The Phantom of the Opera (1991 TV Movie) User Reviews

Interesting, to say the least...

[library_ghost · 5/10 · 8 September 2006]

It should be noted that this is NOT the infamous musical of Andrew Lloyd Webber.

All in all it was a bit "campy"- filmed live in a Florida theater, I believe. The score is not very impressive, but the actors voices are good quality. The storyline follows truer to the novel of Gaston Lerouxwith a few liberties here and there. The character of the Daroga is in this version, much to the delight of Leroux fans! If you see this movie, you will probably not that some song titles- like "Spirit of Music"- are similar to ALW, but keep in mind that there aren't too many synonyms for phrase "angel of music."

Rent it or buy if you you consider yourself a die-hard "Phan" or if you want a little change from the ordinary.

The Phantom of the Mullet

[angel_of_music_of_the_ni · 5/10 · 19 August 2008]

***SPOILERS****

All right, so obviously this isn't Lloyd Webber, and if you thought it was you need to check your details closer before purchasing your movies. This film has very few shining moments, but I will give it props for Perfect Music, about half of the good Daroga's lines, and Carlotta. But in general the acting is about on par with a good community theatre, the logic behind the timeline is bizarre, (go ahead, add up all of the "X years later" and tell me Christine shouldn't be about 40.) you actually pity Carlotta getting pushed out for the young blood, (An Able Woman) and the Phantom has a mullet as well as a massive superiority complex. I really was not impressed with Elizabeth Walsh. As near as I can tell she had two expressions and not much else to offer. David Staller, while a passable singer, is certainly not the Phantom I'm used to. With an ego like that you'd half expect Erik to parade around declaring "Worship me!" deformity be hanged. Also, I am deeply affronted by the fact that as soon as Christine leaves him he's moved onto some pretty little ballet rat to sate his loneliness. And for everyone who tosses this version pity due to it being 'closer to Leroux', don't let it fool you. Mme. Giry still isn't a nutty old bat in charge of Box 5 and nothing else, Buquet is still disreputable, no Red Death crashing the ball, and we still find no mention of La Sorelli, Philipe de Chagny, or Petite Jammes. I'm sure Pampin the fireman would be asking too much, all though a couple versions have given us the rat catcher. At any rate if you're obsessed enough to understand everything I just said without wiki to aid you, I'd recommend seeing the thing just to say you have. I understand the matter of pride phans take in locating every scrap of multimedia related to Erik and devouring it. If I completely lost you after the first few lines, go back to Gerik and leave the peripheral versions to the hard core phans.

I remain, your obedient phriend,

Phantomess

Not that bad

[AngelOfMusic100 · 5/10 · 13 February 2006]

I honestly didn't think it was that bad. I liked it enough to give it a 5 rating. It did boost my liking of Raoul. He wasn't as annoying as the other Raouls. The ending though...the whole Erik being OK with Christine leaving and then going on to that ballet girl just didn't do it for me. I will admit though that when Erik first brought Christine to his lair and sang Perfect Music Perfect Love I found myself being pulled in. Something about that music hypnotized me. It was amazing. Although the Phantom was a little creepy. Not that I didn't like David Staller as the Phantom but something about his mouth freaked me out. That and his mask. It looked metal. Not right. But I did like Elizabeth Walsh as Christine. I thought she was really good in the roll. The beginning bothered me though. Did we really need to see how Christine and Raoul first met?

A mere phantom of The Phantom

[catuus · 2/10 · 22 November 2008]

I have always been a collector – stamps, books, chess sets, music, and so on, 60-years of it. Current craze is of course DVDs. Collectors generally compulsively hang on to something once they've acquired it – even if it turns out to be a piece of drek. You will therefore understand that – while it was a wrench – I've 86d this little item from my collection. And I'm about to tell you why.

The Phantom of the Opera is, like Dracula or Frankenstein (the monster's correct name since he would have the name of his father), an iconic figure from the lushly Romantic (as opposed to romantic) horror literature of the 19th Century. The Phantom exists in a number of celluloid versions, although inexplicably not so many as the endlessly dreary zombie films. At least, thank the gods, there are no zombie musicals.

The story line of this production pretty much follows (if sketchily) that of the Gaston Leroux novel on which the whole "Phantom" phenomenon is based. There is no need to rehearse this, since those who don't already know it … well, what can I say? The music for this production is, at best, kitschy and banal, more or less on a par with the alleged music Disney provides for their teeny-bopper programming. There is only one even remotely good musical number – and that is a very bad arrangement of Camille St.Saëns' "Danse Macabre". This accompanies the scène-ballet which follows the Phantom's unmasking. Missing from the production entirely is any hint of the music to the Phantom's grande-oeuvre, "Don Juan Triumphant".

