The Phantom of the Opera (TV Mini-Series 1990– ) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
33 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
And the top three reasons to see this version are:
Hup234!21 September 1999
One, Charles Dance is always terrific, playing good, bad or indifferent guys with equal aplomb and skill. (This time he's a good guy who, unfortunately, is not blessed with good looks.) Two, the sets and music are superb. And three, the final climactic aria is Charles Gounod's fabulous goosebump-raising "Anges Pur, Anges Radieux" ("Angels Pure, Angels Radiant") from "Faust". No, we don't see the Phantom's face....but Christine does, and her expression tells us everything.
22 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Probably one of my favorite TV movies.
karalynnn8 May 2005
Beautiful Adaptation of the Phantom of the Opera. This is NOT the musical Broadway version. The only music here is the Italian operas the opera house is performing. This version based on a stage version of the book, by noted playwright Arthur Kopit, is beautiful and well performed. I love this movie because of its character development and lack of individuals breaking into song for absolutely no reason, what so ever. The use of the Phantom's various masks to convey his mood is a very unique approach, in this film. The climatic duet between Christine and Eric and a beautiful scene with Burt Lancaster and Charles Dance (Carriere and Eric) are both very moving.

A beautiful, and tragic love story.
19 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An interesting and entertaining version of a classic
SoutheastUK8 October 2007
Aside from the original musical, this is probably the pick of the crop out of the cinematic versions of the story.

Charles Dance does an outstanding job, making good use of the script and direction, both of which are well above average. Other performances were pretty excellent too. The music is engaging and well worth adding to any non teenage-dirtbag collection!

This could easily have been a disaster, but instead turned out to be surprisingly - and pleasantly - good with interesting variations on a theme. Good, clean entertainment that the whole family can enjoy without the usual Hollywood crass to spoilt it! All in all, a big thumbs up to all concerned.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Yestin and Koppit Version makes for good television.
adrian2umortal7 February 2003
I saw this 2 parter on NBC back when Andrew Lloyd Webber was sitting on top of the musical world with his Phantom of the Opera. This is a decent musical story version of the Leroux tale. The year before in 1989 Golan and Globus hired up Robert Englund a.k.a. Freddie Krueger to do a slasher movie version of the story which was a total off the original storyline of the Phantom of the Opera. That movie in all honesty, sucks ! When Yestin and Koppit released this mini series they returned Erik to Paris, France and to his beloved Opera House and once again he is deeply in love with engenue chorus girl and understudy to La Carlotta, Christine Daae, who's beauty and angelic voice reminds him of his dead mother, a nice back story line added to the original storyline with one more family member added in for the first time, the Phantom's friend and father played by venerable veteran actor Burt Lancaster. The soundtrack to this movie is available on RCA C.D. and Tapes under the simple name Phantom. It is the original theatrical stage production that this mini series was based on by Yestin and Koppit.
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Greatest version of Phantom EVER
fro0tlo0p11 September 2007
If your looking for mindless gore and horror, look elsewhere. If you are looking for a phenomenal story, incredible cinematography, lavish costumes, superb acting, and all the elements from Phantom of the Opera that you've ever wanted to see wrapped up in imaginative, risk-taking dialog, see this one. Charles Dance is the perfect blend of sympathetic monster and mad, love obsessed gentleman. He loves deeply with an innocent passion. Teri Polo plays Christine with such angelic sweetened and bitter remorse, you'll love, hate, and love her character time and again. Add to that Burt Lancaster's majesty and Andréa Ferréol's over-the-top performance as Carlotta, and this is the strongest PotO cast I have ever seen. Plus, you get to hear real opera beautifully sung throughout the film.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Phantom Of The Opera As An Award Winning Teleplay!!!!
FloatingOpera726 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I never saw this on TV. In 1990, I was exactly 10 years old, and must have missed this two part TV movie. It won an Emmy or Golden Globe for best TV drama. Director Tony Richardson (of Tom Jones fame) makes a brilliant adaptation of the play by Arthur L. Kopit. Charles Dance stars as the tragic Phantom Of The Opera, Erik, whose father Gerard Carriere (played by Burt Lancaster) manages the theatre and conceals his hideously deformed son underground. There have been some alterations to the versions most people are familiar with- either the Lon Cheney version of 1926 or the more recent Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. These changes include the omission of Raoul, Vicomte De Chagny and calling him Phillipe. The Phantom's father is a new character, taking the role that Madame Giry was supposed to fill. She had saved the troubled Phantom and hidden him under the theatre and been a "parent" figure to him. Teri Polo plays Christine Daee, the ingenue of the Paris Opera and the Phantom's student and true love. More than any other film, the relationship between Christine and the Phantom as mentor/muse..student and teacher is most emphasized. The love story is therefore even more emotional and profound. In the end, we can't help but cry when watch how a father is forced to kill his own son, who is also ready to die and even asking for the death blow, high atop the Paris Opera dome/rooftop, surrounded by men ready to fire.

