This was one of the (if not _the_) first feature length silent films I saw. I was caught up in the story and the 90 minutes flew. My career as an academic film student might have begun here.

The first and best movie version of the classic Leroux tale is also one of the best silent horror films ever made. Chaney is unforgettable. He directed many of his own scenes, and most leave an everlasting impression: his gliding into a masked ball as Poe's "Red Death"; the abduction of heroine Philbin through the glistening black catacombs beneath the opera house; and, of course, the famous unmasking, which, believe it or not, still packs a jolt today.

From its opening shot of a mysterious figure in an underground cavern, this film is all about atmosphere. The acting, the sets, and even the colorization all work to enhance the feeling of dread at one hellbent on fulfilling his desires for his preferred actress. Beyond Chaney's fine performance, the most impressive element is certainly the set design, which indicates an underground grandeur at every turn.

81.125

"Like that other creaky Universal monster epic, Dracula, The Phantom of the Opera is one of those classic films whose reputation trumps its actual cinematic worth." - Eric Henderson

Lon Chaney's presence elevates what would otherwise be a so-so spectacle.

Famous unmasking scene still packs a jolt, and the Bal Masque is especially impressive in two-strip Technicolor. One of Chaney's finest hours.

An ever amazing Chaney dominates as the deranged, disfigured but oft sympathetic title character in Rupert Julian's opulent, poignant, and creepy silent-film giant.

An over-long silent film that does, however, still have its effective moments, especially the celebrated unmasking scene.

Chaney's good as are some of the visuals, but the story's too weak and drags the film down.

The sets are magnificent: the cavernous underground chambers, the claustrophobic dungeon, and the grand opera house are all marvels that capture the viewer's attention. Chaney's deranged performance and gruesome performance are similarly captivating. The rest of the picture is ok, the other actors are blandly melodramatic and the story itself is formulaic.

Worth seeing once, though I'm not really into silent movies. At least some versions of this film include a few minutes of color. It's not great color, but for 1925 it's incredible.

I lost interest somewhere in the middle. Folding laundry suddenly became awfully attractive.

maske, muzik

If only this movie had a coherent script... But Chaney does a great monster, the colourised ballroom scene is stunning.

Lon Chaney looks great, and so do the underground sets, but the plot's not engaging or well-edited enough to keep suspense going for an hour and a half.

Two words: Lon Chaney. He's the one who makes this film work. His makeup and performance is what makes this a classic in American horror cinema.

The phantom being unmasked is my earliest movie memory. I was 2 and a half at the time, I think. So I can't hate this film!

It's pretty good up to the unmasking; then I guess the writers didn't know how to proceed, because it turns into a jumbled mess, with an undercover policeman, some guy getting hanged, an angry mob, a bomb, etc. Maybe they shouldn't have had Christine unmask him so quickly - a lot of interesting plotting could have been fit in the interim. Also, the phantom is, unfortunately, unambiguously evil, and his doll-like mask is creepier than the makeup.

I have to imagine that even Webber's version is more nuanced than this. Barebones storytelling with zero intriguing developments and drearily dull characters. I couldn't give a damn what happened to Christine (whose reaction to the phantom is no more sophisticated than "eww gross") or her generic lover. Even Lon Chaney is just a boring bogeyman with a cool makeup job. There are a few striking images and a handful of funhouse tricks at the climax, but nothing terribly exciting. Yawn.

Incredible performance and make-up by Lon Chaney, with some superb cinematography too. I see why it's a classic.

It's so overrated.

None of Lon Chaney, Sr.'s films have aged well

Classic.

Lon Chaney is very good and the movie has some nice visuals, but the direction is so dull that it totally kills the whole thing. And it's hard to get past the fact that most of the acting (except for Chaney) is ridiculous, and not in a cool way like exaggerated German Expressionism acting. Mediocre stuff.

The '25 version is slow to start but quickly becomes more engaging. Chaney is brilliant in subtle ways beyond the larger than life persona. The '29 version is chopped liver by comparison.

God damn, I hated this movie so much; Not because it was black-and-white, not because it was a silent film; I hated it because it was just so boring and useless.

i saw the revised version from the 30's where they used color filters, for the most part the color was retarded--ohhhhhhh, wow, everything's purple. for about ten minutes the thing was actually in color--full color--it was quite astonishing to see 1925 in color. the movie it's self is slow and ocassionally good--but not often. the leading lady was quite beautiful, not common in early fim.

This 1925 version of The Phantom of the Opera is the first film adaptation of the 1910 novel of the same name. The story itself is pretty decent, but the movie drags on even by silent-film standards. Lots of still shots could have been cut down to increase the pacing. Also, the music seemed a bit odd. The Phantom theme was good, but a lot of times the music didn't match the tone of the scene at all. Although, I don't know if the version I have has the same music that was originally intended.

The unmasking of the Phantom is still an effective scene.