The Phantom Project Forum

1. The Chaney/Julian version
Really, this is a no-brainer, isn't it? This is one of only two films made over the years which have actually made an effort to stay true to the spirit (if not the letter) of Leroux's text... which is to say, the romantic and the horrific elements of the story are given equal weight. Most versions either emphasise the horror at the expense of the romance or the romance at the expense of the horror. Although it takes some liberties with the story, the film follows the general narrative trajectory of Leroux closer than most. The production values and acting are superlative for the time period (though the pantomime quality of the latter takes some getting used to). Chaney simply IS Erik to my mind, no other actor I've seen in the role has so perfectly embodied the character both physically and emotionally.

2. Emerald City's direct to video animated version
This one gets placed so high because of it's value to purists. For literary purists, this one and the Chaney version are really the only versions worth watching - EVERY other version will drive a purist mad with rage. On the other hand, just like with the silent version, in order to fully enjoy this Philm you have to make allowances for the technical deficiencies of the age in which it was made... the voice acting ranges from adequate to brilliant, the music is surprisingly good, the script follows the book as closely as possible given the 1-hour time frame limitation imposed by kid's animated-classics of the period (and it's surprising that so many of the novel's scarier moments remain intact), and much of the film is beautifully drawn... but then the characters start "moving" and oh lord. For viewers over a certain age, the animation is laughably cheapskate at times, with characters not so much moving as striking a series of stock poses... when I first viewed this video as a child I was so enchanted by the story that I was oblivious to all the cheez... when viewing it as a nostalgic adult I deliberately overlooked it and concentrated on the story... or else just laughed along merrily with the cheez because the Philm was making me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I know others will be a lot less forgiving of this aged decripitude than I am... plus I liked the decidedly feisty depiction of Christine here (one of the few truly significant change made to the text) but still, for literary purists it's either this or the Chaney version. Every other one butchers the story horrifically and only two of the others really work on their own terms.

3. The Dance/Kopit/Richardson mini-series
I put the silent and animated Philms at the top based upon how true they were to the source... the rest are ranked according to how well they work as stories in their own right, judged independently of the original text... because I think it goes without saying that all the Philms on this list after "1" and "2" would have Gaston Leroux spinning in his grave.
The miniseries was the first version I ever saw, so my enjoyment was aided immeasurably by the fact I had nothing to compare it to and could just enjoy it for what it was - Kopit took Leroux's gothic thriller and fashioned it into a bittersweet fairytale romance. If you can accept the story on it's own terms then there is much to like about this Philm... being the only one ever actually filmed in France means that their is an authentic period flavour that is sorely lacking in every other version... both John Addison's score and the selection of classical music performed in the film are immaculately beautiful... Teri Polo has the right mixture of ethereal beauty and winsome innocence (and is blonde for once)... what Charles Dance's Phantom lacks in menace he more than makes up for in charm... Dance's chemistry with Polo and with Burt Lancaster (as his father) is electric... Ian Richardson and Andrea Ferreol make for genuinely hysterical comic relief.
The only real sore point is Adam Storke, who makes for an extremely uncharismatic love interest.
Also, for my money, of all the versions that totally change the Phantom's origins and personality - this is the one that presents the most interesting alternative.

4. The Schumacher/Butler/Lloyd-Webber version
There are very few films that careen from the sublime to the ridiculous as often as this one, although to be fair, most of this film's faults are inherited from the stage version... this film is equal parts deeply touching human drama and high camp. For every moment that will leave your eyes misty there is another so incredibly stupid you'll be doubled over with laughter.
Perhaps this combination of the sublime and the ridiculous is best embodied by Andrew Lloyd-Webber's score... "anachronistic", "bombastic", "repetitive", "sentimental" - these would all be apt adjectives, and yet, it's insanely catchy. Part of that is because Lloyd-Webber is so unabashedly emotional... it's so full of passion I almost feel guilty for pedantically acknowledging it's failings
(that dumbass guitar solo - what were you thinking, man???!!!!)
Much the same thing could be said about the casting... Gerard Butler and Emmy Rossum give earnest and impassioned performances, the emotion almost covers up their lack of vocal chops... at the other end of the extreme, Patrick Wilson has such a very pretty voice, you can almost forgive him for being such a tragically uncharismatic actor.... almost...
Joel Schumacher ensures that everything looks pretty... which is fine, when the story calls for that... the rest of the time it's just laughable. Like the original stage musical, the Phantom's deformity is laughably insignificant and this undermines much of the musical's drama.
I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm dissing this musical. I saw this film three times when it was in cinemas, I saw the Australian stage revival with Anthony Warlow and I own the London Cast Recording, Canadian Cast Recording and the movie on DVD.
High art the Lloyd-Webber version certainly is not... but as high-camp it has very few peers.
This Philm is just so perversely entertaining. All that is ridiculous and stupid about it only adds to it's entertainment value.