This has its moments. The visuals and cinematography are top-notch, effectively creating the 19th century Paris Opera environment- complete with the world of ballerinas, costume makers, patrons, singers and managers. Andrea Ferreol as the bitchy, jealous and totally corrupt La Carlotta is quite a good performance. The Phantom is portrayed as a sympathetic and tragic figure, not a terror of the opera, which is closest to the original concept of author Gaston Leroux. This is the same kind of Phantom we get in the Lloyd Webber musical. This is not that version, mind you, and is strictly a drama. The use of authentic operas (Norma, La Traviata and Faust) which were indeed staged at the Paris Opera is advantageous. There are several moments of humor- especially in the scenes in which La Carlotta's singing is foiled by schemes devised by the Phantom i.e. itching powder during her entrance aria as Norma and the glue on the cup she raises in the toast song in Traviata. True, some of the dialogue, especially in the later portions, gets too simple, stilted and wooden. But the strength of this movie is the chemistry between Teri Polo's Christine Daee and Charles Dance as the Phantom. Beautiful film, not to be missed. If you like anything Phantom, this film is one to watch. The music is gorgeous, the costumes, the cinematography and the acting.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A great romance story
grlphantom26 October 2000
The Phantom of the Opera in this movie is not the classic Leroux or Webber version that many people envision. However, the story told is a good one. If you have some free time and you are ready for a good romance novel with a little bit of action, then pick up this movie. Charles Dance creates a sentimental Phantom of the Opera, but he shows a more powerful side by the end of the movie. Definitely a love story!!

If you are a Phantom phan, or know anything about POTO, then it may help you to know that this is the movie version of the Yeston/Kopit musical. It doesn't have the songs, but it follows the same basic plot line.
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Magnifique!
nightmaster24 September 2005
I have seen all other film version of this story, and have read the original novel, and I can say this is absolutely the best adaptation. It surpasses the original story, it is presented with A-list actors, superb mounting, flawless film-making savvy across the board, but most importantly the changes to the original story, and the ignoring of every previous film effort, have made this TV production of The Phantom of the Opera the Classic cinema adaptation! I assume the fact of my missing this film in 1998 is due to it being an overseas TV production but the DVD I viewed is available in at least two of the giant rental chains in the U.S. And I found the soundtrack CD on Amazon.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Miracle
jscrump-117 April 2005
I watched this movie because I wanted to see what Andrew Lloyd Webber was up against. I honestly thought it was going to be horrible. After, I saw the movie not only was I very impressed, but I couldn't get enough of it. I loved the cast. I was extremely pleased not none of Yestin's and Koppit's songs were used.(Now, I saw the Yestin's and Koppit's play long before I even knew a movie of it had been made.)I didn't like what they did with Eric's background story. I felt that it took away from his character. I hated that they didn't make Philippe more of a hero and that he had scenes in which he smoked!!! I was disappointed that we only saw Eric's face once and that it wasn't more believable. His face also really wasn't scary. I also thought that young Philippe, young Christine,and young Eric should have, at least, some dialogue.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A pleasant surprise...
MissSimonetta20 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I had convinced myself I was going to hate this movie. Among Phantom fans, this 1990 miniseries (later converted into a full film) has the reputation of being the most sentimental and sweet of all POTO adaptations. Being of the group that likes their Phantoms badass and menacing, I was surprised to find that I enjoyed this version, in spite of its lack of Gothic horror and a Punjab-tossing Phantom.

