Chicago Theater Review: ‘The Phantom of the Opera,’ the New National Tour

Phantom of the Opera reviews tour

Cautious but often clever, the new 'Phantom' staging is refreshed rather than significantly reimagined.

So rare is a show that can run fundamentally unaltered for 26 years, bringing in global audiences galore, that this touring production of still-going Broadway megahit “The Phantom of the Opera,” with a new set and staging, is big news, despite introducing almost no significant change. Overall, this cautious but often clever redux by director Laurence Connor — who also helmed the new version of “Les Miserables” on its way to Broadway — provides a subtly refreshed but not re-imagined “Phantom,” with a new design and new choreography, a younger-than-usual title character and a tendency toward realism rather than parodic buffoonery by the supporting players.

Of course, the famed “Phantom” phanatics will first want to know this: The chandelier buzzes and pops and sheds fake crystals but doesn’t take a full plunge. Sacrilege to some, but let’s be honest — at least in the last U.S. touring version to come through Chicago, that superannuated special effect had ceased to provide a thrill anyway.

There are additions here that even the dedicated should appreciate. Paul Brown’s smart set centers on a large cylinder that twists on its circular axis to move between the various spaces.  It’s less shadowy because there’s less vast darkness than in the original set, but there’s also a greater movement and variety to the designs for the backstage sequences.  There’s now a manager’s office with walls that fold open cleverly, and the more confined space helps with some of the comedy, as everyone piles into the office carrying notes they’ve been sent by the Phantom.

The backstage area where the Phantom gains access to his subterranean lake is represented by the curved outside of the cylinder. Treacherous-looking stairs emerge from the wall for the Phantom and Christine to descend.  A boat still takes them over the dry-ice water to the Phantom’s lair, but once there, we find only a few candles and some dim, slightly abstract electric light fixtures hanging above.  Because this younger Phantom (Cooper Grodin) is a bit less pretentious, it actually makes sense for his space to be emptier: an organ, a bed, some light.

More significantly than the chandelier, there’s no mirror bride, and Christine (Julia Udine) doesn’t remove the Phantom’s mask but rather sees his face when she catches him washing it. His reaction, however, is the same.

Tonally, the biggest change comes in the opera-within-the-pop-operetta scenes. In Hal Prince’s production, these sequences were clear parodies of buffoonish bombast; they now represent snippets of operas that seem like they’re quite good. The new owners of the opera house are no longer as clownish, and diva Carlotta (Jacquelynne Fontaine) is not a figure one expects to be ridiculed.

These seemingly small shifts do have potential interpretive impact. The Phantom is no longer the one true artist acting out against the uncaring commercial machine; here he wants Carlotta out of the show and Christine in because he’s obsessed with Christine, not because she’s so much better.

And yet, despite his increased obsession over Christine as opposed to the music, there’s a decidedly muted quality to the passion in the central love triangle. It’s hard to tell whether the chilly emotions are just due to new actors in the roles (two of whom just took over their parts since the last tour stop) or represent a genuine choice. Is Connor attempting to update Christine to recognize that a more modern damsel in distress wouldn’t faint at the sight of a bridal dress, and would be less interested in rapid romantic love and more concerned with what the men around her can practically provide?  The Phantom offers her a career, while suitor Raoul (Ben Jacoby) can give her security. Is the tragedy not that she loves two men, but that she can’t have her musical career without attaching herself to a creepy stalker?

The answers to these questions remain unclear, and this ambiguity might be exactly the compromise that occurs when you try to change and not-change something at the same time. Connor seems to hint toward a different take on the characters without committing, and without greater clarity, the actors’ performances will likely revert over time to the familiar and time-tested, particularly when casts inevitably change.

Not that audiences will notice, or mind.

Chicago Theater Review: 'The Phantom of the Opera,' the New National Tour

Cadillac Palace Theater, Chicago; 2,200 seats; $115 top. Opened, reviewed Jan. 15, 2014, runs through March 2.  Running time:  2 HOURS, 25 MINS.


A Cameron Mackintosh presentation in association with the Really Useful Group, Networks Presentations, and Broadway in Chicago of a musical in two acts with music by Andrew Lloyd Webber, lyrics by Charles Hart, additional lyrics by Richard Stilgoe, book by Stilgoe and Webber, based on the novel by Gaston Leroux.


