Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

ElMaruecan82 Silent dramas such as "The Birth of a Nation" or "Nosferatu" are all now in public domain, different versions, different soundtracks or color tones but if you want to commit to them, Internet is your friend. However, these movies also ask for a commitment of mind because in the absence of laughs, you can only hang on romance, thrills and atmosphere. Rupert Julian's adaptation of Gaston Leroux' classic "Phantom of the Opera" provides the obligatory trinity and I listed them in order of effectiveness.But while the inclination of romantic silent actors to overact the melodramatic bits can undermine a film's credibility, the acting in "Phantom of the Opera" is pretty decent, although the performance of Lon Chaney turns all the other players into forgettable pawns. But even Chaney gets less interesting in the final act where he's turned into a one-dimensional public enemy instead of the tragic villain we sympathized with. I guess it all comes down to the 'atmosphere' being silent movies' strongest suit, just as it did for "Nosferatu", anticipations are more thrilling than reveals... except for the one reveal.The merit of Lon Chaney, known as the man of a thousand faces (two were enough here) is to act in a way that serves the eerie and ominous ambiance of the Opera. As long as he wears the mask, he's this mysterious "admirer", always sitting at Box five and... well, a whole other 'Persona' in the Greek meaning of the word, which is "mask". And the object of the admiration is Christine (Mary Philbin) a breathtakingly beautiful aspiring singer. The mysterious admirer will see that only Christine would sing the Marguerite part in the representation of "Faust" and a series of written threats and curses prevent Prima Donna Carlotta from singing. We don't literally see the Phantom, but does he need 'acting' when his actions say enough?The first act is remarkable in the way all the main players are kept in the dark. The film starts with the notary deal where the new Opera owners learn about the existence of a Phantom... and a mysterious masked stranger. Naturally, it takes time for everyone to reassemble the pieces of the puzzle but we're ready to embrace the atmosphere and forgive some deficit of subtlety. The reputation of the Phantom precedes him, he's mostly a rumor, but what a rumor, see how he's described by one who saw him: "eyes like holes", "grinning skull", "leprous parchment", "no nose"... Poe wouldn't have been more eloquent and you'll see that it was no misleading advertising. While the Phantom is 'under study', Christine is an understudy and her boyfriend Raoul, an understudy of her heart as she wouldn't let any man interfere with her career. Except in the right way. The admirer, whoever he is and however he manages, allows Christine to get on stage, to sing, since he pledges his eternal love for her and her music, he clearly has an edge over Raoul and his mask doesn't frighten nor impress her. Interestingly, Christine represents our point of view, that masked stranger is fascinating because he embodies two contradictions: power and influence and feelings and devotion, he's both a master and a servant, somewhat good, somewhat evil. It's like the mask has neutralized the persona of the man rather than enhanced it. When Christine says "You're the Phantom!", it doesn't even sound dull, but pointless. Yes, he's the phantom, because that's what man's hatred turned him into and Christine will be safe for as long as she doesn't discover the ugliness. Of course, in an almost Biblical move, Christine's curiosity got the best of her, she hesitates before pulling off the mask while the Phantom, whose name is revealed to be Erik, is solemnly savoring the beauty of the moment, playing the organ with the best company, then she puts off the mask and it's not the face in itself than the horror expression in Chaney's face. Well, it's both.The scene was said to have made people faint and I can believe it, because I dare not imagine how a close-up on Chaney's skull-like face would have felt in the big screen. The camera gets closer as if it was obeying his own injunction: "Feast your eyes! Glut your soul on my accursed ugliness!" I related to this quote, perhaps more than the unmasking, this is a man whose ugliness have made a natural outcast out of him and the only parcel of peace and happiness he could afford had just been destroyed by the very person who inspired. And for what? Curiosity... to see how much of a freak he was, such a small price to prevent him from the only passion he could "earn" and condemn his soul to eternal damnation.Just think of today's virtual relationships, everyone wears a mask, it's named a screen, but sooner or later we'll be confronted to the reality of our look and catalyze the feelings or destroy it. The unmasking is a pivotal moment in the film, as it turns the Monster into an antagonist while asking us to root for Christine. But I couldn't, I hated the way she toyed with his feelings; as soon as she realizes her admirer's hideousness she jumps in the arms of Raoul, and she doesn't do it once but twice, driving Erik into the point of no return. Since the Phantom was victim of his ugliness, I don't think we needed to have any knowledge of some criminal background, if his face drove his vileness, that was enough, wasn't it?I was thrilled by the third act in the cellars of the Opera and with the mob for all the effects and suspense but Erik had to be a tragic villain, not a Nosferatu. And I guess that's how modern audiences will perceive it, as a universal monster... and a Universal monster who paved the way to Dracula, Frankenstein and so many unforgettable horror icons.