5. The Little/Englund slasher flick
You know, I really did want to rank this above the Lloyd-Webber version. It's just as visually stylish, without going quite so over the top... the music is brilliant and emotionally poignant without "hitting-the-audience-over-the-head-to-make-a-point" in the way that Lloyd-Webber does... the period flavour is stronger... Robert Englund is a charismatic, menacing and genuinely hideous Phantom... Jill Schoelen is a likable enough Christine... Alex Hyde-White is one of the few Raoul-figures who doesn't come across as a wet fop or ineffectual comic relief... this Phantom's new origin story and supernatural powers add an interesting twist to the proceedings... but the script is so maddeningly inconsistent. All of the versions mentioned above have an internal consistency to them that is sorely lacking here. Quite frankly, the time-slip phenomena here makes no sense and feels tacked on. If this version was set entirely in the past, or else the present day sequences with the reincarnated Christine had been put on the end as an epilogue (rather than bookending the story) then I would have a much higher opinion of this film. The atmosphere is so thick you could cut it with a knife. So, whenever I come back to this version, I just let the atmosphere wash all over me and enjoy the performances, whilst trying not to think too hard about how the script doesn't hold together.
I know this version is largely style over substance, but... DAMN! WHAT STYLE!

6. The Rains/Lubin 40s version
Poor Claude Rains. He has such a silky smooth voice and arresting screen presence as an actor, he looks so great in the Phantom mask and cape, he really makes you care for the character... and he is reduced to being a subplot in what amounts to one of the most painfully unfunny romantic comedies ever to be unleashed upon an unsuspecting world. Christine is given two love interests here, both equally insipid. Fortunately, she has the sense to dump them both. It's almost a relief when the "plot" stops dead in it's tracks to accommodate another bloated musical number, because at least then one can enjoy the singing, instead of having to concentrate on Christine and the two bungling idiots trying to woo her... good thing that Nelson Eddy and Susanna Foster are such good singers, because their acting leaves something to be desired, though neither of them are as jaw-droppingly awful in this regard as Edgar Barrier.
This could've been such a great film if only they had concentrated more on Rains, easily the most engaging actor and character.
Still, for all that, this is an oddly watchable film, owing to the awesome technicolor visual aesthetic and rousing music.

7. The Schell TV Movie
Same problem as with the Rains version - leading man Schell is heaps better than everything else this movie has to offer. But at least the Rains version had the virtue of superlative production values and a cracker of a chandelier scene. This one has some very cheapskate production values and what is probably the weakest chandelier sequence ever (how long does that sucker take to fall anyway?)
The script has issues too. It rushes through the tuition of Maria, it's never explained what's motivating the villain's goon and the death of The Phantom's nemesis is laughably implausible. Oh, and Michael York plays an unlikable character in a very uncharismatic way.
Tis' a pity because Schell (a composer/conductor as well as an actor) is a commanding screen presence and only has to enter a room in costume to create an unnerving effect. Jane Seymour also tries gamely given the material she has to work with and in the moments where she is given a chance to show some thespian chops she puts on a good show.
Their performances are so good at times, that I wished I could like this movie more than I do. But there's too many lapses in the script, coupled with too many lapses in the production for me to seriously recommend it to anyone but diehard Phans.

8. The Argento/Sand/Argento "ratboy" version
As far as I'm concerned, this is a failure any way you look at it. The "plot" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The internal logic of the screenplay is non-existent. The dialogue is unintentionally hilarious. Character motivation is totally random. Sands, with his posh voice and effete mannerisms, is totally miscast in the role of a man raised by animals... Asia Argento seems to be on drugs most of the time... Andrea Di Stephano is the most uncharismatic Raoul of them all (now that's saying something).... the scenes of violence are not scary at all, just disgusting... the sex and nudity generates no heat... visually, many scenes are overlit or underlit, the transitions between scenes are choppy...
Really, the only thing this Philm has going for it is the graceful score by Ennio Morricone... but even that is not up to his usual high standards and the beauty of his cues often further emphasises how stupid the film is and how much certain scenes fail to convey the appropriate emotions.




