"The Phantom of the Opera" Movie Review

[Originally posted Feb. 5th, 2015]

These days, you can't talk about "The Phantom of the Opera" without anyone thinking of Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical version, or the 1925 classic that features the brilliant Lon Chaney. However, there are multiple different versions of this story on film (I counted 9 on IMDB), but the one I'm going to be writting about today is the 1989 version of "The Phantom of the Opera" starring Jill Schoelen and oddly enough, the horror icon Robert Englund.
"The Phantom of the Opera" (le Fantome de l'Opera) was written by Gaston LaRoux in 1911, and is still considered to be his most well known piece of work. I've read the book and it's probably one of my favorite classics. It's really easy to see the rich and macabre world that LeRoux created. The novel is considered a horror novel, so it makes sense that someone would want to approach the story from a horror point of view.

In 1989, director Dwight H. Little (Halloween 4, Murder at 1600) brought a new version of LeRoux's classic to the silver screen. This movie, while a campy horror movie, does pay a bit more attention to the book than I would have initially given it credit for.

In this version, the movie starts off in 1980's New York, and we're introduced to Christine Day (I guess Daae was too much to pronounce) as she and her friend Meg (played by Molly Shannon in her first on-screen role) try and find a rare and impressive piece of music for Christine to

Christine performing in "Faust" [found on Google Images]

perform for an audition. They find an old opera called "Don Juan Triumphant" written by a mysterious man known as Erik Destler. As she reviews the music, Christine sees blood start streaming from the notes on the page, but it turns out it was all a figment of her imagination. Once she and Meg get to the audition, Christine entrances the audience with the song, but a sand bag breaks free, and hits Christine, throwing her into a flashback that takes her back to 1980(?) England where she is a chorus girl in the London Opera. However, there is a strange and mysterious man who has his eye on her. And he ends up taking a swift and harsh revenge on the man who caused the accident, as it apparently happened in the past too. Turns out this mysterious man is Erik Destler, a musical genius who sold his soul to the Devil (who is a little person. I guess if Alanis Morrissette can play God the sky's the limit) in order to have his music be loved forever. But in return Erik can never be loved as his music will be, and is horribly disfigured. From that point, the story pretty much follows the book fairly closely, save for some rather cheesy and predictable killing scenes. However, I won't get too in depth with the ending. Why? Because honestly I feel this movie is worth checking out.

While there are some major flaws with this movie, it is pretty entertaining. The movie does play on Robert Englund's horror-star status through his willingness to wear a butt load of makeup, as well as deliver typical one-liners before killing someone, Englund really does a pretty good job

The Phantom and Carlotta [found on Google Images]

portraying the Phantom. While he is a fairly sympathetic character, he ultimately is a creepy psycho stalker. This is generally overlooked in the musical as Destler is portrayed as being handsome despite his disfigurement. Hell, Webber even ran with the whole Christine/Phantom romantic fangasm and made a sequel musical called "Love Never Dies". Webber really should have left well enough alone with that one, but that's another review... Anyway, as I was saying is Englund, while sympathetic, totally had no problem diving into that creepy stalker-vibe of the character, which I'm sure has something to do with his time as one of the most famous and recognizable dream stalkers of all time. Also, while the movie definitely utilizes the acting and look that made Freddy famous, they also utilized other horror icon-type things with this character's look and personality. While I do appreciate their version of this character, I can't help but wonder if maybe Englund could have added some depth to Destler? How much of his performance was him, and how much was what everyone expected him to do? It's a mystery... The rest of the cast is fairly forgettable, but the music, sets and costumes make up for that. Another little factoid- this movie was supposed to have a sequel, so it ends on a bit of a cliffhanger, but it wasn't as big of a success as the production company had hoped for, so the sequel was never made. Englund had been approached about it in the past and said that the sequel was actually going to be better than the original, but unfortunately we will never know if his assessment is right or wrong.

Ultimately, while the film is far from perfect, and not as highly regarded as the musical and the silent film are, it's still a really entertaining b-movie that is well worth checking out if you want to see Freddy Kruger in a much classier way.