allyball-63124 Before you read the rest of this review, it's important to note that at the time of writing this, this is the only silent film I have seen, so I'm not very experienced with them. Okay, now that's out of the way, time to review. For the earliest surviving adaptation of the book, this is pretty dang impressive. The thing that everyone remembers about this film is the unmasking scene and yeah, it's a great scene and Lon Chaney's makeup is on point. It looks exactly how he was described in the book. Speaking of the book, this film does follow the book pretty closely aside from the ending, which I won't spoil here. The music and acting are also on point. I also like that this movie focuses more on the mystery aspect rather than the romantic aspect like quite a few of the versions I've seen do. However, that does lead to a slight downfall: the characters, aside from maybe Erik, and romance are extremely bland. I'm sure this was just a product of the times but it is still an issue, at least for me. Overall, I like and appreciate this movie for the technical aspects and how it handles the story but in terms of the characters and romance, it is a bit dated.

Matreats :P Reaching over $2,000,000 in total gross, the 1925 version of "The Phantom of the Opera", was indeed one of the most famous movies of the time. With famous actors like Lon Chaney and Mary Philibin, and unforgettable characters, "The Phantom of the Opera" is definitely a film worth seeing.A mysterious Phantom is said to have haunted the Paris Opera house for years, and when a group of ballet dancers sees his shadow, the rumors spread like wildfire. The Phantom is actually a man who falls in love with a certain young lady named Christine Daae, and goes to extreme extents to get her to love him, despite his ugly appearance.My first impression of the movie was a little hesitant, because I have seen the Broadway production of this movie before, and didn't know if I would compare the two; but as the film progressed, I was impressed. The acting made the story line very clear, and though it was dramatic at times, it helped progress the plot and show the character's emotions and feelings. Also, the way the characters developed over the course of the film was well thought out and easy to follow.Throughout the duration of the movie, you had to pay close attention because of the title cards. Because it's a silent film, the title cards are completely necessary and critical to the development of the story. They also made you more involved in the story, because you have to keep your focus on the movie or else you could miss an important piece of dialogue. The actual story of the film was very entertaining, and included things like complex characters and an actual plot. I noticed that the way they use scene changes is very similar to what we do now; leaving one scene and going to another to create suspense and show what the other characters are doing while something is going on elsewhere. The lighting was significant in this movie, especially with a character like the Phantom. They used and played with shadows to add to the tension and mysteriousness of the character and his actions, like during the scene where some of the men find the man who told stories of the Phantom hung backstage. Though it was only a silhouette of the figure, the idea still came across, and it left an idea for the audience to envision. Because of how old the film was, however, there were some places where the lighting made it hard to see; whether it was too dark to make out what was happening, or so bright the characters faces were hardly visible. Fortunately, it didn't happen often. My favorite part of the entire film had to be the music; it set the mood for each scene, playing light-hearted music during the love scenes, and suspenseful music during the scenes involving the Phantom. Though you don't really notice it very much if you don't focus on it, the music playing in the background evokes emotion from you that you wouldn't have felt otherwise. The music combined with the story line helped build up the plot and the conflict right until the end of the movie, where the final scene and climax takes place.Shortly after I finished the film, I did some research and figured out that they didn't use an actual opera house to film the movie inside. They built a replica of the Paris Opera house, which took them a year to build. They hired sculptors and designers to create the statues and the grand staircase shown in the masquerade scene. They also built the massive chandelier, which weighed 16,000 pounds, and was forty feet across. The amount of work and money put into creating this movie is quite amazing, including the makeup that Lon Chaney did to accurately portray the character of the Phantom.I enjoyed watching this film, and taking a step out of my regular "modern movie" comfort zone. I would rate it at 8 stars, and would definitely recommend it to people who haven't seen it before.

chrisdavartharris After seeing the musical, the Schumacher film and reading the book, I was so anxious to see this version of the film. Without a doubt the truest adaptation of the novel by far. Lon Chaney gives two terrific performances, as the terrifying murderer who sends tremors down the spines of viewers, and the lovelorn man cursed by his own face. I was half terrified, half sorry for Erik all through the film, thanks to this fantastic portrayal. Philbin is a joy to watch also, who clearly expresses her emotions and those of the character despite not uttering a single word. I understand that this had to be the norm back then, but, all in all, truly astounding. All the Gothic, dark features of the horror of the day, combined with the timeless story of the hideous man willing to go to any lengths for a drop of love. A real tear-jerker, both from fear and sorrow. Definitely worth a watch!