Avaliações de usuários

Each "Phantom of the Opera" deviates somewhat from the Leroux novel - with the original silent film with Lon Chaney perhaps being the exception. In the '40s Nelson Eddy version, the police chief and an operatic baritone are Christine's suitors instead of Raoul (though the baritone is named Raoul) and it's hinted that the Phantom is her father. His acid in the face was the result of a misunderstanding at the music publisher's.

In this particular "Phantom," from Hammer Studios, the Phantom (Herbert Lom) has an Igor-type assistant, and here Christine's suitor is the manager of the opera house (Edward de Souza). There is also a real villain, a plagiarist in the form of Lord d'Arcy (Michael Gough). Most notably, it has a production of "Joan of Arc" with music written by Edwin T. Astley that is actually very pretty and beautifully sung.

Everyone does a terrific job in this - Gough is hateful as the supposed composer of the opera; de Souza is a hunk and a good romantic interest for Christine; and Heather Sears as Christine is very sweet and, like all Christines, lacking the diva quality her rival has. In this film, the rival singer is a very minor role. The dubbing of the voices is wonderful.

Herbert Lom, normally a comic character in the "Pink Panther" series, is a great phantom, performed at a time when the Phantom didn't have to be better-looking than the ingénue. The Phantom is not a huge role in this film, but an effective and highly sympathetic one. He seems a little less nuts than some of them, though he's clearly not completely there.

The final scene of this film is very exciting, and the final picture very powerful and sad. This is a really excellent version with not much emphasis on the horror aspects of the Chaney film. It has good production values and is very well directed.

"The Phantom of the Opera" by Hammer is a dramatic version directed by Terence Fisher. The screenplay shows the phantom as a poor composer that is stolen by the arrogant and corrupt Lord Ambrose D'Arcy, who is the real villain of the story. The sets and costumes are magnificent associated to great performances in one of the best films of the famous story by Gaston Leroux. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Fantasma da Ópera" ("The Phantom of the Opera")

In this version of The Phantom Of The Opera, the hideous phantom lurks in the sewers and catacombs of London instead of Paris. And in this third version bits of a real opera by British composer Edwin Astley highlight the musical portion of the film. That's important because in this telling of the tale, the phantom has a singular interest in this particular work.

Stepping into the shoes of Lon Chaney and Claude Rains is Herbert Lom. Because this film is done in flashback Lom is given less of a chance to create his character in the way his predecessors did. Still Lom as he did in Night And The City manages to get across both the poignancy and the evil that he's sunk to. I would also compare his characterization of Professor Petri here with what he did in Flame Over India where he got across sympathy for a character who was a terrorist.

The truly evil one here is Michael Gough who is a classic Victorian rakehell whom if he were slightly of better character and given to a bit of introspection, we could hear some Oscar Wilde aphorisms coming out of his mouth. But his Lord D'Arcy hasn't got any redeeming features whatsover. Kind of like Liberty Valance which also came out in 1962.

The young lovers here are producer Edward DeSouza and Heather Sears the singer that Lom takes an interest in. I looked to see who might have dubbed Sears for the opera sequences and found no credit. If she did it herself, truly remarkable and why didn't that part of her talent be better known.

I saw an edited version of this on YouTube and I'm convinced they involved the end of some characters in a ghastly fashion. I'd like to see a director's cut if possible.

As far as adaptations of The Phantom of the Opera goes(excluding the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical), this 1962 Hammer version is not as good as Lon Chaney's, which is the best version, but it's superior to the Claude Rains version(though I do prefer Rains over Herbert Lom).

It does have its problems, with too much time spent on the opera and the romance and not enough of the Phantom, which does undermine the tension, sense of dread and horror. Sadly, the opera numbers, while musically good, are staged awkwardly and really do slow the film down. The romance is rather saccharine, and the chemistry between the two 'heroes' a little bland. Heather Sears also plays Christine too low-key and the script, while with some intelligent moments, does plod sometimes and has a little too much talk.

