The Phantom of the Opera (1989)

The man who gave us several cinematic incarnations of Freddy Kruger, Robert Englund did this version of The Phantom Of The Opera. But Englund was obviously looking for another long running series from this character.The Phantom here is a supernatural character unlike versions where Lon Chaney, Claude Rains, and Herbert Lom made him a most pitiable if frightening figure. And quite mortal.Not here however. Englund's phantom has made a Faustian pact with the devil. Old Scratch might have first dibs on his soul for the afterlife, but he's not going to have a good time of it. Englund wanted musical genius and he wanted to be loved for his music. The devil made him hideous with the worst case of eczema ever. He would most certainly not be loved for his appearance. Written he has and he wants Jill Schoelen to sing his music with acclaim and then make her his own in those familiar catacombs, these catacombs in London as opposed to Paris.The story is told in flashback as an unconscious Schoelen dreams of a past incarnation and her encounter with Englund a century before in a different life. But Englund is most persistent.I think hoped for another series character like Freddy Kruger, but it was not to be. This film is all right but not a patch on the previous Phantom Of The Opera films.

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.

I watched this movie for the first time shortly after it was released in theaters. I rented it with very low expectations mainly because it was a late 80's slasher, it was based on a novel that wasn't living it's best times at the 80's, and because it was produced with low budget. It didn't impress me so I forgot about it.20 years after it's release I bought it for nostalgia's sake and because I'm a die hard fan of the stunning Jill Schoelen. I mean, she was my first crush in Horror cinema and she's a favorite of mine. On the secondary aspect, I really like Robert Englund 's work in Horror. So what the heck? I watched it low expectations and I can proudly say that it's one of the best "classy slashers" out there. What do I mean with the term "classy"?. Well, the movie is based on the beautiful-dark novel by Gaston Leroux so that tells you that the movie's main plot needs to be placed in ancient times, but it gives plenty of territory for the director to insert gory killings (such as in the novel), slasher sub-plots, creepy atmospheres, and why not? cheesy one-liners.It's a solid slasher with some flaws but still, one of a kind.Robert Englund is perfect as the Phantom; this time, our beloved dark hero is a cold-blood assassin who fades in the shadows while trying to recover the love of Christine Daly. In order to achieve that, he will kill anyone who gets on Mrs. Daly's way. And that's what happens! The Phantom gets really mad and performs brutal deaths like a beheading, ripping off skin, violent stabbings, and more! Now, that's the best way to adapt a slasher flick on a classic story.Jill Schoelen is just arousing in everything she does. I mean, she has the looks of a tender inoffensive young adult but at the same time, she's sexy, sensual, clever, brave, and with that sexy voice, you can tell she's wild while on well, you know. She sings very good and looks even better. I dug her mini skirt outfits during the 1989 era.I really liked how the movie connects the actual times with the past and then, returns for it's ending, to the late 80's. It's a clever move not seen in much slashers.I recommend this movie big time for slasher fans. It won't let you down. It has all the winning elements such as inventive killings, gore, sinister atmosphere, very classy scenarios like the opera, the streets of London, and more. The make-up is pretty good and The Phantom is extremely disgusting and creepy when taking off his mask and while wearing the red death costume. Brrr. The music is excellent and Daly's creepy song is absolutely great, and haunting.Special mention for the scene where the Phantom sells his soul. It adds a sinister tone for this slasher. Oh, and I wanted to comment on the rat-killer that leaves in the sewers; he delivers a truly creepy but comedic voice that I just can't forget. I hope not to talk like him in some years.I truly urge you to watch the movie if you: A) love slashers B) like the novel C) Love Jill Schoelen D) Love Robert EnglundIt's a gory addition to the novel. Jill Schoelen, I'm still waiting for your call or e-mail. Whatever you want.

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.