Oh - it's EASY to find!

In fact the vids I made was using the CD soundtrack not musical I isolated from the DVD.

http://music.barnesandnoble.com/searc ... y&EAN=018777238625&itm=16

or

http://www.amazon.com/Phantom-Opera-M ... ic&qid=1177905907&sr=1-13

If the links don't work you can sift thru the many PotO recordings by looking for one that says "The Phantom of the Opera [Restless]".

Thanks Norry!

At first one will think that Englund's Phantom is nothing but a horrible monster and that he is in no way a tragic figure. This view is wrong. Yes he is a killer and rapist. Yes he uses is victims as his mask. ect. these are all true but with the basic Psychologic understanding of most Serial Killer and Sex offenders one can see him more truly. the one thing most if not all Serial Killer have in common is Childhood abuse or extreme shocking event . so in this light such people as Charles Mason who suffered extreme humiliation at the hands of his Uncle and Aunt can become tragic Figure. so there for Englund's Erik is tradgic. But this dose not mean he should not play for his crimes. so when now looking at any Erik. Keep in mind that he has some great horrible event in is life. In the Englund case lossing his face. so in that idea lies the truth about the movie from 1989. this Erik is by far the colest Phantom to the origanl on Film exculding Mr. Lon C's version. Egnlund's Erik his the right Mix of horrible Killer and tradic Lover. also any one who thinks Eriks is not a Serial Killer must be reading a different Leroux novel and watching some other Phantom movies. so in the end is Egnlund's Erik a Killer and rapist: yes. Is he a bad man: maybe. Just think how lossing your face would change your world. All Phantom's are tradgic just some like Englund's are closer to the first one. I will now aweigh your rebutals let the dual strat.

I bought this movie from Paris and watched it 3 months ago for the first time. I have seen it only dubbed in french... Now when I watched it in English in Youtube it's so different. I like more the french Christine's voice when she speaks, but her singing is the same, and I think she can't sing.

Strage, but I liked it. It is not my favorite phantom version, but I just like it very much.

The scene where Christine goes in the past is so surrealistically awesome! I loved that jump to the other century -thing.
It is interresting that Erik sells his soul to the devil in this version. And when he is sitting in his box while they are playing Faust and he is thinking of it, and then Christine appears as Margerite, Erik's face makes me cry... he is also so exited when Christine sings, Englund is a really good actor.
The cemetery scene is good, because of the violin. And the lair scene is fantastic.
I couldn't believe my eyes when I watched it the first time, first Erik killed Richard, and then Christine tried to kill him. It was so sad when the ring drop out of her finger.
The end kissing is so sweet. I'm really sorry Christine stabs him and throuh his music away. Fortunately the violonist on the street begins DJT. I almost cry each time in the end credits!

"Only love and music are forever" is my favorite line.
I love Don Juan Trimphant in this movie so much!! I wish they would continue it and Erik would sing too.
Erik is always drinking, have you seen? When he kills Buquet, when he is in the inn, when Christine comes in the lair, in the masquerade ball...

I still can't watch the scene where Erik makes his "mask" and the Erik-kills-people-scenes...It is disgusting and horrible. Though Carotta is so funny when she slips on the blood of Buquet. And Erik has a Punjab lasso! which he doesn't use the right way.

...so I can't find where the heck this was discussed but since this is the movie's thread I'll just talk here...

At some point someone mistakenly commented on the lyrics of the Don Juan being something like,

"There's so much you could come to love, but you're not content knowing.."

When in the movie Christine sings the phrase,

"There's so much you could come to love, you've got my heart glowing..."

I had said I actually liked the "mistaken lyrics" better!

Well, I finally got the sheet music today and looky here!

"There's so much you could come to know.... you're content not knowing!"

Just a slight variation of the "mistaken" lyrics! I'm so happy cause now when I sing the "(not so) mistaken lyrics" at auditions (what I was planning on despite what the sheet music said) the accompanist won't think I'm just saying random lyrics.

I said that in the "Lost Lyrics" thread. But are those really alternate lyrics? As in offical-just-not-sung lyrics? Are those the only variation in lyrics?

