Our Reviews

By H. Krutoy

September 5, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Congratulations to Wendell Brock. With his review of “Phantom of the Opera” he solidifies his position as a third rate critic. His insight as to what is good or worth experiencing is worthless to even the most casual theater goer. Thank goodness that Atlantan’s acceptance of show’s such as “Phantom” make Brock’s comments irrelevant. The Atlanta Journal Constitution would be well served to have as a theater critic someone who, like other critics in major cities throughout the world, is capable of recognizing significant achievements in theater. Brock is not only prompous, but also knows nothing of what he writes. Is that what Atlanta’s major newspaper demands of its staff?

By christine

September 6, 2005 8:30 AM | Link to this

Obviously Mr. Brock was determined to dislike the production before he even entered the theater. Because of its popularity, it has apparently become quite fashionable and chic to be a Phantom of the Opera-basher. It is unfortunate that Brock was unable to appreciate the astounding brilliance of this production or this cast (especially Gary Mauer). His portrayal is amazing. The fact that a theater “critic” would not be able to recognize this makes me doubt Brock’s qualifications for this job.

By PJ

September 6, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

At least we know Phantom won’t be as bad as Brock’s review. Based on his previous reviews I would imagine that if Phantom had an all-black cast then he would have raved about it.

By JournalismStudent

September 6, 2005 1:58 PM | Link to this

Hah! I have seen Phantom ~14 times, but I must confess, I laughed out loud at parts of this review. You hit the nail on the head about some of those cheesy lyrics. (I can’t comment on the cast since I last saw the show before any of the current principals joined.) Next time, though, try spelling the composer’s name right, ok?

By MusicPhan

September 6, 2005 4:36 PM | Link to this

Phantom happens to be my favorite musical of all time, and it got me liking musicals in the first place. Behind the “cheesy lyrics” lies a story that many people relate to, and that’s why people keep on coming back despite the laughable opinions of theatre “critics” who shouldn’t be taken seriously.

By MONKEE

September 7, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

There is no mystery, Mr. Brock. It’s the “human condition� of many colors that continues to attract the young, the not so old, and the ancient to this battle of unrequited love set among the pageantry of the LIVE stage. The talents of the actors who have previously performed on Broadway bring many who will never see Broadway more than an evening or afternoon of enjoyment, but nourishment for the soul that only a person with one would recognize. Erik’s wounded soul is portrayed as it is written and directed by a very talented actor, Gary Mauer. Erik was animal-like without the love of a family or the benefit of civility from society. At least Erik recognized his limitations. He gave up the one piece of his soul that made the lucid distinction from “beast� to man, Christine. Yes, Erik was grotesque in more than appearance, without it there would be no story, Mr. Brock.

Gaston Leroux drank and gambled away a substantial inheritance for that era. Needing to make a living, he became a theatre critic, journalist and author although he was educated as a lawyer. Let’s hope that this does not reflect unjustly on someone doing their job as a modern day critic. But one does wonder…. A callused mind and heart is a terrible thing..Imagination, fantasy and wonder, Mr. Brock. While POTO may not be YOUR cup of tea, let’s not take anything away from the talented actors who have not lost theirs.

By Phantom Fan

September 7, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

For a theatre critic, you obviously don’t know excellence when you see it. Phantom is excellence, a fact attested to by the numbers of patrons who continue to enjoy it & the number of years its run has continued. Your deficiency in perception of character is unfortunate, for you had the privilege of seeing the best Phantom of all in the performance of Mr. Gary Mauer. Your description of his performance reveals your ignorance. How sad for you that you cannot hear or feel the beauty of the lyrics of such beautiful songs as “Music of the Night� as they are performed so well by Mr. Mauer! It makes one wonder why a person without ability to perceive talent, appreciate music and lyrics, or discern a story line of self-hatred/self-sacrificing love would ever be allowed to write a review about Phantom.

By Julie

September 7, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

When I first started reading this review, I thought that it had been mistitled and that instead I was reading a review for a sci-fi/horror flick with cheap special effects and the appropriate wailings of a theremin backing the flying saucer chandelier. So I ask…what was the point? The average reader of a theater review wants to know what an average theatergoer may expect…not the caustic comments of a journalist who believes it haute to despise the most popular piece of musical theater ever. More than $3.1 billion in profits do not lie, Phantom did something right, and the reason was not at all mysterious to them.

Having seen the show over 20 times, I have heard more actors in the lead role than I bother to remember, and I can say without a doubt that Mauer’s voice is the strongest I have heard. He sounds like he could blast through a mountain on his big numbers, yet has the vocal discipline to immediately modulate into a flawless falsetto.

