Phantom Of The Opera (1990)

I really confused myself majorly in doing some research for this version.

Bit of backstory necessary for this, back in the 70s Ken Hill fashioned a Phantom Of The Opera musical completely unrelated to what we know today as the musical Phantom, and two creators saw the Ken Hill play, Andrew Lloyd Webber and Arthur Kopit, who in tandem with Maury Yeston were creating a Phantom story of their own with a lot more emphasis on romance instead of horror. But Lord Andy and Cameron Mackintosh got to the finish first and even though the Yeston and Kopit stage play was backed by Broadway and ready to go, they all jumped ship to the Lloyd Webber musical forcing the duo to shelve the project until the 90s. The Charles Dance mini-series is essentially the play just without most of the musical numbers. And the Yeston and Kopit musical has been performed all over the world with a highly succesful iteration in Japan with an all female troupe, so it's not complete bad news for them. But back to the main reason we're here. The movie is a good sit clocking in at 3 hours and honestly if they just stuck to the book I really think we would have had a definitive version here, cause obviously they don't need to rush the story with a good runtime like that, they actually film at the legit Opera Populaire, and for a while at the beginning it seems to follow the sequence of events for the book. But hey, the musical wasn't really trying to be faithful to the book so whatever it's okay. It's pretty typical for the vast majority of the movie in terms of plot, a young lady named Christine is brought to the Opera House with patronage of the Count De Chagny, as new managers move in, and both come to be aware seperately of a strange presence at the opera. Christine gets singing lessons, mishaps occur at the performances of prima donna Carlotta, Raoul or rather Philipe in this version takes an interest in Christine, and the Phantom eventually abducts her. It doesn't deviate much from the source except in one major respect, we get backstory on Erik's parents. And of course they have to fiddle about with Christine so she looks like Erik's mom, I'll never understand that as long as I live! Why? Just leave it, leave it, stop touching it, if it ain't broke don't damn well fix it! Back to the review. The recent ex-manager of the opera is Erik's father, which some people have issue with but honestly I don't mind it, sure he's not as isolated or takes great matters in his hands cause he has help from above but I feel how the story goes and the performances involved make it work nicely. Talking of which, this is a very good cast. I know Charles Dance has a big reputation these days and I'm thrilled he does, but to me he'll always be Erik first and foremost. Very different from past incarnations, much more soft spoken and gentlemanly rather than outright murdering monster. And I have to give the movie major credit for not showing the Phantom's face, controversial perhaps but I like that it's just left to your imagination and it works in a different way. Plus I greatly enjoy how you can tell he has feelings for Christine and while he showers her with compliments and enjoys her company he doesn't really know how to say or voice his deep love for her. Teri Polo as Christine I loved just as much as Charles, she has this very humble, innocent, sweet persona and it's difficult not to smile when she's on screen, and brownie points for getting a blonde Christine like in the book which is rarer than having Meg or Caesar the horse in an adaptation. This might be the first Burt Lancaster movie I've seen and he has a good presence weaving the mystery of the opera ghost, the relationship between Gerard and Erik is not only unique but heartfelt at times, and I like how he has a prominent role throughout. Ian Richardson and Andrea Ferreol make a solid duo as the opera manager Choleti and Carlotta, they're used for comic relief well but not overused, Carlotta's actually pretty devious in this and any version of this character is fun to watch even if her egotistical personality makes her very unlikeable. And Adam Storke as Philipe, no disrespect to the man at all for this, but I really don't like this version of Raoul. This is quintessential floppy hair fop Raoul and I don't truthfully buy the romance but I barely ever do, I mean he acts perfectly fine but it's the character I take issue with. I was so over it by the end man, I just don't like the ending cause it puts me in a bummer mood but at the exact same time that goes to show good storytelling and effective drama if it can take you to those emotional places. I highly recommend looking this movie up on Youtube cause there was some severe film preservation going on and even more so specifically Phantom film preservation, they have both parts in upscaled 1080p and it looked great even on my laptop. Seeing the Paris Opera House in such clarity, with all the costumes and props, was so cool and enjoyable. It's undoubtedly a movie that's a matter of taste to people, some adore it and say it's one of the best, other say it isn't for them, but where do I stand? Well once more, this version I have heard about for 15 years now and finally seeing it was nice. I think it's a very good version and has lots to enjoy, but I can understand some of the feedback on things like the runtime, the Phantom's characterization, more emphasis on romance and less on the music, but those things didn't faze me badly. There's something for everyone in this phandom. You want straight up bloody horror here's the Robert Englund version, you want classic cinema and a faithful adaptation go wild with the Chaney version, you want high emotion melodrama with a fantastic score the musical is most certainly the way, and if you want absolutely fucking nothing what so goddamn ever to do with the source material unfortunately the Dario Argento version exists. I'd recommend this for phans who want a more human story with Erik and Christine, who like romance movies and emotional drama, or just wanting to see yet another version previously unexplored, because it is worth it. And from what I've seen the stage show isn't half bad either, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it all live, and on the tier list of Phantom musicals I think it sits at 2nd place which in the grand scheme of things is a mighty good place to be. So take it for what it's worth. 3 stars, 8/10! And God above are we just digging into it tomorrow, oh yes it is time to talk....Love Never Dies.

