Avis des utilisateurs

Poor old Enrique Claudin doesn't have much luck – and what he does have is all bad. An adept but unremarkable violinist with the Paris Opera House, he secretly worships Christine Dubois, the young understudy to the snooty leading songstress, and even goes so far as to anonymously spend all his money on singing lessons for her even though she is barely conscious of his existence. Enrique loses his job when he starts losing the feeling in his fingers. Then he mistakenly believes the musical manuscript he has been working on has been stolen by no less a light than Franz Liszt (Lord only knows how he wandered into this). Gripped by a violent rage, Enrique throttles the bad-tempered music publisher who prevents him from retrieving his manuscript and ends up with a face full of acid courtesy of the publisher's panicky secretary. Evading capture by the police, Enrique hides in the sewers beneath the Opera House and, like a tomato that's rolled under the cooker, grows dark and warped in the darkness.

Gaston Laroux's Phantom of the Opera is one of those stories that filmmakers feel compelled to retell every couple of years, so there's not a great deal to set this apart from all those other versions. Universal's use of colour is uncharacteristically sumptuous, and given that this tale falls nominally into the horror category for which they were famed, it stands by comparison to their other output of the time as something of a prestige production. There's not really much horror to speak of – although, by modern standards, none of the 40s horror films are likely to scare anyone over the age of five, so it's not out of the ordinary there. In fact it would arguably be more accurate to describe it as a musical given the amount of time that's given over to opera numbers that do little other than pause the action.

Claude Rains gives a typically polished performance as the tormented Claudin, although the failure of the script to get under his character's (scorched) skin once he assumes the identity of the Phantom leaves the actor with little to work with once he dons the mask and descends into B-movie madness. Nobody else in the cast really stands out. Susanna Foster makes a rather unmemorable ingénue (who shows worrying indications of following the same path as the prima donna she replaces given the way some of their lines are nearly identical), and leaves you wondering why poor old Claudin got so hot and bothered over her in the first place. Nelson Eddy and Edgar Barrier provide some light relief as the troupe's baritone and the investigating police officer, both of whom also fall under Miss Foster's mysterious spell.

Phantom of the Opera provides a good example of 40s Hollywood expertise (although it looks more like an MGM film than a Universal), and is entertaining enough even though it rarely provides anything that's likely to stick in the mind. Arthur Lubin at least attempts moments of artistry – for example by having the camera repeatedly passing sources of light – candelabras, chandeliers, etc – to suggest the fatal fascination Claudin's object of unrequited love holds for him.

The Phantom Of The Opera is a 1943 adaptation of the classic novel of the same name, directed by Arthur Lubin and starring Claude Rains, Susanna Foster and Nelson Eddy. I think I'm not alone when I say that the best part of this film is the gorgeous and colorful cinematography and beautiful sets and costumes which make this a visually outstanding film however aside from this I think it is very forgettable. The acting is OK and that's really it, even Claude Rains, one of the greatest actors of all time isn't particularly memourable in this film. I'm also not the biggest fan of the movie's tone, it just feels too light hearted and almost goofy, ruining most of the suspense, at least for me. 6.8/10

Gaston Leroux's penny-dreadful novel was hardly the stuff of great literature, but it did manage to tap into the public consciousness with its gas-light-Gothic tale of a beautiful singer menaced by a horrific yet seductive serial killer lurking in the forgotten basement labyrinths of the Paris Opera. Lon Chaney's silent classic kept the basic elements of the novel intact--and proved one of the great box office hits of its day, a fact that prompted Universal Studios to contemplate a remake throughout most of the 1930s.

Although several proposals were considered (including one intended to feature Deanna Durbin, who despised the idea and derailed the project with a flat refusal), it wasn't until 1943 that a remake reached the screen. And when it did, it was an eye-popping Technicolor extravaganza, all talking, all singing, and dancing. The Phantom had gone musical.

In many respects this version of PHANTOM anticipates the popular Andrew Lloyd Webber stage musical, for whereas the Chaney version presented the Phantom as a truly sinister entity, this adaptation presents the character as one more sinned against than sinning--an idea that would color almost every later adaptation, and Webber's most particularly so. But it also shifts the focus of the story away from the title character, who is here really more of a supporting character than anything else. The focus is on Paris Opera star Christine Dae, played by Susanna Foster. In this version Christine is not only adored by the Phantom; she is also romantically pursued by two suitors who put aside their differences to protect her.

