allyball-63124 Have you ever heard of a movie where the title character him/herself is the weakest part of the film? Well, I haven't until I came across this version of Phantom of the Opera. However, before I get to that, let's talk about some good things. I really liked how the story was handled. I really like the mystery aspect of this film. Even though it was easy to put two and two together, it was really good and interesting build up to a really cool flashback scene towards the end of the film. I was also quite fond of the character Harry, who is basically the Raoul character of the story. While I think he could've used some flaws to make him more relatable, this version of the character really does him justice. He actually listens to Christine, he's always there for her, he does proactive things to help her and is just a really sweet guy. Even though he and Christine didn't know each other very long, I thought their romance was really believable, cute and sweet. They aren't the most fascinating characters but they have a believable relationship and were enough to keep me invested in them and the story. Now onto the main flaw with the movie: the Phantom himself. Now I won't say that everything about this character is bad. I actually quite liked his backstory, even if it was a bit too similar to the forties film, and how they handled revealing it. However, the character himself is extremely lacking. First off, his obsession with Christine comes completely out of nowhere. He saw her perform once and then all of a sudden starts stalking her and kidnaps her at one point. It's extremely rushed. Also, the Phantom does something completely unforgivable in my eyes, which I will spoil so navigate away if you don't want that. While the Phantom is forcing Christine to sing for him in his lair, she stops singing for a moment, thinking she can't do it and the Phantom slaps her across the face! I'm not joking, he really does that at the time mark 56:29 of the movie! Yes, the Phantom does many terrible things in every adaptation but that just crosses the line way too far. You know what's odd though? The Phantom and Christine don't have any sort of romantic feelings for each other in this version, which at first glance wasn't a very big loss for me since I usually hate that couple anyways. However, after watching the ending, I realized it actually was a big loss because the Phantom not only sacrifices his life to save hers but she cries at his death. I'm sorry but the only thing between these two was that he stalked her, forced her to do something she clearly didn't want to do and hit her when she didn't until Harry came along and told him to knock it off. If you wanted The Phantom's death to impact Christine, we should've seen what happened between the Phantom and Christine after the Phantom agreed to train her less harshly. I'll admit, the way his death scene was executed did draw a little emotion from me but that scene and the whole end of the movie in general was too rushed for the emotion to build and have any meaning. Overall, this is a good movie but not really for the Phantom himself.

slayrrr666 "The Phantom of the Opera" is one of Hammer's more underrated efforts.**SPOILERS**Lord Ambrose D'Arcy, (Micheal Gough) is celebrating the success of his new opera when a deadly accident forces it to close down. As he tries to move on, the producer, Harry Hunter, (Edward De Souza) manages to get Christine Charles, (Heather Sears) to appear in the re-opening of the play. As she prepares to train for it, strange experiences begin to haunt the theater. Christine learns that the hauntings are due to the Phantom, (Herbert Lom) a disfigured ex-composer who haunts the theater and lives in the sewers below, seeking revenge on Lord Ambrose for stealing his work. As Harry begins to suspect that The Phantom has evil intentions, he races to stop him from harming Christine.The Good News: For as often as this story has been told, Hammer's is perhaps the moodiest. As expected, the marvelous opera house looks marvelous, with it's lush, vibrant colors, beautiful curtains, and large layout. It's one of the better-looking opera houses out of all the interpretations, and it really looks quite striking when compared to the damp and dark sewer, where most of the film is set. Hammer have gone for a more downtrodden style than the usual flamboyance, and that helps to enforce the dark side of this classic tale. It gives a select quality to it that other incarnations don't match: the credibility that the sets convey. The make-up is great, and he looks suitably evil. It's one of the better-looking Phantom's around, and it's one of the best things about this one. I also love the opening of this one, and what happens is a great jump that opens the film with a great bang. There's a bit more action to this than other tales, so it does have some other moments within that are exciting to watch.The Bad News: There is a couple complaints about the movie. Firstly, the Phantom is seen way too early in the film for his appearance to be all that terrifying. In the earlier films, his appearance was one of terror, even in the gentle moments of the films, and here, his doesn't invoke a lot of horror at all. This is due to us meeting him far too early in the film, and being more acquainted with him than before. The Phantom's lair seems awfully close to the surface, and the absence of a maze of sewer catacombs makes the film feel not that well thought-out. It would seem rather easy to find him in his location, and that isn't what an evil genius needs. It's the mute assistant of the Phantom that does all the damage, so he doesn't seem as dangerous as he could've been, and he definitely acts more vicious in other films.The Final Verdict: It's not that bad of an adaption, but it's still got problems. The usual Hammer flair is quite evident, and the Phantom is pretty creepy, but had he actually done most of the sabotaging, it would've ranked higher. Worth it for Hammer fans to check out, but can't tell whether or not fans of the novel will like this one.Today's Rating-PG-13: Violence

Michael_Elliott Phantom of the Opera, The (1962) ** (out of 4) Hammer's remake doesn't even come close to the Chaney or Rains versions. As usual, the opening hour is pure boredom as the Phantom whispers to the leading singer and we've got the usual bad guys and romantic lead doing their thing. The non-stop talk gets very boring and really damages the film. The final twenty minutes are excellent as we get to see the backstory of the Phantom and I don't mind the ending too much, although some hate it. I think it would have been interesting seeing Cary Grant in the title role but sadly that didn't come to be. This Hammer version is certainly behind the Chaney and Universal versions.

