The Phantom of the Opera (1962) User Reviews

Another take on the famous Leroux novel

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 29 October 2006]

Each "Phantom of the Opera" deviates somewhat from the Leroux novel - with the original silent film with Lon Chaney perhaps being the exception. In the '40s Nelson Eddy version, the police chief and an operatic baritone are Christine's suitors instead of Raoul (though the baritone is named Raoul) and it's hinted that the Phantom is her father. His acid in the face was the result of a misunderstanding at the music publisher's.

In this particular "Phantom," from Hammer Studios, the Phantom (Herbert Lom) has an Igor-type assistant, and here Christine's suitor is the manager of the opera house (Edward de Souza). There is also a real villain, a plagiarist in the form of Lord d'Arcy (Michael Gough). Most notably, it has a production of "Joan of Arc" with music written by Edwin T. Astley that is actually very pretty and beautifully sung.

Everyone does a terrific job in this - Gough is hateful as the supposed composer of the opera; de Souza is a hunk and a good romantic interest for Christine; and Heather Sears as Christine is very sweet and, like all Christines, lacking the diva quality her rival has. In this film, the rival singer is a very minor role. The dubbing of the voices is wonderful.

Herbert Lom, normally a comic character in the "Pink Panther" series, is a great phantom, performed at a time when the Phantom didn't have to be better-looking than the ingénue. The Phantom is not a huge role in this film, but an effective and highly sympathetic one. He seems a little less nuts than some of them, though he's clearly not completely there.

The final scene of this film is very exciting, and the final picture very powerful and sad. This is a really excellent version with not much emphasis on the horror aspects of the Chaney film. It has good production values and is very well directed.

Dramatic Hammer Version

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 15 December 2019]

"The Phantom of the Opera" by Hammer is a dramatic version directed by Terence Fisher. The screenplay shows the phantom as a poor composer that is stolen by the arrogant and corrupt Lord Ambrose D'Arcy, who is the real villain of the story. The sets and costumes are magnificent associated to great performances in one of the best films of the famous story by Gaston Leroux. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Fantasma da Ópera" ("The Phantom of the Opera")

The story's a little flat, but the scenery and the supporting actors shine

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 30 November 2017]

THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is the Hammer Horror version of the famous Gaston Leroux story, starring Herbert Lom as the hideously disfigured murderer hiding beneath a Parisian opera house and seeking revenge on those responsible for his predicament. This one's directed by Terence Fisher and was a flop on release, meaning that Fisher didn't get to work again for Hammer for a couple of years. The atmospheric and colourful visuals are the film's best aspect although the story is, it has to be said, a little flat.

The problem lies with the writing rather than the direction. The viewer can never quite get excited about the big set-pieces and Hammer's spins on the original story are none too impressive. Lom's Phantom certainly looks the part but the story gives him very little to do other than haunt the scenery. Similarly, Heather Sears and Edward De Souza are fine as the protagonists, but they spend the film reacting rather than acting on their own behalf. Where this film shines are in the supporting roles, with a number of cameoing actors (Patrick Troughton, Miles Malleson, Michael Ripper) showing up to supply laughs and doing very well at it too. In addition, Michael Gough is a splendidly horrible villain. Compared to their adaptations of Dracula, THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN and THE MUMMY, Hammer's THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is merely okay, although fans of the era and story should enjoy it anyway.

Off with the mask again

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 7 October 2012]

In this version of The Phantom Of The Opera, the hideous phantom lurks in the sewers and catacombs of London instead of Paris. And in this third version bits of a real opera by British composer Edwin Astley highlight the musical portion of the film. That's important because in this telling of the tale, the phantom has a singular interest in this particular work.

Stepping into the shoes of Lon Chaney and Claude Rains is Herbert Lom. Because this film is done in flashback Lom is given less of a chance to create his character in the way his predecessors did. Still Lom as he did in Night And The City manages to get across both the poignancy and the evil that he's sunk to. I would also compare his characterization of Professor Petri here with what he did in Flame Over India where he got across sympathy for a character who was a terrorist.

The truly evil one here is Michael Gough who is a classic Victorian rakehell whom if he were slightly of better character and given to a bit of introspection, we could hear some Oscar Wilde aphorisms coming out of his mouth. But his Lord D'Arcy hasn't got any redeeming features whatsover. Kind of like Liberty Valance which also came out in 1962.

The young lovers here are producer Edward DeSouza and Heather Sears the singer that Lom takes an interest in. I looked to see who might have dubbed Sears for the opera sequences and found no credit. If she did it herself, truly remarkable and why didn't that part of her talent be better known.

I saw an edited version of this on YouTube and I'm convinced they involved the end of some characters in a ghastly fashion. I'd like to see a director's cut if possible.

Pretty good but not among Hammer's best

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 2 July 2015]

As far as adaptations of The Phantom of the Opera goes(excluding the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical), this 1962 Hammer version is not as good as Lon Chaney's, which is the best version, but it's superior to the Claude Rains version(though I do prefer Rains over Herbert Lom).

It does have its problems, with too much time spent on the opera and the romance and not enough of the Phantom, which does undermine the tension, sense of dread and horror. Sadly, the opera numbers, while musically good, are staged awkwardly and really do slow the film down. The romance is rather saccharine, and the chemistry between the two 'heroes' a little bland. Heather Sears also plays Christine too low-key and the script, while with some intelligent moments, does plod sometimes and has a little too much talk.