The acting is no better. Indeed, it isn't acting at all; it's mere declamation. I've heard better delivery from used-car commercials.

This is of course a cut-rate production, complete with barely OK sets and obviously plastic prosthetics. Indeed, the Phantom's mask is far more realistic than his alleged disfigurements. We did get a falling chandelier – not badly done, actually.

I've seen this billed on some sites as a "musical comedy". It isn't – it's a serious if inept performance. We could perhaps regard it as a non-comedic parody. It is certainly a travesty.

I've seen some positive, even enthusiastic reviews for this performance. Well, everybody deserves to be loved by somebody. However, my advice is that you rent this before you even consider buying it.

Clueless as to what to think!

[skyblueangel-1 · 3/10 · 27 June 2005]

This is not ALW's version of the Phantom! How can I tell: It's much worse! Although, it wasn't the worst film I've ever seen, (that would been Solaris), it was very bad. When I rented this, I didn't know what to expect. I hoped it would be ALW's version, but from the first opening scene, I knew I had made a mistake.

I was surprised that it was a filmed play instead of a movie. The acting was okay, and it seemed to be a bit more comical than the ALW version, but it could never compare. This Phantom seemed to be more villainous than Gerard Butler's Phantom. I will admit, it has a somewhat similar story line, and you do get to see more about the characters' backgrounds than in ALW's, but the music is NOT the same! The music did not sound very good, but the passion was there. It's closer to the book, but I still didn't like it very much.

If you're really interested in the Phantom, and want to see all the versions, see this one, so you know how bad it is. If your into romance, the ending will have you wondering what exactly was the Phantom thinking?!

More faithful to Leroux than Webber, but nothing else really

[kriitikko · 5/10 · 8 September 2006]

Darwin Knight: THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1990)TV- movie

This is not really a movie but a musical play that has been filmed while played to live audience in Florida. Unlike commonly thought it is not a shameless copy of Webber's play. This version that was played only once and went straight to a video is much more faithful to Gaston Leroux's original novel than Webber's version. It doesn't have but few songs and they are not as "larger than life" like Webber's. The thing that makes people to think this is Webber is that Phantom is wearing a half mask and Mme Giry is also a ballet mistress here instead of a box keeper. But it is not Webber, they even have the Persian in it!

I'll list the songs of the film/play:

Spirit Of Music: (They couldn't use "Angel" because of Webber's play) A young singer named Christine sings with the strange spirit that is coaching her singing in her dressing room.

In The House: Ballet girls are gossiping about the Phantom that is terrorizing the Paris opera house.

Running The Show: A hilarious song between managers Richard and Moncharmin, who are arguing which one of them is the boss. They are both funny, I especially like the guy playing Richard, makes me laugh every time.

Light And Darkness: Christine is first time singing in the lead on the stage. On her left side is Raoul, remembering the girl he once knew. On the right side is Phantom, not looking kindly on two lovers.

An Able Woman: A replaced diva Carlotta swears she will be the lead of this theater again.

Perfect Music, Perfect Love: A definite highlight of the entire show with David Staller playing Phantom seducing Christine in his underground lair.

Something Out There: Christine and Raoul declare their love to each others at the rooftop of the opera house. Nothing to do with "All I Ask Of You" song.

Back Into The Darkness: Phantom has kidnapped Christine again and begs for her to save him from his own madness.

So all in all it is an entertaining little show but nothing incredible. Except of managers song and "Perfect Music, Perfect Love" others aren't really that memorable. Cast is mainly theater actors who are good in their parts, with the exception of Elizabeth Walsh who makes Christine act like a bimbo. The entire show is ruined by the ending where Phantom gives Christine choice between him and Raoul and she leaves with Raoul without looking back.

Last word: Nothing incredible but entertains if one wants to see more faithful musical to Leroux. Still I think they should have filmed Ken Hill's play version of POTO instead of this.

Worst Film Ever Made??

[lenoresden · 5/10 · 25 December 2004]

Well not if you have seen "Beware: Children At Play" From Troma Entertainment. That was Awful. But I digress.

