The Phantom of the Opera (1988 TV Movie) User Reviews

Probably the most accurate adaptation of the book to date

[MissSimonetta · 7/10 · 20 September 2011]

This little known animated adaptation of Gaston Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera is possibly the most accurate to the original book. For that alone, it is of interest to phans who prefer versions closer to Leroux like myself.

The story is condensed into little under an hour, changing or cutting few details, and taking a lot of word-for-word dialogue from the book. Lots of aspects which other versions overlook are kept intact- the Persian, Box 5, and the torture chamber to name a few. Christine's character is also given the somewhat feisty nature she had originally- most other versions keep her a stock ingénue. I must also commend the Phantom's voice actor; the character is given a great voice: dramatic, smooth, and even kind of sexy (okay, I find it sexy anyway).

Alas, for all its accuracy, the animation is terrible, making Scooby Doo look like Fantasia. The characters' movements are stiff and you could make a drinking game based off how many times animation is reused. However, I will say that the character designs aren't eyesores and the backgrounds are good.

All in all, it's a decent version. If you liked the book and the Chaney Phantom, you might want to watch this one, if only once. It's no masterpiece, but it's entertaining and might interest children who have not been introduced to the story.

7/10

Surprisingly Good

[Scarletquillraven · 7/10 · 3 April 2007]

When I first heard that there was an animated version of the The Phantom of the Opera, I didn't believe it. It didn't seem like a story that could be adapted to that medium. Then I came across a copy. I was expecting it to be much like the Star Wars Christmas Special; so perfectly awful no one wants to think about it, and even the cast is in denial that it exists. I was wrong! This version is the closest adaptation to the original novel I have ever seen. The plot is kept faithful and there are a number of direct quotes from Gaston Leroux's classic work. I found the dialog and plot very moving, and, as funny as this will sound, by the end I was a bit choked up. I found the animated version almost, in some ways, better than the novel. It was far more emotional in my opinion.

The only thing that took away from the film was the animation itself. It was made on a low budget, and it very clearly shows. If you've ever seen an older episode of Scooby-Doo, you'll understand what I mean. At times I found the images' flaws very distracting. For example, there seemed to be only a few frames of Erik talking up close actually made, so there would always be the same pictures every time he spoke. At times, also, the lip-syncing didn't match up and the characters' faces didn't seem to display any feeling. Sometimes it was better to just ignore the visuals and focus on listening to the sound and dialog.

Despite that, I would recommend this movie. It had a few powerful moments and was overall entertaining. Maybe I'm giving it a bit too much slack since I'm a big Phantom phan, but I thought it was worth watching. So if you get the chance, take an hour and check out this film.

The most faithful adaptation of Gaston Leroux's novel... but a terrible animation

[kriitikko · 4/10 · 3 December 2006]

This could well be by far the most faithful adaptation of Gaston Leroux's Gothic romance "The Phantom of the Opera". Both Christine's and Raoul's characters are presented just as they were in the novel. Erik, the Phantom, appears only as a shadow and two shinning eyes in the beginning and then as the corpse like genius as in the novel. With exception of the latest movie version of ALW's musical this is the only film adaptations that keeps the original ending in which Erik earns his redemption by allowing Christine to leave and marry Raoul. This ending didn't even appear in Lon Chaney's version! And the Persian Daroga is also in here, though his past with Erik is somewhat different, and the torture chamber!

Yet, unfortunately the animation is poor and simply terrible. Same scenes is used over and over again and the characters movements are slow. Also the recorded voice doesn't move along the mouths movements.

Sad that when Leroux's story finally appears as it has been waited for, even using many of the lines directly from the book, it turns out to be so technically poor that you wish to close your eyes. Yet, it can be watch once, if for nothing else than the story. It is only 50 minutes long.

Faithful, but Bland and Forgettable

[allyball-63124 · 4/10 · 4 May 2017]

I have now seen this movie twice in my life and even though the story is heavily based on the book (and actually follows it pretty close,) I cannot remember a single thing about this film. I have a basic idea of what happens and the names of the characters but I remember hardly anything story or character-wise. I suppose I can give this film credit for being one of the most faithful adaptations of the book I've seen so far (there were even direct quotes from the book book, which was nice) but faithful doesn't always mean good. Remember, this is supposed to be a movie first and if you want to adapt something into a movie, there have to be change. Also, since this is adapting a pretty old story, there have to changes relating to the time period, like more interesting characters for example. Honestly, this movie could've worked better if the characters were interesting and not bland as a pile of sawdust. I will excuse the silent film for it's bland characters since it was released in the 1920's and characters weren't exactly top priority at that time. However, this movie was released in 1987! There is no excuse for the characters being so bland and forgettable. Even the Phantom/Erik is forgettable! That character should be very interesting but outside of some good/slightly amusing lines, there's not really much to him. My other major problem with this film is the animation itself. Honestly, the animation was really hard to watch. It was so bland, stilted and just overall janky and uncomfortable to watch. I won't harp on the animation too much since I'm sure they probably had a low budget, but it was extremely distracting. On a side note, I found this movie a little too goofy to actually consider a Phantom of the Opera movie. Aside from that, there's not much else to talk about with this film. I don't hate this film or even really dislike it. I just find it forgettable and at times, honestly really dumb.

beautiful version

[Kirpianuscus · 14 December 2022]

One of inspired versions of the novel by Leroux. In some measure, just surprising . In other, reminding the potential of animation to propose details in area of special effects in the case of film.

The sins are the sins of animation of period.

But the loyalty to the version of 1916, the dialogues and the music are precious virtues in this case. And , sure, the wise crafted tension of this special love story.

You discover, faitful , the atmosphere and the pieces making this psychotronic short film a nice adaptation of one of touching stories of XIX century.

Its seduction has as root not only beautiful drawings but the care to respect the original story becoming just fascinating in few scenes.