However, it is very lavishly made (one of the better looking early-60s Hammer films) with truly marvellous interiors of the opera house, rich vibrant colours and opulent costumes. It is beautifully and spine-chillingly scored, though James Bernard would have been an even better fit for composer. The story is less than perfect, but does offer some effective moments. The close up of the eye is really quite chilling and enough to make one jump, while the grasping hand over the stage and the lowering of the gas lamp are indeed very suspenseful, Phantom's back-story is interesting and makes one empathise with him and the ending is incredibly moving.

Terrence Fisher's direction is technically accomplished and does evoke some suspense and atmosphere, though his story-telling has been better elsewhere. Regarding the acting, Michael Gough steals the show being chillingly vile as a true slimeball with no redeeming qualities of a character. Herbert Lom is a great contrast as the Phantom, under heavy and effective make-up he is a sympathetic and tragic figure and it is quite a poignant performance, though not without a few scary moments. Edward De Souza is charming.

In conclusion, not among the best of Hammer by a long shot and could have been better, but still manages to be pretty good. 7/10 Bethany Cox

The "Hammer" Phantom

[FloatingOpera7 · 6/10 · 3 March 2007]

The Phantom of the Opera (1963): Herbert Lom, Heather Sears, Michael Gough, Edward De Souza, Ian Wilson, Liane Aukin, Thorley Walters, Marne Maitland, John Harvey, Miriam Karlin, Martin Miller, Harold Goodwin, Sonya Cordeau, Leila Forde, Miles Malleson, Renee Houston, Patrick Troughton, Laurie Main, John Maddison, Geoffrey L'Oise, Liam Redmond...Director Terence Fisher...Screenplay Anthony Hinds.

This is a Hammer horror film production directed by Terence Fisher and released in 1962. French author Gaston Leroux's 1911 novel "Phantom of the Opera" has been made for film and television for years, each version being completely different from the other, none of them faithful to Leroux's original novel. The most famous and closest to the novel is legendary Lon Cheney's silent film from 1926. In this version, Herbert Lom portrays the Phantom and Heather Sears portrays Christine. Following the plot to the 1943 Phantom with Claude Rains and Susanna Foster, the Phantom was once a normal-looking man, a resident of London. He is an obscure and aspiring composer, a music professor named Petrie who makes a deal with the licentious and wicked Lord Ambrose D'Arcy (Michael Gough)to whom he sells his compositions for publication. But Lord Ambrose takes the credit for writing the works, including an opera, Saint Joan of Arc, which triggers the fury of Professor Petrie. He breaks into the publishing building and sets it on fire, only to scar himself in the process. His face becomes deformed and he seeks shelter from the world by living beneath the Opera house. The opera "Joan Of Arc" premieres but it's a disastrous night after a stagehand is killed by a mysterious force. Although the opera company speaks of a resident ghost, the heroic and curious Harry Hunter (Edward De Souza) investigates who this Phantom really is. Things are further complicated when the Phantom abducts the bright new star, Christine Charles, whom he holds in thrall. His desire: to make her into the world's greatest soprano. Phantom fans will be pleased with the little familiar elements that are part of the Phantom legend: the death of a stagehand by hanging, an arrogant diva whose brief limelight is soon replaced by Christine, the Phantom's abduction of Christine and his role as her vocal coach, the masked Phantom playing the organ in the dark depths of the opera house by a lake, and a chandelier that falls. But quite frankly, these things, which although true to the novel, are not put together in faithfulness. Spoilers: The death of the stagehand happens far too soon and the Phantom has a hunchback, dwarf assistant who is a totally made-up character for the film (played by Ian Wilson of My Fair Lady). The story is not set in Paris but in London. The chandelier which famously falls around the middle of the story, falls toward the end and even crushes the Phantom who unmasks himself (Christine never unmasks him) who leaps to save Christine. Everything is therefore actually inaccurate to the novel and the Lon Cheney version, which subsequent versions have always aspired to resemble. The best parts of the film lie in the color and cinematography. The Hammer film series were done in gorgeous and innovative color and cinematic style. The look of this film is as lovely as the 1943 Claude Rains version. Beautiful and period-correct costumes, fine theatrical interior scenes and the original music by Edwin Astley is grand, especially the fictional opera "Joan of Arc". Still another good thing is the quality of acting from the principal actors. Michael Gough steals the show as the egotistical, arrogant, womanizing and villainous Lord D'Arcy who is responsible for the Phantom's tragic situation. But again he is a character that never appeared in the original source. Herbert Lom is fine but clearly inspired by both Claude Rains in his "Professor" role and Lon Cheney in his "Phantom" mode. The Lon Cheney influence is evident in his body language and the gesticulations of his hands. He raises them and points at Christine the way Lon Cheney did with Mary Philbin. Heather Sears is not impressive as Christine, but then again her character in every version has always been flat and simply the Phantom's romantic interest. It's interesting to note that in this version she is NOT the Phantom's object of love. He is merely her teacher, and he is more brutal with her (even slaps her) because she is a means to achieve his masterpiece, the opera that he was never given credit for. We do not get a genuinely romantic feeling from this film in regards to the Phantom and Christine except for Christine's relationship with Harry. So when the Phantom risks his own life to save her it's very much a surprise and an ending that is too abrupt and spontaneous. Because this film is not faithful to the Phantom we all know and love from Cheney to Andrew Lloyd Webber, I rate this film with a 6 out of 10.

