 |
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Movie Reviews of The Phantom of the Opera - The Ultimate Edition (1925 Original Version and 1929 Restored Version)Movie Review: The Ultimate Lon Chaney Version... Summary: 5 StarsThis is the best version of Lon Chaney's The Phantom of the Opera I've seen. Before the DVD, I'd only viewed a VHS copy which I purchased in the "ten dollars or less" bin. If that is the only way you've seen the movie, you MUST WATCH THE DVD. For instance, there was considerable use of primitive Technicolor in this film; much of the movie is b&w, but during the masked-ball sequence, the Phantom makes quite an entrance as Red Death. Some of the color has proven irreparable, but the restorers have digitally colorized some sequences to try to recapture the original feel of the film.
The DVD set includes two discs - the 1925 version and the 1929 version. To really appreciate the movie, YOU MUST WATCH WITH THE AUDIO COMMENTARY TRACK! We find out all the trouble (and there was a lot of it) that went into this movie. For instance, the director (Rupert Julien) had no talent! The studio kept botching the project, which is why there are umpteen different versions. The commentator points out all of Julien's mistakes and the differences between the different versions. As originally conceived, the movie was supposed to be ALMOST exactly like the book (which is why the Persian is in it). Then, the geniuses in the studio wanted it altered and a version was shot which was NOTHING LIKE the book - this version was a comedy about Raoul. Then, the different versions were pulled together. The Persian was changed to a police inspector who wears an Astrakhan cap and eye makeup for no reason. The Rat Catcher is still there, but unexplained. Tragically, Erik's backstory (as in ALL versions) is ruined: he becomes merely an escapee from Devil's Island. However, only this version and the Andrew Lloyd Weber version have a Phantom who was born disfigured and not the victim of acid-in-the-face.
What is amazing - listening to the commentary - is just how good the movie turned out to be. It remained somewhat faithful to the book, retaining the best set pieces - the secret passages, box 5, the underground lake, the lair, the torture chamber, the horse, the masked ball, and (of course) the chandelier. We are told that the true auteurs of this movie are the set designer and Lon Chaney himself. This is Chaney's best performance and best makeup. He really looks like the Phantom is described in the book. He also designed his own mask with a whisk of linen at the bottom to show when he speaks. Chaney supposedly directed his sequences himself, which seems likely because they are - by far - the best parts of the film. Regardless of its shortcomings, the unmasking of the Phantom remains one of the greatest moments in silent cinema.
Movie Review: silent but still good Summary: 5 Starsas you all know this is the first phantom movie and i think it's the best even though it is silent which i have no problem with.Lon Chaney stars as the phantom in this one and i think he does a good job as the phantom.i like this one more than franenstien and dracula.now to get to the movie.it is about a girl named christne and her two lovers raoul and the phantom.p.s.
lon chaney's make up in the end is scary
Movie Review: No, it's not perfect, Summary: 5 Starsbut it's close. Sure it has some little flaws, overly melodramatic moments and plot holes, but the Phamtom remains an absolute landmark in films. Chaney's make-up is still absolutely unsurpassed, 80 years after the fact -- astonishing when you consider all the technology and make-up we have today vs. Lon's "tackle box." And Chaney's performance is also mesmerizing, one of his very best. The unmasking scene, no matter how many times you've seen it, still jolts you not once but twice; once for ourselves, then through Christine. This has, long ago, gone beyond just a movie; it's beyond essential; something that must be experienced. Quite simply, anyone who doesn't have a copy of this in their own collection cannot, truthfully in any way, be called a movie fan, or someone who genuinely appreciates film.
Movie Review: FILM PlAYS BETTER WITH MUSIC ADDED Summary: 4 StarsI have seen the silent Phantom of The Opera version many times over the years and i much prefer it with an added musical score. I swear the sets we see for tHe Paris opera house are the same as the ones later used in Tod Browning's Dracula (starring Bela Lugosi). As for the plot very well crafted. acting is very good (though the pretty lady who screams when she first sees the Phantom unmasked is a little too expressive). Superb makeup job by Chaney on Chaney.
Movie Review: The best version , by far ! Summary: 5 StarsConsider this one as the best of Lon Chaney silent films . Never before and hardly since there has been a version so magnificently mounted and idiomatic expressive , and personally I guess the plot fits adequately to mude movies , due his own nature allows . A musician hides in the bowels of a cavernous opera house waiting for his revenge moment . You had to wait until 1974 for De Palma to obtain a worthable second place FORTY NINE YEARS after . But is more than just to recognize the enormous and expert merit made by Claude Rains in the 1943 version .
The makeup is silmply magic . Directed by Rupert Julian a real and forgotten master director.
A personal advise to get involved in this surrealist mood ; watch first The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari , The hands of Orlac at first , and once you are completely in expressionist waters , watch it . Otherwise , if you watch without the necessary requirements about the artistic meaning and certain visual , cinematic and light and shadows affects clues , may be you make a wrong statement . due a breakthrough with the fundaments of this genre
More Movie Reviews: First Review 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
|
 |