FloatingOpera7 The Phantom of the Opera (1963): Herbert Lom, Heather Sears, Michael Gough, Edward De Souza, Ian Wilson, Liane Aukin, Thorley Walters, Marne Maitland, John Harvey, Miriam Karlin, Martin Miller, Harold Goodwin, Sonya Cordeau, Leila Forde, Miles Malleson, Renee Houston, Patrick Troughton, Laurie Main, John Maddison, Geoffrey L'Oise, Liam Redmond...Director Terence Fisher...Screenplay Anthony Hinds.This is a Hammer horror film production directed by Terence Fisher and released in 1962. French author Gaston Leroux's 1911 novel "Phantom of the Opera" has been made for film and television for years, each version being completely different from the other, none of them faithful to Leroux's original novel. The most famous and closest to the novel is legendary Lon Cheney's silent film from 1926. In this version, Herbert Lom portrays the Phantom and Heather Sears portrays Christine. Following the plot to the 1943 Phantom with Claude Rains and Susanna Foster, the Phantom was once a normal-looking man, a resident of London. He is an obscure and aspiring composer, a music professor named Petrie who makes a deal with the licentious and wicked Lord Ambrose D'Arcy (Michael Gough)to whom he sells his compositions for publication. But Lord Ambrose takes the credit for writing the works, including an opera, Saint Joan of Arc, which triggers the fury of Professor Petrie. He breaks into the publishing building and sets it on fire, only to scar himself in the process. His face becomes deformed and he seeks shelter from the world by living beneath the Opera house. The opera "Joan Of Arc" premieres but it's a disastrous night after a stagehand is killed by a mysterious force. Although the opera company speaks of a resident ghost, the heroic and curious Harry Hunter (Edward De Souza) investigates who this Phantom really is. Things are further complicated when the Phantom abducts the bright new star, Christine Charles, whom he holds in thrall. His desire: to make her into the world's greatest soprano. Phantom fans will be pleased with the little familiar elements that are part of the Phantom legend: the death of a stagehand by hanging, an arrogant diva whose brief limelight is soon replaced by Christine, the Phantom's abduction of Christine and his role as her vocal coach, the masked Phantom playing the organ in the dark depths of the opera house by a lake, and a chandelier that falls. But quite frankly, these things, which although true to the novel, are not put together in faithfulness. Spoilers: The death of the stagehand happens far too soon and the Phantom has a hunchback, dwarf assistant who is a totally made-up character for the film (played by Ian Wilson of My Fair Lady). The story is not set in Paris but in London. The chandelier which famously falls around the middle of the story, falls toward the end and even crushes the Phantom who unmasks himself (Christine never unmasks him) who leaps to save Christine. Everything is therefore actually inaccurate to the novel and the Lon Cheney version, which subsequent versions have always aspired to resemble. The best parts of the film lie in the color and cinematography. The Hammer film series were done in gorgeous and innovative color and cinematic style. The look of this film is as lovely as the 1943 Claude Rains version. Beautiful and period-correct costumes, fine theatrical interior scenes and the original music by Edwin Astley is grand, especially the fictional opera "Joan of Arc". Still another good thing is the quality of acting from the principal actors. Michael Gough steals the show as the egotistical, arrogant, womanizing and villainous Lord D'Arcy who is responsible for the Phantom's tragic situation. But again he is a character that never appeared in the original source. Herbert Lom is fine but clearly inspired by both Claude Rains in his "Professor" role and Lon Cheney in his "Phantom" mode. The Lon Cheney influence is evident in his body language and the gesticulations of his hands. He raises them and points at Christine the way Lon Cheney did with Mary Philbin. Heather Sears is not impressive as Christine, but then again her character in every version has always been flat and simply the Phantom's romantic interest. It's interesting to note that in this version she is NOT the Phantom's object of love. He is merely her teacher, and he is more brutal with her (even slaps her) because she is a means to achieve his masterpiece, the opera that he was never given credit for. We do not get a genuinely romantic feeling from this film in regards to the Phantom and Christine except for Christine's relationship with Harry. So when the Phantom risks his own life to save her it's very much a surprise and an ending that is too abrupt and spontaneous. Because this film is not faithful to the Phantom we all know and love from Cheney to Andrew Lloyd Webber, I rate this film with a 6 out of 10.