Oh, and I've seen "Phantom Of Paradise", but I didn't like it that much - knowingly camp is never as much fun as unintentionally camp, in my humble opinion...

I wish there were more people on this board to share their lists! I'm afraid it's not very active. My list is pretty obvious from the review grades, but here it is in redacted format:

1) The Phantom of the Opera (1925) - For most of the reasons you enumerate. It's mostly true to its source material, entertaining, and fabulous, even over 85 years later.
2) The Phantom Lover (1995) - This is not nearly as close to the source material as most others because it's part of the Ye bang ge sheng series of Chinese films, but it's so very gorgeously done, and a heartstring-plucking story all by itself.
3) Opera (1987) - Man, I love this movie, even though I'm too squeamish to watch it unless all the lights are on and John is in the room. It's technically amazing and has such potent visceral impact; by far my favorite horror version of the story.
4) Song at Midnight (1937) - The first Ye bang ge sheng suffers from a few sillinesses, but it's both beautiful and really interesting as a window into Chinese politics of the time.
5) The Phantom of the Opera (1989) - When it comes to retelling modern film versions, the Robert Englund version is absolutely my favorite. The time-travel idea bugs the shit out of me, too, but other things, like the graveyard scene, are just stunning, and Englund plays the character fantastically.
6) Phantom of the Paradise (1974) - It's so amazingly over-the-top and overblown and insane! And I love it! I have no idea how de Palma manages to be so ridiculous and yet still do so many interesting things with the social messages underlying the story, but he does.
7) The Phantom of the Opera (1987) - The animated version has plenty of faults, but it's by far the most faithful film adaptation, and I have such a soft spot for old animated movies. I really enjoy it despite its occasional silliness and bargain animation.
8) The Phantom of the Opera (1983) - I seem to be the only one who really likes this film, but I do. Schell's acting certainly outdid the others in the film, but I think a lot of the directing and stylistic choices were lovely, and I really found it a gripping version.
9) Phantom of the Opera (1943) - This film has so much kitschy forties musical style about it, and yet I really find it enjoyable, mostly because of Claude Rains. He does such a fabulous job that I can forgive a lot of the other failings of the film. It probably doesn't hurt that I really enjoy Nelson Eddy, either (though I could have done without the double-suitor muddle that is so played up).
10) The Phantom of the Opera (1962) - There are some things in this film that really push the envelope as far as horror of the time, which makes it interesting, but it's hard to get into it when it's simultaneously so close to the original in setup and so far from it in execution (particularly with the insane but "innocent" main character).
11) The Phantom of the Opera (1990) - This Phantom isn't one of my favorites, but Dance's version of the character is still oddly compelling, and the technical execution of this piece is absolutely beautiful (not to mention the majority of the film being set on location).
12) Phantom of the Ritz (1988) - Oh my god, I love this horrible, horrible movie. It is so bad, and yet I liked the characters and found the constant campy comedy hilarious. It's so bad that it's kind of good, and it never takes itself seriously for even a second.
13) Phantom of the Opera (1998) - Argento's other Phantom film is so whackjob crazypants nuts. I can't help but love it a little bit, though. I find Julian Sands impressive, though he's way too pretty for the part, and even in the midst of all the rampant insanity Argento can pull me up short to think over the changes he's making in the dynamics. But it's sooooo crazy.
14) The Phantom of Hollywood (1974) - This film tries so hard, but... but it's just kind of bad. I can appreciate the nostalgia angle it's going for, and it even brought a tear to my eye now and then (mostly thanks to Jack Cassidy's impressive talent), but the rest of the film... it's just a wreck.
15) Phantom of the Mall (1988) - It's terrible! So terrible! Hilariously terrible, but still much too awful to watch. Lord, I couldn't breathe for laughing at the badness of this film.
16) The Meateater (1979) - But not as terrible as this. Sweet Jesus, this one is just painful.

(I saw the Schumacher/Butler film when it came out in theatres, but I haven't seen it since and am trying to hold off until I get to 2004 on my timeline. So it's not on the list yet. )

I watched "The Phantom Lover" last night, and it is now fourth on my list - in between the miniseries and the Lloyd Webber version.

