original POTO, and I'm not sure whether the storyline is really very developed. To me it seemed like every single character (except the Phantom) were doing things that were quite out of character. The storyline is very bizarre and doesn't really link at all. Best watched as a standalone show/movie definitely. In conclusion, this should definitely be watched either for the beautiful acting and character development of the Phantom, or just to say you've seen it. However, I've found that the best way to treat it is to think of it as an amateur 'fan-fiction' not written by the original producers - this accounts for its slightly 'wild' or 'off-topic' storyline, and clear standalone nature. Note: Be aware that the actors in LND are not the same as in POTO, and that whilst POTO (2004) was a film, this LND 'film' is actually a recording of a stage production of LND, and not a studio-produced film. This means you can see things like the face microphones, and occasionally the set/scenery is not the same standard as you would see in a normal, proper film - It's more like a hybrid between film and stage production, as the close-up shots are views that obviously would not be seen in a production, but the film is, in the end, a recording of the production.

Another beautiful story being destroyed by its sequel.

[joaovieira100 · 1/10 · 16 September 2012]

Since the time I went to SAO PAULO in Brazil and watched the Phantom of the Opera, I could confidently say that I was another lover of this story. The phantom of the opera is a set of beautiful sceneries, with beautiful music and a thrilling story. Nevertheless, as another author who got a little extra excited with the money made, Andrew Lloyd Webber created a sequel, based on a book that was just a floppy sequel for "the phantom of the opera" according to reviewers. Fortunately, who created this second book was not Gaston Leurox, which means, this book was pretty much a fanfic story. What to expect then? A new musical based on a fanfic story? Another big flop. "Love Never Dies" kills all the characters from the original, destroys the poetry existent in "The Phantom of the Opera", and in addition to it, it is full of clichés with a bad end. Nothing against New York, I particularly love this city, but not as a setting for "The Phantom". Music is just not as memorable, except for the "Till I hear you sing". The end, BLEEH, just made me cry. I was so disappointed with ALW. In my particular experience with theater, yes I have too agree they have SOME beautiful sceneries with lots of modernity. But the story is not just sceneries, and the big point that made the Phantom of the Opera the second most watched musical over the world was the truth behind the story; the passion that ALW created the musical, inspired by his ex-wife's (Sarah Brightman) voice. That's what lacks in "Love never dies"; the truth behind the characters, the love that just increases as the story goes by. I still think that ALW will get into his wits once again, and will get this story out of the theaters. Until there, the poetry from the original story will be trying to survive from this big shot in a hospital for killed dramas.

Love this movie

[demonlord783 · 10/10 · 14 October 2014]

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.

Comparison

[mahdi_foraty · 6/10 · 12 July 2016]

This film, on the one hand, continues the well-known story of 'The Phantom of the Opera'. On the other hand, it is the next episode of "The Phantom of the Opera at the Royal Albert Hall", produced on 2011 by Weber.

As I went through the reviews, I realized that most of them have a comparative mood, based on the two items that I mentioned above. It seems a bit unfair to judge a movie based on other successful works. However, when the authors and producers decided to shoot such a movie, they should have anticipated such biased reviews. I, myself, am on the comparative side and I think this is a weak offspring of what we watched before. Most of the elements, from music, acting and manuscripts to cinematography and cutting are awful compared with the precedents.

Lloyd Weber doesn't understand his own musical

[linda-846-907013 · 1/10 · 7 March 2019]

It was vastly clear in the movie version of the musical starring Butler and Rossum that there was a serious disconnect between his view of Phantom and mine, but this "sequel" puts a nail in the coffin. First of all, the Phantom is NOT a hero. He's a manipulative, controlling, obsessed, twisted man. Tragic and darkly romantic, sure, but not a hero.

Second, it's darn near blasphemous to say that not only did Christine and the Phantom have sex that night in the catacombs, but that it was consensual and loving is ridiculous. Does he not remember the way the Phantom reacts to the physicality of the kiss at the end of the original? He'd clearly never been touched like that in his whole life. To change the narrative is to destroy the power of that moment, of how it changes the Phantom so profoundly that he's willing to let Christine and Raoul go.

Third, turning Raoul into a villain betrays that fact that he was actually a pretty stand up guy. He was a wealthy, titled guy who could have swept Christine away and kept her from the opera. Yet he knew how much singing meant to her and so he supported her in her career. He did what he could to free her from the Phantom's unhealthy influence, not cruelly separate two people desperately in love as this "sequel" states.

Fourth, how can someone so manipulative be a romantic hero in this piece? Christine and the Phantom have just sung this passionate (and, IMHO, overlong) duet about their supposedly magical night together, then he turns around and threatens to steal or kill her kid if she won't sing for him. That's seriously messed up.

I have to admit I turned it off after this. The performances were competent and the orchestration was well done. I thought the costuming was just a bit boring and predictable - there was no subtlety or grace, no grandeur or elegance in them, though. Whoever the designer is was certainly no Maria Björnson. Though to be fair, who these days can compare to her stellar work?

Overall, I am glad I never saw this in a theater. As it is, I feel that my $4 rental on Amazon was a complete waste of money.

Here's the alternate ending to Phantom of the Opera in which the wealthy and handsome guy loses the girl!

[krh1-315-124286 · 9/10 · 4 July 2012]

The DVD is the filming of a musical play as it is being performed. The close-ups allow the singers' facial reactions to events to be seen, but the Phantom's disfigurement has been modified to emphasize the dreadful bald-pate wig that will register effectively with theater audiences sitting in the balcony.