Directed by Universal workhorse Arthur Lubin, this version is truly eye-popping as only a 1940s Technicolor spectacular could be: the color is intensely brilliant, and Lubin makes the most of it by focusing most of his camera-time on the stage of the Paris Opera itself and splashing one operatic performance after another throughout the film. But in terms of actual story interest, the film is only so-so. Susanna Foster had a great singing voice, but she did not have a memorable screen presence, and while the supporting cast (which includes Nelson Eddy, Edgar Barrier, Leo Carrillo, and Jane Farrar) is solid enough they lack excitement. And the pace of the film often seems a bit slow, sometimes to the point of clunkiness.

The saving grace of the film--in addition to the aforementioned photography, which won an Oscar--is Claude Rains. A great artist, Rains did not make the mistake of copying Chaney, and although the script robs the Phantom of his most fearsome aspects, Rains fills the role with subtle menace that is wonderful to behold, completely transcending the film's slow pace, the lackluster script, and "sanitized for your protection" tone so typical of Universal Studios in the 1940s. Unless you're a die-hard Phantom fan you're likely to be unimpressed.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Anybody approaching 'Phantom Of The Opera' as a horror movie will probably be disappointed, but if you look upon it as a romantic melodrama it's pretty entertaining. The sets (mostly recycled from the twenties version) are lavish, the music is strong and the performances are good, especially the wonderful Claude Rains ('The Invisible Man', 'Casablanca', 'Notorious') who is excellent (as always). The rest of the cast includes songbirds Nelson Eddy and Susanna Foster, the late Hume Cronyn in a bit part, and a nice cameo from Fritz Leiber (the father of the famous science fiction and fantasy writer Fritz Leiber, Jr) as Franz Liszt. 'Phantom Of The Opera' is far from my favourite Universal horror movie but I still enjoyed it and it's worth watching, though I think in many ways the Hammer remake in the 1960s starring Herbert Lom is a better movie.

I'm not sure if I'd call this a horror movie(it's certainly a drama).It is the result of good acting,filming,and glorious color!!!!!!!I've never seen a Universal horror movie in color other than this!The story isn't a real adaption of Gaston Leroux's novel.It has several changes made that make it different from the book.It's a must-see for movie lovers.Horror or otherwise.

Second Hollywood recounting following the most considered 1925 original and silent rendition , being remade by the same studio . Yet another version of the Phantom by Gaston Leroux , being a good gothic melodrama about the musician (Claude Rains, the man behind the mask and mysterious benefactor) who lurks in the depths of the Paris Opera House , at the sewers , and his desires for a lovely young singer (Susanna Foster) who even does not even know he exists . There's also the wimpy fiancé (Nelson Eddy) to come between them . The disfigured phantom is jealous and decides to abduct the gorgeous young singer and jail her in his lair.! It will live in your memory forever! . The Picture That has Everything! Romance !...in the shadow of sinister suspense! Music! that mounts to thrilling rapture! Suspense!...opera with death at every performance! A cast of thousands! The screen's classic of terror!

This terror film illustrates segments of the well- known story about a phantom who haunts the secret Opera corridors by staging sets , sumptuous production design , splendid atmosphere and drama to go along with the Opera soundtrack . It concerns a deformed mature man living in the sewers underneath of the Paris Opera House , while he falls in love for an Opera singer, sacrificing himself for the beautiful girl ; but it suffers by dispersing the creepy and chilling scenes with too many Opera and various songs , as well as weak comedy . It's an elaborated version in flaming Technicolor , but also plodding and with only occasional moments of terror , including clever musical stage involving the classic story . Overabundance of singing hurts this otherwise good remake of Phantom of Opera , it remains partially enjoyable , though dated , no fresh . Production values is high with overwhelming sets and colorful cinematography by Hal Mohr and W. Howard Greene . The stunning Technicolor Photography won an Oscar , as did the breathtaking art direction from John Goodman and Alexander Golitzen . The film packs excessive operetta in some reels , but also some bravura moments . As opulent pageant , it works although there is no emotional center , leaving the spectator aloof from its leading characters . Acting is great , strong , though brief presence by Claude Rains who brings stunningly to life the disfigured mature man with scarred countenance . Claude Rains takes his turn as the masked master of music and murder , he delivers a model of restraint . This was one of great actor's most memorable hours , along with ¨The Invisible Man¨ by James Whale . As Claude Rains took the title role and obtained another triumph , including eerie frames when the face beneath the mask was finally revealed to the horror of the heroine . Co-starring Susanna Foster is charming , she parades and sings well enough along with Nelson Eddy . And other notorious supporting actors appearing as Edgar Berrier , J. Edward Bromberg , Leo Carrillo , Frank Puglia , Miles Mander , and Hume Cronyn is briefly seen in this horror vintage .