As for his grotesque, overdramatic portrayal, heaven forbid that a man who has lived most of his life in the basement of an Opera House and who is about to lose the only person he has ever loved be on the melodramatic and twisted side! I would choose to look at this another way. As an actor, it is much easier to portray psychotic as opposed to normal, and it’s not extremely difficult for the underdog to invite sympathy, such a reaction from the audience is practically written into the expected and normal. The fact that Mauer is able to portray a mad crooning Casanova who is at moments tender and at moments truly grotesque is, in my opinion, the mark of a truly brilliant actor.

Mr. Brock believes this production to be beneath such an in-depth look into its workings. As a newspaper arts critic myself, I believe it is a critic’s job to look deeper into a work than an audience may ever be inspired to do. And if the critic believes the work to be too shoddy to inspire much thought to that end, then the task is to dismantle the work and point out exactly what makes it fall apart, not bluff one’s way through with sarcasm and one-dollar words.

By Patty Ann

September 7, 2005 2:24 PM | Link to this

Mr. Brock, After reading your review of POTR and how grossly unfair your review of Mr. Gary Mauer was [by the way, Gary IS THE BEST PHANTOM OF ALL TIME] I had to ask myself why,why would a theater critic, who no doubt is paid quite handsomely and comes off as one who seems to know his profession would write what you did. Then it hit me. You were either sooooooo drunk or sooooooo jealous of Mr. Mauer’s wonder portrayal of the Phantom. His voice was so strong and beautiful, something that being either so drunk or out of your mind with jealousy that you lost your sanity during the writing of your pathetic review. Run don’t walk to your nearest “shrink”. You need help and you need to get into another profession. Maybe you could get a job with FEMA since they don’t know thier job very well either!!!!!!!

By Patty Ann

September 7, 2005 3:24 PM | Link to this

Mr. Brock, After reading your review of the POTO I had to ask my self why, why would a theater critic who no doubt is paid handsomely and is suppose to know his profession write such a PATHETIC review. I have had the privilege to experience the devine acting and powerful voice of Gary Mauer,[the Phantom]and I want you to know that I’m amazed that your review was so terrible. But then I realized why your review stunk so bad. You were either soooo drunk or jealous of Mr. Mauer that you had a complete melt down. You lost what mind you had and everyone who has read you review knows what a lousy critic you are! So run don”t walk to the nearest “shrink” for help. And maybe you should get in another profession like FEMA! They don’t know what they are doing either!!!!!!!!

By Jet

September 9, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

I wasn’t sure if I was reading the review for the stage show, or some shoddy movie wannabe. Then, when I realized you were talking about the stage show, I was shocked! As a Phantom fan of 10+ years, I’ve never experenced such feelings towards the show or met anyone who felt the same as you do. I always though that Point of No Return was a driven, sexual, and all around beautiful piece of work. Music of the Night isn’t my cup of tea, but truly was a gorgeous song worthy of praise. While never hearing Mr. Gary Mauer as the Phantom, I’ve heard nothing but good things about him. I think you need to go into the show with an open mind and open heart, before using such harsh words against a beautiful play. You seemed determined from the beginning to hate it, and it shows in your review.

By Katie

September 9, 2005 3:08 PM | Link to this

I’m only posting this because I feel the need to give some kudos in the midst of idiotic phans.

OMG I love this review! I am a hardcore musical nut, and have felt for years that Phantom is ridiculously overrated. I hate what it does to the novel and to Erik’s character… two years ago I saw the US tour, and though the cast was phan(hahaha)-friggin-tastic, I was bored out of my mind! The music is just so insipid and repetitive and derivitive and the lyrics are so painfully simplistic that it just plain hurts.

Please pull a “Cats” and DIE already, ALW’s PotO! For the rest of you, if you want a dark, sensual romance, go see Wildhorn’s “Jekyll and Hyde”! If you want a touchingly emotional romance between two unlikely people, opt for “Jane Eyre”! If you want a soaring and breathtakingly gorgeous romance, check out “The Light in the Piazza”! Phantom’s claim to fame is just the dumb chandelier, and it’s already been beaten at its own game by Miss Saigon’s helicopter.

Seriously, guys, there are tons of great musicals out there that make post-Evita ALW look like a complete sell-out hack (not that it’s hard to make him look like something he is, but I digress) Go and discover that there IS life outside of the Paris opera house!