The plot varies quite a bit from other versions of the story. The basic premise I still there: a deformed genius living under an opera house becomes infatuated with a beautiful singer and seeks to make her love him despite his ugliness. Unlike other tellings of the story, this version lacks outright horror: the Phantom never directly kills anyone, they're either by accident or via booby traps, and the most homicidal the Phantom gets is when he threatens to blow up the opera. Romance and comedy replace terror, as most of the story's focus is on the love triangle between the Phantom, Christine, and Raoul, and the rivalry between Christine and the manager's spoiled (and talentless) wife Carlotta. That's not to say the entire film is all roses; the comedy and light-hearted tone of the film all but vanishes by the second half, where the story takes a somber turn as it concentrates on the Phantom's despair at being rejected by Christine and the young opera singer's love for both her suitors. The film is highly emotional (especially the last few minutes, which are guaranteed to make you weep) without feeling forced or sappy.

As Erik (the Phantom), Charles Dance gives the movie much of its emotional impact. In spite of myself, I was charmed by Dance's performance. Initially, I was put off by his out of place American accent, the fact that he has a father in his life (which takes away from the character's sense of loneliness), and his tendency to preen the unmasked portions of his face with a powder puff. But once he started with his sarcastic quips, I began to warm up to him. True, he's a milder version of the insane Phantom we all know and love, but the character's jealousy and longing for love still come through, albeit in a less aggressive manner. And Dance does such a fine job here, conveying emotions purely through his eyes at several points in the story.

The second best performance goes to Burt Lancaster, who plays Erik's father, the former manager of the opera who struggles to protect his son from the world while also protecting the innocent lives threatened by Erik's actions. The character has an interesting history of his own and you really feel for him. Teri Polo and Adam Stroke are less memorable as Christine and Raoul. While Stroke does a passable job, Polo's acting is a bit weird. Though she looks the part, she comes off as a touch ditzy rather than merely naïve.

This film has the virtue of being filmed at the actual Paris Opera House. The sets are all gorgeous and the subdued lighting really gives off a Gothic touch. Special mentions should also be given to the gorgeous costumes and music.

Though far from my ideal version of the story, I cannot deny that this version is one of the better incarnations in terms of quality. The sets are beautiful, most of the acting's great, and by the finale, you're sure to be in tears. Even if you despise the idea of a cuddlier Phantom, watch anyway. Like me, you might just end up enchanted by the time the credits roll.