It is a visually stunning film and the acting, given the melodramatic material, is dead on. Of all the versions I've seen where The Phantom is disfigured in an accident, rather than deformed from birth, this is the most interesting variation.

My only real peeve were the "Romeo & Juliet" musical numbers, that seemed more like 80s pop songs than music of the period.

I must say, Anne, I am surprised that you gave "The Phantom Lover" such a rave review.

Generally speaking, you are highly critical of any version which portrays the Phantom in a more romantic light and makes him more sympathetic - and yet, "The Phantom Lover" is arguably the most romantic and most sympathetic of them all.

I have the Hammer version on order. Only time will tell what I make of that one...

It's quite true that I usually don't like over-romanticized versions of the story. It gets under my skin when a version ignores the ideas of the original too much, often, and the fear of that unknown element is a core part of Leroux's book, without which a lot of the messages about social alienation and whatnot fall apart. It's really about why the character has been sympathized. Is it because you're trying to present a totally different moral about society, or you're making a comment on something with your change? Well, okay, then. Is it because you think he's kind of dreamy with that bad boy edge and you want to make him more sexy for your fangirl/fanboy fantasy made film or print? Then, no, and don't let the door hit you on your way out.

The Ye Bang ge Sheng series of Chinese films are all very romanticized versions, wherein the Phantom is pretty much an injured party rather than a monster (usually he doesn't hurt anybody that doesn't clearly deserve it, either). The worst he does is kind of haunt the theatre in a lackadaisical, mopey way. But the films, despite their drastically changed plotline, are (both versions I've seen so far) really fantastic films. The Phantom Lover, in particular, is so lovely in terms of acting and cinematography and pacing and orchestral music that there's just no way for me not to acknowledge that it's a pretty damn fabulous film, deserving of a pretty fabulous review. It doesn't address a lot of the ideas of the original novel, because they've been processed and re-presented from the point of view of an entirely different culture; while I always like to see faithful adaptations that really seem to "get" the original novel, I also love versions that change things but still manage to achieve something. The Phantom Lover doesn't really look at a lot of Leroux's themes, but it replaces them with themes that are just as relevant and thoughtful, and the result is a good film. And I like to give good films As.

(Would I like to see a faithful-to-the-source film that was this fabulously done? YES. But so far I haven't found one.)

Yeah, though, the pop music sequences were my least favorite part. They're there, I believe, because Leslie Cheung was an extremely popular pop singer in China, and the fans wanted to see him do his thing. I'd have preferred someone had dubbed an actual singer, though--it was kind of a letdown after the original Ye Bang ge Sheng's operatic baritone party.

The Hammer version arrived in the mail last week.

The only way I could get hold of it was to order it as part of a boxed set of other Hammer films, and I had to pay a pretty penny to have it imported from America.

I haven't got around to watching any of the other films, all I can say is that I hope they are better than Hammer's version of "Phantom", because otherwise I wasted my money big time.

I must say, Anne, I find it incredible that you rated this film as highly as you did, and that you rank it above the 90s mini-series... I'd rank it as the second worst version I have ever seen, right behind Argento's abomination.

There are things to like about this version. Curiously, the best thing about this version is Edward De Souza as the Raoul-figure, Harry.

He is a dapper, charming leading man, with a quick wit and a strong sense of justice. FINALLY! Here is a Raoul-figure that the audience can really root for, and who seems truly worthy of Christine's love and affection.

The original incarnation of this character came across as tender-hearted and well intentioned, but incredibly dimwitted... the other film incarnations of this character are either comic buffoons (Norman Kerry, Edgar Barrier) or extremely wet and uncharismatic (Patrick Wilson, Michael York, Patrick Wilson).... Nelson Eddy had his moments I suppose, but he wasn't really acting, he was just being Nelson Eddy.

Given an extremely one dimensional character with which to play, Michael Gough hams it up to hysterical effect and in the process becomes the other justification for watching this movie. This guy does slimy so well. He is simply a magnificent bastard.

Heather Sears is an uncommonly plain Christine, and even by Christine-standards she is an incredibly helpless damsel in distress at times... still, she does what she can with so little... I have much the same to say about Herbert Lom, a gifted and underrated actor who really isn't given enough screen time as The Phantom
(although the way the movie is structured, with The Phantom's origins as a mystery and Harry playing detective to figure it all out - in that respect it is true to the spirit of the novel, with it's thriller structure).

