Day 351: The Phantom Of The Opera

The Phantom Of The Opera

And next he'll be Tevye in "Fiddler On The Roof"

The it seems that every decade or so, there is a revival for The Phantom Of The Opera. It pops up in a new movie or a television show or the soundtrack to the Broadway musical is digitally remastered to 3.0 Dolby surround sound with special guest sousaphone player blah blah blah. I can't say I've ever been a fan of the 1910 story or the Andrew Lloyd Weber musical. I've only seen two musicals in my life and they were Les Miserables and Miss Saigon. Despite my lack of knowledge or feelings toward The Phantom Of The Opera, there is a large swath of people that absolutely love it. Many a Phantom poster has adorned the walls of teens and college students. I suppose the romance factor has a lot to do with it's popularity rather than the the main characters with the disfigured face. The 1925 silent film starring Lon Chaney is considered a true horror classic, but for today's review, I went with something a little different. Something a bit more 1980's. Something a bit more Robert Englund-y.

The Phantom Of The Opera is a 1989 adaptation of the 1910 story written by Gaston Leroux starring Robert Englund (A Nightmare On Elm Street, 2001 Maniacs) as The Phantom Of The Opera/Erik Destler and Jill Schoelen (The Stepfather, When A Stranger Calls Back) as Christine Day. In modern times (read: 1980s), Christine Day is an opera singer preparing for a big audition in New York City. Determined to get the role, Christine seeks out an old and unique piece to help her stand apart from the other singers. With the help from her friend Meg (Molly Shannon, Saturday Night Live, Night At The Roxbury), Christine discovers a piece entitled “Don Juan Triumphant” by an obscure composer named Erik Destler. They learn that Destler had committed a few murders and may have been responsible in the disappearance of a young opera singer. Alone in her apartment, Christine sings the song, causing blood to drip out of the paper, but it is just a hallucination. During her audition, a falling sandbag breaks a mirror and knocks her out and when she awakens, she is in London in 1881. She is now the understudy for a play, where the Phantom Erik Destler teaches her from the shadows. He encourages her to practice, saying that only she can sing the part of Margueritte in the play Faust. Through strange circumstances, Christine gets the role, which causes an uproar in the opera house. It is revealed that the Phantom, much like Faust, has sold his soul to the Devil, granting him the gift of creating beautiful music, but also a horribly disfigured face. Christine's performance is hailed and she celebrates with her fiancee Richard. The next day, her performance is given a poor review and the Phantom kills the reviewer. His obsession with Christine leads to more murders and shows that he has some supernatural abilities. With the murderous Phantom closing in on Christine, will she be able to survive and make it back to her own time?

Pimp Of The Opera

I don't often say this, but who exactly is the audience for this movie? The movie won't appeal to the fans of the Andrew Lloyd Weber musical because it is far too violent and gory. It doesn't really appeal to horror fans either since there are extended scenes of opera singing and general romance. Ultimately, we get a strange mash-up of a few different genres that never mesh well together. The story is pretty faithful to the original, but the plot goes way off through the addition of time travel weirdness. The whole time travel angle is nonsensical and unnecessary. I suppose they were going for an angle to separate the movie from other adaptations, but the modern scenes are so heavily steeped in the 1980s that it looks very dated today. There's no leg warmers or comically giant cell phones, but the clothes and items like synthesizers ooze 1980s grossness. The movie tends to get boring as it makes sure to check off all the important bits and pieces from the story. There's some action and suspense sprinkled throughout, but it's really nothing special.

So who is this movie good for? People with morbid curiosity, like me. I couldn't really believe that Mr. Freddy Krueger himself was in The Phantom Of The Opera. It should be no surprise that Robert Englund could pull off this role. Once could find similarities in the way Englund portrays the Phantom and Freddy, but there are some differences. His Phantom is far more driven and obsessed, lacking the bizarre charm of Freddy Kruger. The film takes a heavy turn towards horror towards the end, which, coincidentally, is the best part of the movie. The makeup used for the Phantom looks good, but it's hard not to compare it to Freddy. I didn't particularly care for Jill Schoelen performance as she seemed confused and out of place for about 90% of the movie. It was fun to see a young Molly Shannon, though, randomly showing up in an obscure horror movie. 

"Does anyone else smell hot dogs cooking?"

The Phantom Of The Opera is a well-known story and trying to add a modern horror twist to it just doesn't work. The whole time-traveling deal is not handled very well and makes me question why they even bothered doing it in the first place. The movie has trouble deciding who it wants to appeal to as we jump from romance, to action, to horror, to musical. Just about every fan of each genre will find things not to like in the movie. The large amount of gore and violence will turn a lot of Phantom fans off and the plodding romance theme will sure to bore horror fans. Robert Englund is very enjoyable, but I was annoyed by Jill Schoelen's lackluster performance. The only real reason to see The Phantom Of The Opera is just to satiate your curiosity. It's a strange idea and certainly very different, but not very good.

