Wordiezett So much average

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Michael_Elliott The Phantom of Hollywood (1974) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Worldwide Studio has fallen on some hard times so a decision is to made to sell its back lot to some developers, which will bring in some much needed cash but at the same time it would take away from historic nature. This doesn't sit well with a mysterious figure who starts murdering people on the lot.This here is basically a remake of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA with the main interest being that "Worldwide Studio" is actually MGM. Yes, MGM is the back lot that is used here and some of the most interesting moments happen early on when we see how some of the sets currently look and then we get a clip of the movie that they were once featured in. We get some pretty fascinating scenes doing this and there's another section where some of the MGM classics like SAN FRANCISCO, MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY and GRAND HOTEL are paid tribute to.As far as the rest of the film goes, it's a pretty routine murder-mystery but at the same time there's a nice cast that helps keep the film moving even if its 74-minute running time seems a bit longer. I actually really liked the look of the killer as well as his choice of weapon. They really did seem like a costume from the 1930s and as I said we also get a nice cast. Jack Cassidy, Jackie Coogan, Broderick Crawford, John Ireland, Peter Lawford and Kent Taylor are all fun to watch here and certainly add to the entertainment.

udar55 Worldwide Studios has hit hard times and plans on selling its back lot location to some property developers. The only thing standing in the way is the Phantom of Hollywood, a masked madman who lives on the lot in a cave. MGM was planning on tearing down some of its history structures and used that as an opportunity to do this fun updating of the PHANTOM OF THE OPERA myth. If there is such a thing as back lot eye candy porn, this might be the champ. Lots of amazing locations are used throughout this 74 minute TV movie. Perhaps the most interesting thing about it is the opening where director Gene Levitt films the dilapidated sets and buildings and then flashes back to them being used in old MGM productions. The plot isn't anything special (our phantom kidnaps the leading lady as required, but seems to have no real affinity for her) but it is a fun little film. Jack Cassidy is good in a dual role as both the company film archivist and his burn-scarred brother who is the Phantom. Strangely, Cassidy would dies less than two years later in a fire.

amyers-11 This is, frankly, a rather awful movie.Despite that, however, it is (as some other commenters have noted) a very interesting piece for anyone who enjoys old movie history or wants to learn a little bit more about it. The shots of MGM's back lots and the clips from a plethora of classic movies are nostalgia-provoking even in the layman, and it's hard to avoid a little tug at your heartstrings when the sets are destroyed at the end of the film.Beware, however, to those who are looking for a Phantom of the Opera retread: this will likely disappoint you. Very few of Leroux's original ideas survive, since the Phantom here is a vehicle to show the destruction of old Hollywood rather than a story point unto himself. There's no love story and no examination of social morals, and the things that do carry over are mostly reworked to suit the new purpose of the film.That said, the dialogue is terrible, the action cartoonish and in some cases outlandishly unrealistic, and the plotting slipshod. It's not Plan 9, but it's definitely not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination.If you're a die-hard Phantom of the Opera fan, feel free to add it to your collection (though it's extremely hard to find nowadays), but the real reason to watch this film is to reflect on the milestones of the film industry and to watch the last moments of a bit of movie-making history before its destruction. Even if the writers borrowed Leroux's framework for their story, it is all about Hollywood and its legacy.

Marta Unfortunately, they were permanently dismantling the old back lot on the MGM studio property when this was being filmed, since the land had been sold to developers, so you watch as a grand old Hollywood institution is methodically destroyed and forever lost. If not for that, this movie would be only an interesting oddity. You see many Hollywood film sets from the old days of the cinema, juxtaposed against their present-day condition, and then you see them demolished. Today, it makes for sad viewing when you realize what history is being thrown away.The movie itself is fairly good; the premise being that there is a legend of a phantom who protects the studio when it's in danger. The workmen begin disappearing, and a studio exec starts to delve into the history of the studio to try and find out who's doing the killing.This screams 70's TV movie while you're watching it, but it's a decent film despite that. Jack Cassidy is good, as usual, in the part of the aging film star; he has ego to spare and fits the part extremely well. There are many old Hollywood stars in it, like Broderick Crawford, Jackie Coogan, Peter Lawford, John Ireland, Elisah Cook, Jr., and Billy Halop. All in all, it's a film that is more important than it would have been otherwise, just because of the historic film sets in it that can't be seen anymore. I enjoy this movie immensely, and everyone I talk with about it remembers it fondly. It's worth a look if you can find it.