Gory slasher interpretation of the story. Overall I liked it. It did pander to a wider audience by beginning and ending in present day. This was also just a bit confusing, and seems to have been done in an attempt to lay the groundwork for some sequels. The makeup was very well realized, and I enjoyed how it allowed the Phantom to go out and about. The kills were gruesome and cruel, and Englund mostly managed to keep his performance away from Krueger territory. A bit of classical literature, mixed with 80's slasher, and some class act British performances, such as a young Nighy, make this a worthwhile watch. Perhaps the music could have been a little bit more engaging/hypnotic.
95 Reviews
Gory fun!
Sburt4-123 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I really enjoyed this version of the Phantom of the opera. I really love Robert Englund. He is fun to watch as he kills anyone that gets into Christine's way to fame. Jill Schoelen (The Stepfather, Popcorn, When a stanger calls back) plays the lovely Christine who hears the voice of who she thinks is her guardian angel. This version makes the musical boring. The movie has a new twist on the tale. That keeps this from being routine. Robert Englund is great as the phantom. The costumes are also nice. I own this movie on DVD and have seen it a few dozen times. If you have not gotten enough of Robert Englund being Freddy Krueger then you should rent The Phantom of the opera. It is gory fun! I give it an A+!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Leroux's masterpiece gets the slasher treatment; much better than expected
GTeixeira7 December 2013
I had a lot of reservations towards this film, though at the same time I was curious. I love horror films, and Gaston Leroux's "The Phantom of the Opera" is one of my favorite books; on the other hand, the idea of turning 'Phantom' into a slasher felt very wrong, which combined with the negative ratings and reviews made me feel uncertain on whether to watch.
The film surprised me, truthfully. While it is far from a faithful adaptation, taking its fair share of liberties and deviations from the original story (ex.: the Phantom's backstory is altered to a Faustian deal with the devil, the story is set on London rather than Paris, and the modern day twists), the main idea is still there.
It is gory and bloody even for 80's horrors, with some very good and even creative death scenes, and there is a genuinely tense, well-made mood that makes this highly successful as an horror. But the musical score is possibly the true highlight, especially the Phantom's 'Don Juan Triumphant'.
Robert Englund was another pleasant surprise. I like him, but didn't feel his wisecracking, semi-comical persona would do well for the role of the Phantom. Luckily, he does not imitate Freddy Krueger in here (despite his make-up being similar): he is intimidating, mysterious and unnerving, but at the same time seems to truly love Christine and his music; a bit darker than the original, but all-around the best depiction of the Phantom since Lon Chaney. While undeniably a tragic character, most adaptations prefer to sugarcoat him to an extent and leave out the sadistic, violent murderer aspect of the Phantom character, which thinking again could be ripe for a gory horror film.
But whereas Englund deserves praise, the rest of the cast does not. The other big player in the film, Jill Schoelen, sings well enough but otherwise is quite a weak Christine. The rest of the characters (even Raoul) were relegated to mere extras, becoming such unimportant players in the story to the point I barely remember which characters got left out from the book (once again there is no Persian, but the brief appearance by the Ratcatcher was nice). In special, Alex Hyde-White is such an inexpressive Raoul (or whatever the name they gave him here) that you view little to no connection between him and Christine, while he should be a major character.
Overall, this is a very dark and gory adaptation of 'The Phantom of the Opera'. It's quite weak adaptation-wise and has its fair share of flaws movie-wise, but it is nonetheless a solid and entertaining horror piece with a great Robert Englund. A much better watch than, say, Dario Argento's versions.
The film surprised me, truthfully. While it is far from a faithful adaptation, taking its fair share of liberties and deviations from the original story (ex.: the Phantom's backstory is altered to a Faustian deal with the devil, the story is set on London rather than Paris, and the modern day twists), the main idea is still there.
It is gory and bloody even for 80's horrors, with some very good and even creative death scenes, and there is a genuinely tense, well-made mood that makes this highly successful as an horror. But the musical score is possibly the true highlight, especially the Phantom's 'Don Juan Triumphant'.
Robert Englund was another pleasant surprise. I like him, but didn't feel his wisecracking, semi-comical persona would do well for the role of the Phantom. Luckily, he does not imitate Freddy Krueger in here (despite his make-up being similar): he is intimidating, mysterious and unnerving, but at the same time seems to truly love Christine and his music; a bit darker than the original, but all-around the best depiction of the Phantom since Lon Chaney. While undeniably a tragic character, most adaptations prefer to sugarcoat him to an extent and leave out the sadistic, violent murderer aspect of the Phantom character, which thinking again could be ripe for a gory horror film.
But whereas Englund deserves praise, the rest of the cast does not. The other big player in the film, Jill Schoelen, sings well enough but otherwise is quite a weak Christine. The rest of the characters (even Raoul) were relegated to mere extras, becoming such unimportant players in the story to the point I barely remember which characters got left out from the book (once again there is no Persian, but the brief appearance by the Ratcatcher was nice). In special, Alex Hyde-White is such an inexpressive Raoul (or whatever the name they gave him here) that you view little to no connection between him and Christine, while he should be a major character.
Overall, this is a very dark and gory adaptation of 'The Phantom of the Opera'. It's quite weak adaptation-wise and has its fair share of flaws movie-wise, but it is nonetheless a solid and entertaining horror piece with a great Robert Englund. A much better watch than, say, Dario Argento's versions.
Not bad remake
eddy-2812 July 2003
Often forgotten after it's release because it was critized as being a takeoff of Andrew Lloyd Webber's then current Broadway musical version of the same title. Actually, Dwight H. Little's film version isn't bad and Duke Sandefur's script actually has more originality than some of the earlier versions. Robert Englund is probably the most terrifying phantom yet, he probably can't pull it off like Lon Chaney did in the 1925 film version, but he certainly did a terrific job at playing a more darker and scarier phantom. Jill Schoelen also did a pretty amazing job playing Christine, as she is taken from present day New York to 1881 London were she is the star of the opera and stalked by the phantom and he kills anyone who gets in his way. My favorite death scene is probably were the phantom takes on three thieves and also kills an opera critic in a sauna. In addition to the originality, the phantom is cursed by the devil and his face mutilated in a Faust tradition. He is then forced to sew on pieces of skin to save his face. The production is luxurious and the costumes are authentic. But the most greatest thing about this 1989 remake is the music. This is probably the best music I have ever heard for any Phantom film. It's more malvolent and suspensful and also at the same time magicial. Misha Segal certainly did an amazing job at creating a difficult score, and it's a shame that I don't hear his music in today's films. I guess the film could have been a little better if it had a little less gore and a good falling chandlier scene, but even though this is the only Phantom film without a chandlier it was still an amazing picture. Also look for Saturday Night Live star Molly Shannon in a small role in the New York City sequences.
The worst case of eczema
bkoganbing6 January 2016
The man who gave us several cinematic incarnations of Freddy Kruger, Robert Englund did this version of The Phantom Of The Opera. But Englund was obviously looking for another long running series from this character.
