The Phantom of the Opera
|
List Price: Our Price: $1.49 You Save: $13.49 (90%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.45 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of The Phantom of the Opera
Movie Review: Good version
Summary: 4 Stars
The performance is good but it has a little touch of modernism, anyway... a new proposal or a new version for this classic French story.Movie Review: The splatter-flick version of "The Phantom of the Opera"
Summary: 3 Stars
The various movie versions of "The Phantom of the Opera" have always been a mix of gothic horror and gothic romance, but it is possible to work one extreme or the other. The 1990 two-part television version, directed by Tony Richardson with Charles Dance as the Phantom is the most romantic version to date, even more so that the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical that was no doubt a source of inspiration. At the other end of the Phantom spectrum we get this 1989 version, directed by Dwight H. Little with Robert Englund as the title character. Since we are talking the man who directed "Halloween 4" and the actor who played Freddy Kreuger in the "Nightmare on Elm Street" series, you know that this "Phantom" will be closer to a splatter-flick than any other previous retelling of the tale.
During the final credits we are informed that "This Motion Picture is not associated with any current or prior stage production or motion picture of the same title," which is an interesting statement to make but also quite accurate. That is because this version of "The Phantom of the Opera" wants to be different, and that is what the screenplay by Gerry O'Hara and Duke Sandefur delivers, even if the logic behind the alterations is suspect.
Our story begins in New York City in the present, where young Christine Day (Jill Schoelen) is preparing for a singing audition. Her friend, Meg (Molly Shannon), finds part of a score for "Don Juan Triumphant," written by Eric Destler long ago and presumably lost. Apparently Destler was a prime suspect in the deaths of several people in London a century earlier. The next thing we know Christine is waking up in London way back when, without any idea that she has become unstuck in time and with a different actress now playing her friend, Meg (Emma Rawson).
Why are we involving time travel in "The Phantom of the Opera"? Once you have watched the movie try and figure out the logic of Christine going "back" in time for the story to take place since she remembers nothing once she gets there. The inspiration here seems to be half "Bram Stoker's Dracula," where the Count and his beloved are tied together throughout eternity, and half "Faust," where a man sells his soul to the Devil to get his heart's desire. Christine gets to sing in Charles Gounod's opera version of "Faust" just in case people are not making the connection (but that assumes you are familiar with the Goethe version of the legend in the first place). Thus, a supernatural element is added to the story, but not to great effect (especially since it sets up a rather mundane way of Christine trying to break the cycle). The Phantom is a much scarier person when he is simply a mad genius rather than the Devil's henchman.
You may ask, why is Christine not only Day instead of Daae but also now an American singing at the opera in London instead of Paris (for a movie filmed in Budapest, Hungary)? I assume it is because most of the cast is English and therefore if it is in London nobody has to pretend to speak with French accents. Plus, you save big bucks not having to pretend your story is taking place in the magnificent Paris Opera House and not having to drop a chandelier on anybody.
Actually, the major problem with this version is that Christine's voice does not sound that great. She sounds like a very good high school singer of opera, but hardly a vocal talent that the Phantom would desire to nurture, let along the toast of London. For that matter, his tutoring is not showing much effect. He demands she sing with passion and she sounds exactly like she did before. The critic (Peter Clapham) who panned her singing in "Faust" was a bit harsh, but he was going in the right direction. Maybe we are supposed to be thinking of the Phantom likes children because Englund (a.k.a. Freddy) is playing the character, but having Carlotta (Stephanie Lawrence) be a better singer than Christine is really weird.
But maybe that is the point. Maybe this Phantom is backing the wrong horse and the only way to get his prodigy on stage is to start killing people. This would explain why he has to kill a lot of people this time around. This film is at its best when we get away from the singing and any idea of a romance between Christine and Erik, and the Phantom gets on with the slicing and dicing of the supporting cast. The twisted difference with this particular Phantom is that his "mask" consists of the flesh of his victims sewn over his facial deformities. Watching Erik sew on the skin will certainly creep you out, although this allows him to walk around and let his face be seen way too much given this is supposed to be a horror movie. He does don a nice ensemble at one point involving a hat and a scarf across his face, but for some reason things are done at an angle so it looks like he has one eye (to wit, it looks good but makes no sense).
The trailer for this movie explains that some stories are so powerful that they are reborn for each new generation (apparently more than love and music are forever). This is Hollywood-speak for the idea that Gaston Leroux's novel is so good that they do not think they can really mess it up, no matter what nonsense they come up with for a new version. The bottom line is that if they jettisoned the whole idea about the eternal lovers unstuck in time and just let this version be about the bloodiest Phantom of them all, then this would have been a much stronger film. When they get back to the framing device instead of coming up with some really neat way of killing off the Phantom, I was bitterly disappointed because I had sort of forgotten that nonsense was part of this movie. The decision to make the splatter-flick version of "The Phantom of the Opera" is a legitimate one, so there was really no need to throw in all that other junk.
Movie Review: The most funniest, grotesque Phantom retelling--a guilty pleasure!
Summary: 3 Stars
Funny, how could this movie be funny?
