Rating: 
Summary: BLAHHH
Review: 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!
Rating: 
Summary: nice fierce phantom,opera parts were okay.
Review: 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!
Rating:
Summary: Best of the Phantom Musicals
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: A very good film and well worth seeing!
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: OK movie
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: awful
Review: 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!
Rating: 
Summary: A very sweet version
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Weird but good
Review: 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
Rating:
Summary: Didn't Follow the Book A Lot
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Phantom of the Opera (1943)
Review: 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.
|
