I'll tell you why so serious

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

It was very dissapointing as I was expecting the same actors but then again I would be okay with it had they chosen a better cast. The beautiful and extrvagant costumes were mere distraction from the uncohesive plot and mediocere singing except for Ben Lewis who played the Phantom.

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.

I love Phantom of the Opera. It's a really good musical; I love the characters, I love the sets, and I especially love the music. It's Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, how can they go wrong? Oh yes, with Love Never Dies. This was one of Andrew Lloyd Webber's weaker musicals, an attempt to put a shipping fan fiction to the stage. Story: After the incident at the Opera House, Madame Giry and Meg take the Phantom to Coney Island. Ten years later, he's still pining for Christine who comes for a concert. She no longer loves Raoul and remembers that she loved the Phantom more. In fact, before the wedding she made out with him and happened to produce him a son, which he did not know about because he had left her after making (Music of the Night) with her. The Phantom requests her to sing one more song he wrote for her, bonds with her son, and bets Christine's love with Raoul. Is it just me or does the story already sound needlessly complicated? That's the first problem. The original story was simple: A psychotic killer loves a girl who is in love with someone else in the Opera House. I try to not be in the habit of comparing something like this to the original masterpiece, but apart from the original musical this has nothing to do with the book in any way. There was never a sequel story to it, and even if there was the Phantom had died already while Raoul and Christine happily lived together. The musical also did not always stay true to the novel in many ways, but on its own it's a masterpiece to behold with eyes and ears. The sequel has nothing to do with either other than keeping the main characters from the stories. Not only keeping the original characters but putting them entirely out of character: Christine's now a weak moronic damsel who lets other people choose for her, the Phantom's a creepy whiny Romeo with a mask, Raoul is a gambling drunk, and Meg is a stripper instead of a ballerina. What they did with Raoul and the Phantom is all wrong. The Phantom was a psychotic killer that killed off anyone in his way and Raoul was Christine's perfect hero. The only reason Raoul is made to look bad is so that the audience can route for Christine and the Phantom to get together. There are better ways to develop their characters in a likable way, but there was really no effort to convince us that the Phantom is not psychotic in this version and is worthy of Christine's hand. For all the faults of the story, the songs at least are interesting. It's Andrew Lloyd Webber, so most of these songs are intriguing. Sometimes some of the music comes from the first musical to remind us where this musical first came from. I don't know if that's good or not, because while it's nice to have a reminder of the better musical it's kinda sad that it's being wasted on a musical that has no purpose existing. However, some of the song lyrics aren't strong either. Take for instance "Beauty Underneath". It involves the Phantom taking Christine's son into his dark strange realm. If you heard the song by itself without any context, you would swear it sounded like he was seducing the child. I'm sure Webber or whoever wrote the songs did not intend for it, but he would usually think through what he writes.Now that you've heard my complaining, I'll now focus on the good stuff. The music, like I said before, is very seducing. I don't like the story much, but the music sucks me in, part of Webber's magic. It is gorgeous and intriguing. The sets are colossal and look amazing. Though nothing on the stage looks anything like the real Conny Island it all looks strange and like another world found only in the mind. The actors they got for the main characters do terrific for what they were given. The guy playing the Phantom is a terrific actor with such a seducing voice, that I have no problem believing he could be the Phantom (if the story was written better). The actress of Christine is also really good. It's Sierra Bogges so of course she sounds great and she has played Christine before in Phantom of the Opera. The child actor is not bad. He's obviously talented, but the way his character is written just rubs me the wrong way. However, with what he was given the young performer gave his best and you can really tell. I still believe this musical was not only pointless but does not deserve to be called a sequel to The Phantom of the Opera. Part of me is a sucker for musicals but most of me is story picky and in many ways this musical succeeds to either create fans or push away loyal fans of the first musical. Overall, I don't completely regret seeing it, but I still don't want to believe it's considered a sequel. It's complete fan fiction that made it to the public eye like Fifty Shades of Grey was. If it was its own story it might be a bit cheesy but it would be much better than involving the Phantom of the Opera in any way.

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