Phantom of the Opera – Nostalgia Critic

Shark Jumping joins the NC to look at the botched musical from Joel “Bat Credit Card” Shumacher. The Nostalgia Critic and company look at the Phantom of the Opera.

Donate to One Step Camp here! Get this review’s Soundtrack Here! Subscribe to Beth and Tim (Shark Jumping) on YouTube!

About Doug Walker

Creator of 5 Second Movies, Nostalgia Critic, Bum Reviews and more.


  1. One thing no adaptation gets right, not even the 1980s animated one – Christine is NEARSIGHTED! It’s covered in a flashback. She can’t see well unless up close. That’s one of the reasons Erik was able to fool her.

    She’s also a blue eyed blonde.

  2. What makes me sad is that I have been looking forward to this review for years and I was expecting something like the Moulin Rouge or Les Mis reviews with a big cast. This had a couple of guest stars (who are find most of the time but weren’t that funny in this review) and it’s another clipless review. I would have been fine it had been just the NC alone reviewing it with the clips like how it used to be, but this was just not funny and it just made me realize how dull and uninteresting this site has become.

  3. Is this worth watching to the end?

    I made it about 10 minutes in before I couldn’t take anymore. There was one good joke and they knew it because they brought it up at least a half dozen times which completely ruined the joke’s impact.

    I love Shark Jumping but the writing and attempts at humour here are atrocious. Easily the worst NC I’ve ever seen by virtue of being the only one I couldn’t finish.

  4. This was by Joel Shumacher?! What?! I didn’t know that! I didn’t know that Phantom of the Opera was a book either. I learned so much. O.O I thought that Doug’s bad singing sounded like Tommy Wiseau and then you confirmed it. ^.^ Doug was one of the best parts of the review. Although, Beth’s singing was a close second. That’s where my positives end. Dang you Youtube! You’re making these clipless reviews come to us! -_- I actually liked this movie. In fact, this is one of the only movies I’ve ever seen that made me cry!

  5. Hah! Those impressions of Butler and Crawford were great! I still love Phantom, though. Just not this movie. But seeing that chandelier spark as the organ music began to play, its one of my favorite memories of when I visited New York for the first time. I agree it’s somewhat flawed, but at least it’s not Love Never Dies (which the author of LND stated that Leroux got his facts on the Phantom wrong, and that Webber was closer to what “really” happened, despite the Phantom being Leroux’s creation. WTF?)

  6. Started watching this until they indicated it was clipless. Went and checked the comments and found out it definitely was. Canceled watching. I’m not a fan of clipless reviews and I’m in agreement with the people who point out that, having not seen this, there’s no way to get any of the jokes or references so I’m not gonna bother. Guess it’ll be 2 MORE weeks until an episode unless there’s a list/WYNKA in lieu of an editorial next week…

  7. And, yet, the former Nostalgia Chick didn’t have any trouble using clips in her review. On YouTube, not Vessel.

    • I never said anything before, since you never explicitly said it was a copyright thing. But you did in this one, and that’s BS.

      Just don’t go through the whole movie. Show clips when you need them, like letting us know there is bad singing.

      Had Lindsay not played it, I’d not even remember the bad singing. When I watched it, I didn’t notice it. I was less critical back then.

  8. And are you guys just singing your own words to the original music, or is it a variation to avoid copyright strikes? You keep switching back and forth.

    There’s enough to get a copyright strike from what you are doing now.

  9. 1) I loved the Hamilton reference.

    2) I was expecting Lindsay to show up at some point since she’s such a huge Phantom fan.

  10. Yeah, the Musicals with Beth and Tim work better if Shark Jumping is in control.

    And, I’ve seen the movie. And I don’t remember all of these parts. And you don’t have the clips to remind us.

    • And, anyways, giving in and going clipless shows you didn’t need the clips in the first place, which will hurt your fair use claims. So be happy that there are ways in which this is worse.

