Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Tockinit not horrible nor great

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

DKosty123 This is an interesting version of this story. It is a Hammer film which is a British Studio that did a lot of horror films. The screenplay is written from the original story by a Hammer studio regular. While the script takes place in an opera house with the underground cavern, there are some differences in the story.It is much shorter than most versions of the Phantom. Most of the music is done by the Phantom on his organ. The mask is a full face mask instead of the half mask used in other versions. The cast here is mostly folks who co-star with others in films, but there are no big stars involved here.The story is quite different, partly for the short length. Partly because it was done on a $180,000 pound budget, which is pretty economical in 1962. That might explain the limited cast and the short length of the film. It was made to take advantage of Hammer films Horror reputation.By no means does this cast compare with other versions including the silent in 1925 by Lon Chaney (Sr.). It is a different take which might interest the many fans of this work, slightly. A true fan of Phantom of The Opera would be well advised to watch the other versions and then watch this one if they want something different.

Rainey Dawn Pretty good film version of the story. I've never read the book so I cannot compare to it but I can compare it to other film versions and on it's on merit. I'd say watch it if you get the chance - it's good.This version is not all that creepy but it does have atmosphere, good casting and overall enjoyable. It's similar to the Phantom of the Opera (1943) with Claude Rains in a way but not as scary as it or The Phantom of the Opera (1925) with Lon Chaney (which is the scariest). If you like the Phantom '25, Phantom '43 or any of the other Hammer Horror films then give Phantom '62 a view... not as good but definitely worth the watch.6.5/10

DarthVoorhees The original story and themes of 'The Phantom of the Opera' were tailor made for the Hammer treatment. The heart of the story about sexual frustration amid deformity is the kind of thing Hammer on it's A game would have been expected to deliver macabre goodness with. Terrence Fisher's 'Phantom' is in my opinion the weakest Hammer film precisely because it fails to remember what made Hammer what it was. This 'Phantom' does not indulge in grotesques or horror at all. It's a boring miss.Fisher and Hammer chose to for the most part remake the 1943 Claude Raines 'Phantom' from Universal. This was a poor choice on his part. Gaston Leroux's Phantom was a bizarre deformed freak shunned at birth. If the 'Phantom' is to be adapted this is the version to follow. For some odd reason though the Raines film chose not to do this and instead created a Phantom who became disfigured through a backstage scuffle. Herbert Lom's Phantom is made in this vain. This story isn't that interesting however because this Phantom has not been shunned by the world. Lom and Raines choose exile. They know the stops of being human. I am brought back to Lon Chaney who bordered on the lines between human and being on a different plane. This Phantom yearns to be human. Lom's Phantom has already been. Believe it or not though this Phantom is not sexually interested in Christine and here in lies the film's greatest flaw. Lom's Phantom is a musical genius whose only interest is having his opera be properly credited to his name and performed by Christine. What?! Aside from the fact that Hammer is missing out in exploiting the kind of risqué material they perfected, the Phantom story just loses all it's meaning without this attraction. This sexual frustration is what drives the Phantom to be homicidal. It's far too much of a stretch to perceive this scenario as being capable of turning someone into the Phantom. This film takes it's title perhaps a bit too literally. We get opera and music here and it is by all means ridiculous. A significant portion of screen time is spent going through awkwardly staged opera numbers. The singers are proficient enough in their abilities but Fisher doesn't know how to stage the numbers with the grandness and spectacle required for such a story. Foolishly this 'Phantom' does not take place in Paris but in London. The London Opera House has none of the grandeur or mystery of it's Paris counterpart. Worse than that though is that every song is in English. We go through musical number after musical number with lyrics which were obviously written by a horror film screenwriter who had no business dabbling in the opera. The music gets more screen time than our Phantom.The saving grace of the film is Michael Gough who is absolutely fantastic as the villain Lord Ambrose D'Arcy. This character is fully developed and surprisingly intricate given all the shortcomings with the rest of the characters. Gough plays him as the mother of all theatre divas, who takes a perverse pleasure in the power working on the stage gives one. His performance relishes all the nastiness that someone with such a huge ego and disregard for others has. I would have liked to have seen even more of Gough's relationship with the Phantom because then I think Lom would have had much more to work with. Gough plays a brutal backstabber and does so quite well but we never get to know why this betrayal meant so much to the Phantom other than vague references to it being his life's work. I kept thinking how cool it would have been had they been rivals in a backstage war. But this is merely wishful thinking. For his part Gough plays a prima donna beautifully. This is by far the weakest adaptation of the classic story. It's fundamental flaw is that it Hammer didn't recognize it's own creative gifts and the strongest aspects of the Phantom story. I can only recommend it as a fun example of Michael Gough's work.