One of the best, some major changes though.

[[e-mail] · 5 March 2003]

This was one of the best, but it really bothered me that it strayed so far from other versions. It takes place in Victorian London rather than Paris, and the Phantom has a totally different death scene at the end. What happened to the famous "Chandelier" scene? Christine Charles instead of Dae?? Anyway, a very good movie. I'd rate this about an 8 out of 10. Those sets in the underground certaintly look like the original sets from 1925!.

Good, but Odly Enough, Not for The Phantom Himself

[allyball-63124 · 7/10 · 15 September 2017]

Have you ever heard of a movie where the title character him/herself is the weakest part of the film? Well, I haven't until I came across this version of Phantom of the Opera. However, before I get to that, let's talk about some good things. I really liked how the story was handled. I really like the mystery aspect of this film. Even though it was easy to put two and two together, it was really good and interesting build up to a really cool flashback scene towards the end of the film. I was also quite fond of the character Harry, who is basically the Raoul character of the story. While I think he could've used some flaws to make him more relatable, this version of the character really does him justice. He actually listens to Christine, he's always there for her, he does proactive things to help her and is just a really sweet guy. Even though he and Christine didn't know each other very long, I thought their romance was really believable, cute and sweet. They aren't the most fascinating characters but they have a believable relationship and were enough to keep me invested in them and the story. Now onto the main flaw with the movie: the Phantom himself. Now I won't say that everything about this character is bad. I actually quite liked his backstory, even if it was a bit too similar to the forties film, and how they handled revealing it. However, the character himself is extremely lacking. First off, his obsession with Christine comes completely out of nowhere. He saw her perform once and then all of a sudden starts stalking her and kidnaps her at one point. It's extremely rushed. Also, the Phantom does something completely unforgivable in my eyes, which I will spoil so navigate away if you don't want that. While the Phantom is forcing Christine to sing for him in his lair, she stops singing for a moment, thinking she can't do it and the Phantom slaps her across the face! I'm not joking, he really does that at the time mark 56:29 of the movie! Yes, the Phantom does many terrible things in every adaptation but that just crosses the line way too far. You know what's odd though? The Phantom and Christine don't have any sort of romantic feelings for each other in this version, which at first glance wasn't a very big loss for me since I usually hate that couple anyways. However, after watching the ending, I realized it actually was a big loss because the Phantom not only sacrifices his life to save hers but she cries at his death. I'm sorry but the only thing between these two was that he stalked her, forced her to do something she clearly didn't want to do and hit her when she didn't until Harry came along and told him to knock it off. If you wanted The Phantom's death to impact Christine, we should've seen what happened between the Phantom and Christine after the Phantom agreed to train her less harshly. I'll admit, the way his death scene was executed did draw a little emotion from me but that scene and the whole end of the movie in general was too rushed for the emotion to build and have any meaning. Overall, this is a good movie but not really for the Phantom himself.

Atmospheric Opera Fun

[BaronBl00d · 8/10 · 31 August 2001]

The novel The Phantom of the Opera has been filmed at least ten times plus now. This entry by Hammer Studios is one of the better ones, bringing a liberal change in storytelling as well as some very atmospheric settings and camera work. Directed by Terence Fisher, this film, like Fisher's The Gorgon, is highly poetic. The phantom is a former music professor who has been pushed into his life of seclusion and physical deformity. He is a figure of sympathetic pity rather than horror. It is this point of view which makes this film very interesting as the phantom is not the monster but rather just a man who has been mistreated trying to cope and resurrect his life. Yep, he still lives in the sewers of Paris. The Hammer sets are wonderful all around, particularly the opera house and the winding underground sewers. Hammer also puts their stamp of luxuriant looking cinematography on. Herbert Lom plays the man behind the mask. Lom does a nice job in the film as do all the leads. Heather Sears is a striking heroine, and Edward Da Souza makes an affable leading man. The real star, apart from Fisher's direction, is Michael Gough. Boy, can this man play a mean individual. Gough's screen time is magic as he malevolently belittles everyone around him, steals things that are not his, and lewdly leers at anything in a skirt! The film also boasts some fine staged opera numbers and a beautiful soundtrack. Many scenes show Fisher's competence and ability to create lush moods whilst being able to provide good storytelling.

A fine Phantom edition.

An underrated Hammer film...

[jluis1984 · 7/10 · 30 January 2007]

Gaston Leroux's classic novel, "The Phantom of the Opera", is definitely one of the most famous and influential Gothic stories of horror and mystery ever written, and its main character, the Phantom, an icon of the Gothic horror literature. The novel's enormous popularity has resulted in many different adaptations, such as the 1925 silent film starring Lon Chaney, or more recently, the musical play by Andrew Lloyd Webber; works where the story of the mysterious figure that haunts the Palais Garnier has been explored in many different and interesting ways. Given the potential of the story, it's not a surprise that the legendary production company, Hammer Films, decided to make its own version of the story, written and produced by Anthony Hinds and under the direction of Hammer's best filmmaker Terence Fisher.