Well... it's the lyrics on the SHEET MUSIC... altho it is a COPY, the words are handwritten signed by Misha Segal so i'd say that is "official". But there's no date. They could be before or after a re-write.

So I dunno which came first. In the movie and on the CD soundtrack she says the glowing part. I've never even HEARD this variation, it's just what's on paper.

I'd be eternally grateful if someone... anyone could answer my questions.

How does she get that huge gash on her forehead? The one right after she gets out of the room and around the time he asks her about the wedding or reqeium mass.

And how the heck did he kill thae critic with a towel? I can understand if he starngled him with it, or maybe he could suffocate him. But how does he pull it so hard that the guy would bleed like that?

Quote:

It does just sort of magically show up there doesn't it? She lightly puts her head to the wall, and the next second, she's got this huge mass of bruises and stuff on her head. I think it's trying to make some insinuation that she's been hitting her head against the wall, like she does in the novel, but it sure doesn't show it happening! Perhaps it was edited out, or it was something they just never filmed at all... It really doesn't make a lot of sense though!... Would have been a nice reference to the book had they followed through a little better.

Oldphan

That would have made sense But if she had truly been banging her head against the wall, she would have given herself a concusion and pass out, if not die. The wall was made of stone.

It does kind of just appear... but as she is trying to escape in the tunnels frantically running, she does fall before realizing she ran in a circle.










But to me it looks more like a bad scrape, with bruising, and dirty... One could argue as she hit it when she fell and it had not yet began to bleed by the time we get another good look at her. Or she's pressing her head against the wall in a way that she is scraping it on the way down, and between that and the gunk on the wall getting on her head it looks worse than it really is...







The way she falls to the floor she seems as if she is fainting... which could be from hitting her head, but in my opinion it is out of exhaustion & frustration.







As for the way Erik kills the critic... just Hollywood unrealistic gore. The film really falls back on it's slasher movie themes. So even tho he could have strangled him without any of the blood, in a slasher movie they figure "Where is the fun in that?".

It does make sense that she craped her head.

But what I really want to know is how he did it.

Could by pulling the cloth so hard against the reporter's face have broken his nose and it began to bleed be a possibility? It makes sense for the nose, anyway...

On the soundtrack the track 9 is named "Music of the knife/Killing Joseph". Coincidence it's sounds like MotN...?

I never knew there was a soundtrack to the 1989 phantom.

I lend it some days ago in the library.

I've been singing Don Juan Triumphant like this:

Your eyes see but my shadow
my heart is overflowing
There's so much you could learn to love
You're content not knowing
Tenderly, you could see my soul

The "much" always felt rather awkward. I'll most likely continue singing that version because I...like it better.

For all the people who think any Erik/Phantom would not Skin a person. This is the same man who droped a huge Chandiler on to a crowd to Kill one person. so it's okay to crush many people hurt some, kill one but as long as he does not skin them he's not sick. so i think in that light Leroux's Erik is just as sick has Englund's Erik. i don't mean to offened anyone but thats kind of Erik pampering is just wrong he is a cold and insane killer first, a lover second.. i mean i love Doc Holliday alot but even i admit that he was a killer and a mean SOB. so i am just as hard on me has any of you.

If that does not change you. think of the movie as the logical end of the story's growth or at least a try at taking what we know of serial killer and putting in the phantom story for a interesting by product. the movie does have it problems it's short, and the time travel thing it was a good try but it fell a little short of making sense. the phantom could live tha long he has no soul but Dea can;t she has a soul. and it was a little gory for me. I would have left out the critic bleeding and just have him strangled and pulling out the one Cops Heart was a bit much. I think they did not have to show the sowing but the could have just hinted at it. but the Skin mask is a great idea it would allow the Phantom to move around in public for a short time and never be noticed. I think the Final aim of the film was to make a Phantom film that used a serial killer with a strange method and try to make it a little more real with the skin mask so he could blend in to the public. I hate horror movies as a rule but this is an exception to the rule and i am scared very simple but if i can handle this movie anyone can. thank you for your time reading, if i made anyone mad I am Sorry but for the people who see my points I have no regerts. also sorry for the long rant but had to get it off my chest

Inspector Ken

The Critic was killed by Erik crushing his skull. The sensers said that was gross so they reshot with a towl. The scalp bleeds like nothing you've ever thought. It's all that blood that goes to keep the brain working, you see...