This Phantom of The Opera was not meant to be a movie. It was originally a very low budget Play. It was for a Benifit in Florida. The Set was Cardboard , and the Sound was horrible. But David Staller's Acting was once again awesome. He is the only reason to see this movie. Elizabeth Walsh was O.k The woman that Played Carlotta, played a very good Carlotta. Everyone else was just bad, really really bad. If your expecting to see a blockbuster hit, you will be sadly mistaken, but, if your a David Staller fan, Like I am, It's bearable enough to watch just to see him. He's the only good thing about the movie. But than again, As a David Staller lover, I offer a Biast opinion. I would like to see him do Andrew Lloyd Webber's play.

Boring and deeply flawed but has some good elements scattered throughout

[allyball-63124 · 5/10 · 27 April 2017]

Of the now seven Phantom of The Opera adaptations I've seen, this is certainly the strangest so far. Yes, even more than the animated film. I'll start with the negatives first because frankly, there are quite a few. First of all, this movie goes more for comedy and that would be fine if it were funny but it's not. It's honestly pretty dumb and often boring. However, it's not just boring for that reason. It's also because everything is just so bland. The characters barely have any personality and honestly, a lot of that comes from the acting, which is also really bland. Actually, the music is really bland too. I can't remember a single song aside from one which I will talk about later. My final issue with this movie is Madame Giry. No, not the character herself but her makeup and hairstyle. I don't know why this bothered me so much, but it really annoyed me. Okay, now onto some good things, because there are a few. Like I said earlier, I like one song and it's the song The Phantom sings to Christine when they're in his lair. It kind of reminded me of Music of The Night and the singing was just so passionate compared to everything else. David Staller was probably the best actor in this whole movie come to think of it. There was also one other scene I really adored and it's the scene where the Phantom is unmasked. First of all, his makeup is amazing and I actually thought it was real for a second, it was that on point. Second, the scene is handled very well and in a unique way. Most versions just have Christine cower as the Phantom gets angry at her and then Christine simply gives him the mask back and I thought they would do that with this version too for a second. However, what they did instead was have Christine put the mask aside and take Erik's hand. I know it's a small thing but it really blew me away and it was just so cute. Speaking of cute, this is one of the only versions I've seen so far that actually showed Christine and Raoul's childhood. Again, a small touch but I think it was a good one. Overall, the story itself was decent but it was handled so poorly. There are some good scenes that do raise this movie's final score but it doesn't make it overall good.

Not a Collector's Piece

[scndform · 4/10 · 26 August 2012]

I'm a huge Phantom fan and I'm always open to different interpretations of this story be it stage, book, or film. I always look at each interpretation with an open mind. David Staller did a great job with the part of the Phantom and he has a beautiful voice. His solo perfect music was a great song that he carried well and whoever did the make up for him did an admirable job. It is clear Mr. Staller is on a professional performing level. However, those are almost the only positive aspects associated with this production. Everything else from the script, to the cardboard sets, to the appalling acting,to the lame "special effects," to the especially horrible directing is on such an amateur level I really do think most high school drama departments could have done a better job.

I did say "almost." There is one aspect of the script that stood out as most satisfying and caused me to up my review a star. In this production when Christine chooses Raoul over Erik, Erik has no intention of spending the rest of his life mourning over the girl he didn't get. He simply sets his sites on another love interest and tries again. Bravo! Why should Erik pine the rest of his life away in a dark, dank cellar because one girl turned him down? If Christine doesn't want him then why shouldn't he bloody well find someone who does? So good for you, Erik,-good for you!

If you are a die-hard Phantom fan who wants to see anything and everything Phantom related you may want to give this a try. Other than that, please take my advise and don't waste your time.

Why??

[horsebackfreedom · 2/10 · 10 August 2006]

I hated it. I think Ms. Walsh has a lovely voice and a decent face/figure. My advice to her is keep at it. Oh, and do not put this on your resume. Mr. Staller was a cool voice as well. As to his looks, well, he was covered in stage make-up and a mask so i have no idea. His voice was good and anyone who can slowly lower himself from a standing position on a piano bench in time to the music must have wicked leg muscles! The song Perfect Music, Perfect Love was pretty good. He was fairly sexy and creepy all at once.

I hated it. I own it simply because I'm a Phantom Phanatic and must own everything Phantom related. However, it was a waste of money and an insult to audiences everywhere.

It makes me think ... What is passion? What is passion without liberty?

[deadly_tiger11 · 8/10 · 15 August 2005]

I actually liked this version and I have noticed that all the other reviews were made by what is termed "weekend fans" that is to say, fans who ONLY like the awl version. Yes, I know. If awl cant get Erik's name, why should I get his? The truth is, the explicit nature of awl's work is only one form of theater. Now think of another: Sondheim, who is equally talented, but more often implicit and less commercial. It is very easy for a newcomer to musical theater (or one who frequents only major touring productions) to be humanly dazed coming out of the Webber/Hal Prince production and then expect the rest of the theater world to deliver similarly muscular musicals.