Hammer's version offers many changes to Leroux's novel, the most noticeable one being that the movie is set in London instead of Paris. In this movie, producer Harry Hunter (Edward De Souza) and theater owner Lattimer (Thorley Walters) are working with famous composer Lord Ambrose d'Arcy (Michael Gough) to put d'Arcy's new opera, "Joan of Arc", on stage. However, they are facing trouble as a mysterious figure known only as "the Phantom" (Herbet Lom) is wrecking havoc by sabotaging the essays and committing a series of murders. The Phantom's actions make the lead singer of the opera to quit, but soon the producers find a replacement in the figure of Christine Charles (Heather Sears), a young singer with a beautiful voice. However, the Phantom is still there, and he gets a sudden dangerous interest in the new singer.

Written by producer Anthony Hinds (as usual, under the pen name of John Elder), this version of the Phantom's story is a complete re-imagining of Leroux's story; but while different, it remains surprisingly faithful to the novel's essence by keeping true to the horror and mystery elements of the story. The Phantom here is a sympathetic and human figure, pretty much like the one presented in Universal's 1943 adaptation; however, Hinds makes his Phantom an anti-hero, and together with the addition of Lord d'Arcy as another "villian" gives the movie a very different tone to that previous version. As in most of his works, Hinds plays with the tragic aspects of horror, slowly taking the story to its shocking (albeit rushed) ending.

Director Terence Fisher makes an excellent job at bringing this Phantom to life with his usual lavish look and with a nice touch of class and elegance. Hammer horror movies are known for being violent and gory, but this movie is different in the sense that focuses on atmosphere and mood rather than on scares. In fact, while the Phantom has a striking appearance (courtesy of Roy Ashton's excellent make-up), Fisher subtle and restrained take makes him less scary, using the haunting presence of his "monster" to increase its tragedy, instead of his monstrosity. While the budget was low, Fisher makes great use of his resources to create a wonderful moody film that keeps the novel's captivating atmosphere like few adaptations have done.

Another element that makes "The Phantom of the Opera" an unusual Hammer film is the fact that few Hammer regulars appear in the cast. However, this by no means is a sign of unworthy performances. Herbert Lom is excellent as the Phantom, a difficult role as the mask in Fisher's version covers completely the actor's face, forcing him to use only his voice in his delivery. Lom is no Chaney of course, but easily ranks as the second best performance as the character. Edward De Souza's character is an equivalent of the novel's Raoul, but of course, with a big number of changes. De Souza's Harry Hunter is daring and witty, and he carries the film with dignity as the character in charge of solving the mystery of the Opera House. Heather Sears makes a believable Christine with her innocent looks and an excellent lip sync for the singing scenes. Finally, Michael Gough steals the movie, making a terrific performance as the villainous Lord d'Arcy; easily, the highlight of the movie.

It's easy to see why this version of "The Phantom of the Opera" is not as celebrated as other Hammer films. The movie lacks some of the studio trademarks, as Hinds and Fisher decided to go for a different approach in this film. Also, the focus on atmosphere and mystery instead of direct horror make the film to look "different" or atypical, however, it's this restrained approach what in the end makes it one of the best (and ironically most faithful) adaptations of the story. At first sight it feels as if the Hammer magic was lost, but in the end, this is far from the worst that the legendary studio has done, and in all fairness, it's as good as their best films. Finally, a last minor quibble is that, like the 1943 film, it uses many overlong Opera scenes that while remarkably well done, add little to the plot and easily could had been replaced with a longer conclusion.

"The Phantom of the Opera" is not really a favorite among Hammer fans, but it's a really classy take on the iconic story of the disfigured genius that roams the Opera house. It's very different to other versions, but it keeps the spirit of Leroux's novel like no other film has done (with the exception of 1925 silent film). This underrated film really deserves a chance to be better known. 7/10

Confusing Remake of a Classic Film

[bsmith5552 · 5/10 · 26 February 2003]

This version of "The Phantom of the Opera" was the second remake of the oft filmed classic tale was produced by England's Hammer Studios who remade most of the old Universal B&W classics of the 30s and 40s.

An Opera based on the life of Joan of Arc is being performed at the Opera house. Several mysterious unexplainable events have taken place. An apparent murder scares off the lead singer and she is replaced by a young aspiring singer, Christine (Heather Sears). A shadowy figure known as The Phantom (Herbert Lom) lurking among the shadows takes a personal interest in the girl. Also taking an interest in her is lecherous Lord Ambrose D'Arcy (Michael Gough) the womanizing entrepreneur. Coming to her aid is the Opera's producer (Edward de Souza) the token hero of the piece.

Needless to say the girl winds up in the Phantom's underground hideaway where she is kept captive until his terrible secret is revealed.

Lom as the Phantom is more of a supporting player rather than the star. The Phantom is played more as a sympathetic character rather than a menace. The real villain of the piece is Gough who steals the film as the unscrupulous D'Arcy. There is also an evil dwarf (Ian Wilson). Lom's makeup as The Phantom is not revealed until the end of the film and then we only get a brief glimpse. It could have been used to much greater effect.

Others in the cast include Thorley Walters as Latimer, the manager of the Opera house and Miles Malleson in a nice bit as the cabby in the park. True Hammer Horror fans will spot Hammer regular Michael Ripper almost unrecognizable as the first cabby who drives the hero and heroine home from the restaurant.

Unfortunately, the producers have left many loose ends. What happens to D'Arcy who is last seen running from the room in which he has just met The Phantom? And the Dwarf? He is literally left hanging at the film's end. Do the baddies get away with it?

The original theatrical version of the film runs 84 minutes. There is also a 98 minute version which adds scenes involving Scotland Yard detectives investigating the goings on at the Opera, a flashback sequence which repeats in its entirety a scene shown earlier and an attempted murder of D'Arcy's mistress all of which add nothing to the film.

