Phantom of the Opera (1989)

Trading tragic romance for Faustian malevolence, the 1989 version of The Phantom of the Opera is a surprisingly good example of '80s horror. It was dismissed as gory trash by most critics (no doubt because Kevin Yagher's gruesome makeup effects are effectively revolting), but horror buffs will be more forgiving of this lush production, which ranks well above average for horror films of its time. Set in Victorian London and shot mostly in Budapest, Hungary (for period architecture), the film reunites director Dwight Little (Halloween 4) with "Freddie Krueger" himself, Robert Englund, who had worked together on the Nightmare on Elm Street-based TV series Freddie's Nightmares. It's a good pairing, as Englund does some of his finest work as the Phantom, seen here as a horribly disfigured composer who patches his scarred and mangled face with stitched-on flesh, and makes a deal with the devil to be immortalized through his music. His muse, as always, is the lovely diva-to-be Christine, and the casting of Jill Schoelen gives the film added cachet among genre fans (who will recognize her from the 1987 cult hit The Stepfather). While bearing little resemblance to Lon Chaney's 1925 classic, this Phantom is actually more loyal to Gaston Leroux's original novel, and therefore deserves as much acknowledgement as any other version of the story. Certainly not a classic, but well worth a look. --Jeff Shannon Amazon.com

A Modern Horror Twist on a Horror Classic

This version of the story of the Phantom of the Opera is okay if you are a horror fan and a fan of the story. It's not very suspenseful and definitely won't keep you on the edge of your seat. But if you are a fan of 80's horror films and Freddy, you'll get a kick out of this one. May 21, 2008

"Only love and music are forever"

The emphasis is definitely on gore in this effective 1989 take on THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, starring Robert Englund in the title role. Followers of the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical might want to bypass this one.

The setting is modern-day New York. Promising opera singer Christine Day (Jill Schoelen) is auditioning for an important producer when a stage accident catapults her back to 19th-century London. She's still Christine, an aspiring soprano, yet haunted by the terrifying Phantom (Englund), a deformed composer who wears a mask stitched from the skins of his human victims.

The time-twisting theme works well to bookend the story, and Jill Schoelen is a luminous presence as both incarnations of Christine (her singing is dubbed by Nancy Fontana). Robert Englund is quite chilling yet imbues his role with a dark comedy streak. The late great Stephanie Lawrence is also memorable playing Carlotta, the resident opera diva.

PHANTOM fans should enjoy this version, which is full of gaslight thrills and chills. Highly-recommended. December 28, 2007

To Crypt "thecrypt777"

I really liked this guys review and he already said alot of things I cannot think of saying. However, I did give this movie one star because I found Englund's acting to be off. The movie scenes were good and the story was well known but the acting was off and very stiff. Englund should have half of his face disfigured instead of his whole face, it probably would make people stop calling it Freddy goes to the Opera. November 24, 2007

Phantom of Elm Street is more like it

This mess bears little in common with the great novel or any of the many film versions of the story. They have taken a haunting tale of lust, greed, and suspense and turned it into "A Nightmare In The Opera". Just a silly and poorly put together slasher movie. WHAT A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME!!!!!!!!!!!! August 30, 2007

Hmmm...

I hate to say this, but no matter what perspective I take on this movie, I just don't like it.

I am an obsessive PotO Phan, so this movie in regards to being a tragic tale of romance and passion was a huge disapointment. It turned out to be completely lust on Erik's part, and quite well taken care of at that (He didn't really need Christine). Before watching it the first time, knowing it was a blood-and-guts slasher I decided NOT to make any comparisons of the romances portrayed in any other version, but I couldn't help but feel extremely dissapointed in that aspect.

As a horror, this movie hits near the top of most gory movies I have seen, up there with Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but the story istelf and the characters had little to no developement. The one part I enjoyed was when the Phantom acted like the Phantom is supposed to, enraptured in the gentle embrace of Christine's voice (of which there was very little); but right after that he went out and randomly killed some more people.

All this movie was was a lot of blood and guts with a famous title on it to make it seem better than it was.

I have to admit the effects where amazing, and the makeup immaculate, however, in real life there would be a lot of scar tissue over a wound like that, and it would not bleed buckets of fresh blood everytime he aired his wounds. Especially since it was so... clean when he wore "makeup."

The time-paradoxes really bothered me too, as does the fact that very very little is explained at all, such as WHY he's obsessed with Christine, WHY he goes all ninja in the alleyway, and WHY he goes through the painful process of reconstructing his face every day instead of just wearing a freakin mask.

I liked the red death costume. I didn't like the red death mask. But that's just me, and has nothing to do with the rating of the film. I didn't like it, but you might. At any rate, if you're looking to expand your experiances or maybe just your collection of the Phantom, I would reccomend it, if you can get a good deal on it. April 8, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...