The million dollar question remains: Is theater a visceral roller coaster set in two acts or can it challenge an audience to think? If the latter, what is the appropriate size and presentation to evoke thought? Lawrence Rosen and Paul Schierhorn's Phantom of the Opera is limited in size, budget and, yes, talent. In fact, it seems to live in a time capsule: a small regional musical inspired by Victorian operettas with no sense that it exists under the shadow of a late-twentieth century pop giant. Having seen many Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, the moderate song/dialog/song structure feels common to its form. Instead of rejecting its technique, I found myself quieting my commercial sensibilities in order to appreciate its low-key interpretation. (Just like Christine, I, too, have been trained to hear only Webber's grandiloquent music.) But it made me think! Bruce Falstein's book to the score presents a striking philosophic debate absent in most Phantom interpretations: What is passion? Should it be driven underground, symbolically like a monster? And what is passion without liberty (a timeless French theme)? In a superficial world, there is little room for the passionate genius to express himself freely, to create angelic music. Will even the genius be driven underground, cursed to deformity by conformity? This Phantom, without gargantuan sets and heroic harmonies, made room for a few universal themes previously overlooked.

The romantic triangle between Christine, Erik and Raoul is open to multitudinous interpretations and I'm ready to watch them all. Webber's gilding of Gaston Leroux' novel (already pervasively Gothic) with baroque artifice is sensational, indeed. I love theatrical excess! But I wonder if its truthful. Lawrence Rosen and Paul Schierhorn's Phantom is financially restrained but a purer narrative and in the end it struck me that Christine's choice to follow the fashionable Raoul is an obvious choice, but is it a courageous one? For me, viewing this small musical was my choice, like staying at a bed and breakfast for a change instead of the Hilton. Now what's yours?

Not Webber but not bad

[Lillycatt · 7/10 · 7 March 2006]

While there are certainly echoes of Webber here, this is undoubtedly a very different version, and if you're looking for Webber's masterful touch in terms of sets and music, well, you're not going to find it. However, for what is clearly a low-budget, filmed stageplay, it's not half-bad. For the passing fan of Phantom, I wouldn't recommend it. For the ones who seek out every version, this is definitely one to seek out. The managers and Carlotta are extremely entertaining. Buquet is far more attractive than Buquet, to my knowledge, has ever been portrayed. Christine is well-played, very conflicted, and the emphasis on her desire for fame is well-done. Raoul is very well cast, at least for those of us who aren't fond of him--he's handsome, but kind of dopey. And as for David Staller's Phantom, he's arrogant and apt to flip suddenly between sane and irrational. Perhaps he shouldn't be likable, but he's the Phantom and I can't help but be in his camp, so don't ask me to be objective in terms of his likable qualities. There is an emphasis here on his obsession with beauty which plays very well, and when he goes on about his past accomplishments...well, it's excellently done. And any version that contains the line "I am more human than all those who call me monster" clearly has some value. I am sorry to say that the end did not strike me as achieving the tragic potential usually found in Christine's abandonment of the Phantom. However...while the final scene is completely contrary to every version I have ever heard of, it does provide some glee for all of us who believe Erik really ought to get over Christine and find a girl more worthy. The most exciting realization, for me at least, was when I realized that gray-bearded fellow was none other than the Persian, or rather, the Daroga. If you are the sort of fan who knows who the Daroga is, you should see this movie. If not, you probably shouldn't bother. Though it might be worth it just to hear David Staller say "Da-ro-ga."

An interesting interpretation of the novel

[grlphantom · 9/10 · 23 October 2000]

This movie is a filmed version of a stage play. The music is fairly good, and the chemistry between the Phantom and Christine is evident. With the goofy managers bickering and Carlotta's constant whining it is also quite funny. If you like musicals this will be a good one for you. It is not the Leroux telling of the story, but it is an entertaining story none-the-less.

Good for what it is

[cppjohnson · 8/10 · 4 November 2005]

When I got this version from my local library, I had no clue what it was. When I got it and watched it,I was a bit confused. I now got it for a second time and realized it was good for what it is. Just know that it is a musical but it's as though someone brought a camera into a show and taped it. David Staller portrays a very pathetic Phantom and Elizabeth a very conflicted Christine. Staller's voice is very passionate,even though sometimes he over acts the part,he is still a very wonderful Phantom. And even though the beginning of this is a bit odd because they only dance and you hear voices though the performers lips never move,it is still a very good version.