The Phantom here is a supernatural character unlike versions where Lon Chaney, Claude Rains, and Herbert Lom made him a most pitiable if frightening figure. And quite mortal.
Not here however. Englund's phantom has made a Faustian pact with the devil. Old Scratch might have first dibs on his soul for the afterlife, but he's not going to have a good time of it. Englund wanted musical genius and he wanted to be loved for his music. The devil made him hideous with the worst case of eczema ever. He would most certainly not be loved for his appearance.
Written he has and he wants Jill Schoelen to sing his music with acclaim and then make her his own in those familiar catacombs, these catacombs in London as opposed to Paris.
The story is told in flashback as an unconscious Schoelen dreams of a past incarnation and her encounter with Englund a century before in a different life. But Englund is most persistent.
I think hoped for another series character like Freddy Kruger, but it was not to be. This film is all right but not a patch on the previous Phantom Of The Opera films.
The Phantom here is a supernatural character unlike versions where Lon Chaney, Claude Rains, and Herbert Lom made him a most pitiable if frightening figure. And quite mortal.
Not here however. Englund's phantom has made a Faustian pact with the devil. Old Scratch might have first dibs on his soul for the afterlife, but he's not going to have a good time of it. Englund wanted musical genius and he wanted to be loved for his music. The devil made him hideous with the worst case of eczema ever. He would most certainly not be loved for his appearance.
Written he has and he wants Jill Schoelen to sing his music with acclaim and then make her his own in those familiar catacombs, these catacombs in London as opposed to Paris.
The story is told in flashback as an unconscious Schoelen dreams of a past incarnation and her encounter with Englund a century before in a different life. But Englund is most persistent.
I think hoped for another series character like Freddy Kruger, but it was not to be. This film is all right but not a patch on the previous Phantom Of The Opera films.
Love and Music Are Forever
claudio_carvalho22 June 2014
In New York, the Julliard student Christine Day (Jill Schoelen) meets her friend Meg (Molly Shannon) in the library where she works and she shows a piece of music from the unknown author Erik Destler that she has found on the shelf. Christine decides to use the music in her audition on the next day for a part in a Faust version in the New York Opera.
During the audition, there is an accident on the stage and Christine faints. She relives her past life in the Nineteenth Century in London, when she is an aspirant opera singer and becomes the protégée of The Phantom (Robert Englund) of the London Opera House. The Phantom is the unknown composer Erik Destler that makes a pact with the devil in order to the world would love his music. In return, the devil destroys his face and tells that he would never be loved by anyone and would be disfigured forever. After a tragic ending, Christine awakes in the present days and has a great surprise when she is introduced to the producer of the opera.
"The Phantom of the Opera" (1989) is a gore and bleak version of the classic novel of Gaston Leroux. The make-up of the Phantom is impressive and gruesome. Jill Schoelen moves her lips perfectly and gives the sensation that she is really singing opera. The screenplay is original, with Christine Day living her two lives in two different centuries with the Phantom obsessed by her. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "O Fantasma da Ópera" ("The Phantom of the Opera")
During the audition, there is an accident on the stage and Christine faints. She relives her past life in the Nineteenth Century in London, when she is an aspirant opera singer and becomes the protégée of The Phantom (Robert Englund) of the London Opera House. The Phantom is the unknown composer Erik Destler that makes a pact with the devil in order to the world would love his music. In return, the devil destroys his face and tells that he would never be loved by anyone and would be disfigured forever. After a tragic ending, Christine awakes in the present days and has a great surprise when she is introduced to the producer of the opera.
"The Phantom of the Opera" (1989) is a gore and bleak version of the classic novel of Gaston Leroux. The make-up of the Phantom is impressive and gruesome. Jill Schoelen moves her lips perfectly and gives the sensation that she is really singing opera. The screenplay is original, with Christine Day living her two lives in two different centuries with the Phantom obsessed by her. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "O Fantasma da Ópera" ("The Phantom of the Opera")
I rather enjoyed this!
paulclaassen12 July 2020
Long before Gerard Butler played The Phantom in 2004, Robert England portrayed the character in this 1989 version. This film delivers fine performances from a good cast, and has a great production design, costumes and make-up effects as well.
Despite the film being a failure, I actually enjoyed it very much. Maybe the film was too gory for the mainstream audience. 'Phantom of the Opera' is viewed by many as a romantic tale, a sort of Beauty and the Beast if you will. There's no romance here, although it might seem that way. Instead, the Phantom seems obsessed with Christine as an object to fulfill his desires - and I'm not referring to the sexual sense, or companionship to be more subtle. Oh no, his determination is fueled only by his selfishness - to have a soprano perform his work the way he intended it to be performed.
There's also no love here from Christine's perspective for the Phantom. She was 'chosen' by him and therefore feels compelled to perform his work. Maybe - because of these facts - and due to the film being so gory, it didn't appeal to a wide audience. That aside, this is a very different - yet very worthy - addition to the 80's horror collection. Let's face it, how many horror fans out there enjoy opera? As someone who enjoys both, I was entertained by 'The Phantom of the Opera', and thought Robert England did a great job as the Phantom. The make-up was also incredible, and made me cringe a number of times. As contradictory as it might sound, this is still an elegant and stylish horror.
The film does have an unexpected twist ending and I wonder if it was really necessary...
Would I watch it again? Maybe.
https://paulsmoviereviews.wordpress.com/2020/07/12/phantom-of-the-opera-1989/
Despite the film being a failure, I actually enjoyed it very much. Maybe the film was too gory for the mainstream audience. 'Phantom of the Opera' is viewed by many as a romantic tale, a sort of Beauty and the Beast if you will. There's no romance here, although it might seem that way. Instead, the Phantom seems obsessed with Christine as an object to fulfill his desires - and I'm not referring to the sexual sense, or companionship to be more subtle. Oh no, his determination is fueled only by his selfishness - to have a soprano perform his work the way he intended it to be performed.
There's also no love here from Christine's perspective for the Phantom. She was 'chosen' by him and therefore feels compelled to perform his work. Maybe - because of these facts - and due to the film being so gory, it didn't appeal to a wide audience. That aside, this is a very different - yet very worthy - addition to the 80's horror collection. Let's face it, how many horror fans out there enjoy opera? As someone who enjoys both, I was entertained by 'The Phantom of the Opera', and thought Robert England did a great job as the Phantom. The make-up was also incredible, and made me cringe a number of times. As contradictory as it might sound, this is still an elegant and stylish horror.
The film does have an unexpected twist ending and I wonder if it was really necessary...