No one will ever better the Lon Chaney 1925 silent version of this story but you have to give Hammer credit for at least trying to tell it with a few new twists.

Hammer horror does the Phantom

[Greg-o-rama · 9/10 · 7 October 2002]

This is the Phantom that scared the heck out of me when I was a kid, and comes in second after the classic Lon Chaney version. It is the only color version that really works, here given that garish, over-the-top gothic treatment that worked so well for Hammer Studios. It doesn't have the ponderous, plodding feel of the book or other versions, and follows through with a scary shot-in-the-arm or two. More complete video stores should have this on the shelf.

"And when you sing, Christine, you will be singing only... for me."

[bensonmum2 · 7/10 · 1 April 2007]

Almost every movie fan knows the story – an opera house is beset with problems as a new production is set to open. At first it's strange, annoying occurrences like missing music or damaged instruments. But it goes beyond mere annoyance when a stagehand is murdered. What evil force is behind this series of events?

As a fan of Hammer, there's a lot here to enjoy. The first thing I always notice, and it's hard not to, is the film's "look". Hammer made some wonderful looking movies and The Phantom of the Opera just might be at the top of that list. Beautiful is the way I would describe it. The colors, the sets, and the costumes are so incredibly pleasing to the eye. Everything from the rich burgundy curtains on the opera stage to the simple, but effective mask worn by the Phantom are perfect. You could spend three times the budget of The Phantom of the Opera and not come up with something that looks this good.

Terence Fisher directed some of Hammer's best films. And his work on The Phantom of the Opera is among his best. I've read complaints that Fisher lacked imagination and was, at best, a workmanlike director who was lucky to be "in the right place at the right time". With The Phantom of the Opera, Fisher shows more artistic touches and allows the camera to be more fluid than at any time I can remember. Fisher was aided by an impressive cast. Other than Heather Sears in the female lead, the acting is solid. Edward de Souza, Thorley Walters, and Herbert Lom are all great in their respective roles. But, as usual and as expected, Michael Gough as Lord Ambrose d"Arcy steals every scene in which he appears. He's just so deliciously evil and over-the-top.

There are several little moments in The Phantom of the Opera that make it special. Scenes like those involving the rat catcher or the opera house cleaning women might seem like throwaway moments, but they help add life and interest to the film. Or the dinner scene when Sears character turns down d'Arcy's advances. The look of contempt on Gough's face as he stalks out of the restaurant is priceless. Very well done!

In the end, while there have been any number of versions of The Phantom of the Opera made over the years, Hammer's version is my favorite. It's definitely a movie that any Hammer fan or anyone interested in learning about Hammer should see.

A Tragic Villain

[AaronCapenBanner · 5/10 · 23 November 2013]

Terence Fisher directed this Hammer studios version of the often-filmed story. Herbert Lom plays the Phantom, who was really Professor Petrie, a struggling composer who had his music stolen by the evil Ambrose D'Arcy(played by Michael Gough) who is now having an opera produced with his stolen music. The star of the opera Christine(played by Heather Sears) becomes an obsession of the Phantom, who became disfigured after a fire involving Ambrose. When he kidnaps Christine, her producer(played by Edward De Souza) pursues the trail to the Phantom's secret lair to stop this menace from further troubling them... Well directed and acted, especially by Lom, but film is otherwise disappointing, with an unsatisfying and dull story. Ambrose deserved a harsher on screen fate! Look for future "Doctor Who" actor Patrick Troughton as the opera rat-catcher.

Not the worst version, but possibly the dullest

[Wizard-8 · 15 July 2017]

I have to admit that I haven't (yet) seen every filmed adaptation of the Gaston Leroux novel of the same name, but all the same I am pretty confident in saying that this version, while not the absolute worst, is one of the lesser efforts. It is not an awful movie. The folks at the Hammer studio made sure that it looked pretty nice, with expert production values. And actor Michael Gough really makes for a good villain... though oddly his character really isn't punished in the end for all his misdeeds. The biggest problem with this version is how surprisingly uneventful it is for much of the running time. It moves very slowly, with little in it that could be considered "horror". It's also strange that the title figure in this version almost becomes an afterthought, getting a lot less focus and screen time than you would think. It doesn't help that the music isn't all that special at all. It may sound like I'm making this movie out to be really bad. It isn't - it's watchable. But it's unlikely you remember it for a long time afterwards.

Good Version

[Rainey-Dawn · 6/10 · 2 March 2016]

Pretty good film version of the story. I've never read the book so I cannot compare to it but I can compare it to other film versions and on it's on merit. I'd say watch it if you get the chance - it's good.

This version is not all that creepy but it does have atmosphere, good casting and overall enjoyable. It's similar to the Phantom of the Opera (1943) with Claude Rains in a way but not as scary as it or The Phantom of the Opera (1925) with Lon Chaney (which is the scariest). If you like the Phantom '25, Phantom '43 or any of the other Hammer Horror films then give Phantom '62 a view... not as good but definitely worth the watch.

6.5/10

Not the best Phantom, not the best Hammer, but decent film

[kriitikko · 7/10 · 14 September 2006]

Terence Fisher: THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1962)

After having such success with the remakes of Frankenstein and Dracula (in 1957 and -58) it was only right that Hammer would make its own version of Gaston Leroux's immortal classic. Unfortunately they didn't do their own version of the book but instead a remake of 1943 Claude Rains version.This seems to be the ultimate curse of many Phantom- movies: instead of reading the book the writers start to add their own ideas, sometimes just too much.

