1 The Best Phantom Movie
this is a good version of the story in this we see how he got scarred in which in this one he gets a tray of Acid thrown into his face its Case looks cool Get this and forget about the new legacy collections these Movies are special and deserve better
2 THE BEST VERSION
though of course it doesn`t have the Andrew Lloyd Webber music. Still, it remains the best version. Claude Rains is brilliant and the sets, Technicolor photography and operatic segments are a treasure to behold.
This film manages to entertain us both as a musical, drama and horror flick. This film belongs in every film-library owned by a moviebuff.
3 glorious Technicolor adaptation of the Leroux novel
This 1943 version of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is simply stunning. As other viewers have noted, this version is more colourful musical than bloodcurdling horror (and more in tune with Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical than the Lon Chaney silent).
Claude Rains plays the Phantom. In this version the Phantom is a violinist in the opera's orchestra, trying to get his own music published. Because of arthritis in one of his hands, he gets fired from the orchestra and left virtually destitute. A case of jumping to the wrong conclusion leads him to be severely scarred by acid, and he retreats to the cool and dark of the sewers for refuge.
Susanna Foster plays Christine DuBois, a young singer in the opera chorus, who graduates to the lead roles when the resident diva is murdered by the Phantom. Nelson Eddy plays Anatole, the resident lead baritone who is in love with Christine.
The Technicolor photography is lush and vibrant, superbly reproduced for this DVD. Susanna Foster (and her amazing voice which roams several octaves) is perfectly showcased in the well-executed opera scenes. Also starring Edgar Barrier, J. Edward Bromberg and Jane Farrar.
Followed by THE CLIMAX (which featured Susanna Foster being menaced by Boris Karloff).
4 Don't be expecting a grade-b horror film..
As great as Universal is, they have given us some pretty cheezy horror movies. Now, I am not complaining. I for one, completely enjoy bits like Son of Dracula, and the Creature Walks Among Us..but the rest of the general public probably wouldn't. This movie is top knotch Phantom. The script is good, the choice of music is good, and the actors are great. I really enjoy the fact that they got an actual Opera Singer to be in the movie (Nelson Eddy.. you know, from the short Disney cartoon about the opera singing whale?). There is not an OUNCE of cheese to be found here ladies and gentlemen (go ahead and look all you want, I know I have). If you want to enjoy Phantom themed movies, this is where you should start (Phantom of the Paradise being the second). It is not the novel mind you, but a stand out interpretation of it. Great movie!
5 Certainly a different version, but so much to appreciate
The most interesting comparison between this film and any other version (including Andrew Lloyd Webber's) is that we meet the Phantom before he's 'The Phantom'. In all other versions, he has been haunting the catacombs of the Paris Opera House for years. We first meet him as a member of the Orchestra and, after an accident involving acid, his face is disfigured and he descends into the depths of the Opera Populaire. What I like about this is we sympathize with him. He's very passive and lives a terrible life. His landlady verbally abuses him and when someone steals his music, he loses it. Claude Rains is an effective Phantom and totally believeable. But the love triangle shown in all versions is now a love quadrangle. Christine is being pursued by two suitors and also the Phantom. This doesn't seem neccesary. The only thing that comes out of it is some comedic relief. There are some great Opera scenes and the Phantom's written scores are so haunting. The actress playing Carlotta isn't very effective. That role should be soooo over-the-top and this Carlotta isn't interesting at all. Susanna Foster is a beautiful Christine and does a good job lip-synching the Opera parts. I enjoyed the ending, which was a throwback to the Lon Chaney version. The Phantom plays his organ and his lair collapses, leaving his mask. The sets and cinematography are really beautiful. One major vice: the Phantom's face wasn't horrific at all. He had like one scar on his face. If I saw him walking down the street, I wouldn't think twice. If that was the make-up they were going to use, I would have preferred not seeing his face at all, like in the 1990 TV miniseries starring Charles Dance as the Phantom. Still, this is a very good film version of the classic tale.
