- Welcome to Badmovies.org Forum.
Recent posts
#21
Bad Movies / Re: Phantom of the Opera (1989...
Last post by claws - November 27, 2025, 01:45:57 PMDug up my old review:
The 1989 film version of The Phantom of the Opera, starring Robert Englund (of Freddy Krueger fame), is a visually stylish but tonally conflicted attempt to blend the classic Gothic tragedy of Gaston Leroux with the gory sensibilities of a late-80s slasher film, resulting in a movie with a genuine split personality disorder. While director Dwight H. Little delivers a handsome period piece with elaborate sets and a premise that incorporates elements of the novel often omitted by other adaptations, the need to appeal to a horror audience dictates moments of brutal, R-rated violence, such as the infamous Phantom wearing a "mask" of stitched-on human skin taken from his victims. This uneven mixture of operatic melodrama and visceral horror creates a jarring experience that may not fully satisfy either devoted Phantom purists or hardcore slasher fans, though Englund's unhinged and menacing portrayal of the Phantom as a straight-up villain gives the film a distinct, noteworthy appeal for those interested in a darker, more aggressive take on the legendary character.
Rating back then: 2.5/5 (Flawed but Worthy)
The 1989 film version of The Phantom of the Opera, starring Robert Englund (of Freddy Krueger fame), is a visually stylish but tonally conflicted attempt to blend the classic Gothic tragedy of Gaston Leroux with the gory sensibilities of a late-80s slasher film, resulting in a movie with a genuine split personality disorder. While director Dwight H. Little delivers a handsome period piece with elaborate sets and a premise that incorporates elements of the novel often omitted by other adaptations, the need to appeal to a horror audience dictates moments of brutal, R-rated violence, such as the infamous Phantom wearing a "mask" of stitched-on human skin taken from his victims. This uneven mixture of operatic melodrama and visceral horror creates a jarring experience that may not fully satisfy either devoted Phantom purists or hardcore slasher fans, though Englund's unhinged and menacing portrayal of the Phantom as a straight-up villain gives the film a distinct, noteworthy appeal for those interested in a darker, more aggressive take on the legendary character.
Rating back then: 2.5/5 (Flawed but Worthy)
#22
Off Topic Discussion / Re: Happy Thanksgiving
Last post by LilCerberus - November 27, 2025, 01:07:39 PMHere's a song that always puts me in the Holliday spirit!!
They Might Be Giants - Dinner Bell
https://youtu.be/x8PWHOVYhI8?si=HGBdMPjNZyuxdQHG
They Might Be Giants - Dinner Bell
https://youtu.be/x8PWHOVYhI8?si=HGBdMPjNZyuxdQHG
#23
Off Topic Discussion / Happy Thanksgiving
Last post by Trevor - November 27, 2025, 01:01:30 PMTo my USA family 🙏🙏❤️🦃🦃🐢
#24
Bad Movies / Phantom of the Opera (1989)
Last post by chainsaw midget - November 27, 2025, 12:16:12 PMThe infamous Robert Englund (Freddy Kreuger) as the Phantom of the Opera movie.
This movie seems to have a reputation that it doesn't really deserve. It's "the slasher Phantom of the Opera," and while it does have more blood and some nastier effects than you tend to expect fro a Phantom movie, it never quite reaches slasher territory. That's not to say it's from lack of effort though. This movie gives the impression that took the cast and crew from an 80s slasher film and gave them the costume, set, and scripts from a Hammer horror film. It's an odd mix that never quite gels together.
There's also odd opening and closing sequence set in the modern (80s) day that was supposed to tie in to a planned sequel that never got made.
And while Robert Englund makes a nice villain, he never quite feels like he should be THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. (Stitching flesh to his face to hide his scars does look really awesome though.)
Despite all these flaws, I really enjoy this movie, more so than a lot of Phantom of the Opera adaptions. I think one of the main reasons is because it never forgets that the Phantom is a monster, not just some love-sick romantic figure.
So, what do the rest of you think?
This movie seems to have a reputation that it doesn't really deserve. It's "the slasher Phantom of the Opera," and while it does have more blood and some nastier effects than you tend to expect fro a Phantom movie, it never quite reaches slasher territory. That's not to say it's from lack of effort though. This movie gives the impression that took the cast and crew from an 80s slasher film and gave them the costume, set, and scripts from a Hammer horror film. It's an odd mix that never quite gels together.
There's also odd opening and closing sequence set in the modern (80s) day that was supposed to tie in to a planned sequel that never got made.
And while Robert Englund makes a nice villain, he never quite feels like he should be THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. (Stitching flesh to his face to hide his scars does look really awesome though.)
Despite all these flaws, I really enjoy this movie, more so than a lot of Phantom of the Opera adaptions. I think one of the main reasons is because it never forgets that the Phantom is a monster, not just some love-sick romantic figure.
So, what do the rest of you think?
#25
Bad Movies / Re: RECENT VIEWINGS (Bad Movie...
Last post by M.10rda - November 27, 2025, 11:19:36 AMTHAT STRANGE DESIRE TO LOVE (1977):
I have so many lists and queues and stacks and folders of movies to watch that it isn't unusual for me to begin watching something randomly and have no idea what I'm watching or why it was that I thought it was of interest to begin with. In the case of THAT STRANGE DESIRE TO LOVE, it took me most of the running time to even figure out why I'd want to watch it. Actually it took most of the running time to even figure out what was happening in the plot!
