To me, this movie is perfection.

Sorry, this movie sucks

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Blistering performances.

Unlike the 2004 movie, I actually have something to talk about with this movie, aside from pure gushing, so I will review this one. Let's get the negatives out of the way first. If you consider this a sequel to the 2004 movie, there are so many plot holes. Heck, even if you consider it a sequel to the Broadway there is still one glaring plothole: Madame Giry should not hate Christine for choosing Raoul when in the movie and the Broadway she helped Raoul find the Phantom's lair to save her. In fact, the Giry's characters in general felt so off. I already mentioned Madame Giry however, I did like her characterization in the finale. It shows her love for her daughter. As for Meg, her characterization could be seen as her simply losing her way and forgetting what's really important. This is further proved in the finale when she is horrified at what she had done. However, she still didn't seem quite right to me. It didn't seem like Meg to let her jealousy and bitterness take advantage of her like that. However, I will admit that her character arc does tie in with the others quite nicely, even though her and Madame Giry's subplot wasn't very interesting. Thankfully, it got little screen time. Also, it kind of bothered me that the fact that the Phantom was a murderer never even came up ONCE. Yeah, I know that's a minor thing but it was bugging me throughout the whole movie. Lastly: Beneath a Moonless Sky. Now before you kill me, I will admit that it is a good song and is needed exposition. However, the context disturbs me. That's all for the negative let's move onto the good stuff, because there is quite a bit to cover. Let's get the obvious thing out of the way: the music is fantastic. They're not as fantastic as the Phantom of the Opera songs but to be honest, some do come pretty close. The title song is the most obvious and yeah, I do love it but I my favorite song is Beauty Underneath. The visuals and passionate singing in that song just blew me away. That's another thing, the visuals in this are very impressive and I even forgot it was a stage performance at times. Also, outside of the Girys, the characters were actually handled very well. The most controversial is Raoul but unlike Meg, I can easily believe he just lost sight of what was important. Alcohol tends to do that to people. As for Christine, she was kind of bland in this but I do like her relationships with the other characters. The Phantom might've been a bit too nice but it has been ten years so it's still believable. Also, I love his relationship with his son Gustave, who was adorable by the way. That's another thing, the characters play off each other beautifully. I mean, the Phantom and Raoul actually interact here! While that wasn't needed in the original, it was nice to see here. Heck, I even kinda liked the Phantom and Christine pairing here. I see why people ship it and I even ship it here, just not in the original. Yeah, about that. This movie doesn't feel like what actually happened after the first movie or the Broadway. It feels more like a retelling than a sequel. So that's how I accept this movie, a retelling taking place in a completely different universe than the movie. Then again, it would kind of have to be that way in order to work. Overall, I do like this movie. It's not as clever or thought-provoking as the original but I do enjoy it as it's own thing.

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.

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 agingBut 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.

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