However, it is very lavishly made (one of the better looking early-60s Hammer films) with truly marvellous interiors of the opera house, rich vibrant colours and opulent costumes. It is beautifully and spine-chillingly scored, though James Bernard would have been an even better fit for composer. The story is less than perfect, but does offer some effective moments. The close up of the eye is really quite chilling and enough to make one jump, while the grasping hand over the stage and the lowering of the gas lamp are indeed very suspenseful, Phantom's back-story is interesting and makes one empathise with him and the ending is incredibly moving.

Terrence Fisher's direction is technically accomplished and does evoke some suspense and atmosphere, though his story-telling has been better elsewhere. Regarding the acting, Michael Gough steals the show being chillingly vile as a true slimeball with no redeeming qualities of a character. Herbert Lom is a great contrast as the Phantom, under heavy and effective make-up he is a sympathetic and tragic figure and it is quite a poignant performance, though not without a few scary moments. Edward De Souza is charming.

In conclusion, not among the best of Hammer by a long shot and could have been better, but still manages to be pretty good. 7/10 Bethany Cox

This was one of the best, but it really bothered me that it strayed so far from other versions. It takes place in Victorian London rather than Paris, and the Phantom has a totally different death scene at the end. What happened to the famous "Chandelier" scene? Christine Charles instead of Dae?? Anyway, a very good movie. I'd rate this about an 8 out of 10. Those sets in the underground certaintly look like the original sets from 1925!.

Gaston Leroux's classic novel, "The Phantom of the Opera", is definitely one of the most famous and influential Gothic stories of horror and mystery ever written, and its main character, the Phantom, an icon of the Gothic horror literature. The novel's enormous popularity has resulted in many different adaptations, such as the 1925 silent film starring Lon Chaney, or more recently, the musical play by Andrew Lloyd Webber; works where the story of the mysterious figure that haunts the Palais Garnier has been explored in many different and interesting ways. Given the potential of the story, it's not a surprise that the legendary production company, Hammer Films, decided to make its own version of the story, written and produced by Anthony Hinds and under the direction of Hammer's best filmmaker Terence Fisher.

Hammer's version offers many changes to Leroux's novel, the most noticeable one being that the movie is set in London instead of Paris. In this movie, producer Harry Hunter (Edward De Souza) and theater owner Lattimer (Thorley Walters) are working with famous composer Lord Ambrose d'Arcy (Michael Gough) to put d'Arcy's new opera, "Joan of Arc", on stage. However, they are facing trouble as a mysterious figure known only as "the Phantom" (Herbet Lom) is wrecking havoc by sabotaging the essays and committing a series of murders. The Phantom's actions make the lead singer of the opera to quit, but soon the producers find a replacement in the figure of Christine Charles (Heather Sears), a young singer with a beautiful voice. However, the Phantom is still there, and he gets a sudden dangerous interest in the new singer.

Written by producer Anthony Hinds (as usual, under the pen name of John Elder), this version of the Phantom's story is a complete re-imagining of Leroux's story; but while different, it remains surprisingly faithful to the novel's essence by keeping true to the horror and mystery elements of the story. The Phantom here is a sympathetic and human figure, pretty much like the one presented in Universal's 1943 adaptation; however, Hinds makes his Phantom an anti-hero, and together with the addition of Lord d'Arcy as another "villian" gives the movie a very different tone to that previous version. As in most of his works, Hinds plays with the tragic aspects of horror, slowly taking the story to its shocking (albeit rushed) ending.

Director Terence Fisher makes an excellent job at bringing this Phantom to life with his usual lavish look and with a nice touch of class and elegance. Hammer horror movies are known for being violent and gory, but this movie is different in the sense that focuses on atmosphere and mood rather than on scares. In fact, while the Phantom has a striking appearance (courtesy of Roy Ashton's excellent make-up), Fisher subtle and restrained take makes him less scary, using the haunting presence of his "monster" to increase its tragedy, instead of his monstrosity. While the budget was low, Fisher makes great use of his resources to create a wonderful moody film that keeps the novel's captivating atmosphere like few adaptations have done.

