Phantom of the Opera

Rating:
Summary: THE FREDDY KRUEGER PHANTOM
Review: Sure this version is way over the top in terms of gore and violence, but it is not without its redeeming qualities. Jill Schoellen is a beautiful and sympathetic Christine, and the opera sequences work well, despite being atrociously dubbed. Of course, the success of any Phantom film is based on the performance of the actor in the title role. For my money, Robert "Freddy Krueger" Englund does a fine job. Despite his sinister nature (in this version, he has made a Faustian pact with the devil), he appears vulnerable at times, and his small, thin frame lends well to the character of Erik. Other nicely-done sequences include Christine at the cemetery, the brief masked ball sequence, and the two sequences in the Phantom's lair. This version also gets kudos for attempting to bring to life Erik's "Don Juan Triumphant" through music, a feat that only Andrew Lloyd Webber's version has heretofore attempted. I also like the dark, gothic tone that this film captures, in stark contrast to the overly warm and fuzzy Charles Dance version of 1990. All in all, a satisfying Phantom film experience.

Rating:
Summary: The splatter-flick version of "The Phantom of the Opera"
Review: The various movie versions of "The Phantom of the Opera" have always been a mix of gothic horror and gothic romance, but it is possible to work one extreme or the other. The 1990 two-part television version, directed by Tony Richardson with Charles Dance as the Phantom is the most romantic version to date, even more so that the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical that was no doubt a source of inspiration. At the other end of the Phantom spectrum we get this 1989 version, directed by Dwight H. Little with Robert Englund as the title character. Since we are talking the man who directed "Halloween 4" and the actor who played Freddy Kreuger in the "Nightmare on Elm Street" series, you know that this "Phantom" will be closer to a splatter-flick than any other previous retelling of the tale.

During the final credits we are informed that "This Motion Picture is not associated with any current or prior stage production or motion picture of the same title," which is an interesting statement to make but also quite accurate. That is because this version of "The Phantom of the Opera" wants to be different, and that is what the screenplay by Gerry O'Hara and Duke Sandefur delivers, even if the logic behind the alterations is suspect.

Our story begins in New York City in the present, where young Christine Day (Jill Schoelen) is preparing for a singing audition. Her friend, Meg (Molly Shannon), finds part of a score for "Don Juan Triumphant," written by Eric Destler long ago and presumably lost. Apparently Destler was a prime suspect in the deaths of several people in London a century earlier. The next thing we know Christine is waking up in London way back when, without any idea that she has become unstuck in time and with a different actress now playing her friend, Meg (Emma Rawson).

Why are we involving time travel in "The Phantom of the Opera"? Once you have watched the movie try and figure out the logic of Christine going "back" in time for the story to take place since she remembers nothing once she gets there. The inspiration here seems to be half "Bram Stoker's Dracula," where the Count and his beloved are tied together throughout eternity, and half "Faust," where a man sells his soul to the Devil to get his heart's desire. Christine gets to sing in Charles Gounod's opera version of "Faust" just in case people are not making the connection (but that assumes you are familiar with the Goethe version of the legend in the first place). Thus, a supernatural element is added to the story, but not to great effect (especially since it sets up a rather mundane way of Christine trying to break the cycle). The Phantom is a much scarier person when he is simply a mad genius rather than the Devil's henchman.

You may ask, why is Christine not only Day instead of Daae but also now an American singing at the opera in London instead of Paris (for a movie filmed in Budapest, Hungary)? I assume it is because most of the cast is English and therefore if it is in London nobody has to pretend to speak with French accents. Plus, you save big bucks not having to pretend your story is taking place in the magnificent Paris Opera House and not having to drop a chandelier on anybody.

Actually, the major problem with this version is that Christine's voice does not sound that great. She sounds like a very good high school singer of opera, but hardly a vocal talent that the Phantom would desire to nurture, let along the toast of London. For that matter, his tutoring is not showing much effect. He demands she sing with passion and she sounds exactly like she did before. The critic (Peter Clapham) who panned her singing in "Faust" was a bit harsh, but he was going in the right direction. Maybe we are supposed to be thinking of the Phantom likes children because Englund (a.k.a. Freddy) is playing the character, but having Carlotta (Stephanie Lawrence) be a better singer than Christine is really weird.

But maybe that is the point. Maybe this Phantom is backing the wrong horse and the only way to get his prodigy on stage is to start killing people. This would explain why he has to kill a lot of people this time around. This film is at its best when we get away from the singing and any idea of a romance between Christine and Erik, and the Phantom gets on with the slicing and dicing of the supporting cast. The twisted difference with this particular Phantom is that his "mask" consists of the flesh of his victims sewn over his facial deformities. Watching Erik sew on the skin will certainly creep you out, although this allows him to walk around and let his face be seen way too much given this is supposed to be a horror movie. He does don a nice ensemble at one point involving a hat and a scarf across his face, but for some reason things are done at an angle so it looks like he has one eye (to wit, it looks good but makes no sense).

The trailer for this movie explains that some stories are so powerful that they are reborn for each new generation (apparently more than love and music are forever). This is Hollywood-speak for the idea that Gaston Leroux's novel is so good that they do not think they can really mess it up, no matter what nonsense they come up with for a new version. The bottom line is that if they jettisoned the whole idea about the eternal lovers unstuck in time and just let this version be about the bloodiest Phantom of them all, then this would have been a much stronger film. When they get back to the framing device instead of coming up with some really neat way of killing off the Phantom, I was bitterly disappointed because I had sort of forgotten that nonsense was part of this movie. The decision to make the splatter-flick version of "The Phantom of the Opera" is a legitimate one, so there was really no need to throw in all that other junk.


Rating:
Summary: Better than Webber... storywise
Review: This version reflects the Novel more than the Webber Version which is why I liked it more actually. If it were made now I think it would have been better and tried to be less of a slasher movie.. but I loved the supernatural elements of it. The music it did have in it I thought was very good. Of course I love the music in the Webber version but it just is not scary enough or at all. I think any Phantom adaptation should be somewhat scary and I think this version does it nicely.

Rating:
Summary: Phantom of the opera:Robert Englund
Review: Well it does my soul good to see Robert Englund play the lead in one of my favorite horror movies! It's visually stunning and the vocals and music are beautifull as well. I like to see a modern day version of this movie and the actors are aces in my book. Freddy rules the screen as the evil phantom and brings this classic back to life,I hope they put this classic on DVD format soon! If you want some serious entertainment this is the movie for you,you'll be glued to your seat from begining to end.

Rating:
Summary: When Freddy Met Opera...
Review: When this film was first released in 1989 it was dismissed as a so-so 80s horror fluff. Yes, it is a little gory and yes Robert Englund (AKA Freddy Krueger himself) is very menacing, or should I say nightmarish as "The Phantom." Good atmosphere and some genuine chills abound. What looses some of its credibility is the time travelling part. That is weak and really stupid. Still, solid direction from horror vet Dwight H. Little still make this one a keeper.