It doesn't happen very often, but I was touched by this film. It's not the first adaptation of the story that I've seen, but it sure is one of the best. In fact, only the silent version starring Lon Chaney beat this version. That version is of course an absolute masterpiece, but I easily dare to say this is one too. It doesn't strictly follow the original storyline as you know it but that alright. You're just staring at it with your mouth wide open (at least, I was...) Claude Rains is just perfect in his role as the phantom. Because of his flawless performance, you feel what he feels and you have get the idea you would take the same actions as he does in this movie. Rains plays Eric Claudin. A rather anonymous violin player in the famous opera of Paris. In all the years he worked there, he grew a strong passion and love for the young and talented singer Christine Dubois. He even wrote a concert for her. But, he's getting older and he gets fired. His only hope now to keep seeing Christine, is to sell his concert and let her sing the main voice. When he gets the idea a production company stole his music, he snaps and attacks a man. During the struggle, Claude gets mutilated horrible by burning acid. From then on he lives in the opera building does everything to make Christine a star...even if that means other people have to die in a brutal way. I can't praise this film enough. It's just perfect in my opinion. The acting, the story, the shock-effects and above all ...the wonderful music. I must admit, if you're not a big fan of opera music, this film will certainly be annoying to you. But hey, you can expect classical music in a version of Phantom of the Opera right ? If you can appreciate a bit of opera singing, this film will have another great extra value to you. I say SEE IT. My humble opinion on Phantom of the opera = 10/10 . A must see !!!
This is a reasonably pleasant remake of "Phantom of the Opera", but that is all. It's not exactly a remake, but more of a re-working of the story, as it bears less semblance to Gaston Laroux's novel than the original film--especially since all the back story they give about how the phantom came to be has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the original story. It's interesting but pays little respect to the source material.The movie is filmed in lovely 1940s Technicolor--not the most realistic, but bright and enchanting nonetheless. But color is NOT the biggest difference between this and the old Lon Chaney film. This new version has a huge emphasis on singing--with lots and lots and lots of music that will enchant opera fans and bore everyone else to death. I really hated the glossy production numbers--they were sumptuous BUT also got in the way of the story. For much of the film, the Phantom seemed ancillary at best--and was more a chance for the studio to show off Nelson Eddy and his co-star.As for the horror, it's so muted and uninteresting that I can scarcely call this a horror film! And, most disappointingly, when the big unmasking scene occurs, you see that the Phantom's face looks pretty nice--so why is the big idiot hiding it under a mask?! I saw nothing of the scary Lon Chaney in this silly Phantom!! I am a devout classic horror fan and really could have cared less about the film--and I felt frustrated that the film just wasn't scary or suspenseful--and that the Phantom really wasn't terribly important to the producers! To me, this film is like a cake from the average grocery store these days--it looks nice but tastes fake! By the way, although the original is by far the best, the early 1960s version by Hammer Films is greatly superior to this 1943 version. It ain't great, but IS still a horror film. Instead, the 1943 version seems too much like a glossier Jeanette MacDonald-Nelson Eddy film with another woman sitting in for Jeanette!!
The Phantom Of The Opera Soundtrack Torrent
This 1943 film of Phantom of the Opera has much to like, but also has a lot wrong. Far from a bad film but underwhelming as well considering the talent involved, for fans of opera and visually beautiful films this is for you, for horror fans and purists not so much. Before getting on the many things good about Phantom of the Opera there are things that did let things down. The pacing is plodding too often, not helped by direction that was very skillful but lacking urgency. The comedy scenes vary in effectiveness- too much of it was not very funny really- and would feel much more at home in an Abbott and Costello film, the type of humour did feel out of place here for a story that is essentially a horror drama based on a disfigured man and opera.Nelson Eddy was a wonderful singer, with handsome looks and a nice personal charm but his acting is wooden here, even more so than his performance in Naughty Marietta. And the horror is under-utilised and significantly diluted. The scariest it gets is the phantom's entrance, the death scenes are somewhat silly, with a lack of tense atmosphere and build-ups, and the phantom's face reveal is not shocking enough, even Foster didn't look that shocked.For all the film's problems though, you can't still dismiss it entirely. The lavish production values are just gorgeous to look at and in producing them there is nothing overblown or over-produced about them. It's beautifully shot and filmed as well. The music is sublime too,- then again you are talking to a massive classical music and opera enthusiast who'd if she wanted to would spend hours talking about music, operas and performers she loves- the opera scenes are crucial to the story and are sung, produced and choreographed with so much brio and attention to detail. There are even orchestral pieces like Tchaikovsky's Symphony no.4 adapted into song, that was interesting to hear.Suzanne Foster is beguiling in every single way, and Nelson Eddy gives some of his best ever singing here.(and this is coming from someone who is a big fan of his voice, quite possibly the most beautiful baritone voice on film with Howard Keel too a very close contender). Phantom's entrance and the chandelier scene are very effective, the dialogue is serviceable at the least and some of the romance is sweet. Phantom's back-story was interesting and moving, though it is very understandable why there'd be those who prefer him more ambiguous. Aside from the production values, the best aspect is the subtly menacing yet movingly sympathetic performance of Claude Rains, a really wonderful performance from a screen icon that deserved a better film.Overall, a film of pluses and minuses where either point of view(love or hate, also like, don't care for and mixed feelings) is understandable. 6/10 Bethany Cox
In this version of The Phantom Of The Opera, the hideous phantom lurks in the sewers and catacombs of London instead of Paris. And in this third version bits of a real opera by British composer Edwin Astley highlight the musical portion of the film. That's important because in this telling of the tale, the phantom has a singular interest in this particular work.Stepping into the shoes of Lon Chaney and Claude Rains is Herbert Lom. Because this film is done in flashback Lom is given less of a chance to create his character in the way his predecessors did. Still Lom as he did in Night And The City manages to get across both the poignancy and the evil that he's sunk to. I would also compare his characterization of Professor Petri here with what he did in Flame Over India where he got across sympathy for a character who was a terrorist.The truly evil one here is Michael Gough who is a classic Victorian rakehell whom if he were slightly of better character and given to a bit of introspection, we could hear some Oscar Wilde aphorisms coming out of his mouth. But his Lord D'Arcy hasn't got any redeeming features whatsover. Kind of like Liberty Valance which also came out in 1962.The young lovers here are producer Edward DeSouza and Heather Sears the singer that Lom takes an interest in. I looked to see who might have dubbed Sears for the opera sequences and found no credit. If she did it herself, truly remarkable and why didn't that part of her talent be better known.I saw an edited version of this on YouTube and I'm convinced they involved the end of some characters in a ghastly fashion. I'd like to see a director's cut if possible.
The 1929 sound version begins with a post-main-titles sequence that is obviously a new synchronized scene. A character with a lantern in the tunnels under the opera house (who is seen only briefly in the 1925 version) is speaking a prologue for the audience, but the footage is now mute. The soundtrack to this section has not yet been recovered, but the script for this scene does survive and is now vocalized in synchronization by an actor at some live presentations of the film. 2ff7e9595c
Comments