Would I watch it again? Maybe.
https://paulsmoviereviews.wordpress.com/2020/07/12/phantom-of-the-opera-1989/
Fairly good, in this Phanatic's humble opinion
handatthelevelofyoureyes17 August 2006
Yes, I am indeed one of those "Phanatics" as they're called (though I'm almost starting to think we have a bad reputation...), and I personally would like to say that I found this movie rather enjoyable. I think it could have done without the modern sequences altogether and stayed in the one time period, and yes, a few scenes are a bit cheesy or cheap. But believe it or not, I think that Robert Englund did a fairly good job. My favorite Phantom will always be Michael Crawford, but when one compares Englund to Gerard Butler's Phantom (even using Crawford as the standard), he practically blows that little pansy-ass out of the water. It's refreshing to see an old, decrepit Phantom again, with more subdued, majestic style than Butler's gaudy, emo character. Also, this time the Phantom isn't scared to spill some blood, restoring some respectable fear for Erik that the 2004 version kills. Englund's voice--at least when he isn't screaming--seems surprisingly perfect for the part, and all film critics alike will see that he can indeed act, but has merely been restrained by his previous Freddy typecasting. All in all, I'd say this film makes an excellent counter-balance to the 2004 film, and both those who like like Chaney's Phantom and Crawford Phanatics alike will definitely enjoy it.
A time traveling Christine and a Phantom into human taxidermy.
The_Man_In_White21 May 2005
When this film opensapparently in the year 1989a young woman is running through busy New York streets into a small music bookshop. There she finds a rare piece of sheet-music from an unknown composer, and when she starts to sing from it the pages turn to blood.
This young woman, one Christine Day, is a music student at Julliard and is on her way to an audition. When she sings from the piece she found at the old shop, a vagrant sandbag swings across the stage and knocks her out cold.
After a whirlwind montage reminiscent of THE WIZARD OF OZ, she awakes in 1885 London. Now she is Christine Daae, a young Victorian ingénue songbird, lifting herself up during a rehearsal at a London opera house inexplicably dressed as a male page, not at all bothered or puzzled by her new surroundings. So begins this liberal interpretation of Gaston Leroux's classic tale of obsession and horror.
There is much alteration to Leroux's original mythos. For starters, the entire story and its characters have been transported from Paris to London, so that everyone can speak in Merchant-Ivory British accents everyone, that is, except for Christine, who (even while transported to Victorian England) is still an American. And of course, another significant difference is that Christine travels through time. I'm sure Leroux would have added that in, though, had he thought of it while writing his novel.
Then, of course, there is the Phantom himself. This Phantom is different than his predecessorshe combats muggers in dark urban alleyways a la Batman, seduces prostitutes, and skins his victims' flesh, which he then uses to sew onto his own tissue-deteriorated face.
Robert Englund plays the title character with the same macabre pleasure he brings to his role in the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET series. In fact, with his latex face mutations, he looks very similar to his Freddy Kruger persona, and as the Phantom he seems to delight in preying on his victims. The Victorian setting is not altogether inappropriate considering the emphasis on the Phantom's ghastly appetite for murder, evoking the menace of a blood thirsty Jack the Ripper.
Overall this movie is an entertaining flick. The acting becomes hammy as with many horror films, but the suspense is thrilling even for those familiar with the original story, because you just don't know who screenplay writer Sandefur is going to decide to kill off in his spirit of deviation. It is part period drama, part slasher (mostly slasher) with not too much emphasis on writing or character. This is a movie that explains the Phantom's facial paroxysm as the curse of a demonic midget who melts his face in exchange for talent and renown. But if you're in the mood for a laughable/gory ghost story, this movie is quite enjoyable.
This young woman, one Christine Day, is a music student at Julliard and is on her way to an audition. When she sings from the piece she found at the old shop, a vagrant sandbag swings across the stage and knocks her out cold.
After a whirlwind montage reminiscent of THE WIZARD OF OZ, she awakes in 1885 London. Now she is Christine Daae, a young Victorian ingénue songbird, lifting herself up during a rehearsal at a London opera house inexplicably dressed as a male page, not at all bothered or puzzled by her new surroundings. So begins this liberal interpretation of Gaston Leroux's classic tale of obsession and horror.
There is much alteration to Leroux's original mythos. For starters, the entire story and its characters have been transported from Paris to London, so that everyone can speak in Merchant-Ivory British accents everyone, that is, except for Christine, who (even while transported to Victorian England) is still an American. And of course, another significant difference is that Christine travels through time. I'm sure Leroux would have added that in, though, had he thought of it while writing his novel.
Then, of course, there is the Phantom himself. This Phantom is different than his predecessorshe combats muggers in dark urban alleyways a la Batman, seduces prostitutes, and skins his victims' flesh, which he then uses to sew onto his own tissue-deteriorated face.
Robert Englund plays the title character with the same macabre pleasure he brings to his role in the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET series. In fact, with his latex face mutations, he looks very similar to his Freddy Kruger persona, and as the Phantom he seems to delight in preying on his victims. The Victorian setting is not altogether inappropriate considering the emphasis on the Phantom's ghastly appetite for murder, evoking the menace of a blood thirsty Jack the Ripper.
Overall this movie is an entertaining flick. The acting becomes hammy as with many horror films, but the suspense is thrilling even for those familiar with the original story, because you just don't know who screenplay writer Sandefur is going to decide to kill off in his spirit of deviation. It is part period drama, part slasher (mostly slasher) with not too much emphasis on writing or character. This is a movie that explains the Phantom's facial paroxysm as the curse of a demonic midget who melts his face in exchange for talent and renown. But if you're in the mood for a laughable/gory ghost story, this movie is quite enjoyable.
A dark, unique take on a classic tale a good horror movie
jweinste-22 September 2006
Being a great fan of the story, I have seen most film versions of Phantom of the Opera I'm aware of and this is truly one of my absolute favorites.
If you're interested in this movie because you're in love with ALW's musical and you just want more Phantom, approach this movie with caution. If you're madly in love with every detail of the novel and want to cry every time you think of anything not in the novel, approach this movie with caution. While it remains the same tale of a disfigured man desperately doing what he can to spend his life with the woman he loves in a world that won't except him, it seems people are often put off by the fact that this film takes greater artistic liberties in telling the story than others, but I think that's what should be appreciated about this movie. I am unaware of any takes on The Phantom like this one and feel it is worthwhile for that reason alone if you are interested seeing a variation on the story.
This is the story of a much more brutal Phantom reaching out to a great singer who otherwise wouldn't be given a chance in a much more brutal setting. While it is indeed a horror movie, it's a unique one, featuring creative death scenes and an interesting story. It can be enjoyed as a good horror movie and an enjoyable different Phantom story.
Robert Englund's committed portrayal of a man devoted to the beauty of music and love of a woman is greatly admirable. While I'm sure many will jump to disagree, I feel his performance in this film, while different, is far more believable and powerful than Gerard Butler's (2004) performance. As the Phantom, he is intimidating and passionate.
The real star of this movie is its oh-so-underrated score. So often is the music of a Phantom film not brought to the forefront enough. One of the great things about this movie that set it aside from other films based on the same story is that it is as much about Christine's love for The Phantom's music as it is about his love for her. In a film where the score plays such an important role, Misha Segal does a brilliant job, keeping the audience in suspense, making them cringe in horror, giving a haunting, addictive voice to The Phantom's desperate longing and giving Christine good reason to show interest in a man so ugly.