Directed by Laurence Connor. Choreography by Scott Ambler. Set, Paul Brown; costumes, Maria Bjornson; lighting, Paule Constable; sound, Mick Potter; video and projections, Nina Dunn for Knifedge; musical direction, Richard Carsey; orchestrations, David Cullen and Andrew Lloyd Webber; musical supervision, John Rigby; production stage manager, Eric Sprosty; stage manager, Heather Chockley. 


Cooper Grodin, Julia Udine, Ben Jacoby, Jacquelynne Fontaine, Craig Bennett, Edward Staudenmayer, Linda Balgord, Frank Viveros, Hannah Florence, Mark Emerson, Eric Ruiz, Edward Juvier, Jay Lusteck, Michael Thomas Holmes, Adam Bashian, Christy Morton, Celia Hottenstein, Grace Morgan, Kathryn McCreary, Dustin Layton, Luke Lazzaro, Amy Justman, Merritt David Janes, Quinto Ott, Nick Cartell, Morgan Cowling, Anjelica Bette Fellini, Ramona Kelley, Abigail Mentzer, Lily Rose Peck, Micki Weiner, Dan Debenport, Amy Decker, Christopher M. Howard, Tara Sweeney, Marguerite Willbanks.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 36

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Linda says:

    I agree with everyone, I just saw “new version ” in Little Rock with my grandaughters. I was so upset , disappointed and embarrassed that I had praised this show for so many years. Having seen it twice in Memphis and once in San Antonio I was expecting the same electrifying experience. Please don’t waste and I mean waste your money on this version!

  2. Ginger says:

    I did notice. I did mind. And I loathed the changes and the total absolutely lack of sexual tension. I paid over $150 each for prime seats. I have seen the production in London and I was so profoundly disappointed that my head rolled back. These changes were glaringly obvious to those of us that love the production and absolved it of passion and puzzling moral ambiguity and sorrow that once lasted long after the play was over. Everything was so painfully overacted that it made the so beloved production completely absurd and silly.

  3. Sue Seeley says:

    After having seen this magnificent production well over 20 times, all I can say is Oh God what have they done to you and why. My sadness and disappointment is complete. For the first time ever, people who were sitting next to me did not return after the intermission. Mr. Cameron what in the world were you thinking? There are no words.

    • Gracia says:

      IF YOU ARE A FAN OF THE ORIGINAL, OR IF YOU DONT WANT TO SEE SOME POOR EXCUSE OF PHANTOM, DONT GO SEE THIS!! I agree with pretty much all of the comments here; the new tour will only be a sour disappointment for true phans and even for people who have never seen it before and don’t know what they’re missing. Please please don’t support this terrible ruination of many peoples favorite character and my personal favorite show of all time. Go watch the 25th anniversary recording with Sierra Boggess and Ramin Karimloo instead- that is a true masterpiece and a fitting, celebratory rendition of the original.

  4. Byron says:

    ” we find only a few candles and some dim, slightly abstract electric light fixtures hanging above” The theatre didn’t have electricity until years later, as stated during the auctions scene. They say the chandelier was fitted with the ‘new electric light”, so those lights were one of the few distracting elements of the new design.

    There was no reason to update this classic show. It’s now a pale comparison to the original.

    • Joe says:

      I agree 100%. The updates were downgrades. The entire show felt like a cheap rip off production of what it should have been.

  5. Joe says:

    I agree with most everyone else here. The new production was terrible compared to the old one. Some of the elements that were changed made no sense to change them. Some of the new special effects added nothing to the story or the feel of the particular scene. The changes to the stage design made me feel like they were putting on a cheap production and didn’t want to spend any money to make the scenery as amazing as the original.

    The scene that disappointed me the most was Masquerade/Why So Silent. That is my favorite part of the entire show, and when the 2nd act started and they were in a mirrored room instead of having the huge staircase…..I felt robbed. And then the Phantom comes out in his costume that was basically a rip off of the MOVIE version of Phantom…had I been alone seeing this, I would have walked out. WHY would you remove one of the most impacting parts of the show? Other than to save money. The old stage was amazing, Masquerade was such a fun and powerful song with the whole cast. Then transitioning in to the Phantom appearing at the top of the stairs in his red outfit, big red hat with feathers and the articulated skull mask. The suspense as the Phantom slowly walked down the stairs and after about 6 steps starts singing “Why so silent”….it all tied together perfectly. This new production, he comes out from a couple of doors in the back (ooooh…that was a grand entrance…NOT) and almost IMMEDIATELY begins “Why so silent”…They hadn’t been silent very long before the Phantom starts singing, it just makes no sense. Also having the Phantom up on the stairs singing and tossing his opera to them down below, it had more power to it, it’s like he is looking down on them because he is so much better than they are, that HE controls the opera house, not them. This new production, he just hands it over.

