You're being too nice. This film was downright terrible!
The story was so weak that 80% of the movie is music. And the worst thing was the high-key, happy-happy, MGM style lighting. There's NO way to feel horror with that kind of lighting. The film was not menacing at all, just gay and useless.
If you're sixteen and love horror movies with gore and titties, I can see where you're coming from.
'The Phantom of the Opera' isn't my favorite Universal horror movie. Not like Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolf Man, etc...but it's a classic, well-known and iconic story. "Too much opera and not enough phantom" is a popular criticism of this film. However, it
is a movie about an opera and Susanna Foster's voice is amazing. I can at least respect her and Nelson Eddy's talents without writing it off as gay.
As far as the lighting - I'm not sure if it's the lighting or the technological limitations of the time. Technicolor in the 30's and early 40's - like in 'Gone with the Wind' - the colors seem a bit over-saturated (flesh tones almost seem a bit too pink for example) and aren't as natural as what we're used to today. The film won a couple Oscars for art decoration or something.
None of the old classic Universal movies are particularly "scary" by today's standards. They're just fun and (mostly) well-made. 'The Phantom of the Opera' is no exception in my opinion. The excellent Claude Raines (who was the 'Invisible Man' and Larry Talbot's father in 'The Wolf Man') is excellent as always here. And the production values exceed that of the 1925 silent film which justifies the re-make - although they
did reuse that amazing, famous opera set. I would say it's more sophisticated in terms of cinematography, story, acting, etc. and that's because of how the industry grew from 1925 to 1943, going from the silent era to the "talkie" era. I felt like the 1925 silent film is hampered by constant cuts of the title cards - through no fault of its own of course; it was the limitations of its time.
As far as the comedy between the police officer and the singer.....it's only a few scenes and I thought the last scene was genuinely pretty funny and leaves you with a smirk. I think that's a little unfair to judge the end on that one scene. The true "ending" is the mask reveal and all that.
I'm also glad they cut any references to The Phantom being Christine's father. That was just a bad idea. They cut it because of hints at incest and were exactly right. I also think it's a more intriguing story without the father/son connection.....a father is
supposed to love and adore his daughter. Of course he's going to think she's the best and love her. However, having an unrelated stranger have that kind of admiration and passion makes it much more intriguing and creepy.
reply
share
xnet95
10 years ago
Actually, I'm 50 and I don't like Gore. Ever since he started "protecting" the world from Manbearpig, I lost all respect for him. Plus Tipper was an idiot back in the '80s when she tried to censor music. I do like titties, though...
reply
share