See it for the story, see it for the music. Enjoy.
If you're interested in this movie because you're in love with ALW's musical and you just want more Phantom, approach this movie with caution. If you're madly in love with every detail of the novel and want to cry every time you think of anything not in the novel, approach this movie with caution. While it remains the same tale of a disfigured man desperately doing what he can to spend his life with the woman he loves in a world that won't except him, it seems people are often put off by the fact that this film takes greater artistic liberties in telling the story than others, but I think that's what should be appreciated about this movie. I am unaware of any takes on The Phantom like this one and feel it is worthwhile for that reason alone if you are interested seeing a variation on the story.
This is the story of a much more brutal Phantom reaching out to a great singer who otherwise wouldn't be given a chance in a much more brutal setting. While it is indeed a horror movie, it's a unique one, featuring creative death scenes and an interesting story. It can be enjoyed as a good horror movie and an enjoyable different Phantom story.
Robert Englund's committed portrayal of a man devoted to the beauty of music and love of a woman is greatly admirable. While I'm sure many will jump to disagree, I feel his performance in this film, while different, is far more believable and powerful than Gerard Butler's (2004) performance. As the Phantom, he is intimidating and passionate.
The real star of this movie is its oh-so-underrated score. So often is the music of a Phantom film not brought to the forefront enough. One of the great things about this movie that set it aside from other films based on the same story is that it is as much about Christine's love for The Phantom's music as it is about his love for her. In a film where the score plays such an important role, Misha Segal does a brilliant job, keeping the audience in suspense, making them cringe in horror, giving a haunting, addictive voice to The Phantom's desperate longing and giving Christine good reason to show interest in a man so ugly.
See it for the story, see it for the music. Enjoy.
Underrated Version!
gwnightscream25 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Robert Englund and Jill Schoelen star in this 1989 horror film based on the novel and play. This film begins in Modern-day New York where we meet young woman, Christine Day (Schoelen) who is an aspiring opera singer. She finds an old symphony piece and decides to recite it in an audition. After an accident, she's transported back to 18th century London where she meets scarred composer, Eric Destler aka the Phantom (Englund) who coaches her and goes on a murderous rampage in her honor while she becomes a sensation. Soon, Christine comes back to her own time getting the part of her dreams and reunites with the Phantom. I like this version and think it's underrated. Robert is terrific in it as usual and he and Jill are good together. I think the film was marketed badly because Robert's burn makeup resembled his Freddy Krueger one Kevin Yagher also applied in the first 3 "Nightmare on Elm Street" sequels and people probably thought it was "Freddy of the Opera." The make-up is great though as well as Misha Segal's score. I recommend this.
Very Strange and Interesting Film
CMRKeyboadist13 May 2006
This version of the Phantom of the Opera is by far one of the stranger films in its genre. Mixing elements of 80 slasher and old time horror this movie works on many levels and fails on a few. Now, everyone knows the story of the Phantom of the Opera, Right? Well, this story is basically the same except for a few differences. For one, a late 80's version of Christine is trying out for the lead role in an opera. During her addition, she is hit over the head and knocked out. When she awakens, she is back in time in late 1800's London. She seems to have no recollection of even going into the past. The rest of the story is traditional Phantom except for name changes and how disturbed this Phantom is and his origin. I really have to hand it to Robert England as the Phantom or Eric. This is by far one of the best roles I have ever seen him in. And the make-up job for him is astonishing. The fact that this Phantom makes a mask out of human flesh is actually quite creepy. And physically, he makes his character of Freddy look like a silly mess.
Now, for fans of the musical and the original versions of the movie, I don't know if you would really like this version. But, for fans of 80's slasher mixed with some atmosphere, a good soundtrack, and good acting, I would have to recommend this. I give it an 8/10.
Now, for fans of the musical and the original versions of the movie, I don't know if you would really like this version. But, for fans of 80's slasher mixed with some atmosphere, a good soundtrack, and good acting, I would have to recommend this. I give it an 8/10.
Well scripted, well acted, well done.
joshua-nelson16 February 2006
Let me start out by saying that I'm a horror fan. I love all forms of horror from the silent classics to the new-age shocker films. It's a genre that is near and dear to my heart, so when I stumbled across this version of the great Lon Chaney classic (screw that french dude, his story didn't even tap the potential of the story) I HAD to see it.
The basic premise is that love and music live forever. The movie starts in the 80's where Christine is looking for a fresh new audition piece and stumbles upon Don Juan Triumphant, a great unfinished musical. While in the audition a freak accident flashes her back to what appears to be a past life in which she is an under-appreciated actress in the shadow of a great diva. True fans of the world of the Phantom can guess where the story goes from here.
The acting in this movie is above average. While it isn't the best you'll see, you have to respect the classical training of many of the actors. Jill Schoelen plays the best Christine I've seen in a film, and Bill Nighy is (as always) great... even though his role is pretty small. Robert Englund, better known to slasher fans as Freddy Krueger, does moderately well. He plays the sadistic side of the phantom very well. While he is no Lon Chaney (who is, really?!) His performance is equally haunting and captivating.
The sets are very well done, especially considering the time it was made. Many other 'classic' films made circa this time had horrendous sets and visuals (Kenneth Branagh's Frankenstein was great but had TERRIBLE sets, can I get an amen?) So I had to throw some Kudos for them.
The sense that the film was made to cater to two separate audiences is clear with the added psychotic nature of the phantom and the decent death sequences, but any true horror fan can appreciate the film for it's very decent adaptation of an over-done story.
The basic premise is that love and music live forever. The movie starts in the 80's where Christine is looking for a fresh new audition piece and stumbles upon Don Juan Triumphant, a great unfinished musical. While in the audition a freak accident flashes her back to what appears to be a past life in which she is an under-appreciated actress in the shadow of a great diva. True fans of the world of the Phantom can guess where the story goes from here.
The acting in this movie is above average. While it isn't the best you'll see, you have to respect the classical training of many of the actors. Jill Schoelen plays the best Christine I've seen in a film, and Bill Nighy is (as always) great... even though his role is pretty small. Robert Englund, better known to slasher fans as Freddy Krueger, does moderately well. He plays the sadistic side of the phantom very well. While he is no Lon Chaney (who is, really?!) His performance is equally haunting and captivating.
The sets are very well done, especially considering the time it was made. Many other 'classic' films made circa this time had horrendous sets and visuals (Kenneth Branagh's Frankenstein was great but had TERRIBLE sets, can I get an amen?) So I had to throw some Kudos for them.
The sense that the film was made to cater to two separate audiences is clear with the added psychotic nature of the phantom and the decent death sequences, but any true horror fan can appreciate the film for it's very decent adaptation of an over-done story.
