Wow! Such a good movie.

Highly Overrated But Still Good

brilliant actors, brilliant editing

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

This is an interesting version of this story. It is a Hammer film which is a British Studio that did a lot of horror films. The screenplay is written from the original story by a Hammer studio regular. While the script takes place in an opera house with the underground cavern, there are some differences in the story.It is much shorter than most versions of the Phantom. Most of the music is done by the Phantom on his organ. The mask is a full face mask instead of the half mask used in other versions. The cast here is mostly folks who co-star with others in films, but there are no big stars involved here.The story is quite different, partly for the short length. Partly because it was done on a $180,000 pound budget, which is pretty economical in 1962. That might explain the limited cast and the short length of the film. It was made to take advantage of Hammer films Horror reputation.By no means does this cast compare with other versions including the silent in 1925 by Lon Chaney (Sr.). It is a different take which might interest the many fans of this work, slightly. A true fan of Phantom of The Opera would be well advised to watch the other versions and then watch this one if they want something different.

Terence Fisher directs this Hammer version, and possibly the best, of the Leroux novel. The scene is changed from Paris to London, where a struggling composer Professor Petrie (Herbert Lom) is disfigured in a fire trying to retrieve his music from the seedy Lord Ambrose D'Arcy (Michael Gough). The composer is thought dead, but takes up residence in the sewers beneath the opera house. He becomes mesmerized by a young singer Christine Charles (Heather Sears) and becomes her masked benefactor using fear forcing her to sing his opera.This Gothic melodrama is better than average and more enjoyable than the other handful of versions on the screen; just due to the eerie atmosphere of being a Hammer production. The Phantom's disguise may not be the scariest, but provides mystery.Also in the cast: Edward de Souza, Harold Goodwin, Sonya Cordeau, Martin Miller and Thorley Walters.

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

Gaston Leroux's classic novel, "The Phantom of the Opera", is definitely one of the most famous and influential Gothic stories of horror and mystery ever written, and its main character, the Phantom, an icon of the Gothic horror literature. The novel's enormous popularity has resulted in many different adaptations, such as the 1925 silent film starring Lon Chaney, or more recently, the musical play by Andrew Lloyd Webber; works where the story of the mysterious figure that haunts the Palais Garnier has been explored in many different and interesting ways. Given the potential of the story, it's not a surprise that the legendary production company, Hammer Films, decided to make its own version of the story, written and produced by Anthony Hinds and under the direction of Hammer's best filmmaker Terence Fisher.Hammer's version offers many changes to Leroux's novel, the most noticeable one being that the movie is set in London instead of Paris. In this movie, producer Harry Hunter (Edward De Souza) and theater owner Lattimer (Thorley Walters) are working with famous composer Lord Ambrose d'Arcy (Michael Gough) to put d'Arcy's new opera, "Joan of Arc", on stage. However, they are facing trouble as a mysterious figure known only as "the Phantom" (Herbet Lom) is wrecking havoc by sabotaging the essays and committing a series of murders. The Phantom's actions make the lead singer of the opera to quit, but soon the producers find a replacement in the figure of Christine Charles (Heather Sears), a young singer with a beautiful voice. However, the Phantom is still there, and he gets a sudden dangerous interest in the new singer.Written by producer Anthony Hinds (as usual, under the pen name of John Elder), this version of the Phantom's story is a complete re-imagining of Leroux's story; but while different, it remains surprisingly faithful to the novel's essence by keeping true to the horror and mystery elements of the story. The Phantom here is a sympathetic and human figure, pretty much like the one presented in Universal's 1943 adaptation; however, Hinds makes his Phantom an anti-hero, and together with the addition of Lord d'Arcy as another "villian" gives the movie a very different tone to that previous version. As in most of his works, Hinds plays with the tragic aspects of horror, slowly taking the story to its shocking (albeit rushed) ending.Director Terence Fisher makes an excellent job at bringing this Phantom to life with his usual lavish look and with a nice touch of class and elegance. Hammer horror movies are known for being violent and gory, but this movie is different in the sense that focuses on atmosphere and mood rather than on scares. In fact, while the Phantom has a striking appearance (courtesy of Roy Ashton's excellent make-up), Fisher subtle and restrained take makes him less scary, using the haunting presence of his "monster" to increase its tragedy, instead of his monstrosity. While the budget was low, Fisher makes great use of his resources to create a wonderful moody film that keeps the novel's captivating atmosphere like few adaptations have done.Another element that makes "The Phantom of the Opera" an unusual Hammer film is the fact that few Hammer regulars appear in the cast. However, this by no means is a sign of unworthy performances. Herbert Lom is excellent as the Phantom, a difficult role as the mask in Fisher's version covers completely the actor's face, forcing him to use only his voice in his delivery. Lom is no Chaney of course, but easily ranks as the second best performance as the character. Edward De Souza's character is an equivalent of the novel's Raoul, but of course, with a big number of changes. De Souza's Harry Hunter is daring and witty, and he carries the film with dignity as the character in charge of solving the mystery of the Opera House. Heather Sears makes a believable Christine with her innocent looks and an excellent lip sync for the singing scenes. Finally, Michael Gough steals the movie, making a terrific performance as the villainous Lord d'Arcy; easily, the highlight of the movie.It's easy to see why this version of "The Phantom of the Opera" is not as celebrated as other Hammer films. The movie lacks some of the studio trademarks, as Hinds and Fisher decided to go for a different approach in this film. Also, the focus on atmosphere and mystery instead of direct horror make the film to look "different" or atypical, however, it's this restrained approach what in the end makes it one of the best (and ironically most faithful) adaptations of the story. At first sight it feels as if the Hammer magic was lost, but in the end, this is far from the worst that the legendary studio has done, and in all fairness, it's as good as their best films. Finally, a last minor quibble is that, like the 1943 film, it uses many overlong Opera scenes that while remarkably well done, add little to the plot and easily could had been replaced with a longer conclusion."The Phantom of the Opera" is not really a favorite among Hammer fans, but it's a really classy take on the iconic story of the disfigured genius that roams the Opera house. It's very different to other versions, but it keeps the spirit of Leroux's novel like no other film has done (with the exception of 1925 silent film). This underrated film really deserves a chance to be better known. 7/10