8/10
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Worthy viewing
woodyellio25 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Beautiful scenery and costumes. Tragic story. Ending could have been better. Adds more depth than Andrew Lloyd Webber's 2004 movie version directed by Joel Schumacher. There is more interaction between the main characters and offers a more believable background for how Christine Daee could have loved the Phantom and how she accepted him as a tutor. Imagine how the 2004 movie musical version would have turned out if it had been filmed at the Paris Opera House and incorporated more of the story from this version. Burt Lancaster makes a powerful presence on the screen as Gerard Carriere. Charles Dance plays a highly intelligent, articulate and mildly mannered Phantom. Terri Polo plays a gorgeous Christine Daee. This Christine Daee ends up living the equivalent of the American success story beginning from the bottom and achieving the very best through her hard work and talent. Aristocratic blood lines and culture are depicted as judgmental and opportunistic through the likes of Carlotta played by Andréa Ferréol and even Count Philippe de Chagny, a handsome and wealthy womanizer, played by Adam Storke. Was nominated for five Emmys, winning two. Was nominated for two Golden Globe Awards including Best Mini-Series or Motion Picture made for TV. All in all this series is worthy of viewing especially for those who seek more of the Phantom of the Opera than Andrew Lloyd Webber's version provided. If only modern TV mini-series could produce similar quality productions!
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I think the best "Phantom" made to date!
LeeMunsick17 April 2004
1990 two-part Brit film, made for TV to take advantage of the interest in the then hit Broadway musical. This one is not a musical, but has numerous excellent operatic scenes. A young Comte, patron of the opera, hears a beautiful singer at a country fair, sends her to the impresario of the opera house to arrange for singing lessons. That manager has just been dismissed, succeeded by a scurrilous couple played by jealous, demanding soprano Andréa Ferréol and her husband, fawning Ian Richardson. He's in a very different role for him, which couldn't keep out his usual officious nature behind a very strange semi-Italian accent! I imagine he relished every second of it. Ferréol demands the leading roles in every opera, refuses to give lovely ingenue Teri Polo lessons, but lets her stay on as her costume girl and dresser to lesser players. Veteran character actor Charles Dance does a fine job as Erik, the Phantom, as does Burt Lancaster as the ousted manager. Unlike that famous organ scene in the Lon Chaney 1925 silent, we never see Erik's face. When he is unmasked, his back remains to the camera. I've seen most if not all of the film "Phantoms" and deem this the finest of all. Direction, sets, locations are all absolutely outstanding. The TV film originally ran on two different nights, with complete, long opening titles and closing credits run both times. The first installment ends suddenly with the huge chandelier crashing down on opera patrons. Tres abrupt! Viewers must fiddle around with controls to jump to the "next scene", the film's concluding half, and sit through those titles again. Should have been re-edited for home viewers. But the performance itself is well worth it, after one figures all this out. A very strange trailer is included as the third CD "scene".
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Underrated
Nynaeve12 November 1999
This version of "The Phantom of the Opera" (which was obviously written for the stage and carries that atmosphere throughout the movie) seems to have been made for those who savor a lush, epic feel- the music, framed around the operatic bits which are central to the story, is gliding and hypnotic (the "Angels Pure" finale may well have been badly dubbed, but I was too entranced to notice) and the sets are appropriately opulant and surrealistic (my favorites being, of course, the catacombs, as well as the scene at the Bistro). And it's rare that I see a movie that has succeeds so well in making almost every single actor, usually under candlelight or a faint bluish glow, look as ethereally beautiful as their surroundings. These two factors alone make the movie worth watching and, when it's all said and done, was probably what was most strongly impressed on me at the end of the four hours. It's very deliberately paced, forcing the viewer to drink in all of the movie slowly and, I think, reshaping the traditional way this story has been told--this movie is character-driven, not action driven, a way of storytelling that appeals to me. When the action finally does happen, we get a clear understanding of why.