6 Way, way, way
too musical for what it's supposed to be. It's just not a good remake, despite claude Rains; best efforts. The problem is a weak script, weak supporting cast, and most of all, weak make-up. The "story" of the Phantom was interesting, but as a whole, the film is, unfortunately, well, weak. Catch it on TV
7 Pretty Good
Not my favorite interpretation of Phantom, but still good. Susanna Foster kind of bugs me, but that's okay. And they really changed the story. It's not at all like the origional novel, but it's about Phantom, and that's a good enough excuse for me! Anyways, it was pretty nice. The Raoul character was most realistic. I just don't like Susanna. :)
8 The Phantom Goes Musical
Gaston Leroux•À?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•À?s silent classic kept the basic elements of the novel intact•À?-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•À?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•À?an idea that would color almost every later adaptation, and Webber•À?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, here 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 in the way that 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•À?-in addition to the aforementioned photography, which won an Oscar-•À?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•À?s slow pace, the lackluster script, and "sanitized for your protection" tone so typical of Universal Studios in the 1940s.
Like most "Universal Horror" DVD packages, this one is superior. The centerpiece of the bonus material is a very nice documentary, "The Opera Ghost: A Phantom Unmasked," which details the origins of the novel and the numerous film adaptations of it•À?and which is actually quite a bit more interesting than the 1943 film itself. There is also a nice, if somewhat perfunctory, audio commentary track by historian Scott McQueen, trailers, stills, and the like. But when everything is said and done, it•À?s the film that counts•À?and unless you•À?re a diehard Phantom fan you•À?re likely to be unimpressed.
9 A cute but not particularly deep little flick
I wanted to see this because it had Claude Rains mostly, but also because I wanted to see Nelson Eddy as a person after hearing him in the Disney short "The Whale Who Wanted to Sing at the Met". Besides, I've been a fan of the book by Gaston LeRoux and the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber for some time, have seen the silent movie version of this story, and wanted to chalk up another credit to my Phantom experience.
Overall, this wasn't a bad little movie - I felt that the fact that it was in colour rather detracted from the sombre, ominous mood this kind of tale needs - it should really be sort of Victorian film-noir, shot in black and white. But then, I felt that they really changed the story so much in this film version that it can only be looked on as a story independent of the book which was its inspiration, and so for that reason the colour is okay. I also felt that Claude Rains' character seemed as though it was going to be a main character at the beginning of the film, but then he seemed to disappear from the film for much of the rest of it. Also, the progression of his adoration complex for Christine was sadly overlooked throughout the film, and we are to understand his descent into bitterness toward mankind from the few scattered minutes of screen time that he has?
Although the rival banter between Raoul and Anatole was very amusing, it seems a little out of place in a story of such tragic dimensions, and draws one's focus completely away from the relationship between Christine and the Phantom of the film's title, which really is the core of the entire book and should be the same or similar in the movie. As another example of distraction - I like hearing Nelson Eddy sing, but at least two of the operatic numbers could have been shortened to make room for some more character development and depth in Erik and Christine's relationship.
I felt that the silent version of the film not only followed the plot of the book more accurately, but that the emotions and experiences of the characters were ones easier to "jump into", even despite the common (for a silent) over-acting of its players - but at the same time, this 1943 version was easier to watch. It's not as long or nervewracking. Still, I would recommend you to do it all - read the book, watch both films, and listen to the original London cast recording of the musical if you can't go and see it. Each one of these things will enhance your appreciation and enjoyment of the story in some way or another.
