Rainey Dawn Pretty good film version of the story. I've never read the book so I cannot compare to it but I can compare it to other film versions and on it's on merit. I'd say watch it if you get the chance - it's good.This version is not all that creepy but it does have atmosphere, good casting and overall enjoyable. It's similar to the Phantom of the Opera (1943) with Claude Rains in a way but not as scary as it or The Phantom of the Opera (1925) with Lon Chaney (which is the scariest). If you like the Phantom '25, Phantom '43 or any of the other Hammer Horror films then give Phantom '62 a view... not as good but definitely worth the watch.6.5/10

Spikeopath The Phantom of the Opera is out of Hammer Film Productions and directed by Terence Fisher. Based on the Gaston Leroux novel, the screenplay is written by John Elder and it stars Herbert Lom, Heather Sears, Edward de Souza and Michael Gough. Filmed in Eastman Color, cinematography is by Arthur Grant and music by Edwin Astley.The latest opera production of Joan of Arc is beset with problems, prompting many to believe it's the work of a mysterious phantom who haunts those involved with the show.It has been the basis for a number of adaptations, the Leroux novel's core story proving to be fascinating enough to prompt writers, film makers and musical directors to produce their take on it. Of the film versions, it's still the Lon Chaney silent of 1925 that carries the highest horror value, but for style and substance I feel Hammer's version is the best of the bunch. Fisher's film is played wonderfully straight, the production is given much care and consideration, but in the main the makers let the story sell itself. The characters remain interesting and in the case of the phantom himself, he smartly gets a back story shown late in the day amid off-kilter camera angles. This really gives the film a dramatic thrust as it heads into the finale, where the pay off is exciting and emotionally tight (one of the finest tear sheds in cinema is right here).A voice so wonderful that theatres all over the world will be filled with your admirers.Cast wise the film is led superbly by Lom's performance as the sad and tragic phantom. Lom manages to elicit sympathy with minimal dialogue and pure body language, giving this phantom an irresistible vulnerability that hits home hard as the film closes down. Around him it's Gough who is having the most fun playing villain of the piece Ambrose D'Arcy, and he does it well. De Souza is adequate as love interest Harry Hunter, but Sears, whilst certainly pretty and a decent actress, lacks believability in the scenes shared with the phantom. Note worthy is a quality cameo that comes from Patrick Troughton; even if it does make us hanker for more of him in the picture.Fisher's direction is tight and smooth, if lacking some of the camera flourishes that other Hammer films have benefited from. While Grant's Eastman Color photography adds a zest to the period flavouring by bringing the well designed sets to the fore. Astley's music is standard genre stuff, but easy listening for sure. Bonus is to hear Toccata and Fugue in D minor, it's now disputed as to if it actually was composed by Johann Sebastian Bach, but regardless it's a haunting piece of organ music that has the power to induce chills down the old spinal cord area. Particularly when used location wise as it is here.A lovely adaptation of the source, Hammer's version may not be as horror based as some would like, but it more than makes up for that with style, substance and a quality turn from the leading man. 8/10

Scarecrow-88 In Hammer Studio's version of PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, the facially scarred pianist who haunts the opera-house, portrayed sympathetically by Herbert Lom, is not a demented monster causing nothing but disruption, but a deeply wounded man betrayed by a composer named Lord Ambrose(played as a lecherous scoundrel who belittles everyone around him as only Michael Gough could). You see there's a reason, in this version anyway, why the Phantom(actually a professor Petrie, a fine pianist who created accomplished works needing cash to pay his rent)causes such trouble to a specific opera house where Ambrose's plays reside..Ambrose stole Petrie's work claiming it as his own. Petrie, in a fit of rage(..who wouldn't be?)breaks into the printing press to destroy the works that are rightfully his but carrying Ambrose's name..in the act, nitric acid splashes in Petrie's face causing the disturbing scar that would lead to hiding his hideous face under a creepy mask forever. Harry Hunter(Edward de Souza)is producer of Ambrose's plays and Christine(Heather Sears)is a novice, with a fine voice, for whom the Phantom wishes to see star in a play of his own as a true audience member. But, Ambrose wishes for Christine to sleep with him and when she refuses, urging Harry to assist in getting out of the situation, they are both "excused" from the play. The running villain, who in most versions is the Phantom, is actually Ambrose who keeps a sure winning play from being realized. Harry will seek out information about Petrie as his mute "assistant" kidnaps Christine bringing her to the Phantom's sewer lair underneath the opera-house. The Phantom wishes to teach Christine how to use her voice to the uttermost bringing grace to his stolen play Ambrose couldn't. Will Phantom see his play come to fruition with Christine as star? Or, will Ambrose's desire to not see this type of opera played at the theater succeed in never giving Petrie that satisfaction?Not too bad an adaptation of the play. I thought it had great casting with Lom quite underplaying the Phantom..he's more sad and miserable than menacing or scary. Sears and Souza are acceptable as the hero and heroine of this Hammer flick. But, Gough easily steals this film, as he always seems to do, as the vile composer, who is such pure slime. I love watching Gough because he makes dialogue crackle and sizzle..you just loathe this man for he's such a wretch to humankind. But, being filthy rich and having stabbed quite a few backs to gain such a prominent position..to see him lose his opera at the end as his nasty emotions get the better of him pays off with dividends. The film itself isn't the most memorable of the Phantom films, but does allow him to gain sympathy from the viewer. When his own assistant causes the chandelier to fall accidentally as it appears Christine is in danger of being crushed, we get a true hero instead of a jealous lunatic fiend causing harm rather than good. That finale at least sets this apart from other versions.

bensonmum2 Almost every movie fan knows the story – an opera house is beset with problems as a new production is set to open. At first it's strange, annoying occurrences like missing music or damaged instruments. But it goes beyond mere annoyance when a stagehand is murdered. What evil force is behind this series of events? As a fan of Hammer, there's a lot here to enjoy. The first thing I always notice, and it's hard not to, is the film's "look". Hammer made some wonderful looking movies and The Phantom of the Opera just might be at the top of that list. Beautiful is the way I would describe it. The colors, the sets, and the costumes are so incredibly pleasing to the eye. Everything from the rich burgundy curtains on the opera stage to the simple, but effective mask worn by the Phantom are perfect. You could spend three times the budget of The Phantom of the Opera and not come up with something that looks this good.Terence Fisher directed some of Hammer's best films. And his work on The Phantom of the Opera is among his best. I've read complaints that Fisher lacked imagination and was, at best, a workmanlike director who was lucky to be "in the right place at the right time". With The Phantom of the Opera, Fisher shows more artistic touches and allows the camera to be more fluid than at any time I can remember. Fisher was aided by an impressive cast. Other than Heather Sears in the female lead, the acting is solid. Edward de Souza, Thorley Walters, and Herbert Lom are all great in their respective roles. But, as usual and as expected, Michael Gough as Lord Ambrose d"Arcy steals every scene in which he appears. He's just so deliciously evil and over-the-top.There are several little moments in The Phantom of the Opera that make it special. Scenes like those involving the rat catcher or the opera house cleaning women might seem like throwaway moments, but they help add life and interest to the film. Or the dinner scene when Sears character turns down d'Arcy's advances. The look of contempt on Gough's face as he stalks out of the restaurant is priceless. Very well done!In the end, while there have been any number of versions of The Phantom of the Opera made over the years, Hammer's version is my favorite. It's definitely a movie that any Hammer fan or anyone interested in learning about Hammer should see.