Despite some critics' cynical reservations about this reboot , this was an enormous moneyspinner for Universal Films , a production company especialized on terror movies . Thanks to to Claude Rains' nice interpretation , and the spectacular settings that are painstakingly and opulently stylish, it achieved hit in box-office , in spite of its nine million dollar budget , a huge outlay for the Studio at the time . The motion picture was deftly rendered by Henry Levin with grateful direction by way of some fine performances and a lot of songs , especially by duo protagonist .

The timeless Gaston Leroux novel has been smashing success in every form in which it has been presented as stage as cinema . The first and still most famous adaptation is the Classic silent rendition by Robert Julian (1925) with Lon Chaney , ¨The Man of a thousand faces¨ , and Mary Philbin . 1962 version from Hammer Films directed by Terence Fisher with Herbert Lom , Edward De Souza , Heather Sears . 1974 Phantom of Paradise by Brian De Palma with Paul Williams , Jessica Harper , William Finlay .1999 by Dwight H. Little with Robert Englund , Jill Schoelen , Alex Hyde-Wyatt , Bill Nighy . 1999 TV series , made for television originally shown in 2 parts by Tony Richardson with Charles Dance , Teri Polo and Burt Lancaster . 1999 by Dario Argento with Asia Argento , Julian Sands , Andrea Di Stefano . And especially the blockbuster musical retelling by Joel Schumacher , a lavish adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage musical , being exuberant and stylishly staged with Gerard Butler , Emmy Rossum, Minnie Driver , among others .

Veteran musician Erique Claudin (Claude Rains) is broke after spending all his money to help his secret crush Christine DuBois (Susanna Foster) on her singing lessons without revealing the truth. He is losing his touch and gets fired from the Paris Opera House after 20 years. He has written a concerto, but his desperation sends him to confront the publisher. It ends with acid being thrown at his face.

This is after Lon Chaney and before Andrew Lloyd Webber. It's in gaudy Technicolor. It's old fashion opera. Claude Rains is a great actor. This could be great. More can be done with the phantom, but he is not given enough. In the end, it is functional without being that special.

When Universal decided to remake Lon Chaney's classic silent version of the opera, sound opened up a rather obvious vista for the film. We can make it as much about opera as the phantom haunting the Paris Opera.

A task rendered considerably easier by the presence of Nelson Eddy and Susanne Foster. Unlike his screen partner at MGM, Jeanette MacDonald, Nelson Eddy came from the opera to the cinema. He always viewed himself as a singer first, films were something he did to get publicity for his concert tours. But Eddy always loved the grand opera, it could easily been his career path. Consequently The Phantom of the Opera and the arias he sings here always had a special place in his affections. We see a lot of the real Nelson here.

Another one of his interests was sculpture. The bust of Susanna Foster that Claude Rains stole from Eddy's dressing room is something that Nelson Eddy actually did. Sculpting was a hobby of his and as you can see he was quite good at it. Might have made a living doing that as well.

Susanna Foster who had a lovely soprano voice gave up her career soon after this most acclaimed of her films. A pity too, it was a real loss to the screen.

This Phantom of the Opera has a bit of comedy in it as well. Baritone Nelson Eddy and Inspector of the Surete Edgar Barrier have an uneasy rivalry going for the affections of Foster. The scenes involving this are nicely staged by director Arthur Lubin, more known for doing Abbott and Costello comedies.

This may have been Edgar Barrier's best film role. He was a more than competent player, his career probably suffering because he was a bit too much like Warren William who was himself a poor man's John Barrymore. Barrier played equally well as villains or as a good guy as he is here. Another fine role for him even though he only has one scene is in Cyrano de Bergerac where he plays the very sly and all knowing and discerning Cardinal Richelieu.

Of course Phantom of the Opera is really made by the performance of Claude Rains as the mild mannered, inoffensive Eric Claudin, a violinist in the Paris Opera who is crushing out big time on Susanna Foster. We see him first being told after 20 years he's being given the sack by the company. What they describe sounds an awful lot like Carpel Tunnel Syndrome that he's developed which is affecting his playing the violin. Bad news for Susanna Foster also because he's been her secret benefactor in paying for voice lessons.