Phantom Of The Opera (1983)

Down once more to the depths of the opera.

It's strange how certain things come back into your life and Phantom has slowly crept in these past few months, I've rewatched films, seen some more fan appreciation for various adaptations, and even re-read the book so let's talk more films of this beyond niche corner of popular literature. Now I've heard about the Schell version almost immediately in my first and most severe obsession with Phantom Of The Opera way, way back in about 2008 or 2009 but I've only just seen it for the first time. So how was it? In terms of movies it's about lower mid tier of adaptations. They shift the setting from turn of the 20th century Paris to about 1920s-30s Budapest, which brownie points for the crew actually shooting on location there, as we meet composer Sandor Korvin and his fiancee Elena who's a debutting opera singer and after a pretty convoluted and not super well defined reason of the manager sabotaging her career, Elena drowns herself and leads Korvin to seek revenge. And yes this is one of those versions where the Phantom is scarred by acid instead of being deformed, a popular trope since the 1930s chinese version Song At Midnight, but here it's not handled nearly as well. What confuses matters even more for me is Korvin is rescued from acid disfiguring and being almost burned alive by this character who seems to be a mix of the ratcatcher and mute assistant from the Herbert Lom version who inexplicably is outside but not only that, he takes Korvin to his soon to be subterranean lair, and even picks out the mask for him. This boggles my mind and quite frankly takes away defining moments for the Phantom. An indeterminate period of time elapses as we are introduced to new budding opera singer Maria who catches the eye of the Phantom, but not due to just fancying her for her talent and looks but because she looks similar to Korvin's dead wife. Not a fan of such changes, they really love interjecting a reason why the Phantom loves Christine in movies instead of it being a natural attraction (or about as natural a romance as you can get with a creepy mask wearing cave dweller). Oh Christine is his dead wife reincarnated, Christine is his daughter, Christine is the only woman to do his music justice, and it just doesn't work. And to compound that fact that there really isn't any romance or love triangle here, our Raoul equivalent is a posh englishman played by Michael York, and admittedly I actually liked how they weren't making googly eyes at each other from the start and have a rather catty and non-romantic edge to them at the start but there's no real fight or passion to win Maria to either side and when they do get together it's very much a whatever reaction. Hell the most confrontational they get is when the Phantom chokes Michael out like a bitch at a turkish bath and that's kinda it. Another aspect woefully cut short. Sounds like negatives all around huh? Well in all seriousness, I don't hate it. I accept it was just a TV movie made in the 80s, they took some liberties with the source material, and in a pre-Andrew Lloyd Webber musical world showed that people still remember the story. The best part period about the movie is Maximilian Schell himself, I heard his acting might have been a tad much but madame please Erik ain't exactly a down to earth subdued presence in the book so I'll live, I love the look and the mask, I dare say he has one of the best speaking voices for this character in any medium, I love we see him out and about beyond the opera house, and while he doesn't appear much the stuff he has is nothing but highlights for me. Jane Seymour is decent in acting and I don't hate how she takes a more firm spoken and career driven iteration of Christine, but in tandem with our two male leads there's just something missing that's needed for this particular story. Michael York, eh I've rarely seen a Raoul variant that I tremendously like and the attitude and upper classmanship for lack of a better word turns me off quick but no bad acting from him. I will admit the video I got ahold of for this was free on Youtube cause to own it on video you need to have a region free DVD player and even then it seems like not many copies are abound, so the quality was in classic 360p which lends quite well if you imagine you're watching it on a tube TV in 1983, but the direction is solid, the scenery in sets and locations are nice, also kinda amazing to see a Phantom lair look pretty damn close to the musical version 3 years before the stage musical came out so well done there, everything feels legit to the time period, you just gotta roll with the less than crystal clear picture quality but hey maybe there is a better and cleaner source to be found elsewhere. Who knows. Not bad, but there are better. I give it 2 stars, 6/10, and we jump all the way to 1990 tomorrow for another TV movie with a huge modern film star today. If you know your stuff you already know who it is.