The triangle of Christine-Phantom-Raoul looms large, but there are also interesting character/ plot developments in LND for Meg Giry (and her controlling mother) and Gustave (the son). The Australian re-working of the lyrics, sequencing of songs and other details makes for a tightly-staged character study of how the five survivors of the Paris Opera House fire have evolved. The dangerous feeling of the roller-coaster stage set is captured inadequately in the cinematography; one recognizes that such an intricate moving set needs to be experienced in its totality to do justice to the designer. (There are limits to what can be shown in a movie of a play being staged.)

The Phantom starts out as his nasty old self with homicidal tendencies towards Gustave. At first the new character (Gustave) is a pawn; the Phantom threatens to "make the boy disappear" if Christine will not bend to his will. There's a great condescending moment when the Phantom discovers that the "little viscount" can play the piano which allows for some character change over the span of a song and climaxes with a new life purpose for the Phantom. In Act II there is a very cocky confrontation between the Phantom and Raoul that reminds us of the twisted Phantom of PTO who had previously tried to kill Raoul. Yes the Phantom shows some compassion towards Meg Giry (who hates what she has become by letting the Phantom get into her soul), but his forceful efforts to manipulate everybody to have his own way makes Christine's choice in the climax very unsettling. The Phantom is still a selfish genius who uses people for his art, but the depth of his love for Christine should be beyond question by the end of the play.

Disappointing and offensive to the legacy of Phantom of The Opera

[jmakeupartistry · 1/10 · 23 September 2012]

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.

It makes PERFECT Sense!

[mngnm94 · 10/10 · 10 September 2014]

I saw The Phantom of the Opera when I was 12, and I heard the Original London Cast Recording of Love Never Dies when I was 16. By then my life had gone through some MAJOR changes. For one thing my Dad died 2.75 months after I saw The Phantom of the Opera on stage (believe it or not) and my life was continuing to get worse, so my personality like the characters in "Love Never Dies" changed with life. What I'm trying to say is "Misery loves company" especially from close friends. When I was 13 I had read "The Phantom of Manhattan" so it was not a surprise to me when Christine died. :(!

In a class called "Working with Young Children" I learned that If a child is born less than a year into a marriage it most likely falls apart, which contributes WHY Christine chooses the Phantom. Furthermore, Gustave's attraction to music, and also having the same concept of beauty as the Phantom, can be explained by the existence of the Hobby Gene. This means that because both of his parents like music, he is more likely to as well.

Also gambling was popular among rich people during the time that the Phantom of the Opera was set. This would most likely result in a lower income, which would put stress on Raoul and Christine's marriage, Which would contribute to WHY Christine chooses the Phantom. Raoul in the original novel is immature and immature people are impulsive, and do things like drink too much, and gamble. I know that the dates between "Love Never Dies" and the auction at the beginning of "The Phantom of the Opera are correct because alcoholism causes premature aging, by reducing the amount of collagen, (which is what makes your skin look young) by reducing amount of the antioxidant vitamin A which is important in slowing down the signs of aging

But what Meg said before she shot her sounded JUST like I was feeling by the time I was 16. (added to that my relationship with my sister had gone tough the same stages as Meg and Christine's in "Love Never Dies" the Australian production in the past eight years at the time) but I HADN'T killed anybody. Why? Because our undying love we've had since we were children, for our family (including pets) friends, jobs,our favorite media, hobbies, and interests, and ourselves enables us not to change when change is making our world fall apart around us, even over a period as long as ten years. We are the same people we always were because love never dies that's what misery causing change taught me, and "Love Never Dies" affirmed. When I saw the DVD The blocking for "Please Miss Giry I Want to go Back" made it look like Meg MEANT to shoot Christine. Also she has UNTREATED Bipolar Disorder, and has these symptoms:

1. Feeling unusually "high" and optimistic OR extremely irritable 2. Unrealistic, grandiose beliefs about one's abilities or powers 3. Sleeping very little, but feeling extremely energetic 4. Racing thoughts; jumping quickly from one idea to the next 5. Impaired judgment and impulsiveness 6. Acting recklessly without thinking about the consequences 7. Delusions and hallucinations (in severe cases)

I now know why I didn't kill, because I got the emotional support and love Meg didn't get from "Love Never Dies", and with out it I definitely wouldn't be where I am right now.

URGH!!! It's the stench from this fanfiction-with-a-budget sequel to The Phantom of the Opera.

[thejelliclekat · 2/10 · 28 June 2018]

I really regret watching Love Never Dies because ALW horrendously butchered the characters just to make a "fanmade sequel" to Phantom. Love Never Dies is a crappy non-canon fan fiction in my mind. It is nothing more than a stupid, insipid soap opera that gets more grotesque and harebrained by the second. It is an awful, awful musical, flawed on so many levels I can't count them, funny when it's not supposed to be, entertaining in much the way that Plan 9 from Outer Space is entertaining. I bet my review is going to be complicated and slightly incoherent because there are so many flaws on so many levels at so many points.

I don't like this musical. Sure, I like the idea of Erik and Christine being together, but this musical doesn't succeed in its delivery of that. The plot is bad, characters that we previously liked (minus in Raoul's case...poor guy) are turned into jerks, and some of the songs are so awful, you can't help wanting to throw up.

The whole productions seem to be rather goofy (the whole thing looks like a Tim Burton fever dream staged by Cirque de Soleil), but the Phantom screaming "TEEEEEN YEEEAAAARRRRSS OOOOOLLLLDDD" has to be the most ridiculous, cringe-worthy thing I have ever seen in a musical.

I don't know what Webber was thinking when he penned this pile of muck, but he should be ashamed of himself. If you love The Phantom of the Opera - then please DON'T WATCH LOVE NEVER DIES.

SIGH!!! I look forward to being able to forget Love Never Dies exists