Phantom of the Opera

Rating:
Summary: Good, But Not Very Faithful to Leroux
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Lots of Opera Music
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: A great universal movie wasted with old music.
Review: 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!

Rating:
Summary: The first remake of many
Review: 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!

Rating:
Summary: THE BEST OPERA HOUSE WITH THE BEST PHANTOM
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: A good classic mystery film
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Simply Bad!
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: 1943 Phantom of the Opera
Review: 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!

Rating:
Summary: Best of the opera movies
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Bad bad bad bad BAD...
Review: 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.