It's the adaptation that got me hooked on PotO. Even though it's not the absolute best (so I've heard), PotO has one more fan because of it.

I think it's the best PotO in a film format. Not the most novel-faithful, of course but still the best in my opinion. (: (And also the one that itroduced me to PotO.)

And now the Top Ten Reasons Phantomess does not like this movie:
10. Abject lack of letting Erik be badass and cool. They took away all his mystique, all of his awesome genius, and most of his menace. Fail.
9. Certain fan bunnies. I will freely and openly admit that the movie has produced a few very good phans. However, it has also brought a load of morons into this fandom. There were irritating phan bunnies before the movie, but the pop-ness of this new breed is especially despicable to me. Mindless twits who know nothing and care nothing about theatre, history, or even the original story.
8. The fact that it has started to taint the stage production. To this end I cite the Polish production, as well as the decreasing age and increasing sex appeal of the actors who are playing the role onstage today versus ten or more years ago. While I'm not necessarily against the Phantom being sexy, I don't think it should be in the young/hawt way. More of a mature, suave, almost eerie manner.
7. Christine's back story. I don't like the changes that were made to it. It just reminds me too much of the whole Woody Allen thing.
6. The fact that it's set in 1870. HISTORY PEOPLE. There was a f***king siege happening in Paris that year. It would have been noticeable. Trust me.
5. Emmy Rossum. While her voice is not entirely unpleasant, the part was not in her range, making some of her high notes rather cringe worthy. She also tended to look stoned through most of the thing.
4. WHY THE HELL IS THERE A CHAPEL IN AN OPERA HOUSE?!?!?!?! And other random plot holes that kind of ruined my experience. I understand suspension of belief, but the film needs to be engrossing enough on it's own merits that I don't feel the need to think about such things.
3. Overdoing the chandelier crash. Granted, this wasn't something that initially bothered me TOO much in the film. It was the masses of badly written fan fiction that involve "after the fire" crap that made me slowly grow to loathe it more and more.
2. That damned ring. In the book, Erik gave Christine his own ring. In the stage show, Erik gave Christine his own ring. Why then, in this crap does he steal the ring that Raoul gave her and then claim it as his own to give to her. There really are no words for how much this pisses me off.
1. GERARD BUTLER SOUNDS LIKE A DYING MOOSE. His enunciation is awful as well. I don't even think he's that hot. Seriously. Every time I started feeling just a glimmer of empathy for the Phantom in the film, there would be something to ruin it. Now some of it may have been the director's fault. God knows I do not absolve Schumacher of anything, but although I do think Gerard tried, he fell waaaaay short.

i don't love it but it was the first version and the whole damn reason i got into The Phantom of the Opera. But i agree with Phantomess, i finally accepted and agree with that Gerald Butler sang not that well.

My favorite version is the 1925 version

Best movie ever!!!

1rst

The best The Phantom of the Opera movie I ever saw. :-)

Phantomess; I agree with you whole heartily even though the 2004 version was the first version I saw I never liked it, and yes Jerry is a horrible singer (though I think he is attractive, but that is what makes him completely WRONG for the roll) Ramin was the first stage phantom I saw but I (at first) didn't think he was attractive either (I don't know whats wrong with me either) but his voice, god was it beautiful!

and another thing with the setting for the 2004 movie the opera house wasn't even completed at the time, plus it was used during the Franco-Prussian war (1870-71) as an armaments, it didn't open officially as an opera house until 1875.