Story is set in Edwardian London. A vile opera manager Lord Ambrose steals the life work of poor music teacher Professor Petrie. Petrie tries to use own hand justice but in an accident gets burned from the face and disappears. When Lord Ambrose tries to play his opera under his own name a mysterious Phantom starts to cause troubles. Phantom starts to teach young singer named Christine Charles to sing his opera. Also Lord Ambrose and a young director Harry Hunter are interested in Christine.

Set designer Bernard Robinson is making a superb job here creating the dark corridors of the opera house, Edwardian sets, sewers and of course Phantom's underground lair. I dare say Robinson's version of the lair was used as an inspiration to the lair in 2004 musical. Hammer's number one director Terence Fisher is the force keeping this film together. When story could have been so much better, even actor Herbert Lom didn't like it, it is Fisher's touch to create atmosphere that saves a lot here. Also the decision to start the film where Phantom is already haunting the opera house, and then show his past in a flashback, gives the touch of Leroux. I liked the beginning, especially creepy was the scene with Phantom's hand appearing to turn down the gaslight.

The major minus is the plot. Instead of horror film or Gothic romance it is more of a detective story, with Harry trying to discover who is causing all the problems. And Phantom and Christine don't have anything else then a student/teacher relationship, no obsessed love. Well, at least Christine does feel compassion for him which is always good. Character of the Phantom himself, Professor Petrie, is much kinder and human then any other Phantom I've seen, though he does slap Christine in the face. And it's not really him who does all the nasty things but a deranged dwarf who is also living in his cave. Go figure.

Actors are doing a fairly descent job here. Herbert Lom (The Phantom) is a fantastic character actor who has played almost everything from Captain Nemo to Doctor Van Helsing and Dreyfus in original "Pink Panther" series. Still he is wasted here, with appearing too little and 90% of that time behind all covering mask. Both Heather Sears (Christine) and Edward De Souza (Harry) give little better performances than most of Hammer film's leading lovers. It is Michael Gough (Lord Ambrose) who steals the show as the true villain of the story. His performance as the upper class British villain is pure Hammer. The scene in the restaurant where he puts his hand on Christine's shoulder and says: "You're a delicious little thing" makes anyone feel uncomfortable. Still he is great.

Last word: a descent Phantom/Hammer movie, but not the best example of either, with only Fisher and Gough saving the show.

Hammering The Phantom of The Opera

[DKosty123 · 6/10 · 30 September 2017]

This is an interesting version of this story. It is a Hammer film which is a British Studio that did a lot of horror films. The screenplay is written from the original story by a Hammer studio regular. While the script takes place in an opera house with the underground cavern, there are some differences in the story.

It is much shorter than most versions of the Phantom. Most of the music is done by the Phantom on his organ. The mask is a full face mask instead of the half mask used in other versions. The cast here is mostly folks who co-star with others in films, but there are no big stars involved here.

The story is quite different, partly for the short length. Partly because it was done on a $180,000 pound budget, which is pretty economical in 1962. That might explain the limited cast and the short length of the film. It was made to take advantage of Hammer films Horror reputation.

By no means does this cast compare with other versions including the silent in 1925 by Lon Chaney (Sr.). It is a different take which might interest the many fans of this work, slightly. A true fan of Phantom of The Opera would be well advised to watch the other versions and then watch this one if they want something different.

Erik (Professor Petrie) gets the Hammer treatment

[InjunNose · 7/10 · 19 February 2018]

My favorite version of the oft-filmed Gaston Leroux tale and one of the most attractive costume dramas ever committed to celluloid, Hammer's take on "The Phantom of the Opera" has, unfortunately, gotten lost in the shuffle. Part horror movie, part operetta and part melodramatic love story, it's easy to see how the film might try the patience of present-day viewers...but if you're familiar with this kind of cinematic storytelling, and especially if you're a fan of Hammer Studios and director Terence Fisher, you should see it. Herbert Lom plays a harsh, commanding Phantom, and Heather Sears--by virtue of the fact that she's not movie-star pretty--is a very believable, and likable, Christine. The cast is also enlivened by Michael Gough as the slimy, stereotypically villainous Lord Ambrose d'Arcy, and delightful Hammer regular Thorley Walters as his whipping boy. Edward de Souza is a little stiff as Christine's love interest Harry, but he's the sort of goofy, overly earnest hero you expect in a movie of this type. The horror is restrained; the Phantom's unmasking doesn't occur until the end of the film (and it's a memorably gruesome moment, courtesy of makeup artist Roy Ashton), but you'll find it worth the wait. Seven and a half stars.

Not too shabby

[phantom110 · 8/10 · 31 October 2001]

Though this version strays quite far from the book, it was still very good. Herbert Lom and Micheal Gough are excellent in this film, and the Dwarf was an odd, but fun twist. I didn't think that Miss Sears was right for Christine, but she did well none the less. All in all, pretty scary for the time and a good watch. I suggest it be watched, provided of course you can find it.

sing for me.