Entertaining but could have been so much more *SPOILERS*
wswj51916 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I remember when I first saw this movie after my parents bought the ALW musical on cassette. I fell in love with the Phantom immediately. When I rented the movie I didn't expect to see what I saw. Of course I was only eight at the time so this movie really scared me. Especially when Carlotta finds Joseph in the closet YUK! I couldn't watch it after that. Anyway, now I'm older and finally was able to find and rent the movie. I watched it not expecting much, but it was surprisingly decent. I felt it could have been so much better though. I know this is supposed to be a horror/gore film but the story didn't need such violence and gore, I guy getting his head cut off and the officer getting his heart ripped out! The worst part for me was the Phantom ripping off his face. Also if the movie cast better actors I think it would have done better. Yes Englund is a great Freddy but he can't come close to Michael Crawford, Colm Wilkinson, or Gerard Butler (yes I thought Butler portrayed the Phantom very well). Their was no apparent reason why Christine would be so drawn to him, his voice is even scary. I would be scared to death if I herd his voice calling to me from a mirror. All in all a good entertaining cheap horror flick. Though didn't provide much of a scare. I recommend it to curious viewers and horror/gore genre fans.
What You Get When You Try And Entertain Phantom Fans And Slasher Fans At The Same Time
horror777724 February 2002
There is no doubt in my mind that the writers of this film were trying to make an enjoyable slasher film to entertain teenagers and attract fans of "The Phantom of the Opera" at the same time. What gives this away is the casting of Robert Englund. It shows that they wanted to attract teenagers by casting Freddy Krueger. However, at the same time the writers include lots of technical stuff from the novel to try and get fans of "The Phantom of the Opera." The result can be one of two things. You can either have teens screaming saying they were fooled because they thought they were going to see Freddy Krueger kill a lot of people and you can have "Phantom" fans screaming saying they thought they were going to see a real "Phantom" film rather then some stupid teenage slasher film. Personally, I am a slasher film fan and not a "Phantom" fan. Not because I don't like the "Phantom" films, but just because I've never seen any of them. My initial reaction to this film was a positive one. It's stylish, has great acting and directing, and it's something different. It's not your typical slice and dice film but rather an interesting look at the "Phantom" and his life. Die-hard "Phantom" fans probably won't truly enjoy this as I think at the end the makers of the film quit trying to please everyone and the film degraded into the typical slasher genre. I really enjoyed this one and personally I think that it's wrong that die hard "Phantom" fans give this film negative comments. If you were expecting to see the 1925 version all over again with Robert Englund as the "Phantom" then you're way off. Die-hard slasher and horror fans as well as "Phantom" fans should find this at least marginally enjoyable. ***out of****This film is fun and really cool especially when you watch it for the first time and late at night
Come on, man... what is this?!
swedzin3 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, I must say that this movie was terrible! A darker approach to the book and musical sounds pretty fine, but here... it was used in wrong way. The director Dwight H. Little should first read the book. Was that too hard for him? He made a story in New York that brings us a horrific tale that occurred in London? OK, I am not gonna talk anymore and compare book to the film, or the earlier versions or even new versions. Let's just concentrate one the film. Well good things... acting was good, Robert Englund was good as always, he is a good actor, but... damn...! After I saw a scene of his face, I though... It's Freddy Kruger! I mean, it's "A Nightmare on Elm Street" all over again! Englund cannot escape this character, I mean, he was supposed to be a Phantom, not Freddy! Typecasting is sometimes a really boring, huh? Jill Schoelen was fine as Christine, and it was very, very interesting to see Bill Nighy in some of his earlier appearances on US film. Also, the music and costumes were good. Now, bad... what's with all that gore and crazy violent scenes? Was Phantom that crazy? Really ... what the hell!? Phantom did kill a few people, but not in that way. Than story itself is funny, script is nothing special and the Phantom is, this is the most ridiculous, a superhuman! He can jump high, he can run fast, he can do this and that... that was very annoying! And of course,again, I am not going to talk about the book comparing. You can see it, if you are interested... but it's your funeral.
Forgotten but Well Acted Horror Film.
hu67513 April 2005
For those who are familiar to the previous films of the story, this movie is based on a novel by Gaston Leroux. Leroux is best known as a Poet, Journalist and Novelist. Everyone knows the Story from Leroux's novel, which is about a man who lurks underneath the opera theater. He waits for a greater talent to come, one who could act and sing in the opera house. Once he sees that talent from afar, this man would does anything in his power to turn that talented singer into a big star. But this man is also a mysterious figure and he keeps everything into himself hiding from the world.
Unfortunately this 1989 feature turned to a near-slasher movie (But the original story still remains). Like the previous films about the phantom. It is still a horror movie. The Phantom of the Opera is played by Robert Englund (Who is better known his role as Freddy Krueger in the Nightmare in Elm Street Series). Englund does some of his best work as the phantom. He plays a man who was talented as a musician but once sold his soul to the devil so that his music would be immortalized, but instead he becomes an immortal, and his music remains unheard or simply unfinished masterpieces. The film starts in 1989 as an ambitious young female singer (Jill Schoelen) finds music notes in the basement at a New York Public Library. She is hoping to find great music to impress her next audition in any famous theater in the city. When she surprised people at the audition, when she nearly got killed in the stage by accident. She mysteriously finds herself transported back to Victorian-Era London 1881.
Then she becomes fascinated by a mysterious man who never shown his face to her. This stranger helps her sing and in order become a major star in the opera. Unfortunately this talented young star is overshadowed by a mean-spirited diva (Stephanie Lawrence) who doesn't want her to co-star in the play with her. Then trouble being when the Phantom starts committing murder in her honor so that nothing gets in her way. He will never stop committing these crimes until she become a star, his possible chance at redemption and to complete his music with her. Maybe even a second chance in love.
This film is directed by Dwight H. Little, who directed a successful film the previous year:Halloween 4-The Return of Micheal Myers. Which it was a pretty good sequel. Little has a decent film career who went on to direct:Marked to Death, Rapid Fire (Starring the late:Brandon Lee), Free Willy 2, Murder at 1600 and just recently the sequel to Anaconda. This film is nicely well directed and it does deliver the goods (Especially in the horror sequences). For a low budget production is well produced but the film has a few obvious mistakes. At times the production values could have been much better if the film had larger budget. But what makes up for some fatal flaws are the Cast, Terrific Make-Up effects work by Kevin Yagher and a good music score by Misha Segal.
This film was briefly released in the fall of 1989. Once it was released in theaters, the film was too slow for the true horror audience yet too much for the larger audiences. Several film critics really hated this film, because of the graphic violence. Which caused a problem with the rating boards before the film's release. The film originally received an X-Rating. It was a year before the new rating NC-17 existed. Furthermore the film had a limited release because of an independent distribution.
The Phantom of the Opera found an audience, when it came out on video and it sort of lived on ever since to become a cult-classic. Well, i liked this film maybe because the horror elements in it. It is certainly One of the Fascinating Horror Movies of the late 1980's. It was also a little different than most horror movie back then. It is also a very unusual movie because it was shocking, beautiful and elegant at times.
