BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

DarthVoorhees 'The Phantom of the Opera' is a victim of it's own overexposure. I feel as though it is a story that has lost a lot of it's resonance and edge as the adaptations have come and gone. Too often only the romantic aspect of the character is played. This adaptation stars Robert Englund in the title role and embraces the horror of the story to the fullest. This approach with the gooey gore maybe what this story needs to be fresh again. This film's successes and failures stem from it's decision to embrace the fact that 'The Phantom of the Opera' is and always has been a horror story. This adaptation has some moments of macabre genius and some really conventional boring slasher bits...The movie's greatest achievement is that it does a really nice job mixing Gothic horror with the kind of gory horror of the 80's. Fans of practical special effects will not be disappointed as it has some masterful and terrifying make-ups that Englund wears to perfection. The decision to make his mask dead flesh is horrific enough but the brilliant make-up used to create this choice is among the best of this era. It's one thing to have these horrific make-up monsters but their success is all about the presence used to surround them. This 'Phantom' is very fortunate in that the sets are extraordinary as is the direction. Dwight Little really plays up the mystery of the Phantom character and his surroundings. The most frightening moments come when the Phantom is kept in the shadows. There's some brilliant acting in this from Robert Englund. I think he has been one of the few actors that has been able to realize that the Phantom is a multifaceted character. Englund surprisingly plays up the romance of the part. Some of the best moments of the film come from when Englund's Phantom is engaged with Christine. There's a softness and vulnerability creeping through big bad Freddy. I love the moment when Englund's Phantom and Christine work on his opera together. He ends the piece of music in tears, with a lesser actor that would be contrived. Of course the Phantom's dark side must be played up. The character has a danger to him and isn't just a giant misunderstood pussycat. Englund plays the horror with great anger. He isn't just playing Freddy. I love the scenes where he interacts with other characters aside from Christine. Englund really drives home that the Phantom is not only a narcissist but an alien to the world above. This performance is one of the most faithful and interesting takes on this character. It does have some horror eccentricities from this period but I think Englund gets closer to exploring the Phantom than both Claude Raines and Herbert Lom did. Maybe I'm crazy but I think the only one to do it better was Lon Chaney.I think this could have been one of the best 80's horror films if it didn't play it too close to what I imagine the producers thought the target demographic wanted. The film is at it's least interesting when it tries to be a crowd pleasing slasher film. One make-up that is uninspiring is when the Phantom takes off his 'mask'. The Phantom unmasked looks just like Freddy which is such a disappointment. The slashing scenes are so boring. I wouldn't necessarily have minded them as much if they had done new things. The story has some grisly material but grisly material is only as interesting as the presence and build up around it. When the Phantom hunts his victims it's merely a slasher film. I understand that this movie had to find an audience through Englund's fame but I think horror fans are a lot more clever than they were given credit for. I don't mind all the gore but do something more with it and have it be an expression of character or thematic choice than gratuitous stuff that is done better in 'Elm Street' and 'Friday the 13th' films.'The Phantom of the Opera' is a pretty decent horror film. I think at it's best moments it has some moments that really are genuinely imaginative. At the very least it's a 'Phantom' that isn't afraid to be a horror film. That's enough to recommend it for me.

MissSimonetta Robert Englund goes head to head with Lon Chaney for the title of the greatest Phantom, in my book. Both convey the right amount of menace while still keeping the character sympathetic, unlike more recent renditions which aspire to turn the iconic character into a figure of Harlequin romance.The Gothic setting and moody lighting make this 1989 POTO beautiful to behold too. And the music is just gorgeous, stirring and haunting as the music in a Phantom film should be. The actress playing Christine is lovely and for once, Raoul is not annoying or bland.It's a shame that the rest of the movie does not hold up as well.The movie quickly falls into the formula of your typical, cheesy 1980s slasher flick. There's also a terrible modern-day framing device which causes many a plot hole to spring up. The climax builds and builds, only to be resolved by the most disappointing of anti-climaxes.It's worth a watch, but I'm afraid outside of Englund and the overall aesthetic, there's not much food for thought.

FlashCallahan Christine Day is a young Broadway singer. She is auditioning for a show and comes across a piece of music written by an unknown music composer named Erik Destler nearly 100 years ago. Erik had made a pact with the devil so the world would love his music, but the devil had one condition: that Erik's face would be disfigured forever. When she sings his music, she is taken from present day New York to 1881 London were she is the star of the London Opera House. There, she is coached by a mysterious caped figure who will do anything to make her the star of the opera, even if it means murder, but the figure is none other than Destler himself.....A Nightmare on Oxford Street. The Phantom Of Elm Street. A Night(mare) at the Opera.Use any of these variations, and you basically have the same movie, Freddy does Phantom.Its has nothing, absolutely noting to do with the old movies, or the Webber musical, it's just an excuse for Englund to don even more (very good) make up, and crack lines in the only way he can, but this time in Victorian London.Its nothing new, but it's pretty shocking in some of the scenes, and the killings are quite inventive.If you approach the movie, wanting Englund to overact, and spout out some witty puns whenever he expires someone, then this is for you.If you want clever narrative, with scares and brains to match, watch something else.This is pure popcorn entertainment, over the top, but strangely endearing.

robespierre9 I have to preface this review by saying that I am a big Robert England fan, from his work with Jan Michael Vincent in "BUSTER AND BILLIE" and "BIG Wednesday", to of course the Nightmare on Elmstreet films. It was great to see Robert in something where he could actually act on screen for a long time!! The trouble with many of the Nightmare movies is Freddy's role becomes less and less. I think Robert was waiting to chew up the screen (so to speak) in this movie. He really gets to show what good actor he is!! Along with displaying his incredibly amazing ability to disappear behind makeup. It's almost like this movie was made as a tribute to Englund/Freddy! The makeup he wears is very like Freddy makeup, and his body language/acting is excellent in this also. I really like the end (in the modern time - 80's) where the 'director' end up being Robert without makeup! (Just like Wes Craven would do in the later 90's Nightmare movie with Heather Langenkamp.) The costumes are also outstanding - especially England's Masque of Red Death outfit! It is a bit bloody - its close to slasher moments here may turn off a few folks. But if you are looking for a fun, Gothic, 80's, slasher/drama, this is great!