  11. Little bit of an ouch moment with the suicide bomb …

  12. Playwright mc. Playwright


  13. Baaaaaaaaaaaallsaaaaaack :))))

    Another great musical review!

  14. XD at 13:40, thats the same kind of issue i have with MLP season 3-6.

  15. I seriously don’t understand why so many people are complaining about this review. I was laughing so hard I was almost crying! I thought the review made some really good points, there was obviously A LOT of work put into it, and the comedy was on point!

    It makes me a little frustrated that people are getting so hung up on the clip vs clipless aspect of the reviews. I personally don’t think it really matters whether there are direct clips of the movie or not. If you’ve seen the movie then you’ll know exactly what scenes they’re talking about, and if you haven’t seen the movie, then the review’s content should hopefully get you interested enough to look into the material yourself. It’s not like anyone’s options are really being restricted here, and it could actually make some people more proactive. I enjoy watching these videos because I enjoy the team’s critiques, sense of humor, and absolute effort they put into making reviews so frequently. NOT because I get to watch 5 second cuts of a fraction of the movie they’re reviewing. And watching these reviews has led me to watch at least 10 of these movies on my own time afterwards to join in on the fun.

    That’s my two cents anyway. Again, I’m not here to complain–because I really thought this review was hilarious and it was a great addition to my day :).

  16. That was a really great Michael Crawford singing impression! I was laughing my ass off. I wish the actual scenes could have been shown because they would have illustrated a lot of your points, but with the #WTFU madness happening, I’m glad that you guys are refusing to give them their way but not reviewing what you want to review. If you did as others suggested and just did different movies, well then the people making things difficult for a lot of us would be getting their way now wouldn’t they? Maybe the people complaining about the no-clip reviews could bear that in mind. Also really skillful job of making the songs just enough like the originals that we know which ones they are, but unique enough to not get sued 😛 Very well done, everyone!

  17. I have to admit that I liked this review. It helps that I’ve seen the movie and love the Musical even with it’s flaws, but you did a good job and I like the Shark Jumping folks so that helped a lot.

  18. Honestly, I thought the novel was terrible, and so did my literature professor and her colleagues.

  19. Oh my god how can people be so dense? They show you pictures of scenes from the movie that they’re talking about. They can’t fucking show clips when it’s a musical because the songs are copyrighted. They’re parodying the songs from the play and movie. If you have a problem with this, go watch the damn movie or listen to the songs on youtube.

  20. I have no problem with clipless reviews, as long as they’re done well. But the jokes in this one, being mostly about the singing/acting rather than the plot, were impossible to understand without having seen the movie.

    I think this movie was a bad choice for clipless, as it’s AFAIK a straightforward adaptation, so the jokes will naturally be focused on the performances rather than the story.

    • Yes, the big handicap about clipless reviews is the lack of context, so unless you are familiar with the exact thing they are parodying the joke just comes up as random and not really funny.

      It’s somehow even worse when they have to explain the joke so it makes sense. So she rides a horse because she rides the horse in a movie. I completely forgot that, so the joke fell flat. Then they explain the reference explicitily, and it somehow makes it even worse. “You know this joke we just did? It was actually a reference to this.” “Umm.. aha, yeah. Ok. I guess I’ll laugh retroactively then.”

      I think the problem isn’t as much with the fact that the review is clipless, but Doug’s insistence on “the story within a story” aspect. We have a review “hidden” inside a sketch story which is actually a parody of the movie which is being reviewed. I get that this is a fun challenge to tackle, but it’s obviously difficult to pull off in such a way that it’s actually cohesive, entertaining, insightful and funny… so it ends up being light on ALL those things. Maybe a less ambitious approach would be more succesful, I don’t know.

  21. How can you claim to fight the fair use bullsh*t youtube does but then conform to them to such extent with this stupid reacting reviews?

  22. please at least let us know that these reviews are clipless. It’s getting really tiring, expecting a good review, and then getting slapped in the face when I realize it’s another one of the snore-fests.