There isn't any middle aged man who doesn't identify with Rains. Tossed out of his job, the rent due, crushing out big time on a young girl, a lot of us have been there. Then when he thinks an unscrupulous music publisher is stealing a concerto he's written, he loses it completely and kills him. And when acid is thrown in his face disfiguring him, it's a short journey to madness.

Rains really makes us feel for Claudin. In that sense the film is not a horror picture in that we're dealing with monsters or unworldly creatures that Universal so specialized in. The man who becomes the Phantom is all too real, too human, and if we're pushed right, could be any one of us.

Can you do better than opera arias by Nelson Eddy and a classic performance by Claude Rains? I think not.

The first talking version of the Phantom of the Opera (played by Claude Rains here) in love with beautiful opera singer Christine (Susanna Foster).

The film looks just stunning--it deservedly won an Oscar for its incredible color cinematography. Everything looks perfect and Foster is just so incredibly beautiful in closeup. So it looks good but this film has big problems.

For one thing there's too much opera--WAY too much! All the operas look good and the singing is good--but I personally hate operas and I was bored silly. "Phantom" is supposed to be a horror film--NOT an opera film. The Phantom himself doesn't show up until 30 minutes in! And they give the Phantom an origin--it's not bad but not needed...it was scarier knowing nothing about him. There's LOTS of lame comedy of suitors Anatole (Nelson Eddy) and Raoul (Edgar Barrier) vying for Christine's affections. And Rains scarred face at the end isn't remotely scary--can't hold a candle to Chaney's 1925 version. And Eddy's acting was abominable--he was hired just for his singing.

It does have some good things: The Phantom's first appearance DID make me jump; the chandelier dropping was very well done; Rains gives an excellent (and very sympathetic) performance in the lead and Foster is pretty good too---and what a voice! Nice score too.

But it's not a horror film--it plays like an opera drama with horrific touches. Still it should be seen just for the stunning color cinematography alone. For that I give it a 7.

This slow, tedious, dramatically inert version of the famous Gothic tale is heavy on the warbling opera and light on anything else that might have made it interesting. The origin story of the titular phantom goes on forever, making you wonder if he's ever going to make an appearance. Then once he does, we get scene after scene of long opera numbers while he lurks around in the background waiting, like us, for the story to go somewhere. It doesn't.

The film looks sensational, I'll give it that. This is one of those Technicolor extravaganzas that looks ravishing instead of garish. Clearly, the whole film was an excuse to show off sumptuous sets and costumes; it's just a shame that they chose this story to do that with rather than some lighthearted musical.

Claude Rains is always a welcome presence, but he can't save this film.

The film deservedly won Oscars for its color art direction and cinematography and was nominated for its musical scoring and sound recording. Had a costume design category existed in 1943, it would likely have been nominated for that as well.

Grade: D+

It's perfectly true that this version isn't Lon Chaney and is watered-down Leroux, but it still has excellent performances and - this was during WW II remember - extraordinarily beautiful production values which resulted in Oscars for Color Cinematography and Art/Set Decoration. I've loved this film since I was a kid, even though back then I had to endure black-and-white telecasts because the local CBS affiliate was unable to obtain a color print that was up to their standards - years later I was lucky enough to see it - twice! in a theatre - as gorgeous as the color is on the DVD, it was even more breathtaking on the big screen. The extra features (the documentary "Phantom Unmasked", which includes a rare interview with the elusive Susannah Foster, and the audio commentary) have only increased my pleasure in watching this film over and over again.

Universal did better in the 1940s with its horror B-productions, such as the monster rallies beginning with "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" (1943), than with a lavish production such as this "Phantom of the Opera," which largely removes the Gothic horror elements from Gaston Leroux's novel and replaces them with romantic opera. Although the Phantom of Claude Rains is given an all-too-elaborate origin's story, it makes the character look like a pathetic imbecile--killing a man and becoming disfigured (in a way taken from "Song at Midnight" (1937) instead of as in the book) over a mistake and living in poverty as a violinist (Why a violinist? It doesn't matter.), to anonymously support Christine's singing lessons, for no apparent reason (originally, they were scripted as father and daughter, but this was allegedly dropped for fears over incestuous subtext). Moreover, this misses the opportunity to feature the actor who played the eponymous role in "The Invisible Man," a part that relied on his voice more than his body, to play a similar function directing Christine with only his voice, as per the book and other adaptations. Not only that, but the Phantom isn't even very grotesque.

