Coming from Universal, I didn't expect the rather lavish production that you find here. That's very impressive. Whether you think the film is impressive will depend on what you are looking for. Cheap horror? Nope, not here. This is more a drama with lots of opera. I'm not an opera fan, but I was actually impressed with some of the opera sequences, although perhaps there were too many and some lasted too long. But then again, the story is "The Phantom Of The OPERA".This also has quite a good cast. Claude Rains is excellent as Erique Claudin and the Phantom. He lends a sense of pathos to the role that some might not have, Nelson Eddy is quite good as the opera singer in love with Christine...as is Claudin...as in a police detective. There were a couple of places where Eddy had a look that was just a bit overacting, but overall, reasonable.Susanna Foster is quite good as the young soprano who is loved by so many, including the Phantom. You might want to look her up on Wikipedia...a rather interesting life.Edgar Barrier is quite good as the policeman who loves Christine.So, if what you're looking for is horror, this will probably disappoint you. If you're looking for a good dramatic film, this is done very nicely. But everyone will like when the chandelier falls!

I can't help but compare this to Chaney's silent classic, and it just plain doesn't hold up. Completely lacking in the Gothic, macabre visuals of that one, it instead leans into the phantom's romantic origin story, and it's just not that engaging. The tone is all over the place, with a few cool moments of tension breaking the doldrums (chandelier, use of shadow).

Though far from perfect, I love this movie. Claude Rains is a brilliant actor and his embodiment of the Phantom is my favorite--or rather, his embodiment of the man who becomes the Phantom. If the writers and the director had cooperated, Claude Rains could have been the greatest Phantom ever filmed. The problem is that this version of the Phantom did the best job of telling the Phantom's back-story and making him a sympathetic character, but did the worst job of making the Phantom terrifying.The Phantom is a serial killer, after all. He is thoroughly insane, immensely clever, utterly ruthless, and knows the environment of the Paris Opera better then almost anyone else--he could be anywhere. In this film, the writers and the director never successfully make us feel that sense of dread, the sense of horror at the Phantom's crimes. This aspect of the story is tossed off in an almost token fashion. In fact, the slight gestures meant to halfheartedly convey this--like the many shadows of the phantom doing his Snidely Whiplash imitation--are unintentionally funny. The Gothic horror story is pushed quite firmly to the background.In the foreground, we have a lush, colorful, lightly comic operetta about a beautiful young singer and the two rivals for her affection. While entertaining enough, it quite overwhelms the Phantom's sad, terrifying tale.

Being a great fan of Gaston Leroux's original novel, the 1925 silent version of The Phantom of the Opera with Lon Chaney is one of my favorite films. The only thing missing is the sound. So when I got the chance, I viewed this 1943 adaptation with Claude Rains, expecting it to be fairly good, with a star like him in the lead. Instead, I found it confusing and disappointing. I hate when screenwriters feel the need to justify their existence by rewriting a story that is already fine as it is. The film bears little resemblance to the book, with insipid subplots and overly-long scenes of invented operas taking up the bulk of the story (apparently, the film makers couldn't secure rights to well-known operas, which explains the absence of the vitally important excerpts from Faust). Because of this, the film becomes a showcase for sound and Technicolor, not the magnificent Gothic Horror/Mystery story that Leroux imagined. It isn't mysterious or romantic, just a mixed bag of silly characters and a meandering plot that is much too predictable.The one redeeming quality of this film is Claude Rains as the titular character. The few brief moments he is on screen, he gives a beautiful portrayal of a tragic genius driven to murder for the woman he loves--the only problem is, you don't see him enough! Rains is an excellent actor, but isn't given the chance to become a really great Phantom due to his lack of screen time and the significant changes made to the plot. You see his character before he becomes the Phantom, which robs the viewer of feeling any tension of wondering who this cloaked figure is, something that was almost overwhelming in the silent version; and after that, he becomes almost a secondary character to Susanna Foster as Christine and her two (two!) adversarial suitors, whose incessant squabbling add nothing to the plot. He is given a few scenes of passion, but they are mostly toward the end, and due to the fact that in this story, he becomes disfigured by an accident and not born with his deformity, his aching for love and acceptance is far less compelling.Do yourself a favor, and go out and watch the Lon Chaney version instead. It stays much closer to the original story and is highly watchable, despite its age. This film, not so much.