Wonderful character development!

Such a frustrating disappointment

I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

The movie is good, although it's far from my favorite silent movies. In IMDB says that the film has 93 minutes, but I saw a version with 103 minutes. I would have preferred to have seen the one of 93, because the one I saw makes the film a bit "dragged" and too long. The film features some anthology scenes, no doubt but I think the character of the ghost should have been a more humanized. The year 1925 was, in my opinion, the best year of the silent film, had a series of fantastic films that went down in history. Lon Chaney is brilliant in this film, as always, though I consider the best performance of his career to be in Tod Browning's fabulous 1927 film The Unknown.

Usually interference and tinkering by a movie studio are tantamount to a disaster. The Phantom of the Opera is the exception that proves the rule. For once, the front office made two big decisions and both of them proved to be correct. The first was a determination not to re-engage Rupert Julian to direct the additional scenes. It was thought that his pacing was too slow and that he had neither the verve nor the know-how to handle the newly scripted crowd climax. So Julian was given the boot and Edward Sedgwick brought in to direct a whole new marking-time opening (which was later deleted in full), plus the Phantom's thrilling escape in the barouche-a sequence that so impressed young Alfred Hitchcock that he copied it almost frame for frame when searching for a suitable climax to The Lodger less than a year later. The second big decision of course was to take advantage of the new sound medium by completely recutting the movie and even re-shooting several scenes. This not only improves the atmosphere, pace and suspense but gives the drama a most effective visual appeal that is often lacking in the original, which depends almost entirely on Chaney's make-up for its power, rather than the magnificent sets, spooky backgrounds and inherent violence of Leroux's story. It also puts Chaney in excellent perspective, not only allowing his performance to have more cleverly suppressed authority than in the original, but setting it against not only the wonderfully awesome catacombs background but contrasting it with the studied innocence of foolishly ambitious yet endearingly sympathetic Mary Philbin. Aside from Kerry and Carewe (and occasional inserts of the opera management), the other players have little to do but front for the vast crowds of extras. Even faces like Snitz Edwards and Gibson Gowland are little more than dutiful props. But, despite remakes and imitations, the film as a whole still works its magic amazingly well.AVAILABLE on DVD through Image/Milestone. The two-disc "Ultimate Edition" features a superb color restoration of the 1929 version, run at the correct speed, yet with the original music track, which, I must admit, I preferred to the alternate Carl Davis score.

This movie is almost a century old and there's little I can add to what has already been said. 'The Phantom of the Opera' is Lon Chaney at his finest and the scene where he is unmasked is rightfully one of the most famous in movie history. The silent-movie histrionics are dated but the sets, especially the Phantom's dungeon lair are memorable - Gothic and surreal and a great counterpoint to the boisterous Paris opera house above. One advantage to being a silent actor: Chaney didn't have to talk and so could wear the creepiest dental prosthetics (see "London after Midnight" (1927) for another great example of this unparalleled make-up genius). Fantastic film from an other age.

The Phantom Of The Opera has long been a staple in the classic horror movie circles, and for good reason. The film is not short on any spectacle, the plot and pacing keep the viewer riveted to the screen for the entire duration, and as always Lon Chaney is on top form in his horrific role as The titular Phantom. The real interest to be derived from this film in the modern day and age where spectacle is certainly not lacking, however, comes from the many conundrums that it produces within the savvy film-goer.The film is by no means a masterpiece of art; it fits very squarely in the Hollywood tradition of narrative structure and shooting style built around the desire for easily digestible entertainment and profit. A ghostly phantom haunts the forgotten passages and torture chambers beneath the Paris opera house and abducts a beautiful young singer (Mary Philbin) to force his love upon her, leaving her to be saved by her one true love (Norman Kerry). You would be hard pressed to find a story which asks less mental activity from the viewer.But, while this holds true, the direction of the piece contains a mode of art which is not readily apparent with a surface viewing. Yes, Chaney's camp flailing adorned, as he is in mask and cape, is thrilling and more than a little humorous, but his eerily understated presence in the colour tinted masked-ball scene shows a much deeper understanding of the form. Likewise do the unexplained plot leaps and shocking make-up close-ups point to a schlock sensibility while at the same time the expressionist shadows creeping along the claustrophobic corridors of the Phantom's lair make a viewer think of the works of Murnau or Lang.The Phantom Of the Opera presents itself as the most intelligent of nonsense films or, contrariwise, as the stupidest of artistic visions simultaneously, and this, I believe, is one of the reasons that this movie remains so interesting today. I mean, plenty of silent horror films were made during this period (many of them, like Phantom, made by Universal Studios), but for some reason this is the one that has gone down through history and ingrained itself into the popular consciousness. The question mus be asked, "why is this? Why do I know this movie so well instead of others?" and it is the artistic flair mixed in with the highest camp of the horror genre that provides the answer.One instinctively rolls their metaphorical eyes at the ludicrousness of the japes and capers taking place before them, but their eyes cannot help but be drawn into the immense beauty and skill that has gone into each and every shot. It is aesthetically thrilling and intriguing as it is daft and hammy, and this is what makes the films as a whole so incredibly interesting.I suppose this may be a mere symptom of becoming too deeply entrenched in film studies and that my mind is just being drawn towards unnecessary dissection, but I would argue against this. Either way I would highly recommend seeing The Phantom Of The Opera in order to make up your own mind about its value artistic or otherwise.