4/10

Day 234: The Caller

The Caller

Ring, ring

Time-traveling movies are always a tricky thing to pull off. They always run the risk of plot-holes and becoming a muddled mess. Most of these movies make things up as they go along, but we let the mistakes slide if the movie is good enough. The Back To The Future series is a prime example of how a movie can ignore it's own rules, have a bunch of plot flaws, and still be universally loved. Alternatively, you have a movie like Timecop which is equal parts confusing mess and lousy entertainment. The most important part of a time-travel movie, or any movie for that matter, is to be entertaining first, and accurate second. Throwing in time-travel to the horror genre is an interesting, if risky, venture.

The Caller is a 2011 supernatural horror movie starring Rachelle Lefevre (Twilight, Swingtown) as Mary Kee. Mary has just moved in to a new apartment in Puerto Rico after finalizing a divorce from her violent husband, Steven (Ed Quinn, Eureka, True Blood). Inside her new apartment is an old rotary phone which she decides to keep. One night, the phone rings with a woman on the other line asking to speak with someone named Bobby. Mary informs her that, despite having the right number, no one by that name lives in the apartment. Trying to get her life back together, Mary enrolls in classes at the local university where she meets a math teacher named John Guidi (Stephen Moyer, Priest, 88 Minutes). The mysterious calls continue with Mary eventually having a conversation with the woman. Her name is Rose (Lorna Raver, Drag Me To Hell, Armored) and they begin talking about their lives. Rose tells Mary that she is calling from the 1970's, which Mary quickly dismisses. Rose says that she drew a picture inside Mary's pantry and wants her to look at it. Mary sands down the paint on the wall to reveal a picture of a rose. During this time, Mary is harassed by her ex-husband despite a restraining order and her growing relationship with John. When Rose reveal that she is in an abusive relationship with Bobby, Mary tells her to stick up for herself. During the next call, Rose tells Mary that she killed Bobby and may have hidden him inside the walls. Mary refuses to take the calls for a short time, and is able to move forward in her relationship with John. Mary asks her neighbor George (Luis Guzman, Boogie Nights, Traffic) about Rose and he tells her that she committed suicide many years ago. Mary starts to take the phone calls again from a now irate Rose and time starts to shift as Rose changes things in her past. Soon, no one remembers George and eventually, Mary learns that John died as a child. One night, Mary receives a phone call from Rose, who has a special visitor: Mary as a little child. What will happen to Mary in the past and is there any way she can stop her from the present?

Another thrilling action scene brought to you by The Caller

Time-traveling movies can work if they're done with a mixture of subtlety, nuance, and cleverness. The Caller has none of these traits, leaving behind a boring and confusing mess. My biggest problem with the movie is that the simple solutions of “not answering the phone” or “move out of the apartment” are never presented as real options. This is the same issue I have with the plot of the television show “American Horror Story.” (Full disclosure: I could only sit through one episode of AHS and hated every second of it). There were way they could have forced Mary to pick up the phone early on, but she's presented as just being bored. I understand and appreciate the parallel between Rose and Mary in their respective relationship, but I never truly believed that Mary would confide in an obviously crazy person and feel a connection with her.

The movie spends far too much time with character development and not enough with action and horror. The time-changing aspect doesn't really kick in until the last ¼ of the movie when it really should have started much earlier. It was an interesting touch to have the young Mary involved, but then again, it didn't really make much sense. I mean, where were her parents during this time? And if George and John had been killed in the past, are they still dead? They were just trying to help this girl out and they get the short-end of the stick. Where's the justice in that? The acting is fine, throughout with Lorna Raver putting in the best performance just by using her voice. The movie isn't scary and there were only a few times where Rose's voice became creepy. Without the scares or action, we're left with a weak plot and mediocre directing. I did also find it out that, with the exception of Luis Guzman, the main characters in the movie are white, despite taking place in Puerto Rico.

The most strategically-placed bush ever

The Caller is a decent idea for a story that just isn't pulled off well on screen. Rarely can I enjoy a movie where the simplest solution is to just stop doing something. The movie tries to explain all the time-changing mumbo-jumbo, but they should have focused more on the supernatural evil ghost talking through the phone. There is very little action to speak of with only the last 15 minutes of the movie providing any sort of excitement or entertainment. Too much time is spent on relationships and not enough of actual horror and thrills. It is simply not scary and not even spooky. The acting is passable, but the direction is not particularly good. Throw in all the time-changing and you're in for a boring and confused movie. Do yourself a favor and don't answer The Caller.

3.5/10