Phantom of the Opera (1989)

[chainsaw midget]

The 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? 

[claws]

Dug 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)

[chainsaw midget]

Nice review.  I think we're mostly on the same page there. 

[Dalmatian Bobby Samaritan]

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.

*Whatever you do, don't fall for the American Werewolf in Paris scheme. Or scam. Get really drunk or trying smoking that tiny bit of Weed that you have left and find more words to didgeridoo with on youtube! Words mangled stuff. But don't go down some stupid rabbit trail with Australian mysticism and dream time crap. Let those doofuses debunk themselves naturally. As it appears to be happening. Maybe watch Crocodile Dundee II, but recommended with lots of weed (which I know you don't have. Also the same speech goes for Deep Star Six. Recommended but only with weed..Uh your call. Try to do the get drunk method with the youtube words or terms, mangled words stuff that you liked to do. DON'T watch American Werewolf in Paris. And perhaps you are done too with Resident evil. Remember Peter Evan's speech about Leviticus. Don't be like Nadab and Abihu.

Remember. If you run out of time then you run out of time. No biggie. Just watch JD vance make a fool out of himself on his next speaking engagement or appearance wherever. Like sanctification. How many darn times do we have to see some worm or worm-like thing roll up into a ball.)

[M.10rda]

I actually understood this post, I think!