Since it came out on DVD recently, it has been revamped with better picture quality and sound. It may find more life like in this format. The film isn't perfect but to me, It is a worth a look. Centainly Horror Fans may like it also. You know there is something odd happens in the film's credits. When the producers credit this 1989 version as This motion picture is not associated with any current or prior stage play or motion picture of the same title. Isn't that weird ? I guess The Producers didn't want to get sued from the previous films or especially Andrew Lloyd Webber's Musical Play of the Phantom ! (***/*****).
Unfortunately this 1989 feature turned to a near-slasher movie (But the original story still remains). Like the previous films about the phantom. It is still a horror movie. The Phantom of the Opera is played by Robert Englund (Who is better known his role as Freddy Krueger in the Nightmare in Elm Street Series). Englund does some of his best work as the phantom. He plays a man who was talented as a musician but once sold his soul to the devil so that his music would be immortalized, but instead he becomes an immortal, and his music remains unheard or simply unfinished masterpieces. The film starts in 1989 as an ambitious young female singer (Jill Schoelen) finds music notes in the basement at a New York Public Library. She is hoping to find great music to impress her next audition in any famous theater in the city. When she surprised people at the audition, when she nearly got killed in the stage by accident. She mysteriously finds herself transported back to Victorian-Era London 1881.
Then she becomes fascinated by a mysterious man who never shown his face to her. This stranger helps her sing and in order become a major star in the opera. Unfortunately this talented young star is overshadowed by a mean-spirited diva (Stephanie Lawrence) who doesn't want her to co-star in the play with her. Then trouble being when the Phantom starts committing murder in her honor so that nothing gets in her way. He will never stop committing these crimes until she become a star, his possible chance at redemption and to complete his music with her. Maybe even a second chance in love.
This film is directed by Dwight H. Little, who directed a successful film the previous year:Halloween 4-The Return of Micheal Myers. Which it was a pretty good sequel. Little has a decent film career who went on to direct:Marked to Death, Rapid Fire (Starring the late:Brandon Lee), Free Willy 2, Murder at 1600 and just recently the sequel to Anaconda. This film is nicely well directed and it does deliver the goods (Especially in the horror sequences). For a low budget production is well produced but the film has a few obvious mistakes. At times the production values could have been much better if the film had larger budget. But what makes up for some fatal flaws are the Cast, Terrific Make-Up effects work by Kevin Yagher and a good music score by Misha Segal.
This film was briefly released in the fall of 1989. Once it was released in theaters, the film was too slow for the true horror audience yet too much for the larger audiences. Several film critics really hated this film, because of the graphic violence. Which caused a problem with the rating boards before the film's release. The film originally received an X-Rating. It was a year before the new rating NC-17 existed. Furthermore the film had a limited release because of an independent distribution.
The Phantom of the Opera found an audience, when it came out on video and it sort of lived on ever since to become a cult-classic. Well, i liked this film maybe because the horror elements in it. It is certainly One of the Fascinating Horror Movies of the late 1980's. It was also a little different than most horror movie back then. It is also a very unusual movie because it was shocking, beautiful and elegant at times.
Since it came out on DVD recently, it has been revamped with better picture quality and sound. It may find more life like in this format. The film isn't perfect but to me, It is a worth a look. Centainly Horror Fans may like it also. You know there is something odd happens in the film's credits. When the producers credit this 1989 version as This motion picture is not associated with any current or prior stage play or motion picture of the same title. Isn't that weird ? I guess The Producers didn't want to get sued from the previous films or especially Andrew Lloyd Webber's Musical Play of the Phantom ! (***/*****).
Agreement
JediJaina519891 October 2007
I would have to agree that this movie is not dead on to the book accurate. If you are a crazed fan of The Phantom, this is probably not the best movie for you to watch.
However, Robert Englund's version of the Phantom is wonderfully done. He does evoke more passion than Gerard Butler did. (Not that Gerard Butler wasn't good...) I would have to say that Robert Englund, because of his background, does seem to fit the part better. He is the right mix of intimidating, passionate, and dangerous! Jill Schoelen's performance was fair. She was not all that believable as an opera singer. She just didn't seem to give off the right vibe for some reason. The song, Don Juan Triumphant, is hauntingly beautiful and makes for the perfect ending sequence!
However, Robert Englund's version of the Phantom is wonderfully done. He does evoke more passion than Gerard Butler did. (Not that Gerard Butler wasn't good...) I would have to say that Robert Englund, because of his background, does seem to fit the part better. He is the right mix of intimidating, passionate, and dangerous! Jill Schoelen's performance was fair. She was not all that believable as an opera singer. She just didn't seem to give off the right vibe for some reason. The song, Don Juan Triumphant, is hauntingly beautiful and makes for the perfect ending sequence!
80s horror take on Phantom
udar5518 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
With Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage version of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA making a killing in the late 80s at the box office in both the US and England, it was only a matter of time before the horror genre reclaimed one of it forefathers. Who better to tackle this than Robert Englund, king of 80s horror, and Menahem Golan, king of 80s horrible? The end result is an interesting concoction that mixes 80s slasher attitude with 19th century sentiment.
Director Dwight Little, hot off the success of HALLOWEEN 4, brings an unusual sense of prestige to a film. The film benefits from excellent cinematography, ornate costumes and beautiful Hungary locations. While it isn't going to convert any Webber fanatics (it may have conned a few), the film is one of the more extravagant horror films from the late 80s. The script by Gerry O'Hara offers a few deviations from the original Gaston Leroux source novel. There is no chandelier scene (apparently cut due to budget) and the film inserts completely wrongheaded wraparound segments set in modern day New York. I guess the producers figured a Victorian Era tale wouldn't hold attention spans, no matter how bloody.
And this is easily the goriest version of PHANTOM to date. Highlights include beheadings, skull crushing, skin removal and throat slashing. Unfortunately, it seems a bit of this feel victim to the MPAA. John Buechler's MMI handled the graphic gore while Kevin Yagher's team contributes the scarred Phantom make-up. This may not have been the best move because the end result is something so similar to the Freddy Krueger image (Yagher did the Freddy make-up for the last few NIGHTMARE films) that it comes off as almost a reproduction.
That is not to say that Englund is merely going through the horror icon motions. His portrayal of Phantom Erik Destler is very serious and unlike any previous incarnations. This Phantom keeps the wisecracks to a minimum and is completely unsympathetic. It is kind of hard to feel for him as he screams, "Christine!" when you've just watched him literally rip someone's heart out. Then again, Jill Schoelen isn't much of a muse either. While she does perfectly fine in contemporary set horror films, she seems a bit out of place in 1885 England with her raspy voice. The rest of the cast is comprised mostly of British actors. They are quite good especially Bill Nighy (recently seen in THE CONSTANT GARDENER) and Terence Harvey as the Scotland Yard Inspector trying to figure out the murders.