    My biggest disappointment is that this was the first time my wife has ever seen Phantom. She liked it but wasn’t amazed. I’ve seen Phantom 6 or 7 times now. I would continue to go see the old production every time it comes to town, and even be willing to drive a few hours to see it. This new version, I’d NEVER go see it again, even if I was given free tickets.

  6. Colton Schuh says:

    In the Phantom of the Opera 2015 USA tour, are there still floating candles and candelabras appearing out of fog when he takes her into his labyrinth?

    • Joe says:

      No, there are not. I hate to say it, but save your money, do not go see this horrible version of Phantom. Had I known it would be this bad, I’d of never spent the money on these tickets. I’d of not gone had I been given free tickets.

  7. Vanessa says:

    I just saw it over the weekend in St. Louis. I was so disappointed! It reminded me of a Community College production. I missed the beauty, and pageantry of the original. Then, reading the souvenir program, I learn that the set designers never saw the original? Why not?
    The orchestration was flawless, but the singing had weird intonations to words, and by the end some of the songs, sounded like the actors learned the songs phonetically.
    I may need to plan a trip to NY or London to show my sister and nephew the “Real” Phantom now?

    • Gracia says:

      Totally agree. I feel even worse for those who haven’t seen the original and now, having seen a cheap rip off version, will never understand the true grandeur of a show that’s been running for nearly 30 years!!

    • Joe says:

      Exactly! It was like a low budget community college production! I was soooooo disappointed as well. Had I known there were this many changes and cut backs, I’d of NEVER bought tickets. I’d of not gone had I been given free tickets.

    • Jen says:

      Agreed. I feel like I have to go watch the original again just to get the bad taste of this new production out of my mouth!!

  8. Lisa says:

    Just saw the new stage rendition. It totally sucked. The staging is cheap looking, not near as many special effects, and it was a major disappointment. Bring back the original version. I took my daughter for her first time to see POTO and it was a big disappointment. If it’s not broke then don’t mess with it. I see it every time it’s touring but that’s over until they go back to the version that was good for over 25 years.

  9. Jen says:

    I completely agree!! I saw the new production tonight and was EXTREMELY disappointed at all the blocking and staging tweaks to many of the scenes. My major issues were thus:

    – the chandelier does not rise from the stage in the beginning
    – Christine shares an untidy dressing room with the rest of the ballet dancers??
    – the Phantom just lays Christine down in the bed and then she just falls asleep at the end of Music of the Night (I’m sorry, but if you were in her shoes would you really be able to fall asleep so nonchalantly??)
    – Christine doesn’t even take off the Phantom’s mask the next morning?? This makes me question why he’s so mad…because it really was his fault for having his face uncovered while she was there…something I don’t believe he would have EVER dared do for fear she might see him
    – Buquet’s death is not as striking since it is shown on the sidelines…I found it more effective when he drops from overhead and scares the living bejesus out of everyone!
    – I disliked that the staircase was gone from Masquerade, as were many of the original carnival-type costumes
    – I completely HATED the Phantom’s outfit in Masquerade…the skull headpiece he used to wear was so much more menacing; this new outfit he wears is just a poor remake of the movie version
    – Did Raoul just get away with actually **punching** the Phantom??? –gasp– (also a nod to the movie methinks)
    – the Phantom acts too freaked out while Christine is kissing and hugging him in the Lair scene, like he doesn’t even enjoy it, and then he pulls away like he’s trying his damnedest to get away from her as quickly as possible; this just screws up their whole dynamic
    – Christine comes back after the Phantom lets them go and just places the ring he gave her on his organ without him even seeing her… I really liked in the old production when they saw each other at the end and he sings “Christine, I love you” as she hands him back the ring; this is completely missing now :-(
    – What is up with Meg holding onto the Phantom in his cloak while everyone is closing in on him…and then POOF he’s gone?? The thing where he disappears on the throne was so much better…

    So, yeah, those are just a few of the issues I had with the new production. I definitely didn’t like it as much as the original and will probably never go see this version again. Maybe if the original production comes back though… ;-)

  10. Daniel Scott says:

    I have to agree. The original was awesone. I saw the new version and found it disappointing. I hope to see the Harold Prince production again. That was my sixth time, it just wasn’t as good.

