A Masterpiece!

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

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.

Robert Englund takes a break from playing Freddy Krueger to step into another iconic role, that of Erik, the disfigured composer from The Phantom of the Opera, reminding Elm Street fans that there's more to him as a performer than a striped sweater, a few corny wisecracks and a mean set of finger-blades.Dwight H. Little's 1989 adaptation of Gaston Leroux's classic novel opens in modern day New York, with opera singer Christine (the lovely Jill Schoelen) discovering the unfinished work of composer Erik Destler (Englund), who, as legend has it, sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for success, committed several murders and disappeared in mysterious circumstances after becoming obsessed with a young soprano.When Christine performs Destler's work at her next audition, she is accidentally knocked out by a sandbag that falls from the rigging; while unconscious, Christine dreams of living in Victorian London, where she is the object of the Phantom's obsession. Entranced by Christine, Erik is determined to make the girl a star, removing those who might get in his way by any means necessary.In casting Englund, setting his film in two different time periods and locations, introducing supernatural elements from Faust, and delivering numerous gory slasher style killings, Little makes it clear that his intent is not to make a slavish adaptation of Leroux's novel, but to simply entertain, and in that he largely succeeds: the film is an audio visual treat throughout—elegant, atmospheric, and stylish, with terrific music—and the lively pace and gruesome effects (the Phantom sews the skin of his victims to his face) ensure that boredom never sets in.Englund handles his role well, treading a fine line between sinister musical genius and deranged psycho killer, his Phantom both beguiling and frightening, while 80s scream queen Schoelen (The Stepfather, Popcorn) just looks adorable throughout, which is good enough for me.It may be criticised by many 'Phanatics' (as serious fans of POTO apparently call themselves) for playing it fast and loose with the original story, and for glorifying the violence, but I found Little's version of Phantom of the Opera to be a lot of fun (it's certainly more entertaining than Universal's overblown 1943 movie starring Claude Rains).

Robert Englund and Jill Schoelen star in this 1989 horror film based on the novel and play. This film begins in Modern-day New York where we meet young woman, Christine Day (Schoelen) who is an aspiring opera singer. She finds an old symphony piece and decides to recite it in an audition. After an accident, she's transported back to 18th century London where she meets scarred composer, Eric Destler aka the Phantom (Englund) who coaches her and goes on a murderous rampage in her honor while she becomes a sensation. Soon, Christine comes back to her own time getting the part of her dreams and reunites with the Phantom. I like this version and think it's underrated. Robert is terrific in it as usual and he and Jill are good together. I think the film was marketed badly because Robert's burn makeup resembled his Freddy Krueger one Kevin Yagher also applied in the first 3 "Nightmare on Elm Street" sequels and people probably thought it was "Freddy of the Opera." The make-up is great though as well as Misha Segal's score. I recommend this.

Euro schlock producer Harry Alan Towers does it again! This is probably the worst version of Gaston Leroux's classic novel I have ever seen! Robert Englund is actually quite a good phantom, perhaps the best since Lon Chaney. Unfortunately, he (and the other actors) are given little to do by the director, and must therefore forcibly manufacture all-purpose emotions and gesture. Director Dwight H. Little seems to have little clue as to what motivates human beings to do things, what drives them to such extremes of behavior. Instead of creating passion, horror and tragedy, the best he can do is get his actors to grin like idiots when happy, breath quickly when scared, wrinkle their faces when angry, etc. I think this director should stick to working on television shows, where emotional depth is of less importance than in film. The other culprit is the script, which is full of clichés and very conventional workings out of plot elements. Not sure how to resolve a story?... Just make something explode real loud, or knock some candelabras over in a bogus and ridiculously over-emotive fit of rage! That's the general level on which this script operates. My advice... see Lon Chaney's classic silent Phantom, or Hammer's remake. At lease director Terence Fisher knew how to tell a story where the emotion is real.