Another element that makes "The Phantom of the Opera" an unusual Hammer film is the fact that few Hammer regulars appear in the cast. However, this by no means is a sign of unworthy performances. Herbert Lom is excellent as the Phantom, a difficult role as the mask in Fisher's version covers completely the actor's face, forcing him to use only his voice in his delivery. Lom is no Chaney of course, but easily ranks as the second best performance as the character. Edward De Souza's character is an equivalent of the novel's Raoul, but of course, with a big number of changes. De Souza's Harry Hunter is daring and witty, and he carries the film with dignity as the character in charge of solving the mystery of the Opera House. Heather Sears makes a believable Christine with her innocent looks and an excellent lip sync for the singing scenes. Finally, Michael Gough steals the movie, making a terrific performance as the villainous Lord d'Arcy; easily, the highlight of the movie.

It's easy to see why this version of "The Phantom of the Opera" is not as celebrated as other Hammer films. The movie lacks some of the studio trademarks, as Hinds and Fisher decided to go for a different approach in this film. Also, the focus on atmosphere and mystery instead of direct horror make the film to look "different" or atypical, however, it's this restrained approach what in the end makes it one of the best (and ironically most faithful) adaptations of the story. At first sight it feels as if the Hammer magic was lost, but in the end, this is far from the worst that the legendary studio has done, and in all fairness, it's as good as their best films. Finally, a last minor quibble is that, like the 1943 film, it uses many overlong Opera scenes that while remarkably well done, add little to the plot and easily could had been replaced with a longer conclusion.

"The Phantom of the Opera" is not really a favorite among Hammer fans, but it's a really classy take on the iconic story of the disfigured genius that roams the Opera house. It's very different to other versions, but it keeps the spirit of Leroux's novel like no other film has done (with the exception of 1925 silent film). This underrated film really deserves a chance to be better known. 7/10

The novel The Phantom of the Opera has been filmed at least ten times plus now. This entry by Hammer Studios is one of the better ones, bringing a liberal change in storytelling as well as some very atmospheric settings and camera work. Directed by Terence Fisher, this film, like Fisher's The Gorgon, is highly poetic. The phantom is a former music professor who has been pushed into his life of seclusion and physical deformity. He is a figure of sympathetic pity rather than horror. It is this point of view which makes this film very interesting as the phantom is not the monster but rather just a man who has been mistreated trying to cope and resurrect his life. Yep, he still lives in the sewers of Paris. The Hammer sets are wonderful all around, particularly the opera house and the winding underground sewers. Hammer also puts their stamp of luxuriant looking cinematography on. Herbert Lom plays the man behind the mask. Lom does a nice job in the film as do all the leads. Heather Sears is a striking heroine, and Edward Da Souza makes an affable leading man. The real star, apart from Fisher's direction, is Michael Gough. Boy, can this man play a mean individual. Gough's screen time is magic as he malevolently belittles everyone around him, steals things that are not his, and lewdly leers at anything in a skirt! The film also boasts some fine staged opera numbers and a beautiful soundtrack. Many scenes show Fisher's competence and ability to create lush moods whilst being able to provide good storytelling.

A fine Phantom edition.

This is the Phantom that scared the heck out of me when I was a kid, and comes in second after the classic Lon Chaney version. It is the only color version that really works, here given that garish, over-the-top gothic treatment that worked so well for Hammer Studios. It doesn't have the ponderous, plodding feel of the book or other versions, and follows through with a scary shot-in-the-arm or two. More complete video stores should have this on the shelf.

This version of "The Phantom of the Opera" was the second remake of the oft filmed classic tale was produced by England's Hammer Studios who remade most of the old Universal B&W classics of the 30s and 40s.