And of course feel free to rip this version to peices even though it actually gets Eriks violence right but god forbid someone touch Andrew's Erik the Rapist version.

This one is actually one of fave versions becaue, for one it gets the violence part right. But mostly because the fashion-fans all hate it.

I saw this version 2 days ago, after quite a long wait, and although I first thought the time-travelly type premise was a little tacky, I LOVED IT!

Although it very different from any other versions I've seen, I thought it was quite well done.

The idea of Erik sleeping with prostitutes fit very well, especially with the Christine fantasies involved.

As for the murderous attitude, this was very close to the Leroux Phantom. Anyways I can't think of anything else to comment on, though I'm sure I will.

I'll be back...

MB

Quote:

I believe the general gist of that action was that Erik yanked the towel around the reporter's head in such a way that it pushed his the bones of his nose back into his brain. I think there is a karate move that is supposed to achieve the same effect.

QUOTE:

InspectorKenny said:

"Yes he is a killer and rapist"

***********************************************************

Rapist? may I ask when?

Quote:

I don't believe the "RAPE" actually happened.

There's two times I have heard people say the supposed "RAPE" happens.

1. After the cemetary when they are in the lair and she sings...

He tells her to come to him and he will give her EVERYTHING. She goes to him.

He puts his ring on her finger and says, "Our souls are one, now you are married to the music". Christine protests at first, but then promises herself.

"Tonight you will be my bride."

Then the shot pulls back and you see them walk hand in hand as it fades to black.

Do they have off screen sex? Does he just take her home? We don't know. They never show it, they never talk about it. I always thought it possible they had sex.

Was it RAPE? Maybe some sort of date rape. Maybe. If they DID have sex (again, we don't even know if they did) I think that she wanted to, but is disgusted with herslf for it. Regretting sex doesn't make it rape.

2. The more likely scene is after Erik abducts her from the Masquerade.

He throws Christine on to the bed, gets on top of her and unmasks himself. He taunts her and she tries to fight him off...

"Faithfulness is not a quality that I admire in you, Christine! Desire is only a demon, Christine! Hell is getting what you desire!"

You see him sort of grind against her as he says this, but both are VERY FULLY CLOTHED in their masquerade costumes. In fact, you see him trying to kiss her but they're interupted by the noise from Richard and the police searching underground.

If we're gonna call an Erik a rapist, I'd say it was Argento's Erik.

He grabs Christine and kisses her (in fact she spits away his kiss) as she screams how much she hates him while they struggle.

The next scene is Christine screaming and crying and protesting "No!" and he's ripping her clothes off. Next scene is them (mostly) naked, and he's going at it from behind, while she's still visibly crying. We see the pervy rat catcher watching them go at it, then the next shot Christine seems to be more into it.

Hrm.

Quote:That's really interesting. Would we still consider him as not a rapist if he had every intent of doing so and did not think twice about it but rather, he was stopped/distracted?

Quote:

Please do not misunderstand. As the former victim of the same crime, trust me that I'm not turning this around to put him in a good light.

If he had the intention of raping her, I'd say he's a rapist.

The problem is that intention is not clear. We don't know that RAPE was the next step, and not just a forced kiss.

He's on top of her, rough and what looks like grinding (others may argue the movements is just the struggle between he and Christine). He seemingly tries to kiss her. Then there's the interuption.

Was he probably going to rape her? VERY POSSIBLE. But we don't know.

Same thing with the ring/"tonight you are my bride" scene... do they go off and have (consentual) sex? I sure as hell think so... but again we don't know.

What's strange is when I was younger and watched the movie on VHS (I first saw the movie back in... 1993 or 1994? It would have put me at 10 yrs old) I would SWEAR the scene was more obviously a rape. An actual (albeit short) rape, not an interupted rape.

I sometimes if it was just my interpretation of what was going on, or if the VHS was some sort of director's cut (one would think that would be the version on DVD, however).