ThiefHott Too much of everything

Brightlyme i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

JohnHowardReid Usually interference and tinkering by a movie studio are tantamount to a disaster. The Phantom of the Opera is the exception that proves the rule. For once, the front office made two big decisions and both of them proved to be correct. The first was a determination not to re-engage Rupert Julian to direct the additional scenes. It was thought that his pacing was too slow and that he had neither the verve nor the know-how to handle the newly scripted crowd climax. So Julian was given the boot and Edward Sedgwick brought in to direct a whole new marking-time opening (which was later deleted in full), plus the Phantom's thrilling escape in the barouche-a sequence that so impressed young Alfred Hitchcock that he copied it almost frame for frame when searching for a suitable climax to The Lodger less than a year later. The second big decision of course was to take advantage of the new sound medium by completely recutting the movie and even re-shooting several scenes. This not only improves the atmosphere, pace and suspense but gives the drama a most effective visual appeal that is often lacking in the original, which depends almost entirely on Chaney's make-up for its power, rather than the magnificent sets, spooky backgrounds and inherent violence of Leroux's story. It also puts Chaney in excellent perspective, not only allowing his performance to have more cleverly suppressed authority than in the original, but setting it against not only the wonderfully awesome catacombs background but contrasting it with the studied innocence of foolishly ambitious yet endearingly sympathetic Mary Philbin. Aside from Kerry and Carewe (and occasional inserts of the opera management), the other players have little to do but front for the vast crowds of extras. Even faces like Snitz Edwards and Gibson Gowland are little more than dutiful props. But, despite remakes and imitations, the film as a whole still works its magic amazingly well.AVAILABLE on DVD through Image/Milestone. The two-disc "Ultimate Edition" features a superb color restoration of the 1929 version, run at the correct speed, yet with the original music track, which, I must admit, I preferred to the alternate Carl Davis score.

Matreats :P Reaching over $2,000,000 in total gross, the 1925 version of "The Phantom of the Opera", was indeed one of the most famous movies of the time. With famous actors like Lon Chaney and Mary Philibin, and unforgettable characters, "The Phantom of the Opera" is definitely a film worth seeing.A mysterious Phantom is said to have haunted the Paris Opera house for years, and when a group of ballet dancers sees his shadow, the rumors spread like wildfire. The Phantom is actually a man who falls in love with a certain young lady named Christine Daae, and goes to extreme extents to get her to love him, despite his ugly appearance.My first impression of the movie was a little hesitant, because I have seen the Broadway production of this movie before, and didn't know if I would compare the two; but as the film progressed, I was impressed. The acting made the story line very clear, and though it was dramatic at times, it helped progress the plot and show the character's emotions and feelings. Also, the way the characters developed over the course of the film was well thought out and easy to follow.Throughout the duration of the movie, you had to pay close attention because of the title cards. Because it's a silent film, the title cards are completely necessary and critical to the development of the story. They also made you more involved in the story, because you have to keep your focus on the movie or else you could miss an important piece of dialogue. The actual story of the film was very entertaining, and included things like complex characters and an actual plot. I noticed that the way they use scene changes is very similar to what we do now; leaving one scene and going to another to create suspense and show what the other characters are doing while something is going on elsewhere. The lighting was significant in this movie, especially with a character like the Phantom. They used and played with shadows to add to the tension and mysteriousness of the character and his actions, like during the scene where some of the men find the man who told stories of the Phantom hung backstage. Though it was only a silhouette of the figure, the idea still came across, and it left an idea for the audience to envision. Because of how old the film was, however, there were some places where the lighting made it hard to see; whether it was too dark to make out what was happening, or so bright the characters faces were hardly visible. Fortunately, it didn't happen often. My favorite part of the entire film had to be the music; it set the mood for each scene, playing light-hearted music during the love scenes, and suspenseful music during the scenes involving the Phantom. Though you don't really notice it very much if you don't focus on it, the music playing in the background evokes emotion from you that you wouldn't have felt otherwise. The music combined with the story line helped build up the plot and the conflict right until the end of the movie, where the final scene and climax takes place.Shortly after I finished the film, I did some research and figured out that they didn't use an actual opera house to film the movie inside. They built a replica of the Paris Opera house, which took them a year to build. They hired sculptors and designers to create the statues and the grand staircase shown in the masquerade scene. They also built the massive chandelier, which weighed 16,000 pounds, and was forty feet across. The amount of work and money put into creating this movie is quite amazing, including the makeup that Lon Chaney did to accurately portray the character of the Phantom.I enjoyed watching this film, and taking a step out of my regular "modern movie" comfort zone. I would rate it at 8 stars, and would definitely recommend it to people who haven't seen it before.