10 Wonderful in every way.This movie is the best!
This movie is the best phantom movie on the market,and from these very important features;Starting from the very begining of the movie,with it's wonderful and breath holding and colourful opera house.Also,Claude Rains is wonderful and conquering actor,with it's elegant voice and his sudden perfomances during the movie.He is defently the best phantom actor,although Lon chaney is more classic and thrilling,but a little bit borring and muchless intresting as Rains does in this movie.The opera parts were just amazing and exciting,even not to the opera lovers,like me.As a grest phantom fan,I likes this movie the best because it is much more thrilling and spontanian then 1925' LON CHANEY version.It gives,However,Much more exciting end then chaney's classic version.Though the film wasn't so close to the book,it's score and story are great and perfect in every way,and contains a bit of horror movie(indeed-don't disagree!),romance,thriller and exciting melodrama.This version made me never forget it ever.Buy it on VHS or DVD-including also the documantry of "The opera ghost-a phantom unmsked....Phantom fans-What are you waiting for?!
11 Wonderful in every way.This movie is the best!
This movie is the best phantom movie on the market,and from these very important features;Starting from the very begining of the movie,with it's wonderful and breath holding and colourful opera house.Also,Claude Rains is wonderful and conquering actor,with it's elegant voice and his sudden perfomances during the movie.He is defently the best phantom actor,although Lon chaney is more classic and thrilling,but a little bit borring and muchless intresting as Rains does in this movie.The opera parts were just amazing and exciting,even not to the opera lovers,like me.As a grest phantom fan,I likes this movie the best because it is much more thrilling and spontanian then 1925' LON CHANEY version.It gives,However,Much more exciting end then chaney's classic version.Though the film wasn't so close to the book,it's score and story are great and perfect in every way,and contains a bit of horror movie(indeed-don't disagree!),romance,thriller and exciting melodrama.This version made me never forget it ever.Buy it on VHS or DVD-including also the documantry of "The opera ghost-a phantom unmsked"(search for the DVD version information here in amazon).Phantom fans-What are you waiting for?!
12 Awsome Movie! by a 9 year old
I thought this movie was the best one out of all the classic horror movies that I have seen. Suzanna Foster and Nelson Eddy are great in this film! I thought Claude Rains was the perfect Phantom in this movie. No blood or gore, just exciting adventure to keep you entertained. I highly recomend this version!!
13 Not Enough Phantom
I liked this movie and thought Claude Rains did a spectacular job...with what little screen time he was allotted. He needed more time to really play out the character of Erik as a person. He also seemed too nice to be Erik. There was no fierceness to him at all. But I liked him anyways. Susanna Foster was o.k. as Christine but I didn't like the fact that she seemed pleased that she had two men fighting over her...kind of like she enjoyed flirting. Overall, I loved the movie, I just wish Rains had been given more screen time.
14 The Incomparable Claude ... REIGNS
Lavish retelling of Gaston Leroux's classic tale about a mysterious character terrorizing the Paris Opera House, filmed in eye-popping three-strip "candybox" Technicolor by cinematographers Hal Mohr and W. Howard Greene (who received highly-deserved Oscars for their work). The lush production values help to distract the viewer's attention away from the disappointing fact that the screenplay emphasizes music, comedy, and romance over the more horrific and suspenseful aspects of the tale - there's a reason why singers Nelson Eddy and Susanna Foster receive star billing over Claude Rains who portrays the title character! Still, despite the unfortunate focus on opera as opposed to the phantom, the film must be considered a success. It's highly entertaining in addition to being remarkably pleasing to the eye (the film won a second Academy Award for its Art Direction), and Rains is such a consummate actor that he manages to dominate the film despite the brevity of his role. Besides, who can quarrel with a film in which Nelson Eddy gets not the girl at the end, but the second romantic male lead (Edgar Barrier) instead?!
The DVD offers an excellent film and sound transfer. The color print is just the slightest bit unbalanced in a couple of scenes, but most casual viewers probably won't even notice, the flaw is so minor. The bonus documentary "The Opera Ghost", which includes scenes from the 1925 Lon Chaney silent version as well as the 1962 Herbert Lom remake, is noteworthy for recently filmed interview clips with leading lady Susanna Foster and Claude Rains's daughter. The biggest disappointment with the DVD edition is the omission of the film's Original Theatrical Trailer; although short clips from the trailer are included in the documentary, it would have been nice to see the whole thing as it was released to theatres. Universal Home Video, you know better!
