Terrible movie


I'm a major fan of the Phantom and of Robert Englund but this movie had so many plot holes! First of all, Raoul is now Richard! Richard?! Erik is spelled "Eric" in the subtitles. His face was not scarred by Satan. He was born that way! Also, how can you kill a person with a towel? He wraps the towel around the critic's head and suddenly blood starts pouring out! What about the trademark mask the Phantom wears? The lyrics are bland. I'm sure they didn't use words such as "gonna" in that period. I did like the ending but, for the most part, this movie wasn't all it could have been.

reply

I didn't like it either - I must say I've never seen a version of POTO that remains 100% true to the novel.

One thing that put me right off - the fact that he had to rip little bits of his face off during the movie (or they rotted or whatever) and stick them back on again. That's Leatherface crap! LOL

reply

I actually thought that it stuck closer to the Novel in terms of character presentation than ALW. Maybe not the plot, but Erik was a psychopath, and Christine did loathe him. All she did for Erik in the novel was in order to try and keep him calm.

Besides, this is the only version to actually use music from "faust" or so I hear.

reply

"Besides, this is the only version to actually use music from "faust" or so I hear."

The 1990 Charles Dance mini-series (and for all I know the Yeston & Kopit musical it's based on) used "Faust" too. This version remains the only movie with Erik playing the violin for Christine in the graveyard scene, though. Andrew Lloyd Webber sort of vaguely references the graveyard scene from the book but pretty much completely missed the point of it, so... yeah.

OP, I have to say that this movie was kind of mixing the story of "Faust" in with the Phantom (the whole "deal with the devil" thing, for example), which goes some way to explaining some of the variants with this version; plus, I remember reading or hearing at the time that they had to up the gore content so as to not risk losing Englund's horror fans with a non-slasher period piece. But while it's not a completely true-to-the-original adaptation, I do love the hell out of this movie myself and would certainly never call it "terrible". I'd even recommend it although I would issue a caveat to anyone who does have issues with gore. It's hardly the goriest thing ever made, but if you're expecting something more along the lines of Schumacker's sexed-up version and dislike horror/slasher movies generally, you'd probably be happier with the Charles Dance version. Which like any adaptation has its own pluses and minuses, but which I also love.

reply

It's inaccurate. Boo-hoo, get over it.

reply

I wouldn’t say that this movie was terrible—just wasted potential. Some portions of it are very good. I think Englund’s performance is brilliant and while I’ve never envisioned the Phantom being quite so brutal I wouldn’t have minded the gore so much if his drive had been explained. Was it just to collect skin for his mask? But then, wouldn’t it have been easier just to have bought a mask—or better yet, go the buffalo bill route and tan the skin in order to make a human leather mask(so that he wouldn’t have to keep a steady supply of fresh skin to stitch to his face)? No, this Phantom clearly had a blood lust. The question is where did it come from? When we see him making a deal with the devil he appears to be a kind and naïve man and not a butcher. So how did he go from being kind and idealistic composer to a blood thirsty people skinner? Was it just his deformity that drove him mad? The whole “deal with the devil” aspect of this film was in some ways inspired as it directly tied the Phantom’s story to Faust, but in other ways it was just sloppy. The mechanics of the deal were never explained. For instance, what did Erik have to do in return? Now, if Erik had agreed to collect souls for the devil or something to that effect the murderous aspect of his character would be believable. But then, why would he do anything for the devil if the devil never upheld his end of the bargain(remember kids, you’ll always be short changed by the devil)? I mean, the devil promised Erik that the world would love him for his music. And yet, even in the 20th century, he’s hardly known at all. And what he is known for is being a murderer. In a twisted way I suppose you could say that Erik’s music will live forever as he lives forever, but the fine print of the contract was never really explained. This, in my opinion, undermined Englund’s performance as Erik. While he did a great job with what he had to work with the audience was never given the chance to understand the Phantom. In most adaptations and in the original book, who Erik is stems mostly from the disfigurement he was born with and his subsequent treatment because of that disfigurement. But this Erik wasn’t born disfigured. So what drives him? And is Erik meant to be the original Faust? The movie seems to imply this, and yet the presence of a Marguerite type figure was never seen in Erik’s back story. So when did Christine come into play? Because we know that Erik, unlike Faust, did not sell his soul for the love of a woman. So are we to assume that Erik had just been alive for a few centuries until Christine came along, fell in love with her for unknown reasons, and somehow bound her destiny to his? I mean, Christine seems to be stuck in a cycle of reincarnation. This would have made more sense if the writers had expanded Erik’s backstory to include a Christine-like character and had made a stipulation of the devil’s contract that they could never be together—dooming Erik to live many lives with Christine but never allowing them to be together. So you see, while there was so much potential to expand upon the Erik/Faust connection and make the deal with the devil idea more significant to the plot the writers never seized this opportunity, leaving the film a shadow of what it could have been.
Additionally, Christine’s story arc fell apart when the writers had her sing the lyrics to Erik’s song when the lyrics had yet to be shared. What were they trying to say? Up until that point it appeared as though modern Christine had taken a bump to the head and was recalling images from her past life. But that couldn’t be as Christine’s past life wouldn’t have known the lyrics. So was Christine actually dreaming? But it wasn’t merely a dream as Erik confirmed by being present in the modern day.

As it is, this film is okay. It’s mildly entertaining and saved mostly by Englund’s performance. Unfortunately, it could have been so much better.


"Like most hearts, it was complicated, shaded with dark and dappled with light."—Dicamillo

reply

[deleted]

Much of my problems rest in the weird "past life" ending and how Erik's deformities aren't from birth like the novel. I have very little tolerance for films that go in the direction of something like a burn and don't do it well.

The acting was bland, the Masquerade scene was a disgrace (all hail 1925) and I had no attachment or major interest in any of the characters to care if anything happened to them or not. The only thing this had going for it were some of the deaths and I guess the makeup; though it wasn't on point with the book (again). The mask is another thing. I'm sad that wasn't shown. It's iconic. I'm also pissed that they went through all the trouble to make Erik look decent with his deformities, but didn't have the time to give him a proper mask; even for the Masquerade scene. C'mon, the Red Death is ICONIC.

I think the other thing that's confusing is Erik's origins in this because he has an American accent; and I've said at different points that I hate '04 with a passion with the inconsistent accents being one of the things that damned it from the start.

Our songs will all be silenced, but what of it? Go on singing. -- Orson Welles

reply

"I'm a major fan of the Phantom and of Robert Englund but this movie had so many plot holes! First of all, Raoul is now Richard! Richard?! Erik is spelled "Eric" in the subtitles. His face was not scarred by Satan. He was born that way! Also, how can you kill a person with a towel? He wraps the towel around the critic's head and suddenly blood starts pouring out! What about the trademark mask the Phantom wears? The lyrics are bland. I'm sure they didn't use words such as "gonna" in that period. I did like the ending but, for the most part, this movie wasn't all it could have been."

These are some of the most weak-willed complaints I've ever heard about a movie.

reply