The closest to the book?

This was merely made for a vehicle for Robert Englund to capitalize on his success of the Nightmare on Elm Street films and really was not meet to be taken seriously. Although the filmmakers did shoot this film right when Andrew Lloyd Webber released his Broadway musicial, this horror version of Phantom of the Opera was also created to add a few new twists to the story which is why it begins in New York City then goes back through time in the film. You're right though, this film is probably the furthest from the original novel, but according to this film's producer Menahem Golan, he says that Gaston Leroux who wrote the novel, never could explain if the Phantom was going to be a regular person or an immortal. So this film, the Phantom is immortal and has spiritual powers. There is one good finding in this film though, this was the very first film since the 1925 film, to feature the Masked Ball scene that was depicted in the novel, but also this was the first film that did not have a falling chandiler scene.

Plus the "old" dream part took placi in London which is still not Paris...

Yes..Yes aside from some missing characters,scenes and your love for the killing of joseph with the punjab lasso, i'd still say this is alot closer than most adaptations.if you wanna see far watch the '43 technicolour remake of the chaney '25 version.Good movie but i really dont see a pedophile who throws fits, gets burned with acid after killing some one while franz listz is in the other room playing his notes is how eric came to be disfigured.I think in some ways the london scene was used as a homage to the 60s Hammer Horror Phantom.and the freddy hat thing....freddys fadora was brown n this ones black and plus theres one in the '43 version and '25.and please dont connect eric desler to ed gein...for one thing eric isnt a necrophiliac cross dresser who has a oedipus complex!and the freddy faced lookalike....englund said it himself that the make up artists were inspired by a beethoven bust...i dont know how but they said it.so stop putting down movies just because you hold dearly to fine detail.just enjoy it as another storytelling.I'd say more but enough said.






"Horror films dont create psychopaths...they make psychopaths more creative"

Although I enjoyed it on other levels, the 1962 version with Herbert Lom and Heather Sears is probably the furtherest from the original novel - no love story. The Phantom simply wants to train Christine. This one was also set in London. They borrow the acid and stolen music plot elements from the 1943 version. The Phantom of the Paradise seems to be based on the 1962 version with the love interest added back in plus some items from Faust.

I think the London setting may have been chosen to give a kind of Jack The Ripper quality to The Phantom.

The 1982 version was set in Hungary and was modernized a little - an automobile appeared.

However, the 1999 version really bugs me. A discarded baby raised by rats. I couldn't stop thinking of Batman Returns during the entire opening sequence. It kept reminding me of what happened to The Penquin. Then there's the handsome Phantom. No deformities. The theatre managers were also pedophiles. To me, the gore goes far beyond what's found in this version.

As for having a modern and past storyline, I think that just reflects a timeless love. Two souls linked forever during each lifetime. ...or at least Christine returning to The Phantom for each lifetime.