Cast:
Robert Englund (Erik Destler, The Phantom of the Opera/Mr. Foster), Jill Schoelen (Christine Day; Nancy Fontana as the singing voice), Alex Hyde-White (Richard Dutton), Bill Nighy (Martin Barton), Stephanie Lawrence (La Carlotta), Molly Shannon (Meg [New York]), Emma Rawson (Meg [London]), Terence Harvey (Inspector Hawkins), Nathan Lewis (Davies), Peter Clapham (Harrison), Yehuda Efroni (The Rat Catcher), and Terence Beesley (Joseph Buquet) Directed by Dwight H. Little (#471 - Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers)
Review:
The original Phantom of the Opera, if you remember, was originally serialized from 1909 to 1910 by French author Gaston Leroux. The 1925 Universal film is still the most famous adaptation of the novel in film form, even with further renditions in 1943 and 1962 to go along with ones with elements cobbled together (such as say, Phantom of the Paradise [1974]); people have made multiple renditions of turning the novel into a musical, most notably the 1986 attempt by Andrew Lloyd Webber. Really, this popped onto my radar only just this month, much to my amusement. How could I resist the urge to not cover a strange pairing: a rendition of Phantom of the Opera with a few elements of the slasher as played by Robert Englund. You might remember that he became a horror icon with the success of A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) and its subsequent sequels. The movie was a production of 21st Century Film Corporation, which at that time had just seen Menahem Golan (from Cannon Films) become its CEO; the credits do indeed call it a Golan production, one made for roughly $4 million. Gerry O'Hara was behind the script of the film in practice, as his original intent was to have it set all in 1881 England. However, Duke Sandefur was brought in to write segments that would be set in the current day that start and end the film. Amusingly, this wasn't even the only film loosely based on the novel released in 1989, as Richard Friedman's slasher Phantom of the Mall: Eric's Revenge came out in the fall of 1989. The Phantom of the Opera was not a big hit with audiences (who barely had less than a month to even see it!). 21st Century had planned to do a follow-up film called "Terror of Manhattan" (hence the Sandefur-penned elements, and somehow the sequel would've set itself in subterrain New York). While that did not come to pass, they apparently re-worked it for Englund to just star in the direct-to-video slasher Dance Macabre (1992).
So, you get a little bit of singing and a killer among the underground of 19th century England. Little and Englund really wanted to make a "saturated color homage" to the Hammer Phantom of the Opera film and ended up with a muddled mess of a movie that really needed polish. It may be cheap, it may be garish, it may honor something from the Hammer films, but it sure isn't enough to be a winner all the way around the corner. That framing device involving the lines of present-day and 1882 London is clunky in pretty much every way you would expect, particularly since the movie somehow this was going to be one of times where people would clamor for sequels. Either go for the present-day or go for 1882, it just doesn't work to try a bit of both. Schoelen just can't carry the film too particularly well (especially since she doesn't even sing anyway). Sure, you probably couldn't remember who starred opposite Lon Chaney in the 1925 film (Mary Philbin), but there just isn't much to really say about her when it comes to distinct mannerisms beyond puppet and "oh, I guess they don't get the guy". To say nothing of Hyde-White and others is not exactly a compliment. Englund is the one highlight because he does manage to evoke considerable curiosity over what his character is meant to be, since it goes for the "sold his soul to the Devil" angle when it comes to disfigurement (i.e. more slasher and less "Romantic"), complete with having to destroy his music. The phantom has a mask made out of flesh that he likes to adjust from time to time, which is probably the one defining feature besides music for this film, aside from attempts at quips and a bit of slasher stuff. But it never really rises above average for 93 minutes because it never seems to actually commit to something worthy enough for us to latch onto. Englund doesn't have much of a cast to really latch onto, and the opera elements don't really latch onto the viewer as a whole. In total, it is thoroughly mediocre in ways that can't quite win with its aims but you might find something worth looking into if one can look beyond the cheap but endearing aspects of it all.
Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.