For much of the film, we get Nelson Eddy, who receives top billing, strutting through an opera in a backstage musical, instead of the "Faust" play-within-a-play that reflected the outer, main narrative in the book. The opera here, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the outer Phantom story. At least, the 2004 adaptation of the Andrew Lloyd Webber stage musical made some fun of a screeching soprano, but, unfortunately, this one plays the opera straight. Meanwhile, Eddy's character was invented for this film and adds a redundant love triangle to the one that already existed between the Phantom and Raoul for the affections of Christine and for her career in opera or normal life of homemaking. Maybe she could've had both with Eddy, but that point isn't explored. There are some feeble attempts at humor between the two suitors other than the Phantom, though, as they bump into each other to get through doors, or simultaneously try to kiss Christine's hand, or simultaneously talk--all of which is underscored obnoxiously.

Even the Oscar-winning art direction largely relies upon reusing the auditorium set from the superior 1925 version. That film has its faults, too, but considering the other Phantom films made since, I'd recommend the one with Lon Chaney. The use of color stands out more in that one, too; yet, again, this 1943 adulteration is the one that was honored. And for a loose reworking of the story within a backstage musical, check out "Phantom of the Paradise" (1974).

Before writing a film article on Claude Rains for CLASSIC IMAGES (December 2000), I took another look at 'Phantom' to appraise his performance. He's one of those rare actors who can make you feel sympathy when he plays the ill-treated violinist so that you understand why he turns into 'The Phantom'. His performance is just one asset of this handsome technicolor adaptation of the famous story. Why carp about the changes made for this version? It stands on its own as an entertaining melodrama studded with operatic sequences that give it added dimension. Nelson Eddy has never been in better voice and Susanna Foster is certainly up to the demands of her singing role. The comic aspects of the story are a bit overdone and the only weakness of the film is giving Eddy and Edgar Barrier silly routines as they compete for the hand of Foster. Aside from that, this can still be enjoyed as a horror story set against the Paris Opera background. The sets are rich and detailed. Understandably, the film won Academy Awards for color cinematography and color art direction. Edward Ward's haunting score was also nominated and contributes greatly to the overall enjoyment of the film. The horror is muted in this version--but the rich musical highlights are a compensation. Absorbing entertainment.

This 1943 film of Phantom of the Opera has much to like, but also has a lot wrong. Far from a bad film but underwhelming as well considering the talent involved, for fans of opera and visually beautiful films this is for you, for horror fans and purists not so much. Before getting on the many things good about Phantom of the Opera there are things that did let things down. The pacing is plodding too often, not helped by direction that was very skillful but lacking urgency. The comedy scenes vary in effectiveness- too much of it was not very funny really- and would feel much more at home in an Abbott and Costello film, the type of humour did feel out of place here for a story that is essentially a horror drama based on a disfigured man and opera.

Nelson Eddy was a wonderful singer, with handsome looks and a nice personal charm but his acting is wooden here, even more so than his performance in Naughty Marietta. And the horror is under-utilised and significantly diluted. The scariest it gets is the phantom's entrance, the death scenes are somewhat silly, with a lack of tense atmosphere and build-ups, and the phantom's face reveal is not shocking enough, even Foster didn't look that shocked.

For all the film's problems though, you can't still dismiss it entirely. The lavish production values are just gorgeous to look at and in producing them there is nothing overblown or over-produced about them. It's beautifully shot and filmed as well. The music is sublime too,- then again you are talking to a massive classical music and opera enthusiast who'd if she wanted to would spend hours talking about music, operas and performers she loves- the opera scenes are crucial to the story and are sung, produced and choreographed with so much brio and attention to detail. There are even orchestral pieces like Tchaikovsky's Symphony no.4 adapted into song, that was interesting to hear.

Suzanne Foster is beguiling in every single way, and Nelson Eddy gives some of his best ever singing here.(and this is coming from someone who is a big fan of his voice, quite possibly the most beautiful baritone voice on film with Howard Keel too a very close contender). Phantom's entrance and the chandelier scene are very effective, the dialogue is serviceable at the least and some of the romance is sweet. Phantom's back-story was interesting and moving, though it is very understandable why there'd be those who prefer him more ambiguous. Aside from the production values, the best aspect is the subtly menacing yet movingly sympathetic performance of Claude Rains, a really wonderful performance from a screen icon that deserved a better film.