15 BLAHHH
For the very face that this movie is involved with the very idea of Phantom, I must rate it at least two stars, but other words I truely think that this movie is a waste of time and money. It does not tell you his real emotions except perhaps being a perverted old man who has a special likings for young women. Nothing was accurate to any story I've ever heard and compared his being with that of a sewer rat. The love story is absolutely awful, esspecially because of the fact that no one gets the girl, the one who was obsessed with her dies, and the two "dashingly handsome" men who competed for her affections, gave very little mind to the fact that she chose neither of them in the end. The best character was the violin!
16 nice fierce phantom,opera parts were okay.
This film was fun and the phantom was a typical man untill he turned to evil and killed a person he thought stole his music. He then fled down to the underground to fool the police! The singing was okay,but not the best part of the film,as this was made for adults,not for children,as some scenes tell. The phantom was a crazed animal for most of the movie,crashing chandeliers on people and tying ropes around their neck. The only time the phantom was like a normal person was when he was with Christine. But the girl wanted to see his face and ripped off the Phantom's mask! The Phantom then gave the the mirror and Cshristine an inhuman glare!! It appeared that the phantom would do something terrible to Christine if her lovers did not come in in the very nick of time and rescue the girl. The film has many startling murder scenes,as in the red haired girl's bedroom where the Phantom appeares from noplace and kills the two women inside there. That is off screen probably because he stabbed them with a knife,and that might have been a gruesome scene! The movie would receive a PG rating for violence,though! But, stick with these old versions and STAY AWAY from the 1989 version of this tale,it is a very bad movie!! In conclusion,this nice film would suit a lot of phantom fans!
17 Best of the Phantom Musicals
The very fact that Nelson Eddy and Susanna Foster were chosen to make this film should tell all that the films primary focus is not on the phantom although Raines plays the part well. The music is great,the singing fantastic. With Foster how could it be otherwise.The sets are also wonderful and lend themselves to your immersion into the film.You really can sit back and listen to the film without watching it and still enjoy it.Should you enjoy Foster as much as I ,view her in The Climax with Karloff. Fair movie but again great sets and fabulous singing.Turhan Bay's role as a lovesick puppy ruins the film.
18 A very good film and well worth seeing!
This is a film well worth seeing and very entertaining. It is a version of "Phantom of the Opera," very unlike the book, but very good as well. I think it's worth seeing for any fan of Phantom.
19 OK movie
This movie has very little phantom and the opera is very heavy plus there is to much of it. If you are looking for something like the Broadway show don't get this.
20 OK movie
This movie has very little phantom and the opera is very heavy plus there is to much of it. If you are looking for something like the Broadway show don't get this.
21 awful
I always try to find good in a movie that I see, regardless of how bad some can get, but this! This is not at all "The Phantom of the Opera", it is not even an adaption, the names of the characters, the story line, not even the lead tenor nor the police man even appeared in the novel.
Raines gives a good performance, but lacks the exotic mystery that shrouded Leroux fantastic character, Christine remains to be seen on her "acting".
Christine, in the novel who is tormented by normality and the ectasy that the phantom offers her, grins and badly mouths through the overly long opera sequences and whose voice is no more french that George Bushes.
The production is too big and has a comic strip look about it. It is better to watch Lon Chaneys version, a silent movie need not cay anything to be heard. Burn your copy of this and take up the silent version or the original novel, trust me!
22 A very sweet version
This is a very sweet romantic little film. It bears very little resemblance to the book, but none the less it is a must see for a serious phan. I found Claude Rains very sympathetic and a rather cuddley phantom. The "Raouls" provided some very amusing comic relief, although I personally think that two Raouls is too much! The phantom's make-up is not very impressive, but it's a rather tame film when compared with some other versions. The music is done nicely and the acting is, for the most part, quite good. I reccomend this film.