José Luis Rivera Mendoza (jluis1984) Gaston Leroux's classic novel, "The Phantom of the Opera", is definitely one of the most famous and influential Gothic stories of horror and mystery ever written, and its main character, the Phantom, an icon of the Gothic horror literature. The novel's enormous popularity has resulted in many different adaptations, such as the 1925 silent film starring Lon Chaney, or more recently, the musical play by Andrew Lloyd Webber; works where the story of the mysterious figure that haunts the Palais Garnier has been explored in many different and interesting ways. Given the potential of the story, it's not a surprise that the legendary production company, Hammer Films, decided to make its own version of the story, written and produced by Anthony Hinds and under the direction of Hammer's best filmmaker Terence Fisher.Hammer's version offers many changes to Leroux's novel, the most noticeable one being that the movie is set in London instead of Paris. In this movie, producer Harry Hunter (Edward De Souza) and theater owner Lattimer (Thorley Walters) are working with famous composer Lord Ambrose d'Arcy (Michael Gough) to put d'Arcy's new opera, "Joan of Arc", on stage. However, they are facing trouble as a mysterious figure known only as "the Phantom" (Herbet Lom) is wrecking havoc by sabotaging the essays and committing a series of murders. The Phantom's actions make the lead singer of the opera to quit, but soon the producers find a replacement in the figure of Christine Charles (Heather Sears), a young singer with a beautiful voice. However, the Phantom is still there, and he gets a sudden dangerous interest in the new singer.Written by producer Anthony Hinds (as usual, under the pen name of John Elder), this version of the Phantom's story is a complete re-imagining of Leroux's story; but while different, it remains surprisingly faithful to the novel's essence by keeping true to the horror and mystery elements of the story. The Phantom here is a sympathetic and human figure, pretty much like the one presented in Universal's 1943 adaptation; however, Hinds makes his Phantom an anti-hero, and together with the addition of Lord d'Arcy as another "villian" gives the movie a very different tone to that previous version. As in most of his works, Hinds plays with the tragic aspects of horror, slowly taking the story to its shocking (albeit rushed) ending.Director Terence Fisher makes an excellent job at bringing this Phantom to life with his usual lavish look and with a nice touch of class and elegance. Hammer horror movies are known for being violent and gory, but this movie is different in the sense that focuses on atmosphere and mood rather than on scares. In fact, while the Phantom has a striking appearance (courtesy of Roy Ashton's excellent make-up), Fisher subtle and restrained take makes him less scary, using the haunting presence of his "monster" to increase its tragedy, instead of his monstrosity. While the budget was low, Fisher makes great use of his resources to create a wonderful moody film that keeps the novel's captivating atmosphere like few adaptations have done.Another element that makes "The Phantom of the Opera" an unusual Hammer film is the fact that few Hammer regulars appear in the cast. However, this by no means is a sign of unworthy performances. Herbert Lom is excellent as the Phantom, a difficult role as the mask in Fisher's version covers completely the actor's face, forcing him to use only his voice in his delivery. Lom is no Chaney of course, but easily ranks as the second best performance as the character. Edward De Souza's character is an equivalent of the novel's Raoul, but of course, with a big number of changes. De Souza's Harry Hunter is daring and witty, and he carries the film with dignity as the character in charge of solving the mystery of the Opera House. Heather Sears makes a believable Christine with her innocent looks and an excellent lip sync for the singing scenes. Finally, Michael Gough steals the movie, making a terrific performance as the villainous Lord d'Arcy; easily, the highlight of the movie.It's easy to see why this version of "The Phantom of the Opera" is not as celebrated as other Hammer films. The movie lacks some of the studio trademarks, as Hinds and Fisher decided to go for a different approach in this film. Also, the focus on atmosphere and mystery instead of direct horror make the film to look "different" or atypical, however, it's this restrained approach what in the end makes it one of the best (and ironically most faithful) adaptations of the story. At first sight it feels as if the Hammer magic was lost, but in the end, this is far from the worst that the legendary studio has done, and in all fairness, it's as good as their best films. Finally, a last minor quibble is that, like the 1943 film, it uses many overlong Opera scenes that while remarkably well done, add little to the plot and easily could had been replaced with a longer conclusion."The Phantom of the Opera" is not really a favorite among Hammer fans, but it's a really classy take on the iconic story of the disfigured genius that roams the Opera house. It's very different to other versions, but it keeps the spirit of Leroux's novel like no other film has done (with the exception of 1925 silent film). This underrated film really deserves a chance to be better known. 7/10