Overall, a film of pluses and minuses where either point of view(love or hate, also like, don't care for and mixed feelings) is understandable. 6/10 Bethany Cox

One previous reviewer has missed the point of this second version of "The Phantom of the Opera." Yes, I expect there to be Opera scenes along the way. No, I wasn't expecting the phantom character to be relegated to the background. As a result, the scriptwriters might just as well have removed the word "Phantom" from the film's title. Claude Rains is good but not physically imposing enough. The comic elements were slightly better than I thought and at least they weren't cringeworthy! Some of the shots that show the phantom's shadows are very creepy and these should have been expanded. The colour looks good and the budget resembles that of a respectable "B" picture. Certainly in comparison with "Universal's" usual standards, the above film had about double the usual money spent on it. Alas, this can't prevent the 1943 "Phantom of the Opera" from being an inferior remake of the 1925 masterpiece. The make-up devised by Jack Pierce wasn't very good either - I was disappointed. Not a bad film by any means but no classic.

This version was the fourth of the story I saw. Since then, I've seen even more and revisited this one as well. I've even seen the play as well. I'm giving this a rewatch as part of my Traverse through the Threes. I also didn't necessarily remember what this version had to offer opposed to others.

Synopsis: an acid-scarred composer rises from the Paris sewers to boost his favorite opera understudy's career.

We begin with the Paris Opera putting on a performance of 'Marta'. The lead is Anatole Garron (Nelson Eddy). There is a young woman who is the understudy to the lead, Christine DuBois (Susanna Foster). She goes backstage to meet with a police officer she has been seeing. His name is Raoul Daubert (Edgar Barrier). He wants her to come to dinner. In the process this means leaving before the performance ends. She doesn't want to and misses going onstage for the curtain call. She is scolded by Amiot (J. Edward Bromberg) for missing it. I take it that he's the stage manager. She is saved by Villeneuve (Frank Puglia) who is the conductor.

Villeneuve tells her that she needs to decide if she wants to make a life out of this career or to live a normal life. If she chooses opera, she will have to choose someone to marry who is involved in it, because it will take so much of her time. She appreciates his advice and leaves, running into a violinist. His name is Erique Claudin (Claude Rains). He is awaiting a meeting with Villeneuve as well.

The reason he was called in was that he noticed Erique during the performance and there is something off about him. He plays a lullaby from his hometown flawlessly, but then reveals there is something wrong with his left hand. It affects most everything he plays. He is dismissed from the orchestra due to his condition as they demand perfection.

We then learn that Erique doesn't have a lot of money. He's been paying a teacher for Christine, but she doesn't know that he's the benefactor. The vocal teacher is Signor Ferretti (Leo Carrillo). Erique visits him after finishing his lesson. He's told by the teacher that without money, he won't be able to continue training her. Erique is off to see where a company is with publishing his concerto.

He waits all day. He ends up forcing his way in to see Pleyel (Miles Mander). Pleyel blows him off and has the woman with him try to find his concerto. She can't seem to find it and tells him to check back. Pleyel doesn't like him and believes that it was probably tossed for not being good. Erique then hears it being played in the other room, by an old composer named Franz Liszt (Fritz Leiber). He doesn't realize that this composer likes it and thinks its brilliant. Erique snaps and kills Pleyel. The woman in the room throws acid in the face of Erique during the commotion, causing him to flee to the sewer for reprieve.

Things seem to go on without Erique, but he steals a cape and two masks. He then 'haunts' the Paris Opera House. He is out to help Christine become the lead. Erique goes as far to demand it. This upsets Biancarolli (Jane Farrar) since she plays opposite Garron. There's also a love triangle between him and Raoul for the heart of Christine. Erique will stop at nothing, including bringing the opera house down as well.

That should be enough for the recap and introduction to the characters. Where I want to start is that I find it interesting that it used the same set as the 1925 version. This take is just in color. It surprised me to see that his movie was presented this way. I believe the reason there was to capture the pageantry as we get a lot of stage performance. It does feel a bit like filler though if I'm honest.

Where I'll go from there is that I didn't remember that Rains was the Phantom here. I like that for this version, he is a violinist. He sees that Christine has talent despite her not knowing who he is. They have a deeper connection though. They're both from the same hometown. She knows a lullaby that he does as well. It is specifically from their area. I did like the implications and the reveal here as well.