[chrismartonuk-1 · 6/10 · 21 May 2009]

Hammer's inevitable take on the classic Leroux tale has taken a critical pasting in recent times and did little to enhance Terence Fisher's career at the time. But it has aged nicely and stands revealed today as an interesting attempt to try something new in the Gothic genre before the clichés were set in stone by the decade's end. Nowawdays, its notorious for the fact that Cary Grant was reportedly lined up for the film. Whether he was to play the Phantom or the hero is left vague. I can see him as Harry Hunter charmingly wooing Christine in the cab, but Grant - accustomed to the sophisticatedly sexy banter of his Hitchcock films - might have baulked at Elder's generic on-the-nose dialogue. Edward De Souza acquits himself well in the role of the young hero - traditionally the most thankless role in any horror - and is a strong, charming central screen presence to hold your attention during the lengthy expository scenes. Heather Sears - accustomed to playing abused ingenues in films like ROOM AT THE TOP and SONS AND LOVERS makes an appealing Christine - she had to be more than the cleavage on legs of most Hammer starlets - and ideally cast as Joan of Arc in the opera.

Herbert Lom's voice is an instrument of dramatic beauty and is shown off to its best advantage when the actor is masked. The concept of the Phantom is flawed by having his as a disfigured composer out for revenge instead of Lon Chaney's deformed freak from birth. Chaney's Erik had a crazed, monomaniacal stalkerish quality with his Christine whereas Petrie sees her only as the ideal vehicle for his artistic ambitions. At times, he acts like a protective Father-figure for the heroine. Christopher Lee would have been interesting in the role - being able to mime-act behind a mask and sing opera - but Lom brings gravity and presence to the part. Of the rest of the cast, Michael Gough has his best Hammer performance as the lecehrous, opportunistic Lord D'arcey whose type can clearly be seen in the singing and theatrical profession to this day - as well as certain further education establishments. It has received some criticism for its alleged cheapness but, actually, to these eyes, it looks more lavish than many Hammers with location filming at Wimbledon theatre giving a grand sense of scale and the bustling London Streets outside full of convincingly rendered extras.

Its ironic that hammer's regular composer James Bernard never got to score this one film where music is so important. I wonder if Edwin Astley ever considered mounting "THE TRAGEDY OF JOAN OF ARC" professionally outside the confines of this film. The ending with Joan alone on stage before submitting herself to the flames is truly moving and we understand why Lom's Phantom sheds a tear.

A weak and rather tame entry in the Hammer House of Horrors

[DarthVoorhees · 5/10 · 2 September 2013]

The original story and themes of 'The Phantom of the Opera' were tailor made for the Hammer treatment. The heart of the story about sexual frustration amid deformity is the kind of thing Hammer on it's A game would have been expected to deliver macabre goodness with. Terrence Fisher's 'Phantom' is in my opinion the weakest Hammer film precisely because it fails to remember what made Hammer what it was. This 'Phantom' does not indulge in grotesques or horror at all. It's a boring miss.

Fisher and Hammer chose to for the most part remake the 1943 Claude Raines 'Phantom' from Universal. This was a poor choice on his part. Gaston Leroux's Phantom was a bizarre deformed freak shunned at birth. If the 'Phantom' is to be adapted this is the version to follow. For some odd reason though the Raines film chose not to do this and instead created a Phantom who became disfigured through a backstage scuffle. Herbert Lom's Phantom is made in this vain. This story isn't that interesting however because this Phantom has not been shunned by the world. Lom and Raines choose exile. They know the stops of being human. I am brought back to Lon Chaney who bordered on the lines between human and being on a different plane. This Phantom yearns to be human. Lom's Phantom has already been. Believe it or not though this Phantom is not sexually interested in Christine and here in lies the film's greatest flaw. Lom's Phantom is a musical genius whose only interest is having his opera be properly credited to his name and performed by Christine. What?! Aside from the fact that Hammer is missing out in exploiting the kind of risqué material they perfected, the Phantom story just loses all it's meaning without this attraction. This sexual frustration is what drives the Phantom to be homicidal. It's far too much of a stretch to perceive this scenario as being capable of turning someone into the Phantom.

This film takes it's title perhaps a bit too literally. We get opera and music here and it is by all means ridiculous. A significant portion of screen time is spent going through awkwardly staged opera numbers. The singers are proficient enough in their abilities but Fisher doesn't know how to stage the numbers with the grandness and spectacle required for such a story. Foolishly this 'Phantom' does not take place in Paris but in London. The London Opera House has none of the grandeur or mystery of it's Paris counterpart. Worse than that though is that every song is in English. We go through musical number after musical number with lyrics which were obviously written by a horror film screenwriter who had no business dabbling in the opera. The music gets more screen time than our Phantom.

The saving grace of the film is Michael Gough who is absolutely fantastic as the villain Lord Ambrose D'Arcy. This character is fully developed and surprisingly intricate given all the shortcomings with the rest of the characters. Gough plays him as the mother of all theatre divas, who takes a perverse pleasure in the power working on the stage gives one. His performance relishes all the nastiness that someone with such a huge ego and disregard for others has. I would have liked to have seen even more of Gough's relationship with the Phantom because then I think Lom would have had much more to work with. Gough plays a brutal backstabber and does so quite well but we never get to know why this betrayal meant so much to the Phantom other than vague references to it being his life's work. I kept thinking how cool it would have been had they been rivals in a backstage war. But this is merely wishful thinking. For his part Gough plays a prima donna beautifully.

This is by far the weakest adaptation of the classic story. It's fundamental flaw is that it Hammer didn't recognize it's own creative gifts and the strongest aspects of the Phantom story. I can only recommend it as a fun example of Michael Gough's work.