  11. says:

    Saw this new rendition last night in Tampa, was not a fan of the new show. I had seen the original phantom about 5 times, why change a good thing? We went with a couple who had never seen it, I was so excited to have them enjoy for the first time, sad to say they were not impressed with the sound quality. Felt like we were at an opera.

    • Brenda says:

      We attended the show last night in Tampa with another couple who unfortunately hadn’t seen it prior to all the NEW changes. My husband and I felt the show was lackluster in so many ways, visually, acoustically, and just wasn’t what we expected from such a long time mega favorite. Prior to the new version we saw phantom at least 5 times at various venues. When you have a great quality product why change it? The depth of the production lacked as the stage felt to shallow and to close to the audience to give the perception of the original production with distance and the feel of travel. Some of our favorite pieces were gone. The scene where phantom takes Christine by gondolier was blaaa. The masquerade was blaaa. The only piece of the new we did like was not making the owners/manager so goofy – keeping their characters more real was a nice difference. A small tweak perhaps could be a good thing, but altering such a gorgeous score and scenery comes off as a money saving tactic a lot like the super ultra concentrated soap. Just a marketing gimmick really. Give me less and charge me the same price. I’d bet the audience would be happy to pay a few bucks more per ticket to see the full show with the grand stage scenes instead of this new and so called improved version. I do hope the reviews keep coming in so maybe the decision to return to the original production will be considered.

  12. Laurie f says:

    As a longtime fan of this show I was very disappointed in the omission of many of the best parts of the stage production. Beginning with the chandelier not rising from the stage in the beginning to the minimalistic depiction of nearly every set, I won’t be going to see this production ever again!!!!

  13. alex says:

    tried to be optimistic..told myself that I really shouldn’t compare this version to others…I bought the tickets knowing this was going to be a different experience, but still left disappointed. I just didn’t feel the phantom’s love for Christine in this one…he doesn’t love her..she demonstated this when she scatted his music around during the final scene..without that connection…nothing mattered. …what emotions I did experience I think were do to stock memories and emotions of other performances and not so much due to this one…. though two instances were touching…one when the phantom is caught on the top of the table during point of no return and he sings all I ask of you….the other was when Christine embraces him after the first kiss at the end….but again if I hadn’t seen other versions, both scenes would have been less moving

  14. Karol says:

    I love Phantom. I have seen it at least 30 times in New York, London, Los Angeles, and Chicago. This is the first time I ever walked away disappointed.
    The voices are lovely. The performers do a fine job given the horrid direction. The score retains its brilliance. This re-staging simply lacks magic. In the first scene, my first disappointment came when the elephant did not turn around to reveal the drunk stage hand.
    I see some logic in moving the mirror in which the Phantom appears in order to allow better sight lines. I see no reason for the ballet girls and Christine to share a dressing room. The dressing room is no longer elegant; it looks cheap. The whole effect of the Phantom pulling her through the mirror lacks luster. The Phantom taking her to his lair via the stairs is less dramatic. Anyone who has done thorough research…like the original set designer…knows that the Paris Opera House has ramps leading to its lake, not stairs. The lake just does not work without the candles and the grid in back. Having seen Michael Crawford, I always long for a Phantom to seduce Christine as he did. His was a most sensual Phantom, and no one has ever achieved his level of sympathy for the character.
    Without the proscenium of the opera house affixed to the proscenium of the theatre, the roof scene loses its mystery. The phantom crawling over a statue does not work.
    The chandelier drop does not work either.
    In the Masquerade scene, that staircase, like much of the original set, is a replica of the one in the Paris Opera House. I realize many of these changes must be governed by cost, but how much does it cost to have the Phantom vanish through the trap door in a flash of light?
    The grave yard scene does not have any magic thanks to cutting out the pyrotechnics. Why did this director choose to remove nearly every special effect?
    After seeing this production once, I regret inviting family to come along to see it with me again. It makes me want to fly to NY or London to see the real Phantom. Someone needs to re-do the re-do. This will not inspire future generations to come back again and again.
    The biggest mystery is why the reviewers have not panned it. They should.

