BA_Harrison Robert Englund takes a break from playing Freddy Krueger to step into another iconic role, that of Erik, the disfigured composer from The Phantom of the Opera, reminding Elm Street fans that there's more to him as a performer than a striped sweater, a few corny wisecracks and a mean set of finger-blades.Dwight H. Little's 1989 adaptation of Gaston Leroux's classic novel opens in modern day New York, with opera singer Christine (the lovely Jill Schoelen) discovering the unfinished work of composer Erik Destler (Englund), who, as legend has it, sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for success, committed several murders and disappeared in mysterious circumstances after becoming obsessed with a young soprano.When Christine performs Destler's work at her next audition, she is accidentally knocked out by a sandbag that falls from the rigging; while unconscious, Christine dreams of living in Victorian London, where she is the object of the Phantom's obsession. Entranced by Christine, Erik is determined to make the girl a star, removing those who might get in his way by any means necessary.In casting Englund, setting his film in two different time periods and locations, introducing supernatural elements from Faust, and delivering numerous gory slasher style killings, Little makes it clear that his intent is not to make a slavish adaptation of Leroux's novel, but to simply entertain, and in that he largely succeeds: the film is an audio visual treat throughout—elegant, atmospheric, and stylish, with terrific music—and the lively pace and gruesome effects (the Phantom sews the skin of his victims to his face) ensure that boredom never sets in.Englund handles his role well, treading a fine line between sinister musical genius and deranged psycho killer, his Phantom both beguiling and frightening, while 80s scream queen Schoelen (The Stepfather, Popcorn) just looks adorable throughout, which is good enough for me.It may be criticised by many 'Phanatics' (as serious fans of POTO apparently call themselves) for playing it fast and loose with the original story, and for glorifying the violence, but I found Little's version of Phantom of the Opera to be a lot of fun (it's certainly more entertaining than Universal's overblown 1943 movie starring Claude Rains).

Gabriel Teixeira I had a lot of reservations towards this film, though at the same time I was curious. I love horror films, and Gaston Leroux's "The Phantom of the Opera" is one of my favorite books; on the other hand, the idea of turning 'Phantom' into a slasher felt very wrong, which combined with the negative ratings and reviews made me feel uncertain on whether to watch.The film surprised me, truthfully. While it is far from a faithful adaptation, taking its fair share of liberties and deviations from the original story (ex.: the Phantom's backstory is altered to a Faustian deal with the devil, the story is set on London rather than Paris, and the modern day twists), the main idea is still there. It is gory and bloody even for 80's horrors, with some very good and even creative death scenes, and there is a genuinely tense, well-made mood that makes this highly successful as an horror. But the musical score is possibly the true highlight, especially the Phantom's 'Don Juan Triumphant'.Robert Englund was another pleasant surprise. I like him, but didn't feel his wisecracking, semi-comical persona would do well for the role of the Phantom. Luckily, he does not imitate Freddy Krueger in here (despite his make-up being similar): he is intimidating, mysterious and unnerving, but at the same time seems to truly love Christine and his music; a bit darker than the original, but all-around the best depiction of the Phantom since Lon Chaney. While undeniably a tragic character, most adaptations prefer to sugarcoat him to an extent and leave out the sadistic, violent murderer aspect of the Phantom character, which thinking again could be ripe for a gory horror film.But whereas Englund deserves praise, the rest of the cast does not. The other big player in the film, Jill Schoelen, sings well enough but otherwise is quite a weak Christine. The rest of the characters (even Raoul) were relegated to mere extras, becoming such unimportant players in the story to the point I barely remember which characters got left out from the book (once again there is no Persian, but the brief appearance by the Ratcatcher was nice). In special, Alex Hyde-White is such an inexpressive Raoul (or whatever the name they gave him here) that you view little to no connection between him and Christine, while he should be a major character.Overall, this is a very dark and gory adaptation of 'The Phantom of the Opera'. It's quite weak adaptation-wise and has its fair share of flaws movie-wise, but it is nonetheless a solid and entertaining horror piece with a great Robert Englund. A much better watch than, say, Dario Argento's versions.

SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain Gory slasher interpretation of the story. Overall I liked it. It did pander to a wider audience by beginning and ending in present day. This was also just a bit confusing, and seems to have been done in an attempt to lay the groundwork for some sequels. The makeup was very well realized, and I enjoyed how it allowed the Phantom to go out and about. The kills were gruesome and cruel, and Englund mostly managed to keep his performance away from Krueger territory. A bit of classical literature, mixed with 80's slasher, and some class act British performances, such as a young Nighy, make this a worthwhile watch. Perhaps the music could have been a little bit more engaging/hypnotic.

swedzin First of all, I must say that this movie was terrible! A darker approach to the book and musical sounds pretty fine, but here... it was used in wrong way. The director Dwight H. Little should first read the book. Was that too hard for him? He made a story in New York that brings us a horrific tale that occurred in London? OK, I am not gonna talk anymore and compare book to the film, or the earlier versions or even new versions. Let's just concentrate one the film. Well good things... acting was good, Robert Englund was good as always, he is a good actor, but... damn...! After I saw a scene of his face, I though... It's Freddy Kruger! I mean, it's "A Nightmare on Elm Street" all over again! Englund cannot escape this character, I mean, he was supposed to be a Phantom, not Freddy! Typecasting is sometimes a really boring, huh? Jill Schoelen was fine as Christine, and it was very, very interesting to see Bill Nighy in some of his earlier appearances on US film. Also, the music and costumes were good. Now, bad... what's with all that gore and crazy violent scenes? Was Phantom that crazy? Really ... what the hell!? Phantom did kill a few people, but not in that way. Than story itself is funny, script is nothing special and the Phantom is, this is the most ridiculous, a superhuman! He can jump high, he can run fast, he can do this and that... that was very annoying! And of course,again, I am not going to talk about the book comparing. You can see it, if you are interested... but it's your funeral.