23 Weird but good
This film is loosely based on the POTO novel. It's not very much like the book, but it's still very enjoyable. The acting is top notch and it's visually stunning. I recommend this film to most anyone that likes old movies or POTO
24 Didn't Follow the Book A Lot
Ok, it was a pretty good movie, but it didn't follow the book a lot. I noticed a mistake too (I'm not picky, I just love finding mistakes in movies)! When the Phantom is sawing the chain holding the chandiler, after a while, he moves to the other side of the link, then it shows the performance again, and when it shows him sawing again, he's sawing on the side he was originally on. It sounds a little confusing. Claude Raines didn't get enough screen time, I think, and the other characters got plenty of time. It didn't seem fair.
25 Too much opera, not enough Phantom - BUT STILL GREAT!
Lavish, colorful, extravagant 1943 remake of the 1925 Lon Chaney classic is a visual treat. Released in bright technicolor, and featuring a splendid all-star cast, PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is a wonderful addition to any old Horror Fan's collection. As I already mentioned, the film is sporadically hindered by an overabudance of Opera Sequences, and don't get me wrong. The music is soaring and awe-inspiring, if a little silly at times. But, that's how it's supposed to be. Enter the excellent performance as always of Claude Rains portraying composer Erique Claudin, who lives in poverty and is disabled by arthritis pains, who falls for a young soprano Christine DuBois (Susanna Foster, in a magnificent performance), who would later find herself within the charms of baritone Nelson Eddy and Police Inspector Edgar Barrier. When Claudin goes to publish his music, a tragic misunderstanding occurs, and Claudin is splashed by acid. He prowls the sewers and haunts the Paris Opera House to enhance the singing career of young Foster. Therein is the tale. PHANTOM OF THE OPERA may have its' weaknesses, but more strengths. It has music, great acting, great cast, comedy, moments of suspense, and is absolutely unforgettable. DVD includes a fascinating documentary "Opera Ghost: The Phantom Unmasked" by Scott MacQueen, who also narrates the feature commentary. So buy the DVD, reserve your Box Five seats and enjoy PHANTOM OF THE OPERA - but watch out for the chandelier!
26 Phantom of the Opera (1943)
If you are not familiar with Claude Rains, then you are in for a treat. He was one of the most under-rated stars of his day. If he had more screen time, this would be a 5 star movie. Worth it for the eye-popping cinematography alone.
27 Good, But Not Very Faithful to Leroux
If you watch this movie on its own, it is pretty good. But if you are expecting Leroux, you will probably be disappointed. The story itself is good. Rains commands a generous amount of sympathy, and he does fill us with a fair amount of terror. (Especially when he threatens Christina's rival.) The 3 man quarrle over Christina is done well and has a cute end. Some of the music is very good, but unfortunately, the story seems to take a back seat to it. The photography and images are well done. The acting for the most part is good, but for some reason the Persian is deleted. My biggest complaint is that the phantom's lamentable suicide (because he knows Christina can never love him) is turned into an accidental death. The major shift from the Phantom's terror to tragic sorrow is one of the most important things in this story. I understand that when people make movies of books, some things are changed around, but I can not really understand why they would change something so crucial. If you are willing to watch this without worrying about Leroux's intentions, you may be pleasantly surprised and entertained. But if you want to see what Leroux wrote, this is not the version to see.
28 Lots of Opera Music
The movie had more music then it did charecterization. WE don't see the Phantom enough to get to understand hi plight. All in all, a weak movie.
29 A great universal movie wasted with old music.
This has to be the best universal movie ever made. It contains a masterpiece plot and a group of great actors with good parts...... but then the old fat lady came to sing! That old fat lady who sings the 20 min song wastes the role of Claude Rains. Claude Rains is very scary as the phantom, though he looks very young for his age. Sue Foster is very beliveable as the young actress, and Nelson Eddy is horrid as a viewer. It seems that the movie has many sparks, but just can't add up enough scares to kill the fat lady!
