O Fantasma da Ópera

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I found the premise not only intriging, but the cinematography combined with passionate performances combined with the music make for an entertaining evening. I was so pleased with this film that I went out to buy a copy of the soundtrack to listen to while I went to buy the movie. The leading lady is not only captivating in her role, but resembles Shannon Dougherty facially and gives a Meryl Streep performance. I found the music to be very original and heartfelt although some lip sync was done during production. Robert Englund is wonderful as the Phantom. I found myself wanting to sleep with the lights on. In an alley scene where theives try to rob him, Eric Dessler (The Phantom)cleverly asks what they will trade for his purse. His delivery is strong and clever as a cat which goes well with his final remedy of the situation. We can all guess the theives steal no more.

The end of the film finds an extremely original twist, as Eric is found to be the modern day leader of the group who is putting on the broadway play in New York. Love enduring is made so clear when certain death is avoided again, which in itself is expected but executed with dynamic acting.

Yes, I loved this film and feel those who don't lack the training and intelligence to appreciate the story to begin with...Go buy the movie. You'll be glad you did.

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.

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.

Yes, folks, I am a PotO fan. I can listen to ALW's soundtracks all night and day. I also am a huge fan of Freddy's series. The Nightmares are my favorite of the slasher genre.

That said, let's continue into the commentary, shall we? The thing that struck me most about this movie is the music, Don Juan Triumphant. It's a haunting melody that just sticks in your mind. For me, it stayed for years. I was lucky enough when with friends (who were working, leaving me alone in their off-campus housing bored for several hours) to find a copy at the corner video store. It was a delight.

Christine is NOT what you expect--she has no accents, doesn't look much like Sarah B, and I haven't a clue if that was really her singing. They did play fast and furious with the book. This does not mean it's a bad movie! I can count if I thought for three minutes ten other movies that deviated from the books they were based on? *S*

Basically, the movie, to me, deals with reincarnation. When Christine locates and brings the lyrics and melody for Erik's inspired masterpiece to an audition, she is struck on the head by a sand-bag in mid verse. This has her traveling back in time to the days of the setting of the book, but in England rather than France. I actually don't mind the changes; they make the story fresher in my mind. There, we learn that this 19th century Christine has been learning from a mysterious stranger who has taught her singing and plans to make her a star. Jill is a lovely woman, and in the role, she shines as she dones the jewels of Faust's love interest in the opera. Robert as Erik is as usual a wonderfully mysterious, sinister, yet humorous "bad guy", if you can call Erik that.

After the climax of the 19th century, Christine awakens to find herself in modern times again (hence my belief that it was a tale of reincarnation rather than actual-time travel--the 19th century Christine was established well before the incident!) and assisted by the show's patron.

I adore the synthesized versions of the music, and was extremely pleased when the library was able to locate a copy of the CD OST for me to check out. It's just as good as I remembered. Amazon had the VHS, and I am good to go now! :)

If you're seeking consistancy, accuracy towards the novel, or something resembling Michael Crawford, you're in the wrong place. If you're looking for a good tale that sends shivers up your spine (it did me as she placed money in the hat!), then this is the place.

Enjoy!

Now to just collect the rest of the NoES series....