Wizard-8 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.

TheLittleSongbird 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

Matthew Kresal As a fan of both the Hammer Horror films and the the Phantom of the Opera I was intrigued upon learning of hammer's version of the story. Having learned something of its back-story before seeing it, my interest was intrigued even more by the knowledge of Cary Grant's near involvement. Having seen the film now I will say this it is neither the worst Phantom film or the best by any means.Not that the film doesn't have a good cast. Herbert Lom takes a good crack at playing the role of the Phantom playing the role much more for sympathy then for the sheer terror of earlier (and later) versions of the character thanks to the script. Heather Sears, playing Christine Charles, gives a decent if un-extraordinary performance which can also be said of her costar Edward de Souza playing the Raoul of this version Harry Hunter (the part originally intended apparently for Cary Grant). There's also a good supporting cast especially in Thorley Walters as theater manager Lattimer and Michael Gough as the suitably unlikeable Lord Ambrose d'Arcy. There's also a nice brief scene stealing performance from Patrick Troughton as The Rat Catcher. All in all its a nice cast.The film's fault lie really behind the camera as the production is very low key to say the least. The sets themselves seems below the standards of even other Hammer films of the time thought the theater itself works very well in the context of the film. The opera staging in the film is one of the highlights even if Joan of Arc makes for a strange Opera choice indeed (and a deviation from the novel amongst many deviations). the film also suffers from snail speed pacing at times which is annoying considering that the length of the film is only about an hour and a half anyway. Yet the real fault in the film lies in the script.The script itself is where the films problems mostly lie. To begin with the film feels watered down in the horror department when compared to other Hammer films of the era due presumably to the near involvement of Cary Grant. There's also the big problem of the fact that the film is called The Phantom of the Opera but that the Phantom isn't really the star of his own film. This is thanks to a bad decision to shift many of the Phantom's murderous acts elsewhere which leaves the Phantom does little else but sit in his lair for the length of the film. the storyline used in the film bares little resemblance to the original novel by Gaston Leroux and owes more to the previous film versions of The Phantom of the Opera then to the novel especially the 1943 film version.This Hammer version The Phantom of the Opera is neither the best or the worst film version of that story. Though it has a nice cast and some fine performances from the supporting cast in particular the film is let down quite heavily by a low key production, snails pacing and a script hampered by one or two bad decisions. This is a version of Phantom perhaps best enjoyed by fans of the Hamemr films though they too will find that even in comparison with other Hammer films of the era it feels watered down and slow at times.

jonm11100 I never have been a big Hammer film fan but I have to say that the Hammer version of Phantom of the Opera is absolutely the best I've ever seen. The story is great, the acting is great and there are a few really terrifying moments. I even almost shed a tear at the end. Poor professor Petrie! Anyway, if you haven't seen this, you owe it to yourself to check it out. I've been looking for the DVD release for years and it finally got here, although I doubt you can get it by itself. The only one i've seen so far is a Hammer double feature, the other movie being Paranoiac, starring Oliver Reed and Janette Scott. This is Hammer at its best!