30 The first remake of many
This was the film that taught me there was such a thing as a remake. I first saw it on TV in black and white when I was about 9 years old. This was in the mid-60s when classic monsters were enjoying a fad with toys, magazines, and TV reruns. I had been hoping to see it ever since I had gotten the Aurora Phantom model kit. I had that when-are-they-going-to-show-the monster feeling during much of it, but was so was so impressed with the chandelier and unmasking scenes that I'd have wanted to own the film if that had been possible back then. I was puzzled though, that this phantom's face looked nothing like the one on the model. Of course, when I found out there was an earlier version, that gave me yet another film to be on the lookout for. It was several years later when I finally saw it, and I had to save for months to buy a completely silent version on 8mm. The DVD has an excellenct documentary, possibly the best of the Universal Classic Monsters Collection. There is so much worthwile information in the running commentary that film historian Scott Macqueen often has to talk fast to fit it all in in under 93 minutes. One thing I wish had been pointed out is that the vast majority of the Lon Chaney silent versions available on video were drastically reedited from the rerelease/remake of 1930. The 1925 cut still exists, but I've only seen a so-so quality laser disc version that had no music soundtrack. The documentary has a some facinating clips from the 1930 version. I've read that the full sountrack still exists. Now if only the 1925 version could be restored and scored and the 1930 version reconstructed as much as possible. That would make an excellent two-movie DVD!
31 THE BEST OPERA HOUSE WITH THE BEST PHANTOM
I SAW THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA AT THE AGE OF SEVEN [A LONG TIME AGO I MAY ADD]AND IT SCARED THE PANTS OFF ME, BUT TO DAY I SEE IT AS THE BEST PHANTOM FILM FOR COLOUR AND SINGING,AND YOU REALY DO FEEL YHAT YOU ARE IN A LUSH OPERA HOUSE. NOW THAT IT IS ON DVD IT IS EVEN MORE SO WORTH HAVING IN YOUR COLLECTION, I DONT THINK ANDREW LOYD WEBBERS WILL BE LUSH AND PLUSH AS 1943 PHANTOM.
32 A good classic mystery film
Yes, this film was ptetty good. It is not that close to the actual novel but I like that. Not every version can be that close to the novel because it would be boring; we'd just be watching the same things over snd over. Really good costumes and music. The sets really successfully give an 1800s mood with the candle light and horses. Pretty good for a film made in 1942. Some of the opera scenes get a littlt boring if you don't apriciate that stuff but the film sticks to historical acuracy.
33 Simply Bad!
Do not read this if you liked the movie! First of all, it was NOTHING like the book. The reason we feel compassion and pity for Erik (the Phantom) is because he has known no love in his entire life, since he was born deformed. Claudin was deformed by having acid thrown in his face when he was near his fifties. He probably had felt compassion from other people before. He barely knew Christine, so how did he fall in love with her? The singing is horrible, by the way. Then, there are TWO Raoul-ish characters. Can it get any worse? Yes! The only decent character in this movie was Bianca (the Carlotta-ish character), and she got killed. Erik made her croak, therefore publically humiliating her, he never actually hurt her. What I don't understand is how Claude Rains was a shy, harmless composer a first, (whatever happened to Erik being a genius, architect, ventriloquist, singer, magician, etc.?) then he "snaps" and starts killing people. This movie is a waste of time and money.
34 1943 Phantom of the Opera
After reviewing other critiques I viewed the film a second time and discovered that the cultural level of the viewer determines the score given the film. It must be rated: (a) music; excellent (b)male singing ;excellent (c) female singing ;fabulous (d) sets; fantastic (e)Phantom; plausable, not scarey (f)cast; superb (g) never meant to follow the book,films rarely do.(h)costumes, beautiful period ones.A most enjoyable film to watch!
35 Best of the opera movies
Didn't follow the book but who cares it was well done and the music fantastic.Susanna Foster has got to be the best ever;what a voice!This version can only be appreciated by musicians, not by those who are only interested in the macabre.
36 Bad bad bad bad BAD...
This film was awful and nearly NOWHERE near the original story. First off, the Phantom is hardly even IN the movie! There are TWO Raouls fighting over Christine, and that's pretty much it! Oh, I thought it had some pretty Opera music, but besides that, I beg of you, don't waste your money, please.