    • M Shiprek says:

      Thank you I 100% agree with you! I have seen Phantom going on 8 times & left sorely disappointed for the same reasons you mentioned. I took my boyfriend who hadn’t seen it before & was almost embarrassed after it ended. The sad thing is he liked it because he had nothing to compare it to! I do know this I will never see this version again there’s a reason why this is the longest running Broadway Musical…if it’s not broke, don’t fix. I’m shocked by positive critic reviews of this version. Thanks for saying everything I felt & agree is now lacking with this version.

      • John D. says:

        Just a note: There IS no “lake” under the old Paris Opera house. It’s simply a really, really big tank (a cistern, really, or a cross between a cistern and a pool) that was created when the building was being built in order to deal with the unstoppable upswell of groundwater. It’s really just a series of chambers that were built to be flooded. It’s not a lake. Furthermore, the only way to reach it is by a metal ladder that leads down from a metal grate in the ceiling above it. The rest of it is sealed off. There’s plenty of information all over the web about it if you really want to do the research. Pictures, too.

  15. Fred Duncan says:

    There’s an old saying that Cameron Mackintosh should have heeded – “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it!”
    As an avid fan of Phantom, I sat through the play and just couldn’t wait for certain scenes. In this production there was a long wait for nothing.
    I know this is minor, but the first hint that I was in for some disappointment was the Hannibal Opera Scene. The full sized elephant was replaced by a cheap looking cardboard cutout.
    Next came the descent into the Lair. Though the set with the new stairs looked as dark and dangerous as the original, it didn’t seem to portray how deep within the Opera House they were descending.
    The Lake and Lair itself were so scaled back and small looking, that there was no sense of the wonder of the original set. (I counted about five candles.)
    And now for one of the biggest disappointments, the Phantom’s signature song, Music of the Night, was completely restaged. Instead of the Phantom on stage alone, playing to the audience, he sang it to a feigning Christine at his feet, completely eliminating the emotional loneliness that the song is supposed to portray. Worst of all, none of the classic arm and hand gestures were made during the song.
    And not that it was a big deal also, but the chandelier fall was so unimpressive, it might as well have been left out altogether.
    Though the music was as great as ever, I was still hopeful that one of my favorite scenes, Masquerade would salvage the experience. Wrong again. The set, with its palace looking mirrored ceiling was impressive, yet it lacked the fantasy of the staircase and all of the costumed players descending. Missing were the cymbal playing monkeys, the sheer number of actors and the patented arm and hand movements. (They even managed to keep them all in the movie version.)
    The whole ending sequence was another big disappointment. Their final long descent “Past The Point Of No Return” seemed like a quick jump into the sewers. It seemed devoid of any emotion or sympathy for the characters. I know the acting and singing had much to do with that, but they can’t dismiss the role of the staging in this.
    I admit, some of the sets were creative and I enjoyed the increased role of the ballet dancers and the brief explanation of the Phantom’s past, but this production seemed flat.
    If you have never seen the Phantom on stage, you might have a different opinion.
    I myself have seen it seven other times. Each time I saw it I couldn’t wait to tell all my friends and looked forward to seeing it again.
    This time I will tell my friends to rent the DVD instead.
    Please Cameron, restore this pretender back to the original masterpiece!

  16. I saw the show a couple of evenings ago. The music, both the orchestra and all the singing, were wonderful.

    I was not favorably impressed by the new staging, beginning with the lack of the gold proscenium, which in the original production, is, at first, draped and concealed. One of the best moments of the original production is the falling away of those drapes as the overture powers over us and the Opera House is transformed.The tour production lacks that terrific visual, a lack that later clever set manipulation can not make up for.
    The chandelier has never been a big attraction for me (I’ve seen the original production several times), but this one is…sort of….so-so. More of a lack is the first journey to the Phantom’s lair. Everything is smaller and less.

    I thought that the back drops in some scenes, the grave yard, for instance, were effective, but the set pieces in some cases were poor indeed. The tomb of Christine’s father is small, looks like a lump. The statue of Apollo on the Opera House roof looks good as it stands, nakedly, shadowed, while Christine and Raoul sing “All I Ask of You,” but when it moves forward after they leave, if wobbles like the cheap piece of scenery it is. The Phantom, who hangs on as it is moved, maybe needs a seat belt.

