Phantom der Oper

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")

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.

I like this movie. I'm a purist, which may be surprising, but I am and still like this movie. Why? Because it gives Erik his edge back. True, they give him a good bit extra, but in the novel, Erik could have cruel moments, he had an edge, a threat to him. Ever since the Lon Chaney (which is still the closest to the book version), Erik has lost his edge and become a sort of disfigured James Bond. While I don't have much of a problem, this is a nice beak from that. Robert Englund is one of my favorite actors, and this was the first or second movie I saw him in (the first, if it wasn't this one, would have been Urban Legend, decent movie on TV). He plays Erik with a sinister sensuality. His lanky frame and Kruegeresque swagger are fine qualities, he comes of confident. Erik was like that in the book many times, though he did become a lovesick puppy with Christine. Yes, it's a slasher, yes they make Erik quite cruel in it, but it does have many little tidbits from the book. Plus, it has the masked ball scene, which helps it score high with me!! Go in with an open mind and acceptance of a crueler Erik (or a sickness of a lovey-dovey Erik) and you should enjoy it. At least it's better than the Julian Sands version.

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.

I am a huge horror movie fan and also a big Phantom of the Opera fan. I remember this film when it came out in 1989 but did not get the chance to see it until years later. I love the 1943 version and also love this one as well. Robert Englund proves in this film that he is a great actor and has moved far beyond his Freddy Kreuger days. This film is also very haunting as a horror film where the 1943 re-make is more of a drama/horror film. Robert is also very haunting as Erik Desller / The Phantom. Tha main thing i loved about this film is the dark and frightening atmosphere that it set out for the viewers. well the rank this film from 1-10 i give it a 8 for sure... Great film for both Horror movie fans and Phantom of the Opera fans.

Highly recomended!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!