Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Rainey Dawn 'Phantom of the Opera (1943)' is a remake of Universal's classic 'Phantom of the Opera (1925)' starring Lon Chaney, Sr. Obviously this 1943 version is a more favorable "talkie" instead of a silent movie and is filmed in Technicolor instead of Black and White.Claude Rains is Erique Claudin, The Phantom that stalks the opera house and falls in-love with Christine DuBois (Foster). Erique was a normal but handsome looking violinist who lost his musical touch, murdered a music publisher and had acid thrown in his face. He now lives under the opera house and will do anything to help Christine DuBois' career as an opera soprano - anything!! While this film is not quite as terrifying as the 1925 film, it is scary and has a bit more realistic approach concerning The Phantom. I like Rains' performance as Erique.8/10

utgard14 Universal's Technicolor remake of their 1925 silent classic, still the definitive version of the Phantom story. The color is nice and I certainly appreciate the production values but it's largely wasted on a plodding melodrama with too many opera numbers. Despite being part of Universal's horror stable, it really isn't a horror film. Claude Rains may play the title character but he takes a backseat (and third billing) to Nelson Eddy and Susanna Foster as two parts of an insufferably banal love triangle. The other part belongs to Edgar Barrier. Both Eddy and Barrier are considerably older than Foster, which doesn't help matters. For his part, Rains is good though miscast and not in the film nearly enough. Nelson Eddy, with risibly darkened hair and a pencil mustache, is flavorless and boring. Susanna Foster sings nicely (if you're into that sort of music) but gives a performance so forgettably bland you will likely have a hard time remembering what she looked like after the movie is over.In addition to being dull and lacking any real horror traits, the movie has a number of other flaws. Lame comic relief, for one thing. It's also plagued by plot gremlins and some ridiculous moments that fall into the category of unintentional comedy. Look no further than the scene where Rains' Phantom uses a small hacksaw to cut through a very thick chain holding up a chandelier in one big scene. It resembles something out of a cartoon and is impossible to take seriously. The big scene where the Phantom's mask is removed is marred by an underwhelming makeup job on Rains. Gone is the horrible visage of Lon Chaney's Phantom. Now we have a man with a disfiguring scar but hardly something monstrous. In an early draft of the script, Rains was to have been revealed to be Foster's father but they changed that. However, the original idea hangs over the film and gives it a weird vibe ("Somehow I always felt drawn to him"). The explanation we're given in the end for why Rains cared so much for Foster is that they were from the same town! This is one of my least favorite Universal horror films. I have watched most of the others repeatedly, some dozens of times. But this is one I have only seen a few times. I went into watching this today hoping my opinion would be changed after not having seen it for probably close to a decade. But my opinion is the same now as then. The movie is watchable, particularly for Universal completists, but there is no real horror and way too much romance, humor, and music. A little more Phantom and a little less opera, please. The sets, some of which were holdovers from the 1925 film, were reused for The Climax with Boris Karloff the following year. That movie was to have been a sequel to this but was reworked as a separate but similar film.

Sarah Carlton Even though I have never read the book, I have always been fascinated by the story and the characters of The Phantom of the Opera. I've seen the 2004 adaptation (which is a fairly decent film in my opinion) and I tried to watch the 1925 version with Lon Chaney but found it to be a bit boring even for my tastes. Now, when it comes to this film...I feel as though the 1943 Phantom of the Opera falls swiftly in between the two extremes. It is neither a "true" musical, (the only musical parts being the actual performances on the opera stage) nor is it a "horror" film like it's silent predecessor. Rather, it is a melodrama centering around a gorgeous, talented young Opera singer(Susanna Foster), her two suitors and a meek, lonely violinist who becomes our mysterious, brooding Phantom. (Claude Rains.)What makes his performance in particularly interesting, is that unlike Chaney, or even Butler's version of the masked opera ghost....Claude Rains gives us a Phantom that is all too human. Perhaps this is meant to symbolize that anyone can become a "phantom" if they are pushed to their limits, as opposed to some mysterious monster who we cannot relate to whatsoever. In this adaptation, the phantom is not born with his deformity. Rather, it is an unfortunate consequence of his own actions and wrong doings, which I thought was a very interesting alteration of the plot.It's obvious that Rains' performance as a man-turned-monster is the highlight of the film. But it has more saving graces than I initially expected. The vocal talents of Susanna Foster and Nelson Eddy are marvellous to say the least. And the spectacles of the Opera performances themselves are very pleasing to the eyes and ears. There are several charming comedic moments between Christine and her two suitors who are constantly competing for her affection. The cinematography is also quite brilliant. Establishing shots effectively show the Opera house's splendour from all of the best angles and are used very effectively. However, by far one of the best things of this film is it's soundtrack. It's beautiful, tragic and sad all at once. Particularly the "Lullaby of the Bells", which is a reoccurring theme.Overall, this film exceeded my expectations. It's certainly no "horror" masterpiece like the Lon Chaney version. Nor is it a noble blockbuster as the 2004 adaptation. It's an interesting and unique interpretation of the story with a great performance from Claude Rains. It does show it's age but if you enjoy classic musicals at all, then you will certainly be able to appreciate it.

MissSimonetta This version of POTO is far from the thriller or horror genre. While it includes elements of both every now and then, it's more of a romantic comedy with musical numbers sprinkled about. The luscious Technicolor used is as far from the Gothic mood of the story, but damn, I cannot deny it's just gorgeous. The cinematography is the principal reason to watch this version. Plus fans of the silent version with Lon Chaney might be interested to see what the "Phantom Stage" looks like in color.Claude Rains brings great pathos and his velvety voice to the role of the phantom. More memorable for this movie-goer is Susannah Foster as Christine. She was absolutely perfect in the role: not only does she physically resemble the character of the book but she manages to be both a classic ingénue and a fiery career woman all at once. Plus she could actually sing! A shame she wasn't cast in a more book accurate adaptation. The part of Christine's bland lover Raoul is split into two characters played by Nelson Eddy and Edgar Barrier; both are the least entertaining part of the movie. One wishes more screen time had been given to Rains.