Phantom Of The Opera At The Royal Albert Hall

I figure I'd throw my hat into the month of March musical madness, and look at some musicals I haven't talked about yet.

Well it's official, Phantom is now the longest running show in history, been played for almost 35 years and a special commemorative DVD was released on it's 25th anniversary which we'll look at today. Now I will say I have actually seen the show live years ago and very much loved it, yet even I can't fathom why this show has practically been god tier theatre since it's premiere. I know people say oh Phantom Of The Opera is just dramatic fluff for teenage girls and midwestern moms and while I am slightly biased with me being a major fan of the character in multiple iterations across books, films, and musicals I very much enjoy the story. We start off in the dilapidated opera house as we get some preamble and a tiny taste of mystery before things get spectacular with the unveiling of the chandelier and one of the all time most iconic and awesome musical pieces is performed as we're whisked away to the grand days of the opera populaire, and from then it follows the classic story of the love triangle between Christine Daae, the Vicomte Raoul de Chagney, and the eponymous Phantom. I love everything about it, the songs are wonderful, the acting is mighty fine, even the more hokey things like a fireball casting man in a mask is pretty damn great, big emotional ending, expertly crafted staging, the whole lot. I think it's quite safe to say this is the most popular version of the character, unless you know some hardcore movie fans who know of the Lon Chaney 1925 silent classic, this is the version everyone knows about. The 1925 film saved Gaston Leroux's story from absolute obscurity, and the stage show propelled it to a househeld name. This particular production is the most lavish I've seen of any production, fully utilizing the Royal Albert Hall and modern technology to create a seamless spectacle of music and visuals, and rightfully so with it being that special occasion. We have quite possibly the most beloved and well known actors playing the Phantom and Christine after Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman, Ramin Karimloo and Sierra Boggess. These two are something truly special to see, both with very powerful and outstanding vocals but also very strong acting particularly in Ramin's case. He goes 150% and I love it, I can hear some people say it's a bit much but well...the book version is a drama queen of the highest level so I can accept it. Now with this being a taped event that was actually broadcasted to cinemas around the world, it's shot incredibly well and the camera always knows where to be to show the full range of the performances with the editing being spot on. The musical itself is about two hours long but it has a very special encore that lasts almost 30 minutes with the cast, original creators, and even the man himself Lord Andy to show their appreciation for the fans and their partners in show business which is actually quite sweet and you can tell they have immense love and respect for everyone who made the show possible. I know such a task as filming a live show is difficult to do and I can only imagine how the original run went, but good lord I've seen countless recordings on good old VHS camcorders of the stage show because we couldn't get a high quality official release of it, and I'm not terribly upset that it took 25 years to finally get it because I can understand why and with such a well executed production it does almost make up for it but I'm a greedy fan and always wanted a copy of my own to watch whenever. It's certainly not for everyone, I can admit the source material is flawed but musicals like I've said before are not logical, it's all about suspension of disbelief and the emotions which is the most likely reason this show is still running strong. Is it perfect? No. Is it very entertaining and engaging? Absolutely. The cast is downright amazing, the sets and costumes are extravagant but not to the point of ludicrous taste, the music.....ohh my gawd it is so good! You can say what you will about the story, but no one can deny this is masterfully crafted music in every single scene even if it's not a main big famous song. I was a total nerd for this stuff a decade ago and my love for it has certainly not waned, this is a real treat and if you've always wanted to see it but don't have a theatre production near your home that is about to do it, pick this up and enjoy yourself. I'd give it a high 9/10, what slight issue I take with this can be forgiven due to the craftsmanship and emotion of this play. Certainly a strong start to the week, but what comes next for our musical tribute? Something unexpected but a movie I've been meaning to talk about for quite some time. Until then my friend.

Phantom Of The Opera (1989)

I'm actually happy this was the last Phantom movie I did for this week. Not only is it fully deserving of the horror genre but honestly, the Charles Dance and 2004 version don't qualify as horror so we ended on an incredible high note.

This might be my absolute favorite Robert Englund role ever, blasphemous though it may be to others. It's a pretty out there version of the story starting off in 1980s Manhattan where we meet Christine who discovers a manuscript titled Don Juan Triumphant who uses it for an audition. Unfortunately she gets whacked in the head with a sandbag and then it becomes a very, very different movie. She time warps to England in the 1880s. It's not a dream, she legit time warps. Hwhat?? My previous statement about how each version keeps the story interesting and different has reached new heights of truth. Then it kinda follows the story set in the book, young singer coached by a mysterious figure, love triangle ensues, masquerade ball, a graveyard scene not once recreated since the 1925 movie, etc. but there are either completely idiotic or completely brilliant story changes. The character of Erik has been completely built from the ground up, here he's an aspiring composer who makes a Faust deal with the devil that causes his disfigurement leading to him actually having to skin people alive and stitch their flesh onto his face. Whoa. Oh, and he's immortal which they actually had a reason for, believe it or not. This was actually supposed to be the first part of a two picture deal, they made The Phantom immortal so they had a film that could focus on the 1880s and then a film that would pick up in the modern day of then 1989 or perhaps 1990. And I for one greatly want to see that second movie, they were working on the script and Robert Englund was very excited to do the next part. And I can't blame him, this is a fun character! It's such a shame he got typecasted as Freddy because he genuinely has great presence and charm, able to be suave and bloodthirsty without making it stupid. They did great with Robert's version making The Phantom more creepy and disturbing, with some great lines throughout. So story is out there but great, but it doesn't stop there! The cinematography is gorgeous, the music by Misha Segal is beautiful particularly with Don Juan Triumphant, the gore effects are grisly and get under your skin (full pun intended), Jill Schoelen is a gorgeous and lovely Christine, there's so much to love in this movie! It's easily top 3 in my Phantom films and it put me in such a good mood after finishing it. An excellent, excellent way to end the week.

Well this was coming since my first yearly trip down Halloweentown, join me in Haddonfield next week.

Phantom Of The Opera (1962)

It seems we always get a Phantom movie every 20 years, which is good news for me.

I think Hammer Studios did a fine job with this movie, most of the people who know of Hammer horror films think of this as a lesser film but it's quite good. The story starts off very well with lots of suspense as a new opera is making it's debut and subsequently being sabotaged, where we meet our main characters Harry and Christine as they try to piece together the mysterious disruptions at the opera. The Phantom is made into a more sympathetic character who was once a professor who sold his entire life's work to a real swine of a man named Ambrose D'Arcy, and I actually quite like the fact that the reasons as to why The Phantom attacks this man is kept a mystery till near the end. Herbert Lom makes for a great Phantom, he has the presence, the voice, a genuinely creepy design, and a genuine feel of insanity. Some people complain that in this version The Phantom doesn't love Christine but honestly I don't mind, until he hears her voice he doesn't want his symphony done so the man wants musical perfection and not love, which is no bad thing. You would think with so many iterations of this story it would pretty much be the same story everytime, but every version has a unique twist to it so it never feels boring. This movie may not be as well known as the Hammer Dracula or Frankenstein series, but it deserves some attention and love. It has a creepy, grim, almost gothic look, the actors are all awesome, this version actually has a genuine lovely romance between Harry and Christine which is rare cause either the romance is sickening or just kinda whatever, great costume design, and Lord Ambrose D'Arcy is the only Michael Gough role I know where he plays a villain and it is glorious. Maybe not a must see movie, but worth the time if you are interested. And tomorrow we cap off the week with a rather unexpected actor to play The Phantom, and no it's not friggin' Gerald Butler.

Phantom Of The Opera (1943)

Now for the first Phantom movie in color.