37 Not That Bad
This Phantom movie was pretty good.It had a good musical score,a good storyline and a pretty good Phantom.It was hardly the original Leroux story at all (wich I never liked that much anyway).The idea of acid being throne on him was a little far fechted.Lets face it.The chance of someoe surviving having acid thrown on them is very slim (especialy when it takes them five min. to wash it of).Plus I'm sure that the acid landed on his entire face and in his hair yet when he is unmasked only a small portion of the left side of his face has burned.Even then the burn looked like a bad rash.Now for the good things about the film.The cast of characters was interesting.Christine was normal exept her last name was changed.I also found it interesting that Cristine was envied by three men The Phantom, Raoule, and the tenor from the opera whose name slips my mind.I recomend this film to anyone who is obsessed with The Phantom of the Opera.
38 READ THIS REVIEW OR YOU WON'T EVER UNDERSTAND THE MOVIE!
When I first saw the movie I thought to myself-Why do they call him a phantom? He's not a ghost. He's just a person who was deformed in an accident years ago when someone spilled acid on his face. And since they called him ugly, he moved under the opera house where he took revenge on others for what the accident had caused him.(this I know from reading the book)When I went to the Broadway play, Phantom of the Opera, I learned that he was called that because no one ever SAW him when he did something, they only noticed after he went back to his Laberinth.
He only loved Christine for her voice at first and then when she met Raoul (again) she paid no attention to the Phantom (real name-Erik). That ticked him off so much that,well.....he did something...............................................unpleasent. But you'll have to watch this wonderfull movie to find out what it is! The only reason I didn't give this movie 5 stars,in case your wndering, is beacause I am very critical and they could've portrayed the Phantom more like the lonely man in search of compassion more than a monster-like...thing. But that makes it much better if your going to watch it on a rain-stormy day or in the middle of the night on a Saterday or, by the time you've watched it, Sunday. (I am, as you can see and just as I told you before, very critical and very deep also for.....................................................................................................a twelve year old.) ENJOY!
39 Phantom Eh? More like the "Invisible Man."
An utter Disgrace to the Book. The book mentions nothing about acid being thrown in Erik's face. Why is it hollywood ALWAYS Screws this Great book up? Only the 1925 Lon Chaney version has done the book any justice.
40 We need more Phantom and less opera
Much like Chaney's version and Hammer's, Universal's phantom is off from the book and has it's problems, but it does have enough redeeming values to make it worth seeing. This Phantom shows us how the Phantom gets difigured and of his unspoken love for Christine prior to going into hiding. Because they spent some time leading up to the disfiguration, the parts where the Phantom terrorizes the opera house flow very nicely and make the film seem a little more fast paced for a while. Claude Rains is good, not Lon chaney,but good nad the supporting cast is fairly good. The conclusion of this film is far better than the ridiculously quick ending of the Chaney version. The sets and costumes are very strong, I thought I would miss the gloomy black and white I associate with old Universal horror films, but the vibrant colors are right for this version. I would have like to have seen a little more of the Phantom because I think by the time he gets interesting we are on our way to seeing his end. The other aspect of this film that keeps it from being a classic is the over abundance of singing, I mean Nelson Eddy does fine in his acting, but the singing is horrible and there is just way too much of it. They could have spent more time developing the main characters, but they chose instead to try to make this a musical horror film and that is where this film falls short. This film is not great, but it is worth seeing.
41 The Phantom of the Opera
When I first saw it, was boring. But after a day I saw it again and Loved it . I soon realised that I looked just,And I mean just, like Christine ! ! !
42 He's there . . . The Phantom of the Opera . . . .
It was good , but I am still wateing for the one with Sarah Brightman and M. Crowford before I by it . Not long ago I asked someone , I don't recall who , if the one with Sarah Brightman would come out . They answerd by saying that It would be held of and hofely Premntley ! ! ! I should hope not ! I am thinking , why don't I just by bouth this one and the one with Sarah Brightman ( if hers comes out to home video!That is .) I like Sarah's better ! ! !