ethanct86 So cries the Phantom in the legendary unmasking scene in Rupert Julian's 1925 The Phantom of the Opera. This romantic-horror film about a depressed and horrifically disfigured criminal searching for love and human acceptance from an opera singer has been placed among the greatest stories on human nature. Yes, Andrew Lloyd Webber's 2004 Broadway musical-film is much more popular and seen. In fact, I have seen the musical both in stage and screen form many more times than the Phantom's kill count altogether. Even though Webber's version had the advantages of an enormous budget (over 102 times the cost of the original), he couldn't pull of the trick that Julian had done years before with this one.Unlike Webber's version, we don't see a dashing Gerald Butler with a face only made ugly by word of mouth, but instead we start with fright at Lon Chaney's skeletal Phantom, a horrible, disfigured monster. Yes, his physical hideousness plays a huge role in the plot. This despised monster has lived in the labyrinth of cellars beneath the Paris Opera House for years, tormenting and casting an eerie shadow over the Opera. But his eye is on a young Christine Daae (Mary Philbin), the understudy of the lead singer Carlotta hoping for her big break. Then, after years of planning, he casts the bait. Using his fearful reputation and homicidal talent as a tool, he gives Christine chance after chance of success and turns the ignorant Christine to love and adore him more than her fiancé, Vicomte Raoul De Chagny (the extraordinary Norman Kerry). Reeling in the unsuspecting catch, the Phantom doesn't seem to know of Raoul still desperately hoping and searching.Inherently, the films and silent films of the 20's to 40's were clean, although like Disney's animated movies, they contain some slight and easy- to-miss, suggestive dialogue. But in this Phantom, that dialogue is even fewer and subtler than known of the time. But weighing out that positive is the film's level of horror (still a PG level at the most, for frightening images). Truth be told, the most frightening scene has to be the dreadful unmasking of Lon Chaney's monster; it unexpectedly shocks the audience as much as Christine is alarmed.This Phantom is a murderer, propagandist, manipulator and a seducer. Though not seen for decades, he was the actual landlord of Opera House, collecting rent from the managers and haunting Box 5 of the theatre. As the story goes, the Phantom was an escapee from an insane prison only wishing to be loved and accepted like every other man, Erik by name. The original ending had the Phantom found at his organ, dead from a broken heart. This ending crafted the Phantom to be a more romantic and more human character, but was discarded for a climactic chase kept in the release. The version that I included here is the shorter 1996 re-release with Carl Davis' re-score. Still, the Phantom's morbid romantic fantasies stick to us along as much as Chaney's astonishing make-up tricks. So, choose a version on YouTube, switch the sound off, turn on your favorite "scary" music and watch along with your significant other.

blanche-2 The silent version of Phantom of the Opera is by far the best adaptation of Gaston Leroux's novel. The story is now more famous than ever because of the musical, which has been running on Broadway and in London for nearly thirty years and has played all over the world.The George Eastman House had a hand in working on this film to get it into condition to show. It has a great score by Carl Davis as well.It stars Lon Chaney, Mary Philbin, and Norman Kerry. They are not the types you would see cast today, with the exception of Mary Philbin. The use of color here is most interesting. The masked ball survives in color. On initial prints, the Handschiegl color process was used, which is a stencil color process you might see on an old color postcard. This gives the movie its most striking effect -- on the roof of the opera house, with the Phantom in his Red Death costume standing against the statue of Apollo. Fantastic.Lon Chaney, who never divulged how he made himself up, is a magnificent and scary Phantom. The Phantom is clearly crazy and murderous. Though still crazy, he was a little more sympathetic in the Claude Rains version. Since the film version of the musical was released, the character of the Phantom as portrayed in the musical itself has changed. A friend of mine played the role for years; when he went back to the show and auditioned, he was told he "wasn't the right type" for Phantom. So suddenly the Phantom is a "type" - a matinée idol! And now it's sexed up with Christine, if the 25th anniversary performance was any indication.At the 25th anniversary, past Phantoms came out on stage. Each one was handsomer and younger than the preceding Phantom, until the last man, who looked like he should have been playing Raoul. In fact, I can't imagine who played Raoul when he played the Phantom - Ian Somerhalder? So I'm afraid Mr. Chaney wouldn't even be considered today. He wasn't hunky enough.Truly amazing film, and I love that a real opera - Faust - was used in the film. Last night I saw "Two Sisters from Boston" that took piano and violin concertos and turned them into arias. I like the real thing.