The characters, though, weren't necessarily the most believable bunch I've ever seen, a fact that owes some to the writing, which gives them poetic but improbable dialogue, and the woe-is-me soliloquies, particularly on the part of Erik, start to wear. But of course, I can't complain too much--"Phantom" is played as either as a horror story or a melodrama, (or both), and thanks to the (overdone?) effort to make the viewer sympathise with the tragic antihero Phantom, it's not much of a horror story. The acting, too, is a little over-the-top...though a lot of that is probably intentional (and fun to watch!). I wished Christine was a stronger, less wishy-washy character (of course she really isn't shown as anything but, no matter which version, including the Lloyd-Webber "Phantom") and I wished that Phillipe was more of a presence, more of a deserving rival to the gloomy phantomized Erik. I also thought that the fact that Christine not simply sounded like, but also LOOKED like Erik's mother (prompting him to fall in love with her, the old Oedipean twist), shot down one of the main themes of the movie, voiced in Erik's complaint that Phillipe came to the opera for the wrong reason: the love of faces rather than the love of music. Much better if they would have used a different actress in the flashback scenes with Gerard (Burt Lancaster) and Belladora (?), the mother. Still, there are scenes which seem to shrug off the need for realistic dialogue or flawless acting in the beauty of their execution. Some of my favorite parts, the flashbacks, are more-or-less mimed, and to me, the movie is most effective either when the characters are singing or when scene is taking place without much dialogue. The movie is fantasy-oriented, after all, not gritty realism, and after a while you DO grow attached to the characters. All-in-all, the movie is best enjoyed in a dark room and a thick blanket, with a mentality open to fantasy and escapism and cynicism pushed off to the side.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Most beautiful love scene ever!
vatnadis4 March 2008
I saw this movie 1992 I think... and very often after that, so often that I memorized it. Then someone ruined the VHS- tape and it was lost, but I thought about it many times over the years. Now I just saw it again and I swear I got goosebumps! I love it. I think the last scene with the phantom and Christine (the singing) is the most beautiful confession of love I have EVER seen or heard. I can really feel their emotions (and even the emotions of Philippe where he sits). When an actor can make me feel what the character is supposed to be feeling... that is good acting! I love the costumes, I love how every character seem to fit, even the cop is a little compassionate in the end... I just love it. 10 out of 10
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
My View of this movie.
katherine500529 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I personally liked this version. It was nice to not run into a wanna-be Webber version. While Ken Hill's is my favorite theater production, Y&K's is not far behind. My only two disappointments in this movie was 1) Not seeing his face and 2) not hearing the wonderful music that is in the theater script. I LOVED Charles Dance, his voice was so soothing and contained melody and he fit the character PERFECTLY! Since I doubt I will ever get to see the theater production, this is very close and I am thankful for it. He was so innocent and pure, during the forest scene where he is imagining the creatures and all was so cute and sweet. I didn't care much for Raoul...but Teri Polo has a beautiful voice and I was very much impressed with her. The chandelier scene was a bit of a disappointment, but I do understand they didn't have the special effects we have of today, but it is much better then some I have seen in other Phantom of the Opera movies. I was also glad to hear Faust, since it is one of my favorite operas. Though Carlotta butchered her songs, no offense to anyone who likes her, but she really couldn't sing well.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
He may by no Erik, but he gave me a visual of him!
jennifer-conner26 March 2004
I adore this version of Phantom. And though the Erik in this version is certainly not skilled in combat or have the stiff-necked pride that I have come to love in Susan Kay's version, I adored Charles Dance as Erik. I cried vehemently at his end. And still today I choke back tears and yell obsenities at the little twit Christine and her wimpish boy toy Phillipe! Charles gave me the Erik that I see in my head when I read Kay's marvelous adaption. And though the dubbing could have been better (to say the least), I feel a swell of emotion watching Erik preform in his opera house with his chosen prima donna. If you have been reluctant to watch it, I urge you to go out and get a copy today. It's amazing how much one story can change your life!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Phantom of The Opera (Tv 1990)
jagflight2 November 2005
This is my favorite version of The Phantom of The Opera. Burt Lancaster did a wonderful job as Gerard, Erik's Father. My favorite scene was when Gerard and Erik are talking and Gerard finally tells Erik the truth that he is his father. Erik says "i was wondering when you'd say".

Gerard gives him a look.

Erik says something like" My eyes are the only thing i can look upon in the mirror with out wanting to break the glass, but they aren't her eyes, they're yours." (Erik and Gerard were talking about Erik's Mother)

So Erik knew all along that Gerard was his father.

The movie made me cry so much. I haven't seen that movie since it aired in 1990, but i remember that scene.