  23. People complain about “clipless reviews” because the formula is changing due to a changing internet scene.

    Spoiled brats, the lot of you. Can’t you put aside your ironic mindless 2000’s NOSTALGIA for the old but still viable(where realistically applicable) formula and learn to enjoy this kind of review as it stands on its own merits? Or are you going to pull the”My childhood/teenage years”-based(but not stated) argument as a mindless hate mob?

    Geez, no wonder Welshy and Sad Panda left.

    But anyway…I liked this reenactment, since I happen to like most adaptations of Phantom, and have seen most of them. And liking the story does not invalidate my opinion.

    Beth has a great operetta voice, and I want to hear it more often. Preferably in more reviews.

    My only criticism apart from the Shulmacher-centric bashing is the total lack of Elisa Hansen…ummmmm…….biggest Phantom of the Opera fan you have connections to? Bigger than Paw AND Beth? I know she’s retired, but this is right up her alley….

    Here’s hoping that the overly nostalgically butthurt(and not in the NC campy but ironic way) 00’s brats don’t keep you guys down.

    • They flat out admitted that it was autotuned, buddy. Didn’t you watch?

    • I wouldn’t be complaining about a clipless review if the NC and crew were talented enough to make them work. Unfortunately they have failed time and time again when branching out.

      There’s a reason the yearly anniversary specials are very weak when compared to the weekly NC’s. There’s a reason his experiment show (forget the name at the moment) didn’t work when stepping away from NC for a few months.

      I’m confident there are content producers out there who could do the clipless thing right but NC and crew just aren’t talented and experienced enough to make this work.

  24. I read this book in 1999 when I was 13, then I took French class the next year when I got to high school and we watched this movie. I realized it was garbage even back then.

    The Gaston Leroux novel and the Susan Kay prequel are the only ones worth paying attention to, and yet the horrible Andrew Lloyd Webber and Schumacher versions are the only ones that get any attention because PEOPLE DON’T READ

  25. Dude, the ducking horse isn’t there, like the hands holding the candles. It’s in her mind, because she’s supposed to be in rapt, magical swooning, and the whole journey is magical wonder that she doesn’t realise it’s a damn sewer. I mean, I don’t think that could have been any more obvious. Or hell, maybe the horse IS there, but it’s supposed to imply a greater passage of time. I mean, there IS at least one cut there, isn’t there? This stuff is easy. Different from the book? Sure, but so what, how many even know there IS a book? Seriously, this film’s great, I wasn’t aware there was all this hate toward it. I mean, Butler does a fine, FINE job in it. This total fear of actors who normally don’t sing baffles me. They don’t have to be astounding. Same with Sweeny Todd. Hello, same with Les MIS. All this Crowe hatred, but the dude did PERFECTLY fine. Yeah, not great, but NOWHERE deserving of the hate it got. It just feels like all the hate is reaching SO much. Kind of seems like people are LOOKING for reasons to hate on some of these.

    • Wanting Carlotta over Christine makes perfect sense in the film when you realise these are producers. They have THEIR chosen star (something you’re complaining about, I should not, in this film) who happens to be an impossibly needy diva. That makes absolute sense.

    • Considering this is the same guy who made a suspiciously high number of mistakes in his summary of James and the Giant Peach (In other words, I’m pretty sure he made up most of it just so he’d have more reasons to complain) and devoted 90% of his Thief and the Cobbler review to complaining about elements from the original version, you know, the one he recommended people look into, him looking for reasons to bash the film doesn’t surprise me.

  26. “The Phantom’s not a sword fighter, he’s an illusionist, so no wonder he loses the fight! Now let me wonder how he’d even learn sword fighting, when it’s obvious he didn’t because she lost no shit Sherlock, that’s the whole point!”

  27. Putting aside all these comments about whether this particular review is bad or good, can we at least all agree that the plastic horse trying to be seductive was pretty great?