An Opera based on the life of Joan of Arc is being performed at the Opera house. Several mysterious unexplainable events have taken place. An apparent murder scares off the lead singer and she is replaced by a young aspiring singer, Christine (Heather Sears). A shadowy figure known as The Phantom (Herbert Lom) lurking among the shadows takes a personal interest in the girl. Also taking an interest in her is lecherous Lord Ambrose D'Arcy (Michael Gough) the womanizing entrepreneur. Coming to her aid is the Opera's producer (Edward de Souza) the token hero of the piece.

Needless to say the girl winds up in the Phantom's underground hideaway where she is kept captive until his terrible secret is revealed.

Lom as the Phantom is more of a supporting player rather than the star. The Phantom is played more as a sympathetic character rather than a menace. The real villain of the piece is Gough who steals the film as the unscrupulous D'Arcy. There is also an evil dwarf (Ian Wilson). Lom's makeup as The Phantom is not revealed until the end of the film and then we only get a brief glimpse. It could have been used to much greater effect.

Others in the cast include Thorley Walters as Latimer, the manager of the Opera house and Miles Malleson in a nice bit as the cabby in the park. True Hammer Horror fans will spot Hammer regular Michael Ripper almost unrecognizable as the first cabby who drives the hero and heroine home from the restaurant.

Unfortunately, the producers have left many loose ends. What happens to D'Arcy who is last seen running from the room in which he has just met The Phantom? And the Dwarf? He is literally left hanging at the film's end. Do the baddies get away with it?

The original theatrical version of the film runs 84 minutes. There is also a 98 minute version which adds scenes involving Scotland Yard detectives investigating the goings on at the Opera, a flashback sequence which repeats in its entirety a scene shown earlier and an attempted murder of D'Arcy's mistress all of which add nothing to the film.

No one will ever better the Lon Chaney 1925 silent version of this story but you have to give Hammer credit for at least trying to tell it with a few new twists.

Hammer's inevitable take on the classic Leroux tale has taken a critical pasting in recent times and did little to enhance Terence Fisher's career at the time. But it has aged nicely and stands revealed today as an interesting attempt to try something new in the Gothic genre before the clichés were set in stone by the decade's end. Nowawdays, its notorious for the fact that Cary Grant was reportedly lined up for the film. Whether he was to play the Phantom or the hero is left vague. I can see him as Harry Hunter charmingly wooing Christine in the cab, but Grant - accustomed to the sophisticatedly sexy banter of his Hitchcock films - might have baulked at Elder's generic on-the-nose dialogue. Edward De Souza acquits himself well in the role of the young hero - traditionally the most thankless role in any horror - and is a strong, charming central screen presence to hold your attention during the lengthy expository scenes. Heather Sears - accustomed to playing abused ingenues in films like ROOM AT THE TOP and SONS AND LOVERS makes an appealing Christine - she had to be more than the cleavage on legs of most Hammer starlets - and ideally cast as Joan of Arc in the opera.

Herbert Lom's voice is an instrument of dramatic beauty and is shown off to its best advantage when the actor is masked. The concept of the Phantom is flawed by having his as a disfigured composer out for revenge instead of Lon Chaney's deformed freak from birth. Chaney's Erik had a crazed, monomaniacal stalkerish quality with his Christine whereas Petrie sees her only as the ideal vehicle for his artistic ambitions. At times, he acts like a protective Father-figure for the heroine. Christopher Lee would have been interesting in the role - being able to mime-act behind a mask and sing opera - but Lom brings gravity and presence to the part. Of the rest of the cast, Michael Gough has his best Hammer performance as the lecehrous, opportunistic Lord D'arcey whose type can clearly be seen in the singing and theatrical profession to this day - as well as certain further education establishments. It has received some criticism for its alleged cheapness but, actually, to these eyes, it looks more lavish than many Hammers with location filming at Wimbledon theatre giving a grand sense of scale and the bustling London Streets outside full of convincingly rendered extras.

