User reviews

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ten years after from the fire in Paris which was thought to have destroyed him, the Phantom is running a Freak Circus on Coney Island. His Paris protegee Christine is lured to New York with the promise of a fee that will settle the gambling debts of her handsome but drippy husband Raoul; they bring their 10-year-old son with them. Raoul doesn't want her to sing for the Phantom.

That's about it as regards story: fairly thin. But if there's less plot in this sequel there are just as many - and better - songs. These alternate between arias for the principals (echoes of Franz Lehar and Ivor Novello, more operetta than opera) and production numbers in the circus which have the look of CHICAGO and the sound, here and there, of themes from STARLIGHT EXPRESS. The routine which presumably ends Act One in theatres, with the circus freaks inside mirrored obelisks, is simply dazzling; and the title song in Act Two and a duet/trio called 'Devil Take the Hindmost' are also outstanding.

The Coney Island set - with hotel settings lowered and revolved in as needed - is much less intricate than the opera house in PHANTOM but it's a visual feast; hard to believe this was built for a show on tour. Costumes also excellent.

Ben Lewis and Anna O'Byrne in the leading roles have very much the sound of Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman from the original, although Lewis has the lofty saturnine look of Christopher Lee's Dracula and Ms O'Byrne often reminded me of Vivien Leigh's Scarlett O'Hara!

The London stage production of LOVE NEVER DIES has not echoed PHANTOM's 25-years and still running: it didn't last even 25 months. The Australian production now on DVD deserves its rave reviews. Both visually and musically it is just as thrilling as the original PHANTOM OF THE OPERA.