1989 certainly was a productive year for Englund. He saw his directorial debut, 976-EVIL, released in theaters in March. The fifth installment of the ELM STREET series hit theaters in August. And this version of PHANTOM debuted in November. As much as Englund tried to separate this turn from his Freddy image, the studio played it up (check out the poster above). The film opened on close to 1,500 screens but fared rather poorly. Despite the poor box office (just under $4 million total domestically), the film ended up being 21st Century's highest theatrical grosser. Actually, it is their only theatrical grosser because this film tanked the company.
Director Dwight Little, hot off the success of HALLOWEEN 4, brings an unusual sense of prestige to a film. The film benefits from excellent cinematography, ornate costumes and beautiful Hungary locations. While it isn't going to convert any Webber fanatics (it may have conned a few), the film is one of the more extravagant horror films from the late 80s. The script by Gerry O'Hara offers a few deviations from the original Gaston Leroux source novel. There is no chandelier scene (apparently cut due to budget) and the film inserts completely wrongheaded wraparound segments set in modern day New York. I guess the producers figured a Victorian Era tale wouldn't hold attention spans, no matter how bloody.
And this is easily the goriest version of PHANTOM to date. Highlights include beheadings, skull crushing, skin removal and throat slashing. Unfortunately, it seems a bit of this feel victim to the MPAA. John Buechler's MMI handled the graphic gore while Kevin Yagher's team contributes the scarred Phantom make-up. This may not have been the best move because the end result is something so similar to the Freddy Krueger image (Yagher did the Freddy make-up for the last few NIGHTMARE films) that it comes off as almost a reproduction.
That is not to say that Englund is merely going through the horror icon motions. His portrayal of Phantom Erik Destler is very serious and unlike any previous incarnations. This Phantom keeps the wisecracks to a minimum and is completely unsympathetic. It is kind of hard to feel for him as he screams, "Christine!" when you've just watched him literally rip someone's heart out. Then again, Jill Schoelen isn't much of a muse either. While she does perfectly fine in contemporary set horror films, she seems a bit out of place in 1885 England with her raspy voice. The rest of the cast is comprised mostly of British actors. They are quite good especially Bill Nighy (recently seen in THE CONSTANT GARDENER) and Terence Harvey as the Scotland Yard Inspector trying to figure out the murders.
1989 certainly was a productive year for Englund. He saw his directorial debut, 976-EVIL, released in theaters in March. The fifth installment of the ELM STREET series hit theaters in August. And this version of PHANTOM debuted in November. As much as Englund tried to separate this turn from his Freddy image, the studio played it up (check out the poster above). The film opened on close to 1,500 screens but fared rather poorly. Despite the poor box office (just under $4 million total domestically), the film ended up being 21st Century's highest theatrical grosser. Actually, it is their only theatrical grosser because this film tanked the company.
an okay movie
shikondemon18 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
this is one of my favorite phantom movies! some of it is rather gory and makes the audience squeamish but hey I like it! now here are the pros and cons
CONS 1.) he doesn't sing 2. his voice is annoying 3. there's no power over Christine 4. Richard is not the name of the love interest of Christine deae 5. Raoul (the name of the love interest) does not die!
PROS 1. its a different angle to the phantoms background 2. Christine is afraid of the phantom 3. a easy plot to follow 4. the song don Juan is excellent 5. a new way of death every time he kills some one 6. the phantoms more violent and lee simpering then other phantoms
despite some differences to the book and other resources it's an okay film
CONS 1.) he doesn't sing 2. his voice is annoying 3. there's no power over Christine 4. Richard is not the name of the love interest of Christine deae 5. Raoul (the name of the love interest) does not die!
PROS 1. its a different angle to the phantoms background 2. Christine is afraid of the phantom 3. a easy plot to follow 4. the song don Juan is excellent 5. a new way of death every time he kills some one 6. the phantoms more violent and lee simpering then other phantoms
despite some differences to the book and other resources it's an okay film
Great movie in its own right!
horsebackfreedom10 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
No, the story doesn't follow the plot of the original book. However, this was a great film if people can get over preconceived notions of 'how it should be'. Leroux's novel is fiction. It isn't real. There was a real singer named Christine Nilsson who was the prototype for Christine Daae, however she was never abducted by a masked fiend. And for those fans who claim the true mask was a white half mask are mistaken and only using Sir Andrew's musical as their background (which is only loosely based on Leroux's novel in and of itself). The true mask was a full mask and it was black. Authors and stage managers have been changing the masks' appearance for years (ie; 1925 with Lon Chaney) to fit their storyline or vocal needs. In Sir Andrew's musical the mask is only a half mask because it made for better staging and viewing from the audiences' perspective. If you're truly interested in the staging decisions you can read "The Complete Phantom of the Opera" which is all about Sir Andrews' musical. I am a slasher fan and a 'Phantom' phanatic. I felt this was a truly cool movie with my favorite villain, Mr. Robert Englund. I found this movie highly entertaining. After all, isn't that why we go to the movies in the first place? To be entertained? If I wanted a movie that followed the original story line I would be hard pressed to find one. However, the characters personalities were very true to the story. Christine Day (Daae) has always been a modern turn of the century woman with her own ideas and agenda. She was not portrayed as a weak and somewhat low intelligence woman as Sir Andrew portrayed her, but that's what makes his musical so engaging. You find yourself rooting for the Phantom simply because it is so easy to manipulate her. In this movie you find yourself rooting for neither the Phantom nor Richard (Raoul). You're cheering on Christine to the very end, which makes it so wonderfully different from every other 'Phantom' movie out there. That is as much because of Miss Scholoen as it is because of the writers. Miss Scholoen makes Christine seem like me, or one of my friends rather than a wispy caricature of femininity. Mr. Englund was, as usual, creepy beyond words and sexy as hell. If you'll pardon the pun. His genius lies in his ability to make a villain sympathetic without taking away any of the scary and creepy aspects that are so highly prized in a slasher flick. You find yourself feeling sorry for him almost as much as you fear him which builds the tension in your own mind long before the writers want you to be tense. You end up doing all the work of freaking yourself out and then the writers come along and bash you over the head with gore. It's awesome! Bravo to Mr. Englund once again! His portrayal was as true to the story as the plot would allow. The original Erik had quite a bit of blood on his hands. He was not a warm and fuzzy guy. Being kidnapped by the original would not have been the romantic getaway that many 'Phantom' fans think it would be. You would find yourself in the clutches of someone who would willingly blow up an entire opera house, himself included, just so you couldn't get away. Personally, I prefer roses and moonlit walks as a means of wooing. Granted the original had a sad life that made him that way, as did Erik Destler of this movie version. To be honest, the Devil tricked him. He never said "I'm the Devil and when you say you would sell your soul I mean literally." No, he was a midget dressed like an organ grinders monkey who simply asked him if musical fame was worth his soul. And, Erik never really got that fame did he? No one heard his operas. So, was it a fair bargain? No. Poor guy was cheated! If you're a die hard 'Phantom' fan who simply can't separate themselves from either Leroux or Sir Andrew then by all means don't waste your time on this movie. If you have the creative ability to take this movie for what it is, a slasher flick based on Phantom of the Opera, then you will love this movie as much as I do. If you're a Freddy fan you'll find a million more reasons to thank God for giving us Robert Englund and for pairing him with one of the few actresses who can hold her own next to a legend such as Mr. Englund. I'm speaking of the girl-next-door beauty, Jill Scholoen.
GORE and nothing else
Royalblue051931 January 2005
I have to say that this is one of my most HATED movies. This movie offers gore and nothing else. I am sure that if I have the gall to watch it again perhaps I could come away with some positives. I read that someone enjoyed the music of the film and after reading that perhaps I would feel the same way if it wasn't for the fact that I felt ill almost the entire movie. This "Phantom" skins his victims and kills them in inhumane ways. The real Phantom is a guy that you feel sorry for, that you have compassion for. The real phantom you could imagine why Christine is so captivated with. This phantom there is NO way you could see Christine falling for. Near the end, however you could understand why she kills him and would rather risk her life than see this creature live any longer. This girl who plays Christine was also an unfortunate chose but she probably was the highlight of the movie. It was funny to see Molly Shannon in the movie. The movie was not scary just full of so much blood it made me think of a "B" movie. Watch at your own risk!
A good film criticized by Phantom Phanatics.
Zephayra28 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
The problem with The Phantom of the Opera is that Andrew Llyod Webber has ruined any other representation of the classic novel. I love Webber's Phantom, but I also love the original Phantom. I have seen Lon, Claude Rains and now Robert Englund in the role of the Phantom, and I believe that this film (with Englund) is a fantastic adaptation of the story. Webber created his screenplay for his musical to bring out the romance of the Phantom while Gerry O'Hara and Duke Sandefur (The writers) did a great job concentrating on the less romantic phantom, but the obsessed genius who would do anything and kill anybody for the woman he was infatuated with.
Anyone who has read Leroux knows that the Phantom was a composer and not a singer, so the fact that this version did not have the Phantom singing opera was alright by me. As I said before, Webber has made too many high expectations for any other version of this story. What I really enjoyed about Dwight Little's Phantom is that it took place in a Opera and actually had Christine singing. Though I do not agree with the Phantom's 'Faustus' like background instead of being a circus freak, I can appreciate this movie.
The end was a bit 'blaah' and I don't know if I agree with the mixing of modern and flashbacks. I didn't like how they changed the place of Paris to London. I did however like how the ending did enforce the theme of this particular movie "Only Love and Music are forever".
I think anyone who enjoyed the book, the musical and has an open mind to other people's interpretations, plus a good love for horror (since Phantom of the opera -is- a horror/Gothic novel) should see this movie and forget the musical numbers and scores of Webbers before they view it, or their expectations will be unfulfilled.
8/10
Anyone who has read Leroux knows that the Phantom was a composer and not a singer, so the fact that this version did not have the Phantom singing opera was alright by me. As I said before, Webber has made too many high expectations for any other version of this story. What I really enjoyed about Dwight Little's Phantom is that it took place in a Opera and actually had Christine singing. Though I do not agree with the Phantom's 'Faustus' like background instead of being a circus freak, I can appreciate this movie.
The end was a bit 'blaah' and I don't know if I agree with the mixing of modern and flashbacks. I didn't like how they changed the place of Paris to London. I did however like how the ending did enforce the theme of this particular movie "Only Love and Music are forever".
I think anyone who enjoyed the book, the musical and has an open mind to other people's interpretations, plus a good love for horror (since Phantom of the opera -is- a horror/Gothic novel) should see this movie and forget the musical numbers and scores of Webbers before they view it, or their expectations will be unfulfilled.
8/10
Gory and Good
labyrinthofstars22 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I rather liked this movie because it combined horror and the story of the Phantom of the Opera, which I both enjoy. Robert Englund did a good job as the Phantom both scary and intimidating. I laughed when I heard about his role in this movie because I am a big fan of Nightmare on Elm Street. The idea of using skin for a mask was pretty original idea in place of the death mask and his red death at the masquerade was good as well. There are many details it includes that are from the book that aren't in the 2004 movie.
****SPOILERS****** The rat catcher; The Opera and part in which Christine understudies for La Carlotta, Faust; The attempted suicide by Christine by banging her head against the wall (though on the movie it does not look like she hit her head hard); The wedding march or funeral march ****Spoiler****
I prefer the 2004 because of the music and the romance of it all but it all comes down to the bottom line: If you are looking for gore and horror, this is a good one and not for the weak of stomach. If you are looking for more romance, The 2004 is better.
****SPOILERS****** The rat catcher; The Opera and part in which Christine understudies for La Carlotta, Faust; The attempted suicide by Christine by banging her head against the wall (though on the movie it does not look like she hit her head hard); The wedding march or funeral march ****Spoiler****
I prefer the 2004 because of the music and the romance of it all but it all comes down to the bottom line: If you are looking for gore and horror, this is a good one and not for the weak of stomach. If you are looking for more romance, The 2004 is better.
This is just too much.
theshadow90826 June 2006
This is yet another version of the classic tale, and this version claims to be the closest to the novel, even though it bears no resemblance. In this version, a singer in the 1980s finds a 100 year old opera written by a composer named Erik Destler. She sings his music, and is transported to London, England in the year 1881. There, she assumes the role of Christine Day, a young backup singer. We find out that the mysterious Erik Destler is a composer who sold his soul to the devil for his music to be loved, but his face would be disfigured. Now he haunts the London Opera House and has an obsession over Christine. This version of Phantom is too twisted, and it's just another bland 80s slasher movie.
The soul purpose of this movie is to gross you out. It changes the character of the phantom from a sympathetic character to a deranged serial killer with no purpose but to maim and kill. The fact that his mask is made up of human skin makes the phantom seem too much like leatherface. Beyond that, the entire plot involving selling his soul and time travel makes the story ridiculous. Not even the sets or opera scenes are interesting. The movie is just all around boring as well as too gory.
The acting is atrocious. Robert Englund, best known for his role as Freddy Krueger, tackles the phantom role here, and does a really bad job. This is supposed to take place in England, and yet, all the main players are American.
Overall, this movie is ridiculously bad, and it needs a different title, because it shouldn't be associated with the Phantom of the Opera. I only didn't give it a 1 because the Phantom has a few cool lines.
3/10
The soul purpose of this movie is to gross you out. It changes the character of the phantom from a sympathetic character to a deranged serial killer with no purpose but to maim and kill. The fact that his mask is made up of human skin makes the phantom seem too much like leatherface. Beyond that, the entire plot involving selling his soul and time travel makes the story ridiculous. Not even the sets or opera scenes are interesting. The movie is just all around boring as well as too gory.
The acting is atrocious. Robert Englund, best known for his role as Freddy Krueger, tackles the phantom role here, and does a really bad job. This is supposed to take place in England, and yet, all the main players are American.
Overall, this movie is ridiculously bad, and it needs a different title, because it shouldn't be associated with the Phantom of the Opera. I only didn't give it a 1 because the Phantom has a few cool lines.
3/10
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