i wonder if it's on DVD or VHS somewhere.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Brilliant!
sassatelli-2514421 July 2017
As a child of the Millennium, I always thought that the 2004 version would be my favorite and my forever version.Until the day that I tripped on this one. It is not Leroux's version. It is not Andrew's luxurious musical version. It is something else. While it doesn't look as visually stunning as the musical, it has more depth and more development to it. You can watch and re-watch and never really get tired of it. Charles Dance made a unique Phantom. Charismatic, with a particular sense of humor and a lot more feeling than the 2004 version. More personal history and background too, for all of the involved characters. For Charles Dance performance alone this movie deserved more spotlight.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best version EVER!!!
kkretz0714 February 2013
I can't agree more with the previous poster...this has got to be the best version of TPotO ever! It was my first introduction to the story...as a young child, my twin and I recorded it on a couple of old VHS tapes. At times, a vacuum was running or our ancient computer was on so there was a great deal of 'snow' on the TV screen. But that didn't prevent us from falling in love with it...in fact, our tradition was to watch it at least once a year and many years later, when we were college bound...it was one of 2 movies we watched every year when we got together. The tapes eventually broke and I haven't seen it in at least 15 years but I miss it...oh, how I miss it! I did get the opportunity to see the musical on 2 occasions as well as another video version but I admit, I was terribly disappointed with all 3 of them. The musical and the other movie just fell flat for me...they couldn't touch this made-for-TV version; they just didn't measure up. My husband saw the musical and wasn't impressed (he's a Les Miserables fan...) but I'm wondering if this version might change his mind? I hunted down a copy years ago for a Phantom enthusiast...I think it's time I hunt down a copy for myself and my twin as well. Love it...highly recommend!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This version of the classic tale will break your heart.
Lebossufantome28 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Every person I know who has seen this film has cried through the second half. It is based off of the Yeston musical, 'Phantom'. Even though it is strange for the disfigured Erik to have loving parents, it is a surprisingly effective point that matches the story perfectly, and does not subtract from the total outcome. The actors are perfectly matched with parts, and they never seem out of place. The score from several operas really bring it together. On it's own, it is very easily one of the best. It is different enough from the musical it is based on (as well as the book for that matter) to be on it's own, but still retains all of the power that you get from both. You hardly realize you are sitting there watching for hours at a time.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the best Phantom films.
opera_ghost7 February 2004
There has been many movie-version's of well known story of Phantom- the tragic figure, who has found home in the Opera house in Paris. But for my own surprise best version is not made for the cinema, but for the TV.

Movies strengths seem to be the atmosphiere and actors. It is only Phantom movie that is filmed on location as well features french actors. Everything seems to be in place. You can feel one with the characters, nothing supernatural. There's not even silly clisés that seem to be necesery add-ons for any movie that deal with anykind lovestory.

It is actually second Phantom of the Opera movie I had seen back on 90's and it is also only one that is equal in quality to Lon Chaney's silent movie.

When you have a question: to see it or not, I believe it is one of the "must-see"'s.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Wonderful Remake
angelsgrl19 January 2003
Having not been familiar with Phantom of the Opera when I first saw this at age 10, I fell in love with the delicious storytelling and compelling characters. Charles Dance is superb as Eric- the perfect antihero that you just have to sympathize for. Needless to say, everytime I see Terri Polo in a film, I always think back to when I saw her in this miniseries...she did a brilliant job as such a young actress. While I have heard many praise ALW's version of this tale, I believe this version highly excels many expectations of those who are just suckers for romance and intrigue.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wonderful...Charles Dance was perfect for the role...
Crysania-427 September 1999
Although this is not, by far, Gaston Leroux's "Phantom of the Opera", it is a great adaptation nonetheless. Erik has been given a background: a mother who loved him and a father who took care of him his entire life. Therefore, he is, by default, a "friendlier" Phantom. He loves Christine wholeheartedly, and shares both his humour and love of music with her. Charles Dance is an incredibly dashing Phantom with amazingly expressive eyes. Each time I watch this movie, I am utterly enthralled with his performance and absolutely in love with his Phantom. Teri Polo is a suitably innocent, and yet stronger, Christine. And Andrea Ferreol is the perfect Carlotta. I recommend this to Phantom phans and non-phans alike.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A sad waste of a great director.
Morgaine-230 September 1998
The Phantom of the Opera directed by Tony Richardson, with Charles Dance and Ian Richardson in it? Should have been great! Sadly, wasn't. It is beautifully filmed at the Paris Opera House, but it is tediously long and the classic story is weakened with unnecessary changes. The Phantom is supposed to be a man of mystery; this Phantom is a wimp. He wasn't rejected by his mother, abused by society... he just lived under an opera house, and acts like a spoiled kid. And what is it with Charles Dance and that dreadful fake American accent? Please!
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The best adaptation I have seen.
dan-2755019 August 2018
The best adaptation I have seen. Not perfectly accurate, but close. And the changes makes it a little better.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed