Alicia I love this movie so much

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

GrimPrecise I'll tell you why so serious

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Wizard-8 I have to admit that I haven't (yet) seen every filmed adaptation of the Gaston Leroux novel of the same name, but all the same I am pretty confident in saying that this version, while not the absolute worst, is one of the lesser efforts. It is not an awful movie. The folks at the Hammer studio made sure that it looked pretty nice, with expert production values. And actor Michael Gough really makes for a good villain... though oddly his character really isn't punished in the end for all his misdeeds. The biggest problem with this version is how surprisingly uneventful it is for much of the running time. It moves very slowly, with little in it that could be considered "horror". It's also strange that the title figure in this version almost becomes an afterthought, getting a lot less focus and screen time than you would think. It doesn't help that the music isn't all that special at all. It may sound like I'm making this movie out to be really bad. It isn't - it's watchable. But it's unlikely you remember it for a long time afterwards.

DarthVoorhees The original story and themes of 'The Phantom of the Opera' were tailor made for the Hammer treatment. The heart of the story about sexual frustration amid deformity is the kind of thing Hammer on it's A game would have been expected to deliver macabre goodness with. Terrence Fisher's 'Phantom' is in my opinion the weakest Hammer film precisely because it fails to remember what made Hammer what it was. This 'Phantom' does not indulge in grotesques or horror at all. It's a boring miss.Fisher and Hammer chose to for the most part remake the 1943 Claude Raines 'Phantom' from Universal. This was a poor choice on his part. Gaston Leroux's Phantom was a bizarre deformed freak shunned at birth. If the 'Phantom' is to be adapted this is the version to follow. For some odd reason though the Raines film chose not to do this and instead created a Phantom who became disfigured through a backstage scuffle. Herbert Lom's Phantom is made in this vain. This story isn't that interesting however because this Phantom has not been shunned by the world. Lom and Raines choose exile. They know the stops of being human. I am brought back to Lon Chaney who bordered on the lines between human and being on a different plane. This Phantom yearns to be human. Lom's Phantom has already been. Believe it or not though this Phantom is not sexually interested in Christine and here in lies the film's greatest flaw. Lom's Phantom is a musical genius whose only interest is having his opera be properly credited to his name and performed by Christine. What?! Aside from the fact that Hammer is missing out in exploiting the kind of risqué material they perfected, the Phantom story just loses all it's meaning without this attraction. This sexual frustration is what drives the Phantom to be homicidal. It's far too much of a stretch to perceive this scenario as being capable of turning someone into the Phantom. This film takes it's title perhaps a bit too literally. We get opera and music here and it is by all means ridiculous. A significant portion of screen time is spent going through awkwardly staged opera numbers. The singers are proficient enough in their abilities but Fisher doesn't know how to stage the numbers with the grandness and spectacle required for such a story. Foolishly this 'Phantom' does not take place in Paris but in London. The London Opera House has none of the grandeur or mystery of it's Paris counterpart. Worse than that though is that every song is in English. We go through musical number after musical number with lyrics which were obviously written by a horror film screenwriter who had no business dabbling in the opera. The music gets more screen time than our Phantom.The saving grace of the film is Michael Gough who is absolutely fantastic as the villain Lord Ambrose D'Arcy. This character is fully developed and surprisingly intricate given all the shortcomings with the rest of the characters. Gough plays him as the mother of all theatre divas, who takes a perverse pleasure in the power working on the stage gives one. His performance relishes all the nastiness that someone with such a huge ego and disregard for others has. I would have liked to have seen even more of Gough's relationship with the Phantom because then I think Lom would have had much more to work with. Gough plays a brutal backstabber and does so quite well but we never get to know why this betrayal meant so much to the Phantom other than vague references to it being his life's work. I kept thinking how cool it would have been had they been rivals in a backstage war. But this is merely wishful thinking. For his part Gough plays a prima donna beautifully. This is by far the weakest adaptation of the classic story. It's fundamental flaw is that it Hammer didn't recognize it's own creative gifts and the strongest aspects of the Phantom story. I can only recommend it as a fun example of Michael Gough's work.

chrismartonuk-1 Hammer's inevitable take on the classic Leroux tale has taken a critical pasting in recent times and did little to enhance Terence Fisher's career at the time. But it has aged nicely and stands revealed today as an interesting attempt to try something new in the Gothic genre before the clichés were set in stone by the decade's end. Nowawdays, its notorious for the fact that Cary Grant was reportedly lined up for the film. Whether he was to play the Phantom or the hero is left vague. I can see him as Harry Hunter charmingly wooing Christine in the cab, but Grant - accustomed to the sophisticatedly sexy banter of his Hitchcock films - might have baulked at Elder's generic on-the-nose dialogue. Edward De Souza acquits himself well in the role of the young hero - traditionally the most thankless role in any horror - and is a strong, charming central screen presence to hold your attention during the lengthy expository scenes. Heather Sears - accustomed to playing abused ingenues in films like ROOM AT THE TOP and SONS AND LOVERS makes an appealing Christine - she had to be more than the cleavage on legs of most Hammer starlets - and ideally cast as Joan of Arc in the opera.Herbert Lom's voice is an instrument of dramatic beauty and is shown off to its best advantage when the actor is masked. The concept of the Phantom is flawed by having his as a disfigured composer out for revenge instead of Lon Chaney's deformed freak from birth. Chaney's Erik had a crazed, monomaniacal stalkerish quality with his Christine whereas Petrie sees her only as the ideal vehicle for his artistic ambitions. At times, he acts like a protective Father-figure for the heroine. Christopher Lee would have been interesting in the role - being able to mime-act behind a mask and sing opera - but Lom brings gravity and presence to the part. Of the rest of the cast, Michael Gough has his best Hammer performance as the lecehrous, opportunistic Lord D'arcey whose type can clearly be seen in the singing and theatrical profession to this day - as well as certain further education establishments. It has received some criticism for its alleged cheapness but, actually, to these eyes, it looks more lavish than many Hammers with location filming at Wimbledon theatre giving a grand sense of scale and the bustling London Streets outside full of convincingly rendered extras.Its ironic that hammer's regular composer James Bernard never got to score this one film where music is so important. I wonder if Edwin Astley ever considered mounting "THE TRAGEDY OF JOAN OF ARC" professionally outside the confines of this film. The ending with Joan alone on stage before submitting herself to the flames is truly moving and we understand why Lom's Phantom sheds a tear.

slayrrr666 "The Phantom of the Opera" is one of Hammer's more underrated efforts.**SPOILERS**Lord Ambrose D'Arcy, (Micheal Gough) is celebrating the success of his new opera when a deadly accident forces it to close down. As he tries to move on, the producer, Harry Hunter, (Edward De Souza) manages to get Christine Charles, (Heather Sears) to appear in the re-opening of the play. As she prepares to train for it, strange experiences begin to haunt the theater. Christine learns that the hauntings are due to the Phantom, (Herbert Lom) a disfigured ex-composer who haunts the theater and lives in the sewers below, seeking revenge on Lord Ambrose for stealing his work. As Harry begins to suspect that The Phantom has evil intentions, he races to stop him from harming Christine.The Good News: For as often as this story has been told, Hammer's is perhaps the moodiest. As expected, the marvelous opera house looks marvelous, with it's lush, vibrant colors, beautiful curtains, and large layout. It's one of the better-looking opera houses out of all the interpretations, and it really looks quite striking when compared to the damp and dark sewer, where most of the film is set. Hammer have gone for a more downtrodden style than the usual flamboyance, and that helps to enforce the dark side of this classic tale. It gives a select quality to it that other incarnations don't match: the credibility that the sets convey. The make-up is great, and he looks suitably evil. It's one of the better-looking Phantom's around, and it's one of the best things about this one. I also love the opening of this one, and what happens is a great jump that opens the film with a great bang. There's a bit more action to this than other tales, so it does have some other moments within that are exciting to watch.The Bad News: There is a couple complaints about the movie. Firstly, the Phantom is seen way too early in the film for his appearance to be all that terrifying. In the earlier films, his appearance was one of terror, even in the gentle moments of the films, and here, his doesn't invoke a lot of horror at all. This is due to us meeting him far too early in the film, and being more acquainted with him than before. The Phantom's lair seems awfully close to the surface, and the absence of a maze of sewer catacombs makes the film feel not that well thought-out. It would seem rather easy to find him in his location, and that isn't what an evil genius needs. It's the mute assistant of the Phantom that does all the damage, so he doesn't seem as dangerous as he could've been, and he definitely acts more vicious in other films.The Final Verdict: It's not that bad of an adaption, but it's still got problems. The usual Hammer flair is quite evident, and the Phantom is pretty creepy, but had he actually done most of the sabotaging, it would've ranked higher. Worth it for Hammer fans to check out, but can't tell whether or not fans of the novel will like this one.Today's Rating-PG-13: Violence