I had bought it because I am a Phantom of the Opera completionist. I need to have everything Phantom, sadly, because I am a Phan. I had bought this movie last year, though many people had said it was simply not worth it. I knew only two stars in this movie, Molly Shannon (SNL) and Robert Engulund (Freddy Krugger). So it was a joy when I found this at a warehouse DVD/Movie store, so I invited one of my friends over to watch this with me.
Oh... my God! I had never found myself so disgusted and humored by this retelling! So I have dubbed this movie my guilty pleasure of sorts.
We have Christine Day, an aspiring girl who wishes to get her role as a "big star" in a new musical. Upon a visit to her friend's book-retail shop, she is shown an opera called "Don Juan Triumphant". The composer's name is Erik, and it's frighteningly written in blood--she doesn't know that, however. Until when she is singing it softly, does she discover that blood oozes out from the pages onto her hands. And the next moment, it's no longer there.
And when she sings it at the tryouts for this "new musical", a prop falls from overhead, crashes into the mirror behind her, transporting her into the past--late 1800's, past.
And then we got the Phantom, who is played by Mr. Freddy Krugger himself. What was seriously on the "gross" factor, was the "mask" he wore. He wore no mask as in the different retellings, but uses the ol' Hannibal Lector trick. Seawing pieces of his skin on his face, then covering it up with make-up. Giving him a look somewhat of a cross between Gerard Butler's makeup and over-packed Stage-Makeup. And he went around, in the open--some of the time--and kills people in the most nastiest of ways. Joseph Buquet, however, was hung upside down in the fly-space, then dropped, then pulled up and had a knife dragged from his navel to his nose. Honestly, it's Phantom all right, but terribly and horribly off his rocker.
The story of the Phantom's deformity has changed, he recieves his ugliness by selling his soul to the devil. With his burning passion for becoming disfigured, he uses his musical genius and influences the Christine Day of the past/future with it. One of the most beautiful scenes, that is a mixture of Leroux and lovely cinematography is the visit to the graveyard. Of course, there is a Raoul, only he is called Charles. The Phantom appears to Christine with a violin, playing away at it, giving Christine the impression it IS her father.
There are also some really funky scenes in the movie, too. As in after the Masquerade/Red Death scene, he throws Christine down on his bed, jumps up and down on her--grinding her. It's so bizzare and funny, you have to laugh. And before that, let's not forget the famous prositute scene where he says in her ear, "tonight, you are Christine..." and he does her. It's clearly something you could have seen Erik doing, only if he was that desperate.
I am not, however, ruining the ending for you. That is something you will have to watch for yourself. It's clearly one of those, "what the holy..." kind of reactions though. But you knew it was coming, since Freddy Krugger always comes back. But I will say that she comes back to the present, though.
In all, besides for the graphic killings, the explicit scenes, it's not that bad. It's a guilty pleasure, if you are looking for a real "slasher" Phantom story, this one is right up your alley. Though rent it first from your local video store, your decision on whether to buy it can be made like so. I don't regret buying it, however. :)
Movie Review: This is one to think about....
Summary: 3 Stars
Ok, mask-wearing, punjab lasso wielding purists beware, this is definitely not, and shouldn't even be compared to Webber's version; Sir Andrew had a unique vision that it appears only he alone has. However, a few things about this movie impressed me:
1. They kept Leroux's version of the graveyard scene, complete with violin. Even Webber's version wasn't THAT close...
2. The main characters are all basically there. Most other movie versions change names, switch/delete characters, etc.
3. Carlotta dies. 'Nuff said.
4. The opera they based the movie around was Faust, as in the book.
5. Despite the fact that yes, the Phantom is a killer, he still has some very good sensuality about him that is missing from most of the other Phantom films (excepting, of course, the 1925 silent version).
There were some things I hated:
1. Christine travels back in time for no other reason then to give a highly predictable plot twist at the end. Oh, brother.
2. They changed the setting from France to England.
3. He sews SKIN to his FACE??? Gimme a break...
4. He supposedly sold his soul to the devil. Ummmm...ok, yeah, whatever. Would've been more believeable if they'd made him a vampire.
Over all, I thought that the pros far outweighed the cons for this version of Leroux's ever haunting novel.
Movie Review: What The Hell!!!!!!
Summary: 3 Stars
I'm sorry but this movie is the wierdest. First of I love Robert Engund, but no mater what part he is playing his face is always screwed up. To tell you the truth you cant see him with his scared face, but when he takes his face off he look much better lol. Anyay in this POTO story he skins his victims and takes there skins and puts it on his (that can't be healthy). And Chrastine is an AMERICAN singing at a LONDON OPERA HOUSE NOT A FRENCH OPERA HOUSE. I hate it when they screw up the story and change Chratines last name. Anywho back to the story, once agian Raul's name isnt Raul its Richrad, but is not really importen because I don't really care about him. In this movie they try to make it a cool action movie. You know the ones with the really crappy sound affects, that what is in this film. So if you are a big ass POTO fan like me and have to see every POTO movie, then its pefect for you. Oh two more things, in the beginning its modern times, but then Chriatine gets knocked out during her auddition for Les Miseable (it seems like it probely not) it flashes back to the past and then when the past is done they go back to maderen times, and POTO stands for The Phantom Of The Opera for those who didnt know that.