What was a disappointment for this version was that the horror and Phantom elements are light. I don't mind the set up. We learn who Garron, Christine, Erique, Biancarolli and Villeneuve are. It builds to turn Erique into this entity. From there though, we know that he's lurking. There are little things dropped that he's doing and the fear he is instilling. That is all good. The movie then shifts quickly to the climax and the Phantom taking Christine. I just would have liked a bit more before that happened. I might be alone here so I will acknowledge that.

Other than those variations, we are getting the classic story. I want to shift over to the acting then. Eddy and Barrier are solid as the two suitors for Christine. Where things end up in the end makes sense. This one also has these two males vying for attention which can get a bit comedic by the end. That was fine as it added some levity, but not too much. Foster is solid as Christine when it comes to the singing. They don't give her much to work with though. That is typical for Universal during this era. I did like Rains as Erique/the Phantom. He does disappear for long stretches though as they focus on the love triangle. Other than that, Farrar and the rest the cast rounded this out for what was needed.

The last things to go into would be with the filmmaking. I thought that the cinematography here was good. It was quite grand to give the full size and scope of this opera house. That was good. I like what they do with shadows and the lair of the Phantom. Not the best version for the latter, but still cool. The soundtrack also fits for what they needed here. As I've said, we get quite a bit of the opera scenes and it feels like a real for sure. The last thing then would be the effects. They go light here. I did like the mask and look of the Phantom though.

In conclusion, this is a solid take on this source material. I had seen a few variations on it coming in that first time and even more now. This one does well with capturing the opera feel. I also don't mind the love triangle between Garron, Christine and Raoul. I'm just not sure they needed to focus on it as much as they do as the horror and the actual story fall by the wayside. The acting is good across the board and this is a well-made movie overall. I'd recommend this if you're out for all the versions of this novel or going through the Universal classics run.

My Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

This 1943 version is a remake of the 1925 version from the same studio (Universal). Probably the most vivid and effective use of Technicolor I have seen. Lush photography, great crane shots and an impressive Paris Opera House! The operatic scenes are very well done--and they are important to the story line. Very entertaining, especially since there is no graphic violence or gore--except the Phantom's face. Nelson Eddy is in top voice. One of Hollywood's most versatile actors, Claude Rains is remarkable in the lead role. Just the year before he was the memorable Prefect of Police in "Casablanca." This production is mounted first class in every way.

The DVD release is a fantastic transfer from an original old Technicolor master.

"The Phantom of the Opera" wasn't as bad as it could've been, but still feels overrated.

**SPOILERS**

During an opera performance, upstart Christine Dubois, (Susanna Foster) manages to show-up it's traditions for her friend, Raoul D'Aubert, (Edgar Barrier) a policeman. Her friend, violinist Erique Claudin, (Claude Rains) is dismissed from service due to an injury and ultimately retires from the opera. Attempting to find work, he goes around Paris trying to get a job, and after meeting with a potential employer, an accident forces him on the run into the sewers below. As news of the disappearance rocks the opera world, the police figure that he did it and begin a search through Paris for him. Determined not to let it affect her, she manages to get a spot in the next production through shaky means and shines in the role. After an unexpected series of accidents, they determine to continue the opera, it manages to attract the person performing the accidents, a strange masked figure that stops at nothing to make sure that she's the star of the opera one way or another.

The Good News: This one wasn't that bad when it counted on it. The best feature is the design of the opera house for the film. It's a giant place, with a huge central platform and stage, a really dizzying set of ropes and ladders above the stage, and is set within an elaborate exterior design when viewed from outside. It leaves a favorable lasting impression. The catacombs in the sewers are also quite beautifully done, looking like a real twisting and interconnected design that looks quite good. There's also a really humorous running gag with the opera director using a hand-sign to indicate a presence in the house. It's funny when it first happens, gradually gets funnier all the more its on and then becomes a hilarious happening when it appears. It's something that really works for the film. This also starts to get pretty interesting in it's last half-hour, when it starts to really play into the revenge aspect. Starting with the opening, which features one of it's only true suspense scenes as the Phantom approaches an unsuspecting victim from behind and takes him out. There's plenty of great moments in the revenge set-piece, including the highlight chandelier-smashing and the police chase through the opera. This continues on into the ending, where it really ends with a great bang. These are it's great points.

