utgard14 Universal's Technicolor remake of their 1925 silent classic, still the definitive version of the Phantom story. The color is nice and I certainly appreciate the production values but it's largely wasted on a plodding melodrama with too many opera numbers. Despite being part of Universal's horror stable, it really isn't a horror film. Claude Rains may play the title character but he takes a backseat (and third billing) to Nelson Eddy and Susanna Foster as two parts of an insufferably banal love triangle. The other part belongs to Edgar Barrier. Both Eddy and Barrier are considerably older than Foster, which doesn't help matters. For his part, Rains is good though miscast and not in the film nearly enough. Nelson Eddy, with risibly darkened hair and a pencil mustache, is flavorless and boring. Susanna Foster sings nicely (if you're into that sort of music) but gives a performance so forgettably bland you will likely have a hard time remembering what she looked like after the movie is over.In addition to being dull and lacking any real horror traits, the movie has a number of other flaws. Lame comic relief, for one thing. It's also plagued by plot gremlins and some ridiculous moments that fall into the category of unintentional comedy. Look no further than the scene where Rains' Phantom uses a small hacksaw to cut through a very thick chain holding up a chandelier in one big scene. It resembles something out of a cartoon and is impossible to take seriously. The big scene where the Phantom's mask is removed is marred by an underwhelming makeup job on Rains. Gone is the horrible visage of Lon Chaney's Phantom. Now we have a man with a disfiguring scar but hardly something monstrous. In an early draft of the script, Rains was to have been revealed to be Foster's father but they changed that. However, the original idea hangs over the film and gives it a weird vibe ("Somehow I always felt drawn to him"). The explanation we're given in the end for why Rains cared so much for Foster is that they were from the same town! This is one of my least favorite Universal horror films. I have watched most of the others repeatedly, some dozens of times. But this is one I have only seen a few times. I went into watching this today hoping my opinion would be changed after not having seen it for probably close to a decade. But my opinion is the same now as then. The movie is watchable, particularly for Universal completists, but there is no real horror and way too much romance, humor, and music. A little more Phantom and a little less opera, please. The sets, some of which were holdovers from the 1925 film, were reused for The Climax with Boris Karloff the following year. That movie was to have been a sequel to this but was reworked as a separate but similar film.

walsh-campbell Though far from perfect, I love this movie. Claude Rains is a brilliant actor and his embodiment of the Phantom is my favorite--or rather, his embodiment of the man who becomes the Phantom. If the writers and the director had cooperated, Claude Rains could have been the greatest Phantom ever filmed. The problem is that this version of the Phantom did the best job of telling the Phantom's back-story and making him a sympathetic character, but did the worst job of making the Phantom terrifying.The Phantom is a serial killer, after all. He is thoroughly insane, immensely clever, utterly ruthless, and knows the environment of the Paris Opera better then almost anyone else--he could be anywhere. In this film, the writers and the director never successfully make us feel that sense of dread, the sense of horror at the Phantom's crimes. This aspect of the story is tossed off in an almost token fashion. In fact, the slight gestures meant to halfheartedly convey this--like the many shadows of the phantom doing his Snidely Whiplash imitation--are unintentionally funny. The Gothic horror story is pushed quite firmly to the background.In the foreground, we have a lush, colorful, lightly comic operetta about a beautiful young singer and the two rivals for her affection. While entertaining enough, it quite overwhelms the Phantom's sad, terrifying tale.

Steve Pulaski Before I even begin to discuss the quality of Arthur Lubin's Phantom of the Opera, I offer a question that must be pondered. For the past week, I have been reviewing films straight out of the recently-released Universal box set containing eight films billed as "monster movies" between the years 1931 - 1954. So, to my surprise, following Bride of Frankenstein, is the 1943 color-film adaptation of the popular French opera Phantom of the Opera. Reading its segment in the included booklet, it talks extensively about the 1925 adaptation of the film, starring Lon Chaney Jr., that made people faint from fright and require theaters at the time to have smelling salts handy for female members of the audience who may pass out from shock (specifically during the reveal of the Phantom's disfigured face).So, after reading its brief writeup, which talks more about the 1925 adaptation than the 1943 adaptation, I need to wonder, why was this version the one featured in a box set housing monster films? It's debatable to even call the Phantom character a monster, but more an unfortunate soul who serves as a protagonist and an antagonist of the story. Not only does the box set include the film that is in color, focuses more on the atmosphere and the luxurious qualities of the opera music itself and the set design, it includes the version that is more about putting together a successful opera than actually focusing on the Phantom character itself. Assuming Universal did not own the rights to the original 1925 film, basic research tells me they distributed and still own the rights to the film. I beg for an explanation on Universal's part.Make no mistake; Lubin's Phantom of the Opera is a good film, strong musically, heavy on the set design, and professionally directed by Lubin, and beautifully colored thanks to the profound work of Technicolor. Questions just overcome its quality when I ask why Universal considered this a monster movie and felt it worthier to put the color-remake of the 1925 horror film, which focused on everything but the horror elements.Because the story of Phantom of the Opera is widely known, reiterating its storyline seems like a worthless act of repetition. This adaptation, if anything, should be recognized for its amazing grandeur and its luscious set design. The film makes bold use of Technicolor, which, at the time, made everything appear as if it was colored in with a crayon. Here, the color is boastful indeed, but doesn't hurt your eyes with its brightness. Seeing all the little micro-details in the backgrounds of shots make one question how this would've looked if it was in black and white. A lot more simplistic, most likely.The one downside about Phantom of the Opera from 1943 is that its focus isn't so much on Claude Rains' memorable performance as "The Phantom," but on the opera the Paris Opera House is putting on instead. This makes for kind of a miscalculation for many reasons. One, the set the film is featured on is blatantly dedicated to the monster characters of the time, so including this one (already a weird choice) that focuses more on surrounding events rather than the titular monster is a bit misleading. And second, it makes the film a bit less interesting, seeing as the elusive Phantom character is what holds the story together.Phantom of the Opera is indeed a mixed bag. Heavy on the set decor and flawless in the aesthetic department, it unfortunately suffers from a questionable focus and is occasionally burdened by a bit of listlessness between events. However, it is rightfully a classic and succeeds collectively on its own merits...as a piece of drama, not horror.Starring: Claude Rains, Nelson Eddy, and Susanna Foster. Directed by: Arthur Lubin.

MissSimonetta This version of POTO is far from the thriller or horror genre. While it includes elements of both every now and then, it's more of a romantic comedy with musical numbers sprinkled about. The luscious Technicolor used is as far from the Gothic mood of the story, but damn, I cannot deny it's just gorgeous. The cinematography is the principal reason to watch this version. Plus fans of the silent version with Lon Chaney might be interested to see what the "Phantom Stage" looks like in color.Claude Rains brings great pathos and his velvety voice to the role of the phantom. More memorable for this movie-goer is Susannah Foster as Christine. She was absolutely perfect in the role: not only does she physically resemble the character of the book but she manages to be both a classic ingénue and a fiery career woman all at once. Plus she could actually sing! A shame she wasn't cast in a more book accurate adaptation. The part of Christine's bland lover Raoul is split into two characters played by Nelson Eddy and Edgar Barrier; both are the least entertaining part of the movie. One wishes more screen time had been given to Rains.