  28. and…. DONE!! I gave it a go.

  29. For some reason I enjoyed this far less than the Moulin Rouge review.

    Moulin Rouge was.. I dunno. Jovial. It seemed everyone had great fun doing it and that came through somehow. Brental Floss was also charismatic as hell with his Zidler impression.

    This one.. I don’t know. I just don’t feel it. Some of the puns feel extremely forced (Angel of Stupid? Fandumb??) and it somehow lacks cohesion. As for the Shark Jumping folks.. again – they are very likeable and everything but I’m just not bought to watching them as entertainers. To me they always somehow end up looking like a nice couple next door showing you their home movies.

    So all in all I am not against clipless reviews, nor reenactments. I do enjoy the old Nostalgia Critic format, but I understand both the need for creative change and the fact that the environment of “online reviewing” has become inreasingly hostile when it comes to copyright claims. However.. lately I’m feeling like I’m following this more out of inertia than out of true enjoyment.

    Or maybe I’m just an old fuck who enjoys simple things – tea in the afternoon, a nice sunny day, or watching some dude sit in a chair and bitch about some old piece of irrelevant nostalgia. 😛

  30. Whether you like clipless reviews or not, there’s a deeper, underlying issue at hand here. We’re getting all keyed up and arguing with each other about whether or not we like Doug doing them (When we all know WHY he’s doing them), when we’re losing focus on the real problem.

    WHETHER YOU LOVE OR HATE CLIPLESS REVIEWS: Take your biggest, baddest rage face and direct it where it matters. Instead of getting into pissing contests over which review type is better, let’s use that energy making noise about the fair use trainwreck and the chokehold they’ve got us all in, so the choice of whether or not to do them is back in the content creator’s hands!

    If you miss the way things were, are worried about how things are now, or like me are terrified about just how unpleasant things are going to get, FIGHT. Not with each other, but with the real sources of the problem. The more noise we make, the more we spread the word about the real problem, the better our chances of making a chance. Let’s call a truce and demand an answer to that question we’ve been all but screaming for months: #WTFU

    If you’re not sure HOW to do that (It can be trickier that it seems to get solid direction on this), you can check out many of the Channel Awesome team’s FB accts (and I’d imagine twitter feed, I don’t use it personally) to read about updates via the #WTFU tag. In addition to this I’ve listed a few places below where you can blow off some steam at youtube over this you are, as well as some good resources and allies who might not be part of WTFU (There’s no mention of their involvement that I’ve seen but I can’t confirm either way) but are fighting the same fight! They’re listed below:

    Tell Youtube (We’ve gotten people reinstated with a some noise in a little amount of time, so what happens if we make a lot of noise for a long time?):
    Canada (fair use and DMCA are american things, but youtube has a history of hitting us with those too):
    United States:

    Gain Allies and Resources: (their FB in particular is nice) (Sadly, fair use week was from Feb 22nd – 26th, but they do this annually and can be a great informative source)

    And remember: “Books won’t stay banned. They won’t burn. Ideas won’t go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. ”
    -Alfred Whitney Griswold

    • I’m sorry if I come off sounding preachy, but I had a moment of realization that the whole argument on either side is null and void when it’s happening because Doug’s being forced to do them this way due to bullying.

      I love the skits and parodies they do, but knowing it’s under those circumstances takes a lot of the pleasure out of it. I want to see more of them, but I think they’d be even better if it were done because Doug and Co. WANTED to. I also love the reviews with clips in them too, but knowing that every time Doug posts one he probably dreads checking his email for weeks afterward while waiting for the inevitable DMCA claim and wondering if this is the one that’s going to result in a restriction/suspension/channel deletion seriously sours the experience.

      I’ve been a fan since way back when it was TGWTG, and his video game confessions/5 second movies, I have no intention of going anywhere, but it really hurts to see one of my favourite creators being put through the ringer like this off and on for so many years.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.