Its ironic that hammer's regular composer James Bernard never got to score this one film where music is so important. I wonder if Edwin Astley ever considered mounting "THE TRAGEDY OF JOAN OF ARC" professionally outside the confines of this film. The ending with Joan alone on stage before submitting herself to the flames is truly moving and we understand why Lom's Phantom sheds a tear.

Though this version strays quite far from the book, it was still very good. Herbert Lom and Micheal Gough are excellent in this film, and the Dwarf was an odd, but fun twist. I didn't think that Miss Sears was right for Christine, but she did well none the less. All in all, pretty scary for the time and a good watch. I suggest it be watched, provided of course you can find it.

Pretty good film version of the story. I've never read the book so I cannot compare to it but I can compare it to other film versions and on it's on merit. I'd say watch it if you get the chance - it's good.

This version is not all that creepy but it does have atmosphere, good casting and overall enjoyable. It's similar to the Phantom of the Opera (1943) with Claude Rains in a way but not as scary as it or The Phantom of the Opera (1925) with Lon Chaney (which is the scariest). If you like the Phantom '25, Phantom '43 or any of the other Hammer Horror films then give Phantom '62 a view... not as good but definitely worth the watch.

6.5/10

This version of "The Phantom of the Opera" is very different from the original and others. But fantastic nevertheless.

The movie is approached differently compared to other versions, not only the story is different but also the characters. Especially The Phantom has become a bit of a different person. Personally I like this approach, it's up to you which approach you personally like the best.

The typical Terence Fisher directing is very notable and he gives the movie a typical atmosphere. This movie is definitely one of Fisher's and the Hammer studio's best, even though the movie is now days a bit outdated of course. A surprising thing was the amount of humor used in this movie. It fitted the movie surprisingly well and worked out just great.

The most fantastic thing is the cast. Herbert Lom plays as The Phantom a more of a tragic villain. Michael Gough as Lord Ambrose d'Arcy plays the real main villain of the movie and he is simply brilliant in his role! He really steals the show in this one. The rest of the cast also pulls of quite well.

Alas there are some flaws and the movie is simply too much outdated to can be considered a masterpiece. But the movie serves its purpose and looks visually great with excellent performances from the cast and a nice finale.

9/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

The film starts off promisingly with the opening night of a new opera on the subject of Joan of Arc, due to be sung by a Maria Callas type soprano. A series of discovered acts of sabotage culminate in the film's first shock-horror moment. So far, it looks as if its going to be an enjoyable hour and a half. Michael Gough is great fun as an eminently hissable villain, and Edward de Souza is fairly watchable, too, as the charming if rather conventional hero. But alas, it all goes horribly downhill from the Phantom's first appearance. Poor Herbert Lom is given a pretty duff script (a lot of ineffectual muttering to himself), and a frightfully tacky hideaway replete with tiger rug and a naff red-upholstered throne. The music this alleged genius writes is pretty awful too - a sort of cross between the worst kind of Gilbert and Sullivan and a Broadway show with truly cringe-worthy lyrics. And why exactly does the phantom rip his own mask off just before rescuing the heroine? A huge disappointment all round.

Terence Fisher directed this Hammer studios version of the often-filmed story. Herbert Lom plays the Phantom, who was really Professor Petrie, a struggling composer who had his music stolen by the evil Ambrose D'Arcy(played by Michael Gough) who is now having an opera produced with his stolen music. The star of the opera Christine(played by Heather Sears) becomes an obsession of the Phantom, who became disfigured after a fire involving Ambrose. When he kidnaps Christine, her producer(played by Edward De Souza) pursues the trail to the Phantom's secret lair to stop this menace from further troubling them... Well directed and acted, especially by Lom, but film is otherwise disappointing, with an unsatisfying and dull story. Ambrose deserved a harsher on screen fate! Look for future "Doctor Who" actor Patrick Troughton as the opera rat-catcher.