    • Byron says:

      Also, They were singing in front of the statue, which is physically impossible. They are at the front of the building, and that would make the actors ‘floating in space”. We should have seen the statues from the back, then the illusion would have made sense.

  17. Dan says:

    I saw the new production on Jan 9 2014. I have seen it 6 times in the past and must admit even though the singing was amazing, I was disappointed in the some of the staging. It was not as memorable as I had seen before.

    The chandelier scene was not as good as well as the scene with the gondola and the masquerade number. Still enjoyable, I prefer the Hal Prince production.

  18. Rachel Brumby says:

    Really what it boils down to is that its relatively subjective. We all have opinions which are perfectly valid. Not every one will like the new production, and that is to be expected. I enjoyed the new production very much, but that is my own personal preference. Art, films, books, plays etc. are subjective and each person is entitled to have his or her own personal taste.

  19. bruce walter says:

    Sorry but I want to see the real thing not some imitation!! This production is like the new coke, there was no need to try to improve on something that was great already! Why can’t people just leave things alone??? In addition I thought there are a number of parts of the new production that just plain don’t work that are just totally out of sync. The last two scenes including the ending are horrible with that big stupid table.

  20. Tsa says:

    I just saw this tonight, I am a Huge fan of this play and always have been if your looking for what used to be or something significant to the 2004 movie then you will be disappointed there are many new scenes that still tell the story. some scenes do feel as if your not watching the Phantom of the Opera, and they feel misplaced, but then it goes back to the old storyline. I can say when you had 5+ people singing all different things it was easy to get lost…. it was a sound mess! the props, special effects and scenes where great! definitely something you need to go into with an open mind. When seeing this play back in 1998 and comparing it to today’s I would have much rather watched what I saw back then, As to what I saw today. again having an open mind will help with the transitions of the new added scenes.

    • Rachel Brumby says:

      The 2004 movie is elaborated on from the stage adaption and have added things that are not in the stage version. It’s difficult to compare movies renditions to stage/broadway versions. The film was good. But there is much more you can accomplish in films that you cannot on stage. I’m a little confused as to what is believed to have been added, nothing has been taken away from the music, and as far as I could tell only a few spoken lines may have been tweaked.

  21. Rachel Brumby says:

    I totally disagree. Nothing was taken out, only enhanced. Grodin and Udine were phenomenal in their roles, and though Grodin is younger than most Phantoms are, he played the role so beautifully. Perhaps, Bruce, your displeasure at seeing the new production was because these actors were so fresh into these role and had yet to really become entwined in the characters. Grace must be given when a new cast comes in and a new production is done of something so iconic. Had you seen the show tonight in Chicago perhaps you would have been singing a different tune. I would encourage those who have not seen this new production to not write it off. I have grown up with the Phantom of The Opera and love it so dearly. You have to understand that this is a new, refreshed version and not to expect to see the same thing as the original. This new production is so beautiful and so charming.

    • Everything was taken out and you obviously aren’t a true fan or you would have seen this enough to know that this is a cheap remake and even the music felt like I went to a rock and roll version of Church… Terrible remake.

  22. bruce walter says:

    I saw the new production of the Phantom in Providence RI the beginning of December and it sucks!!! They took out all the scenes I looked forward to seeing and I will never go back to see the new production!!!

    • Joe says:

      Well, they have had over a year to get it down, but it was still horrible. My wife and I went to see this in Seattle this past week. The changes made no sense, so much of the feeling of the story was lost. The stage changes were the worst, and to top it off, putting the Phantom in a cheap movie version of his Masquerade/Why So Silent costume instead of the skull face just left me so disappointed I would have walked out had I gone alone.

      This production is terrible and I hope it ends soon. They need to bring the original back, as it truly was captivating. This new show lacked so much of the emotion between the main characters, it was just a huge let down.

      My saddest feeling on this though is that it was my wife’s first time seeing it. She liked it, but she wasn’t blown away by it. I’ve seen it 6 or 7 times now, all with the old production. Every time I saw it, I walked away awed. This time, just disappointed.

    • Laurie f says:

      I agree Bruce- it was awful, and no chemistry between Christine and the Phantom!!!

More Legit News from Variety