The shadow-opera sequences are interesting, in that they are uncommonly like a real opera. There are no attempts to come up with lyrics which are "poetic" or "beautiful" or more like musical theatre lyrics - the lyrics to "Joan Of Arc" are quite simple and banal and don't even rhyme, like most real opera.... or at least, with the exception of Opera Australia's translation of "Carmen", I have never sat through an opera translated into English where the lyrics did not sound incredibly banal.
I'm reminded of that lyric in the Lloyd Webber musical (I can't remember if Charles Hart or Richard Stilgoe was the one who wrote it):
"You'd never get away with all this in a play, but if it's loudly sung and in a foreign tongue then it's just the sort of story audiences adore, in fact a perfect opera"

The main thing that brings this movie down, the main thing that makes me rank this version as the second-worst I have ever seen, is the truly atrocious ending.

I thought the ending of the Max Schell version was bad, but it can't hold a candle to the badness of the Hammer ending. It makes no sense whatsoever, and it's so incredibly rushed.

The Phantom begs Harry to let him continue tutoring Christine and boasts that he'll make her like the greatest singer evar. Then, IN THE VERY NEXT SCENE, she is up on stage performing the lead in "Joan Of Arc".

Jeez, how rushed is that???? No scene to show the reaction of the company to her return, no scene showing how eeeeevil Ambrose was convinced to put her in the lead role again.

Then what follows is easily the most underwhelming and anti-climactic revenge scene I have ever seen in all my years as a cinephile. Truly, nothing compares to how idiotic and anti-climactic this scene is.

The whole movie has been building up to Ambrose getting his comeuppance, it's been laying his pompousness and eeeeeevil on so thick that the audience is chomping at the bit to see him pay for his crimes in some way.... so The Phantom gives him a stern talking to, takes off his mask, Ambrose looks scared and then Ambrose just walks away never to be seen again.... and that's it.

That's right, folks, The Phantom makes no attempt to go after him or anything, there's no scene of the cops apprehending him, even The Phantom's murderous dwarf buddy does absolutely nothing.

Has there ever been a more stupidly anticlimactic scene in cinema history?

But just when I thought the movie couldn't possibly get any more stupid then comes the scene where the chandelier is about to fall on Christine's head.

She sees it shaking and has ages to get away but she just stands there gawking like a complete idiot - so then The Phantom has to leap on stage and push her out of the way, but before doing this he pauses dramatically and takes off his mask for no readily apparent reason. And his makeup job is totally inconsistent with the description of his wounds earlier in the movie.

The Hammer version is such a missed opportunity. It showed real promise early on, but the plot is shot full of holes and most of the characters are very unimaginative stock types - the film wastes some very talented actors, I must say. But they aren't enough to save the film from being crap.

The Hammer film was plagued by a lot of problems, sadly. I believe it had budgetary issues come up, as well as tensions between Fisher and higher-ups over the plot and execution of the film. You're right to say that the end is rushed--I believe that it actually was rushed badly, because Fisher simply ran out of time to shoot the film and had to choose either rushing his ending or leaving the film unfinished and unreleased.

It didn't do very well at the box office, either, as I recall... not really for any of the reasons I'd point to as its flaws, but because audiences had come to expect more gruesome horror and thrills from Hammer, and this film, despite its scenes with Ivan the Crazy Dwarf Killer, wasn't really that much of a horror movie.

That's one of the most common complaints for this movie, I think--the lack of a real punishment for D'Arcy. I think I bitched about it in my review, too... he was such a slimy, horrible villain that it really made me feel cheated that nothing worse than a thorough scaring happened to him. I suppose it's possible that this has to do with the rushed ending, too, but it annoyed me more than anything else in the movie.

I need to make a scale ranking of the makeup I've seen on film Phantoms; when I do, I suspect that'll be near the bottom. I've seen a lot worse, but it's nothing that makes me cheer, that's for sure.

I really like a lot of this film, despite its flaws, though. Fisher has some real directing skill, and I love that there's a pretty decent balance between the frightening moments and the more emotional aspects of the plot. And, silly chandelier shenanigans aside (seriously, bad chandelier scenes... they're just so bad), it's really interesting to watch its evolution from the 1943 film, and the way it'll shape the later ones.