Fantastic!

[Boba_Fett1138 · 9/10 · 7 September 2003]

This version of "The Phantom of the Opera" is very different from the original and others. But fantastic nevertheless.

The movie is approached differently compared to other versions, not only the story is different but also the characters. Especially The Phantom has become a bit of a different person. Personally I like this approach, it's up to you which approach you personally like the best.

The typical Terence Fisher directing is very notable and he gives the movie a typical atmosphere. This movie is definitely one of Fisher's and the Hammer studio's best, even though the movie is now days a bit outdated of course. A surprising thing was the amount of humor used in this movie. It fitted the movie surprisingly well and worked out just great.

The most fantastic thing is the cast. Herbert Lom plays as The Phantom a more of a tragic villain. Michael Gough as Lord Ambrose d'Arcy plays the real main villain of the movie and he is simply brilliant in his role! He really steals the show in this one. The rest of the cast also pulls of quite well.

Alas there are some flaws and the movie is simply too much outdated to can be considered a masterpiece. But the movie serves its purpose and looks visually great with excellent performances from the cast and a nice finale.

9/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

A splendid villain, but pretty dull Phantom

[Boris_G · 6/10 · 15 August 2009]

The film starts off promisingly with the opening night of a new opera on the subject of Joan of Arc, due to be sung by a Maria Callas type soprano. A series of discovered acts of sabotage culminate in the film's first shock-horror moment. So far, it looks as if its going to be an enjoyable hour and a half. Michael Gough is great fun as an eminently hissable villain, and Edward de Souza is fairly watchable, too, as the charming if rather conventional hero. But alas, it all goes horribly downhill from the Phantom's first appearance. Poor Herbert Lom is given a pretty duff script (a lot of ineffectual muttering to himself), and a frightfully tacky hideaway replete with tiger rug and a naff red-upholstered throne. The music this alleged genius writes is pretty awful too - a sort of cross between the worst kind of Gilbert and Sullivan and a Broadway show with truly cringe-worthy lyrics. And why exactly does the phantom rip his own mask off just before rescuing the heroine? A huge disappointment all round.

Hammer's Shockingly Tame Phantom

[Cineanalyst · 3/10 · 28 November 2018]

In remaking Universal's monster movies, Hammer's films tend to stand out for their emphasis on bosoms, gore and Technicolor. Since Universal had already made an Oscar-winning Technicolor version of "Phantom of the Opera" (1943), that left only the other two factors to distinguish this one; yet, for the most part, Hammer ignored them in this case. There's one gory scene where a rat catcher is stabbed in the eye, which may be the best part, but has nothing to do with the rest of the narrative. The rest of which is surprisingly tame and dull--partly reworking the story of the 1943 picture, which was already a big departure from Gaston Leroux's novel, for the worse I'd argue, and otherwise adding elements that transform the Phantom into not-such-a-bad guy. That's one of the last things I wanted to see, especially after Claude Rains had already made the character into a tragic and pathetic halfwit, and Andrew Lloyd Webber's later adaptation (made into a movie in 2004) altered him into a romantic figure. Here, Hammer gives us a Phantom who's mostly a victim and who otherwise helps Christine.

In the 1943 version, a misunderstanding had Rains's "Erique Claudin" believe his music was being stolen, which ended up with acid disfiguring his face. Hammer adjusts this, in a story that we're first told and later shown via flashback, to its "Professor" actually having his music stolen, resulting in acid disfiguring his face. The stolen music plot would later be reused again, to better effect, in "Phantom of the Paradise" (1974). Thankfully, Hammer didn't reuse the storyline of Erique living in poverty to anonymously support Christine's singing lessons; instead, the Professor has his hunchback assistant abduct her so he may provide lessons to her himself in his subterranean lair. Sourcing out an abduction is the worst thing that the Phantom definitively does here, except for, perhaps, slapping her, and unlike in the book and other adaptations, there's no indication of sexual perversity to it. It's just about the stupid music. The baddies here are the underdeveloped hunchback, with his random acts of violence, and the producer who stole credit for the opera and uses its lead to lure starlets to his casting couch.

The opera, however, is a lousy musical rendition of the tragedy of Joan of Arc. It replaces "Faust" in the original story, which was an apt play-within-a-play because it reflected the main outer narrative. John of Arc, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the main story about the Phantom or the romance between Christine and Harry (standing in for the original Raoul), which actually occupies most of the runtime. At most, it alludes to the story's French origins. This is the same problem that the 1943 version had with its irrelevant opera, although, at least, that production had actual trained opera singers. Both films also remove the use of mirrors in entering the Phantom's lair, although this one adds a scene where Harry plays with a peephole film flipbook, which partially replaces the self-reflexive aspect of the mirrors.

That the opera house (the real Wimbledom Theatre in London) is substantially smaller than the recreated Palais Garnier built for the 1925 Universal film and reused for the 1943 version doesn't help this one stand out in a crowded field of cinematic adaptations, either. Compared to the unnecessary additional villains and de-vilification of the Phantom, the opera setting is the least of the production's problems.

Also of note, Bach's "Toccata and Fugue in D minor" was likely associated with the Phantom as early as the 1925 silent film, as, reportedly, the piece had early on become a cliché in horror films, but this seems to be the first Phantom to include it within a synchronized score, and the association has continued with a variation of it in the 2004 movie.