MovieChat Forums > The Phantom of the Opera (1989) Discussion > So much better than the 2004 version

So much better than the 2004 version

posted 19 years ago by Meven_Stoffat
11 replies | jump to latest

The 2004 version was good but this was much better... It was an actual adaptation of Leroux's great novel.

GET ARMY OF DARKNESS INTO TOP 250:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0106308/

[–] matheusmarchetti 19 years ago

Did you liked this movie??? It was horrible and besides it takes a lot from the original novel, more then Dario Argento did in the unscarred phantom of 1998. Also, they say that they didn't have money to make a falling chandelier, but they have money to make a really gore movie, so I think this movie is the worst Phantom film ever!!!

[–] Chromaggia-Le-Fatale 19 years ago

the phantom of the opera is no supposed to be a gory horror movie. at the most it's supposed to frighten u a little but not so musch u scream!

[–] Sk8str 19 years ago

Adaptation? When in the novel dose Erik start banging a hooker? I must have missed that part.

[–] CrowRoses 19 years ago

I agree with Sk8str, the hooker part pissed me off.

And what's with the human skin? Honestly... it can hardly be considered an adaptation. I don't think that it's worthy of being associated with Leroux's novel.

Robert Englund is cool, I'll give him that. I might even like his character if he wasn't trying to pass himself off as the Phantom. I don't blame him, though, more the people who wrote the script. I think they ruined the character.

It's up to you if you sink or swim, Just keep your faith and your ship will come in.

[–] digitalboy72 14 years ago

I used to like this movie until I actually bothered to find out what this story was supposed to be about, passion, obsession, romance and love, not a slasher film.

"Don't flake on me, man, they're vampires, send em' to hell." -Rafe Guttman

[–] PseudoFilmCritic 14 years ago

They turned it into a slasher flick, and even Jill herself is not entirely happy with the film. There are moments I savor in the film - the atmosphere, the costumes, the incredible music score, Jill herself, and some black-humored moments from Englund - but it is a near-miss overall.

http://jerrysaravia.blogspot.com/2011/01/strength-vitality-and-allure- of-jill.html

Films are not reality. Reality is not film. Film is only an approximation of reality.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HenryCW 13 years ago

I did enjoy the film and both Englund and Schoelen were good. However, I have to acknowledge that one problem with the film was that it left out many of the elements (passion, obsession, love, romance, creativity, etc.) that made the story and the study of its characters interesting. In the film, the Phantom didn't even seem to care about art, talent and creativity, among other things. He simply killed off everyone who stood in Christine's (and his) way using increasingly gruesome methods. It might be too much to call this film "Freddy of the Opera" (as some people here did), but the way he skinned and murdered his victims appeared to be more appropriate for a horror movie than one that wanted to pay some emphasis on character study.

[–] midnightsscar 13 years ago

I like both versions. I like the drama and some other things better in the other version. I like this horror version for bringing out Erik's evilness a lot more and really going all out in terms of make-up. There's also a couple scenes in this horror version I hadn't really seen on screen yet (like the graveyard scene, where he plays the violin; very, pretty scene)

[–] Illyngophobia 10 years ago

Far better, but I still dislike this production on many levels. I'll give this credit where it is due. This Erik had the decency to not act like a brat like Erik in the '04 production did.

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

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]