This adaptation takes a few liberties with the source material, but I attribute it to the time when the movie was made, World War 2 was raging so classic monsters weren't exactly scary anymore leading the filmmakers to focus more on a colorful spectacle to entertain audiences. Compared to the Chaney version, this film doesn't have much horror in it but it's still a fine film and even won an Academy Award for Best Cinematography which is evident from the very first shot, it really gives a grand scale and shows off the still lavish original set from the 1925 film. The story concers a poor violinist Claudin, who has spent years helping a young singer Christine to finally be a great singer before his face is scarred by acid and he takes to haunting the Paris Opera House. Somewhat similar to the original novel, but as I said takes some liberties. Hell in the original script Claudin was supposed to be Christine's father, but they cut it because of the romance subplot which was a wise decision to say the least, but it's like they never refilmed previous scenes so Claudin acts very paternal around Christine but for seemingly unknown reasons. And on top of that we get two Raoul's in this version leading to quite a few attempts at comedy that fail miserably, so I can honestly live without that. But beyond that small problem the cast is quite good, Claude Raines is a fine Phantom and for a man of small frame his voice is what gives him power (Just like in the book!), and Susanna Foster is ridiculously pretty and an excellent singer. Speaking of which, there's at least 3 or 4 musical numbers though only one is actually worth a damn in my opinion, Lullaby Of The Bells which is beyond beautiful. So if musicals aren't your taste, I don't blame you if you fast forward through them. But beyond that, it's a good film and should be seen at least once. I have to say Claude Raines Phantom look is quite possibly my favorite of them all, not so much in disfigurement but costume, it looks so cool. You know what's odd? Waaaay back in either my first or second year of reviews, probably my first I went out and bought all the essential Universal Monster movies. So Dracula, Frankenstein, Bride Of Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Wolf Man, and Creature From The Black Lagoon, all on seperate DVD's and this version was the Phantom movie of that collection. Now me personally I would have put the Lon Chaney version but I think it's still public domain. Like Universal owns the rights, kind of? And this is the one that comes packaged in every box set or nearly all of them. There's nothing wrong with that, but this is not the Phantom movie that pops in my head when I think of this character. In fact, the only other Monster movie that I can think of where you don't think of the original is The Mummy. Because there's been what, like 5 different Mummies? Imhotep, Kharis, the Hammer Mummy, the 90s Mummy, and now Sofia Boutella. Most people usually think of either the 90s or the original Mummy, but I'm getting off track here. Do recommend it for at least one viewing, and later this week it's Hammer time!

Phantom Of The Opera (1925)

That final scene though is great regardless.

I've always been intrigued by the story of The Phantom Of The Opera, a story over a 100 years old written by a mystery novelist Gaston Leroux which has been adapted quite possibly more than any other famous monster during the golden age of horror. But in my humble opinion and to many others as well the 1925 version starring The Man Of A Thousand Faces, Lon Chaney is not only the closest to the book but the superior film above all other versions. The story takes place at the Paris Opera house where a young singer named Christine Daae is being wooed by a mysterious man better known as the Opera Ghost, and is soon fought over by the villainous Phantom and the heroic Raoul de Chagny. I think I can say Phantom is the first true American horror film, where others like Nosferatu came from Germany though I could be wrong for Chaney made several films in the horror genre around this time including The Hunchback Of Notre Dame. Regardless this is a classic movie and the restored version which I caught on TCM was outstanding complete with an original score by Carl Davis and the version I suggest you watch. I strongly urge despite Phantom being a public domain film and could be viewed free on YouTube, do not watch it on those terms. The picture quality is horrendous and the music is stock and boring, the restored version made me greatly appreciate the film so much more and the score is definitive in my opinion. The sets are outstanding, a dead ringer for the Paris Opera House to be sure, and the production quality was very high for the time. And for the longest time the set for which this film was made stood standing decades after the film wrapped up shooting. It has such a rich history and is one of the most well documented of any silent picture in history. And for good reason, the story is timeless to be certain. The acting though no words can be heard are excellent, a real tribute to the restoration, so much acting is done through the eyes and body language, and of course the best part and actor of the film is Lon Chaney. Born to deaf and mute parents, Chaney was created for the silent era without a doubt, being able to say so much with a simple movement of his hand and really did the character of Erik justice in his potrayal of a genius but insane musical composer who fell in love with a woman. But all the credit cannot go to Chaney alone, Mary Philbin in my opinion is the only Christine and she is gorgeous and brings much to the character who was kind of a blank slate in the book. And the actor who plays the Persian, is underrated in my opinion giving a mysterious and interesting potrayal of an already interesting and puzzling character. Needless to say I adore this movie and the story it tells, it does bring me back to the discovery of this movie, my repeated rentals and viewings of it from the video store, appreciating and yet being scared of Chaney's outstanding self made makeup. And my love and further expansion of other versions of Phantom Of The Opera came to ahead in my teenage years. All sprung from this classic of American and horror cinema that deserves to be seen by current generations. In fact I give this movie a solid 6/5 stars, and look forward to the next iteration of Phantom tomorrow where we look at Claude Raines potrayal in the color musical made in 1943.

Also a major recommendation for the Phantom Reviewer who you can find on Youtube for more Phantomy goodness!