I really wanted to like "Phantom: The Las Vegas Spectacular." I swear I did. I was willing to set aside my pre-conceived notions about what I thought Andrew Lloyd-Webber musicals were like and what I thought "Phantom" was like -- notions generated, I might add, without having ever seen any production of the show and having had very limited exposure to Lloyd-Webber's canon.

What were those pre-conceived notions? Simple: That Lloyd-Webber is undeniably talented but toils mostly in overblown melodrama and that "Phantom," while undeniably popular (longest running show on Broadway), is probably one of the most overblown of the bunch.

Seeing the new Las Vegas production of the show, now playing in a new $40 million theater at The Venetian unfortunately didn't dispel any of those ideas.

First, it's worth noting that this is not "Phantom of the Opera," exactly. That show has a running time somewhere north of 2&3#189;hours (with intermission), while this production clocks in at a sleek 90 minutes, with no intermission. That means at least 45 minutes of material has been yanked, and probably even more since some special effects pyrotechnics have been added that eat up a couple of minutes.

According to someone I trust who had seen the original Broadway version and this version, the core of the show and all its important moments are still there. Songs such as "Music of the Night," "The Phantom of the Opera," "All I Ask of You," and "Masquerade" are all still here, as is the basic plot: In early-1900s Paris, opera diva wannabe Christine is torn between her love for a handsome, stable, kind of boring guy and her love/obsessions with a mask-wearing, possibly psychopathic freak show who kidnaps her and lives in a watery underground lair beneath the Paris Opera House.

I'm being reductive, but I that's really what it boils down to.

What is missing, according to my trusted colleague, is a lot of the up-front character development that helps to explain the Phantom's attraction to Christine, and vice versa. What I, a neophyte to the story, walked away with was a puzzling wonderment as to where the conflict in the story was. What I got was that the Phantom was quite, quite demented, and I didn't see why Christine would have even the slightest interest in him. Then again, this is the very crux of just about every episode of the "Jerry Springer Show," so perhaps there's something to it after all.

The bottom line is that I didn't feel the slightest bit of sympathy for the character, which seems like a crucial element for the show to work.

Adding to my problems with the story (or at least this version of it), were my problems with the show itself. From its plodding pacing to its extended stretches of operatic balladry, this is not what you'd call a perky show. Much of that singing has a rote sameness to it after a while, to the point where you being to believe that there are basically three songs in the entire 90 minutes that they keep repeating and reprising. There is very little up-tempo about it. I wasn't expecting a Busby Berkley musical, but I would have liked something more to enliven the production other than on-stage explosions.

Ah yes, the "spectacular" part of the title. What you've got are various pyrotechnics, flash-pots explosions, some fireworks and some admittedly cool trickery with the chandelier. It's really nothing to get too worked up about and it actually annoyed me in some places because the flashes are so bright that they actually keep you from seeing what is going on around them. It also reduces the effectiveness of the "big moment" of the show involving said chandelier, which feels a little bit of a let down after lots of things blowing up.

The staging itself is what I'd ascribe the word spectacular to. The stage and entire theater are transformed from an abandoned opera house to an in-its-prime version in the blink of an eye and the sets (especially the Phantom's lair) are visually stunning.

Performances are very good across the board, but with no real stand-outs. I'm going to place the blame for the lack of character development on the cut-down production and not on the actors themselves.

Going back to that colleague of mine who had seen many productions of "Phantom" -- She loved this version, even getting worked to misty tears by the end. Now, I wonder if she was filling in holes in the story because she knew what was supposed to be there, therefore getting her to an emotional level that newbies like myself could never attain, but that's a question without an answer.

I wonder about the long-term viability of this show, which just doesn't feel like a fit for Vegas. Does the high-profile failure of other Broadway transplants like "Hairspray" and "Avenue Q" bode poorly for "Phantom," or is it such a force of its own that it doesn't need things like character development, pacing and energy to sustain it? I'll check back with you in a year or so.

Vegas4Visitors Grade: C

Phantom: The Las Vegas Spectacular
The Venetian
3355 Las Vegas Blvd. S.
Las Vegas, NV 89109
866-641-7469
Tickets: $82-$157
Showtimes:

Mon., Wed., Fri., Sat. -- 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.

Thurs. and Sun. -- 7 p.m. only

The Full Story

• Images In Cirque's 'Love' May Break Hearts
• Red Rock Offers Luxury After Long Drive
• Vegas Q&A: Do Locals Gamble?
• Cut-Down 'Phantom' Doesn't Fit With Vegas
• New Hard Rock Owners Find Operators

In Next Week's Column

Next week: The latest from Las Vegas.

Plus, don't forget to send your questions about Las Vegas. I've got room for more, so send them in today!

Find the hotel that's right for you with Vegas4Visitors.com's reviews!

And check out the new Moon Handbooks Las Vegas.