Sorry, this movie sucks

Instant Favorite.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

With a story that -- even by then -- had been adapted to death, 1989's take on "The Phantom of the Opera" puts a new spin on the mythology by catering to fans of the great stab n' slash films of the era. To help seal the deal, genre icon Robert Englund -- having starred as Freddy Krueger in five "Elm Street" films by that point - - is cast in the titular role. Some creative license is taken with the source material, tinkering with the Phantom's origin and setting a slice of the action in the present, but for the most part, this is familiar terrain with a twist.Jill Schoelen plays Christine, a burgeoning opera singer who is slightly out of tune in her time. When a stage accident sends her back in time -- to 1881 London, specifically -- she must reconcile the artist she admires most with the monster he has become. Enter Robert Englund as the Phantom. With a face that not even a mother could love, a deal with the devil gone south has forced him into the shadows. Below the opera house, he grows bitter without the fanfare afforded by his work and starts picking off cast and crew in routine fashion in an effort not only please Christine, but apparently himself as well.Director Dwight H. Little ("Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers") gives probably his most show-y film to date. Like his previous outing with Michael Myers, "The Phantom of the Opera" attempts to build atmosphere and suspense, but is often undercut by its cookie-cutter body-count formula. Once the killing gets going, the film actually gets dull, as one gets the feeling we've seen this before. On the upside, Englund, clearly relishing the opportunity to stretch his legs here, gives a great performance that in a better context, would be downright iconic. His make-up job is a little too close to Freddy at times, but most traces of that character are gone from his performance. The film doesn't always quite work, but when it does, it's because of Englund. Worth watching to see a different spin on well-worn material and to see the lovely Jill Schoelen, whose filmography is sadly too brief. Likewise, look out for a pre-Saturday Night Live Molly Shannon as Christine's modern-day best friend. I wouldn't go singing its praises from the rafters, but I wouldn't bury it below the surface either

'The Phantom of the Opera' is a victim of it's own overexposure. I feel as though it is a story that has lost a lot of it's resonance and edge as the adaptations have come and gone. Too often only the romantic aspect of the character is played. This adaptation stars Robert Englund in the title role and embraces the horror of the story to the fullest. This approach with the gooey gore maybe what this story needs to be fresh again. This film's successes and failures stem from it's decision to embrace the fact that 'The Phantom of the Opera' is and always has been a horror story. This adaptation has some moments of macabre genius and some really conventional boring slasher bits...The movie's greatest achievement is that it does a really nice job mixing Gothic horror with the kind of gory horror of the 80's. Fans of practical special effects will not be disappointed as it has some masterful and terrifying make-ups that Englund wears to perfection. The decision to make his mask dead flesh is horrific enough but the brilliant make-up used to create this choice is among the best of this era. It's one thing to have these horrific make-up monsters but their success is all about the presence used to surround them. This 'Phantom' is very fortunate in that the sets are extraordinary as is the direction. Dwight Little really plays up the mystery of the Phantom character and his surroundings. The most frightening moments come when the Phantom is kept in the shadows. There's some brilliant acting in this from Robert Englund. I think he has been one of the few actors that has been able to realize that the Phantom is a multifaceted character. Englund surprisingly plays up the romance of the part. Some of the best moments of the film come from when Englund's Phantom is engaged with Christine. There's a softness and vulnerability creeping through big bad Freddy. I love the moment when Englund's Phantom and Christine work on his opera together. He ends the piece of music in tears, with a lesser actor that would be contrived. Of course the Phantom's dark side must be played up. The character has a danger to him and isn't just a giant misunderstood pussycat. Englund plays the horror with great anger. He isn't just playing Freddy. I love the scenes where he interacts with other characters aside from Christine. Englund really drives home that the Phantom is not only a narcissist but an alien to the world above. This performance is one of the most faithful and interesting takes on this character. It does have some horror eccentricities from this period but I think Englund gets closer to exploring the Phantom than both Claude Raines and Herbert Lom did. Maybe I'm crazy but I think the only one to do it better was Lon Chaney.I think this could have been one of the best 80's horror films if it didn't play it too close to what I imagine the producers thought the target demographic wanted. The film is at it's least interesting when it tries to be a crowd pleasing slasher film. One make-up that is uninspiring is when the Phantom takes off his 'mask'. The Phantom unmasked looks just like Freddy which is such a disappointment. The slashing scenes are so boring. I wouldn't necessarily have minded them as much if they had done new things. The story has some grisly material but grisly material is only as interesting as the presence and build up around it. When the Phantom hunts his victims it's merely a slasher film. I understand that this movie had to find an audience through Englund's fame but I think horror fans are a lot more clever than they were given credit for. I don't mind all the gore but do something more with it and have it be an expression of character or thematic choice than gratuitous stuff that is done better in 'Elm Street' and 'Friday the 13th' films.'The Phantom of the Opera' is a pretty decent horror film. I think at it's best moments it has some moments that really are genuinely imaginative. At the very least it's a 'Phantom' that isn't afraid to be a horror film. That's enough to recommend it for me.

Robert Englund goes head to head with Lon Chaney for the title of the greatest Phantom, in my book. Both convey the right amount of menace while still keeping the character sympathetic, unlike more recent renditions which aspire to turn the iconic character into a figure of Harlequin romance.The Gothic setting and moody lighting make this 1989 POTO beautiful to behold too. And the music is just gorgeous, stirring and haunting as the music in a Phantom film should be. The actress playing Christine is lovely and for once, Raoul is not annoying or bland.It's a shame that the rest of the movie does not hold up as well.The movie quickly falls into the formula of your typical, cheesy 1980s slasher flick. There's also a terrible modern-day framing device which causes many a plot hole to spring up. The climax builds and builds, only to be resolved by the most disappointing of anti-climaxes.It's worth a watch, but I'm afraid outside of Englund and the overall aesthetic, there's not much food for thought.

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.