The Bad News: There isn't a whole lot wrong with this one. One of the biggest is it's apparent disregard for featuring horror elements. This one decides that it will focus more on the romantic angle of the story rather than upping the horror aspects. The constant interludes, the focus on the show being produced or the beginning of the film, which simply details this long quest through various different companies searching for a form of employment for a family member. These are in no way scary and just makes it seem like it's a long, slow intro that doesn't really do much. This takes such a long time to get started because it's such a while to feature any of the horror elements is a big problem. There's so much backstage opera drama featured in here, with all the back-stabbing and appointments going on, that there's very few moments in here that actually manage to evoke any sense of fear. The moments featuring the opera are almost impossible to get through, as they're so far from a horror aspect that at times it doesn't really feel like a horror film. This here is the main source of problems, as it doesn't really feel like a horror film most of the time with all the opera standings.

The Final Verdict: While it's at times hard to see as a horror film, when it gets going it's at least bearable. This is really for people who can look at those kinds of films with admiration and enjoy them or those looking for something different from a horror film, while those who hate opera might enjoy another adaptation a lot better.

Today's Rating-PG: Violence

A lot was obviously put into the operatic scenes, which were probably spectacular back in 1943. However, more effort could have been put into displaying the motives and madness of the phantom. The light hearted comedy attempts of the two courters of Christine Dubois seems out of place and takes the final edge of any suspense in the film.

I saw this film when I was a child when my sister (who happened to be a lifelong fan of Nelson Eddy) took me on the train into Boston to the Keith Orpheum Theater for a morning showing. So I sat beside my big sister while she was in heaven watching Nelson Eddy. I never thought that much of him as an opera singer but the opera they were doing was impressive for me, even at that age and I knew it was not a real opera but one made up by the studio using Tchaikovsky's symphonic music. I liked the acrobats in the opera scene and when Nelson used his whip to capture the leading soprano. I already knew Russian language so I understood the words they were singing and that Nelson pronounced them correctly. Then of course there was the marvelous Claude Rains. Not until years later when I got older did I really appreciate his wonderful acting ability. I also wondered how they could reproduce the Paris Opera house. I knew of course it was a studio set but was it a permanent theater on the lot at Universal or just the inside with dressed up extras as audience? These were the questions from a child's mind and I went home dreaming about it; not so much the story but the technical aspects of it all - like, how could the phantom carry a grand piano all the way down to those caverns far below the opera house. I have seen the film several times since then and I must say it holds up extremely well. Gorgeous Technicolor and atmosphere throughout. I've heard that the theater still exists on the Universal lot and was used in some other films. I wonder if it still is there, or was it burned down in the fire of 2007 that swept through and destroyed so much of the Universal lot. Maybe someone knows.

This adaptation is done pretty good and I like some changes this version does. I do like the new backstory of the Phantom on how he became a wanted criminal and how he got his disfigured face. The movie does a pretty good job building up the story and the events that happened. And the atmosphere is pretty good on how it's done.

Another new edition to the movie is a love triangle between Christine, Anatole, and Raoul. I'm not a fan of the love triangle because it doesn't go anywhere interesting and it gets too comedic. But I do like how it's resolved. Also the movie have an anticlimactic scene near the end.

This is a reasonably pleasant remake of "Phantom of the Opera", but that is all. It's not exactly a remake, but more of a re-working of the story, as it bears less semblance to Gaston Laroux's novel than the original film--especially since all the back story they give about how the phantom came to be has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the original story. It's interesting but pays little respect to the source material.

The movie is filmed in lovely 1940s Technicolor--not the most realistic, but bright and enchanting nonetheless. But color is NOT the biggest difference between this and the old Lon Chaney film. This new version has a huge emphasis on singing--with lots and lots and lots of music that will enchant opera fans and bore everyone else to death. I really hated the glossy production numbers--they were sumptuous BUT also got in the way of the story. For much of the film, the Phantom seemed ancillary at best--and was more a chance for the studio to show off Nelson Eddy and his co-star.

As for the horror, it's so muted and uninteresting that I can scarcely call this a horror film! And, most disappointingly, when the big unmasking scene occurs, you see that the Phantom's face looks pretty nice--so why is the big idiot hiding it under a mask?! I saw nothing of the scary Lon Chaney in this silly Phantom!! I am a devout classic horror fan and really could have cared less about the film--and I felt frustrated that the film just wasn't scary or suspenseful--and that the Phantom really wasn't terribly important to the producers! To me, this film is like a cake from the average grocery store these days--it looks nice but tastes fake! By the way, although the original is by far the best, the early 1960s version by Hammer Films is greatly superior to this 1943 version. It ain't great, but IS still a horror film. Instead, the 1943 version seems too much like a glossier Jeanette MacDonald-Nelson Eddy film with another woman sitting in for Jeanette!!