For your benefit, I'll encapsulate that (slow, vague, meandering, mostly uneventful) plot concisely: THAT STRANGE DESIRE TO LOVE is THE INNOCENTS if Miss Giddons decides to have a sexual affair with little Miles, and young Flora does not take it at all well. Okay, it would make perfect sense for Flora to not take it well, but (fortunately) there are plot distinctions in TSDTL. "Miles" and "Flora" here aren't small children, they're nominally young adults - I guess? - or at least post-pubescent teens. "Miles" aka "Marco" is adult-sized and -shaped
though he does have the face of a little boy plus a similar ludicrous haircut to Danny from THE SHINING and Bob from HOUSE BY THE CEMETARY; his sister looks about as teenaged as 35yo Gabrielle Carteris from Season 1 of "Beverly Hills 90210". That sister has a voyeuristic streak and likes to play Noisecore from her secret observation room. There's also a "Quint" character (played by "George Eastman", the only familiar actor in the cast) though he isn't a ghost or a sex sadist - just a lumbering weirdo.
Maybe TSDTL wasn't supposed to be anything like THE INNOCENTS, but then what was it supposed to be?! Perhaps shotacon enthusiasts would get sufficient kicks from the Milf/Younger Man plot, but if you were a tween in the late 80s or early 90s and caught TSDTL on Cinemax after your parents went to bed, you'd be badly disappointed by the paucity of actual nudity or sex that rewarded your extravagant patience. Then, at last, with only minutes on the Youtube timeline, TSDTL reveals its secretv identity.
I'd felt bad earlier in the film for my instinctive reaction of nausea upon seeing the pseudonymous Eastman, star of many Joe D'Amato gross-outs. What a horrible-looking man, I thought... which is a rather uncharacteristic response for me to have, as I am a big fan of many horrible looking movie stars (Jack Elam, Charles Laughton...) and I myself am no picture of pulchritude. Then again, Eastman's most indelible onscreen impressions were made abusing women and eating babies and stuff, so a guttural revulsion isn't wholly inappropriate. And sure enough, Eastman finally does his thing at the end of this film, turning TSDTL into a genuine horror movie, at least for about 2.5 minutes.
2.5/5 Could've skipped it. I don't think I was intended to appreciate the penultimate scene/final coupling of the film to reflect a "happy" ending... though that's how it played for me!
I have so many lists and queues and stacks and folders of movies to watch that it isn't unusual for me to begin watching something randomly and have no idea what I'm watching or why it was that I thought it was of interest to begin with. In the case of THAT STRANGE DESIRE TO LOVE, it took me most of the running time to even figure out why I'd want to watch it. Actually it took most of the running time to even figure out what was happening in the plot!
For your benefit, I'll encapsulate that (slow, vague, meandering, mostly uneventful) plot concisely: THAT STRANGE DESIRE TO LOVE is THE INNOCENTS if Miss Giddons decides to have a sexual affair with little Miles, and young Flora does not take it at all well. Okay, it would make perfect sense for Flora to not take it well, but (fortunately) there are plot distinctions in TSDTL. "Miles" and "Flora" here aren't small children, they're nominally young adults - I guess? - or at least post-pubescent teens. "Miles" aka "Marco" is adult-sized and -shaped
though he does have the face of a little boy plus a similar ludicrous haircut to Danny from THE SHINING and Bob from HOUSE BY THE CEMETARY; his sister looks about as teenaged as 35yo Gabrielle Carteris from Season 1 of "Beverly Hills 90210". That sister has a voyeuristic streak and likes to play Noisecore from her secret observation room. There's also a "Quint" character (played by "George Eastman", the only familiar actor in the cast) though he isn't a ghost or a sex sadist - just a lumbering weirdo.Maybe TSDTL wasn't supposed to be anything like THE INNOCENTS, but then what was it supposed to be?! Perhaps shotacon enthusiasts would get sufficient kicks from the Milf/Younger Man plot, but if you were a tween in the late 80s or early 90s and caught TSDTL on Cinemax after your parents went to bed, you'd be badly disappointed by the paucity of actual nudity or sex that rewarded your extravagant patience. Then, at last, with only minutes on the Youtube timeline, TSDTL reveals its secretv identity.
I'd felt bad earlier in the film for my instinctive reaction of nausea upon seeing the pseudonymous Eastman, star of many Joe D'Amato gross-outs. What a horrible-looking man, I thought... which is a rather uncharacteristic response for me to have, as I am a big fan of many horrible looking movie stars (Jack Elam, Charles Laughton...) and I myself am no picture of pulchritude. Then again, Eastman's most indelible onscreen impressions were made abusing women and eating babies and stuff, so a guttural revulsion isn't wholly inappropriate. And sure enough, Eastman finally does his thing at the end of this film, turning TSDTL into a genuine horror movie, at least for about 2.5 minutes.
2.5/5 Could've skipped it. I don't think I was intended to appreciate the penultimate scene/final coupling of the film to reflect a "happy" ending... though that's how it played for me!
#26
Bad Movies / Re: Generate Movie Poster with...
Last post by claws - November 27, 2025, 10:45:40 AM
#27
Bad Movies / Re: Generate Movie Poster with...
Last post by Rev. Powell - November 27, 2025, 10:42:34 AMCopilot refused to make a poster for "Devil on a Unicycle." That's nuts.
#28
Entertainment / Re: What have you been listeni...
Last post by Rev. Powell - November 27, 2025, 10:32:08 AM
#29
Off Topic Discussion / Re: The New Happy Birthday Thr...
Last post by bob - November 27, 2025, 09:59:45 AMvery belated birthday to AllHallowsDay
#30
Off Topic Discussion / Re: Alex's even longer post th...
Last post by bob - November 27, 2025, 09:59:20 AMQuote from: Alex on November 25, 2025, 03:51:44 PMWell, we finally got some good news today. Kristi had her bloods tested earlier on this week and we got the results back. Her blood indicators for cancer were down from over 4 to 2.85, which says that the chemo is working. I guess we will know more next month after her next set of scans.
.
