Why so much hype?

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Okay, after giving the movie the twenty four hour treatment, I feel like I can comment on it. To be honest, I don't know what to think of it. I am a huge Phantom of the Opera fan, but it's obvious this doesn't hold a candle to the book, the silent film or the musical, so the changes didn't really tick me off. The point of the movie is that it's a slasher movie using the Phantom as it's source material. Okay... The Phantom arguably already a slasher movie, but I guess the creators wanted a more bloody slasher film. But that's not the problem, the problem is that they leave out stuff that could work and includes stuff that doesn't. I'm not giving anything away by revealing that the whole movie is told through flashback, with the true main setting being modern day New York, but that stuff doesn't fit. If it was a modern retelling of the Phantom, then it would make sense, but it's not, so it's really pointless. How the Phantom got deformed is another odd and out of place element the creators decided to put in, which I won't spoil, but let's just say there's now more to his name than "Phantom". But the one thing that, as a Phantom and a slasher movie fan, that made me slam my foot down was the fact that there's was no chandelier drop in this movie! That would fit the movie perfectly, seeing how it's main goal is to kill as many fictional people as possible. But I guess that's just a nit pick. So I'll end my review by stating what I like. Robert England and the rest of the actors and actresses are great. The make up, sets, and costumes are great. And it does have atmosphere and follow the events of the original book almost accurately. It's just the things they left out and put in that really bugs me. But watch it for yourself and make your own decision.

Robert Englund goes head to head with Lon Chaney for the title of the greatest Phantom, in my book. Both convey the right amount of menace while still keeping the character sympathetic, unlike more recent renditions which aspire to turn the iconic character into a figure of Harlequin romance.The Gothic setting and moody lighting make this 1989 POTO beautiful to behold too. And the music is just gorgeous, stirring and haunting as the music in a Phantom film should be. The actress playing Christine is lovely and for once, Raoul is not annoying or bland.It's a shame that the rest of the movie does not hold up as well.The movie quickly falls into the formula of your typical, cheesy 1980s slasher flick. There's also a terrible modern-day framing device which causes many a plot hole to spring up. The climax builds and builds, only to be resolved by the most disappointing of anti-climaxes.It's worth a watch, but I'm afraid outside of Englund and the overall aesthetic, there's not much food for thought.

Gory slasher interpretation of the story. Overall I liked it. It did pander to a wider audience by beginning and ending in present day. This was also just a bit confusing, and seems to have been done in an attempt to lay the groundwork for some sequels. The makeup was very well realized, and I enjoyed how it allowed the Phantom to go out and about. The kills were gruesome and cruel, and Englund mostly managed to keep his performance away from Krueger territory. A bit of classical literature, mixed with 80's slasher, and some class act British performances, such as a young Nighy, make this a worthwhile watch. Perhaps the music could have been a little bit more engaging/hypnotic.

Euro schlock producer Harry Alan Towers does it again! This is probably the worst version of Gaston Leroux's classic novel I have ever seen! Robert Englund is actually quite a good phantom, perhaps the best since Lon Chaney. Unfortunately, he (and the other actors) are given little to do by the director, and must therefore forcibly manufacture all-purpose emotions and gesture. Director Dwight H. Little seems to have little clue as to what motivates human beings to do things, what drives them to such extremes of behavior. Instead of creating passion, horror and tragedy, the best he can do is get his actors to grin like idiots when happy, breath quickly when scared, wrinkle their faces when angry, etc. I think this director should stick to working on television shows, where emotional depth is of less importance than in film. The other culprit is the script, which is full of clichés and very conventional workings out of plot elements. Not sure how to resolve a story?... Just make something explode real loud, or knock some candelabras over in a bogus and ridiculously over-emotive fit of rage! That's the general level on which this script operates. My advice... see Lon Chaney's classic silent Phantom, or Hammer's remake. At lease director Terence Fisher knew how to tell a story where the emotion is real.