43 i loved it
Oh please!!! This movie rocked. I ordered it not too long ago off of here and when i tried to watch it i found it extremly boring, i couldn't even reach the end!!! But i watched it again last night and i loved it!!! the way he came and was in love with christine and i didn't think he would murder anyone. I liked it alot better than the book!
44 A good film
It makes me want to cry at how Claude Rains' undying love for Christine makes his life a misery with losing all his money. Also it is funny along with the sadness. I love Claude Rains and found that he suited his role well as the notorious Phantom who prowls through the opera. I have yet to read the book, but i shall to compare them. One complaint i have is that there's too much opera singing. a little would have been fine, but there's just too much.
45 erm....
I thought this movie was OK, bt it could have been better. Some scenes were unrealistic towards the end, but hey, it was 1943, they weren't able to do better, i think. but What Christine does in the end is quie interesting. I kinda liked the Phantom's mood swings though, one sec he's shy and quiet, the next time you see him, he's wacko. I wish, though that it had followed the story line a bit more.
46 A great movie if your into watching old classic horro movies
The Phantom of the Opera is a good movie because some people don't like to watch some of todays horror movies. By watching a movie like this you still have good acting but, not a lot of horror and not alot of the things that can realy scare people.
47 A Beautiful Film
I saw the 1943 version of "The Phantom of the Opera" before I read the book and (last) saw the 1925 version. I have to admit that it was not like the book at all, but the Lon Chaney version was a little. Claude Rains was very convincing as the tormented and lovesick Phantom, and was always more interesting than Lon Chaney. But Claude Rains was not given very much screen time, except near the beginning and end of the film. The sets were fabulous. Nelson Eddy and Edgar Barrier were almost constantly trying to win over Christine, and even though these scenes were funny, I've noticed that they can very easily become distractions that seem designed only to de-emphasize Claude Rains, which only hurts the film. Susanna Foster and Nelson Eddy sang a lot, and while these numbers were very nice and a joy to listen to, they were the only time Nelson Eddy really got a chance to shine, which is unfortunate. However, Susanna Foster fared well throughout the entire film. I would not recommend this film to anyone who doesn't like opera, or to anyone who wants to see a lot of the Phantom.
48 It was an OK film
I have read seen the movie and read the book. This move dosn't follow the book very well. Claude Raines did a good job acting and Susanna Foster did fine. I liked this movie.
49 It's not as good as the book
I have to admit the acting is good. That's about all though.The plot is totally butchered from the origional novel. Don't watch this movie expecting it to be the same. It is not one for true phantom phans.
50 Claude Rains does a good job, but not as good as Chaney!
After watching this movie, I found it to be a bit disappointing. I am not saying that it did not quench my thirst for all things Phantom ;-) though. Rains puts on a great performance as the man obsessed with Christine. But the thing that got me was the fact that the story line was so far off from the origional novel that I was lost! For example, Raoul is the chief of police! In the novel, he was but a mere young man who was a member of the high society and an adversary for Erik (the Phantom). Christine was played rather well and as I expected...weak at times, yet strong when she needed to be. And though Claude did a semi-good job of portraying the Phantom, I still think he could have done better. I think he needed to be a little more dejected and lonely instead of focusing his efforts on killing people...the real Phantom didn't do that much killing...only when he needed to. And one more thing to wrap this up...the movie payed too much attention to Raoul and Christine! The Phantom was not given the proper screen time! We follow him up until the acid is thrown on his face, badly scarring him (which, in fact, is NOT in the book), and then he seems to disappear until the operatic scene where he drops the chandelier and kidnaps Christine! I suppose this movie is not all bad, but I could DEFINITELY use a little more! I'm a Phantom Phan, can't you tell? ;-)
51 Beautiful film
this film has wonderful music and shows the true depseration of the phantom. END