By Liti

September 12, 2005 4:51 PM | Link to this

Mr. Brock, please take your review and stick it up your hind end. I read your review before seeing the show, and I must say that I am so glad that I did not take it into effect. The show was spectacular; the grandeur of the piece was just stunning. I cannot name a single flaw. The passion and intensity of Gary Mauer’s portrayal of the Phantom moved me to the point of tears. (He is the first one to do that, I might add.) It is a story that can relate to anybody, and I hope I will see this production for many years to come!

By Jim

September 13, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

This is the third time we have seen Phantom of the Opera at the Fox in Atlanta.

Quite frankly, it was the worst of the three times.

It could quite possibly have been because it was the second night of the show, and the traveling theater group was not used to the surroundings.

The acting was superb, which is to be expected with Phantom.

What disappointed the most was the sound quality.

I recall in previous visits, as the organ first came to life, a feeling of being enveloped in the heavy acoustic nature that Phantom has become. I did not feel that this time.

I had a hard time hearing the auctioneer in the opening scene.

I also had a hard time distinguising the male voices when intermixed with Carlitta and Christine’s.

All in all, a disappointing performance in my opinion.

By Katelyn

September 13, 2005 4:09 PM | Link to this

I must agree with Julie, when I began this review, I honestly thought you were talking about some awful scifi horror flik.

then I realized that you WERE indeed speaking of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s “Phantom” production… I suggest you open your eyes and watch the next time you go. As a PHAN I don’t believe you even know what you are talking about. It’s as though you were determined to hate the show from the beginning. please. that’s just stupid.

Although I have only seen Gary Mauer perform onstage, I have heard recordings of almost every actor (movie and stage) to ever take on this role. Gary’s portrayal is the best I have ever HEARD or seen performed (stage and screen, again). He was the only Phantom to ever move me to tears at the end of a song, or performance.

As for your comparison to Beauty and the Beast, and the Hunchback of Notre Dame, I suggest you check your facts again. the Phantom of the Opera was in fact, originally a novel, written in the 1800’s and published in 1911 by G. Leroux. much earlier than B&B OR the nunchback, so-they if anything have pulled from the Phantom’s story.

and, I do believe you are a THEATER critic? correct if I am mistkaen, but you are suposed to be expierianced and knowagable in this field. to ignore the exelence, and musical beauty of the Phantom… I really do suggest you open your eyes the next time you see it.

By Theatre Phan

September 16, 2005 3:43 PM | Link to this

My husband and I attended the Sept 15th performance of POTO at the Fox. It was my third time to see it at the Fox and fifth total (the other two being once in NYC in 1988 with Michael Crawford and Steve Barton, and one other in London in 1993). I do consider myself somewhat of a die-hard “Phan.” I love ALW’s music and the way he tells the story; I have always loved Michael Crawford’s voice and protrayal. Gerard Butler took a little getting used to, but his PONR does actually run circles around Crawford’s.

While I agree that Mr. Brock is unusually harsh overall, I must admit to agreeing with him on two points: first, Michael Shawn Lewis (Raoul) also reminded me of Conan O’Brien - I even said as much to my husband during intermission; and secondly, his assessment of Gary Mauer’s portrayal of Erik was pretty accurate. I prefer actors playing towards the pathos of the character rather than playing up the psychotic aspect. I unfortunately had very little, if any, sympathy for the Phantom at any time during this performance. But, this is a matter of preference. Maybe it is Mr. Brock’s as well. Granted, the performance of the 15th was marred by a major technical snafu towards the end of Act 1 when the set was transitioning between the end of MOTN and the beginning of “Mystery after gala night, mystery of soprano’s flight…” An unplanned intermission was the result. While I hope no one was injured, it did seem to throw the rest of the cast completely off, creating almost a total loss of energy and resulting in a rather flat performance for the remainder of Act 1 and all of Act II. I trust that Gary Mauer is indeed a worthy Phantom given how long he has been playing the part and as attested to by his legion of phans.

BTW, Ms. Katelyn, Victor Hugo wrote “Notre Dame de Paris” about Quasimodo the hunchback in 1831 with the events of the story taking place in the 15th century. Beauty and the Beast began life as a fairy tale, although I have been unable to ascertain its exact origin. Either way, both pre-date M. Leroux’s publication of Le Phantome de l’Opera in 1911 in which the story takes place in the late 19th century. Regardless, all of these tales speak to our need to love and be loved, which is probably the main underlying reason why ALW’s version of Phantom of the Opera has such undying and unfailing appeal and longevity.