MovieChat Forums > The Phantom of the Opera (1989) Discussion > Terrible movie

Terrible movie

posted 18 years ago by the_world_is_flat
22 replies | jump to latest

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.

[–] ryguy59323 18 years ago

I agree- it could be a great movie but they decided to ruin it instead. Robert Englund did help this movie a little, though.

[–] cristianjacob44 18 years ago

"Your eyes see but my shadow,
My heart is overflowing
There's so much you could come to know
You're content not knowing
Tenderly, you could see my soul."

This Phantom takes place in ENGLAND, in LONDON, that's why it doesn't use the French Raoul or the Swedish Erik. Uh-DURRR

[–] CrowRoses 18 years ago

This Phantom takes place in ENGLAND, in LONDON, that's why it doesn't use the French Raoul or the Swedish Erik. Uh-DURRR

Well, when it takes place in France they manage to use the 'Swedish Erik', and more to the point, Erik isn't Swedish. Christine is.

Finally, it does use 'Erik' and not 'Eric', when it shows his name on 'Don Juan Triumphant'. The 'Eric' is only in the subtitles.

The Outsiders: Being Undeniably Cool Since 1969

[–] matheusmarchetti 18 years ago

I AGREE WITH YOU.

[–] TheaterRaven 18 years ago

I didn't really enjoy it, either. It was just really, really creepy.
***SPOILERS
And Erik with the prostitute? Nuh uh. Erik, in my mind, saves himself for Christine, even though he doesn't get her in that sense. That part was just weird. It seemed very OOC for Erik. And the skinning people thing is gross. Original idea, but....yeah. So, not my favorite version. At all. I didn't entirely hate it, but I don't like it.

My Favorite Phantoms (In order):
Lon Chaney
Michael Crawford
Claude Rains and Herbert Lom (I like them both equally)
Charles Dance

Nevermore!

[–] sinemaphile 17 years ago

I enjoyed this movie. I liked The Phantom's interactions with the bar maid and the prostitute. He's creepy yet generous.

[–] bbwibb02 18 years ago

You do realize that none of the things you said are PLOT HOLES, right?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bluehawk2010 17 years ago

this movie is kinda like the da vinci code in that you CAN'T compare it to any other phantom thing you've seen/read before. if you just watch it as a film unto itself, it's pretty good

[–] CrowRoses 17 years ago

I'd love it as a film, if it weren't trying to pass itself off as PotO.

Joanna likes it when people talk in the third person.

[–] hocfocprod 17 years ago

The wet towel kill was to show Maniacal strength. Erik is so powerful when enraged that he can crush a man's skull with a towel.

This is actually one of my favorite incarnations of the Phantom. I like the changes they made. The basis for his killing is the same, but everything else is changed.

I do agree that the Prostitute scene seemed a little out of character, but it was a way to put nudity into the film, which was deemed necessary for selling horror back then.

[–] themadwashu 17 years ago

I'm just glad I saw the 2004 version before this one, or I would have hated the whole idea of this plot. ):
I've read the book, and I'm glad that they made him more malevolent in this version, but I think they overdid it.

But isn't the trademark of the phantom supposed to be a mask? Not ripping people's skins off...
I like how they added the fact that he won't die with the violinist at the end though. (: That was good.

But, despite flaws and interesting takes on the characters, this film would cause turn off in an otherwise brilliant plot.

"The best way to make your dreams come true is to wake up."

[–] onnanob2 17 years ago

Yeah, it was different and strayed a lot from the original story, but I've seen worse movies! Did you see Dario Argento's version? - I think that one is even worse. I'm more satisfied when the storyline stays close to the original story.

[–] firedfury 17 years ago

This movie is a twist on the story, so it makes sense that the Phantom's mask is different as well. By wearing others' flesh on top of his scars, we still see the use of a "mask," just not the type we've come to expect in the story.