Nonureva Really Surprised!

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

crimsonrose71 Dull it ain't! Costumes and sets (Christine's dressing-room!), red roses and colour photography create GORGEOUS period Gothic look, very lush and elegant. Script by Gerard Brach and director Dario Argento, however... well, that's totally different matter: characters are sleazy and unsympathetic. Phantom is not deformed, just a serial killer who likes bestiality and gore, hates fat people, describes himself a rat and lives (how apt!) in the sewer. Hm, he only needs sadistic potty-fetish and you have typical net scum! Christine prefers his sleazy company to gorgeous red roses - "I like simple flowers"- and Raoul - compared some to artist formerly known as Prince - hangs in the brothel. Christine has also beautiful but foul-tempered maid who is clearly jealous of Christine. Acting is very weird, and those who dislike lip-synching in 2004 movie should see THIS!

FloatingOpera7 Dario Argento's Phantom Of The Opera (1998: Starring Julian Sands, Asia Argento, Nadia Rinaldi, Andrea Di Stefano, Lucia Gazzardi, Aldo Massasso, Iztvan Bubik, David D'Ingeo, Zoltan Barabas, Kitti Kerri, Leonardo Treviglio, Enzo Cardogna, Itala Bekes, Tania Nagel, Csilla Ward, Gianni Franco, Gabor Harsai....Director Dario Argento, Written By Dario Argento.Released in 1998, this is Italian cinema director Dario Argento's Phantom but not the Phantom of the Opera as most people are familiar with nor the truest and most faithful adaptation of the old French novel by Gaston Leroux. This one is clearly a horror movie without any touch of romance. Fans of the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical and the earlier Phantom movies from Lon Cheney's classic performance to Claude Rains, Herbert Lom and Charles Dance, this film is entirely on a different level. It falls under the category of Italian horror and international casting in an unpleasant, disturbing and gory independent film. No wonder it did not do well in the box office and most Phantom fans aren't even aware of its existence. Dario Argento cast his own daughter in the role of Christine Daee, and British actor Julian Sands as the Phantom. This time around, the Phantom is NOT disfigured, which is the strongest violation of the original premise. Instead of having facial deformities, the Phantom is an abandoned child who was raised by telepathic rats that kill people. Living under the opera house with his rats, he's developed telepathy himself and a dirty, dark, predatory and disgusting personality. He looks like either a vampire or rock star but there is no real sense of romance. His feelings for Christine are carnal and nothing more. She becomes his lover but other than music and her voice, theirs is a purely sexual relationship. Because of this, and because he kills anyone he dislikes, he's not a sympathetic figure. Without the romance, we can't really feel anything for this Phantom who is pure evil. The story is only partially faithful to the original tale. It is set at the Paris Opera of the 1870's and the Count Raoul De Chagny is Christine's choice of a mate, but this time around we genuinely feel that she belongs with the normal, secure and more romantic Count than the sadistic and no good Phantom. The performances are over-the-top and boring, even Carlotta, the fat soprano who thinks she is above all else. The classic chandelier drop is here but this time it's far more bloody than usual. There are scenes of graphic violence that earned this movie an R rating and ought not to be viewed by sensitive audiences or children. The music is beautiful, haunting and evocative of the period (with the use of the aria from Lakme) and the cinematography, costumes and art direction is truly very Phantom, including the "Degas ballerinas" touches, but there is very little to like about this movie. For comic relief, there is a rat exterminator and a midget which seem absurd and out of place for this tale. The real problem is the lack of direction and lack of romanticism. It's just one movie of Dario Argento's dark ouevre that happens to have the Phantom of the Opera as subject, but he twisted it around to make it his work and his style. Unless you're a fan of the Italian director, you'll otherwise find it too dark and disturbing. The only other "horror-themed" Phantom I can think of is the 1989 Robert Englund Phantom, an American film starring the actor of the Freddy Kueger films, but even that one had more interesting qualities. This one is too sick.

Graham Greene Argento's work has often been criticised for its violence, portrayal of women and the apparent emphasis on style over substance. In most cases, these criticisms do hold some weight, but to look at them outside of the context of the world that he creates and the characters that he focuses on is somewhat unfair. Argento's work, regardless of content or theme, is pure cinema, and when done right, results in unforgettable films like The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970), Deep Red (1975), Suspiria (1977) and Tenebre (1982). Many fans and critics would argue that his more recent work over the last twenty years has failed to reach the same creative level of those particular films - and they would be correct, to an extent - but for me, there's simply no way that he's made a film that comes close to the level of this particular "reimagining" of Gaston Leroux's perennial classic, The Phantom of the Opera (1998).Now, as a general rule, I don't like to write negative reviews for films. I find it adolescent. There are so many fantastic films out there that are rich in imagination, style, character and intelligence that it seems almost counterproductive to waste time highlighting only the negatives. However, I feel I must contradict this notion somewhat with this review of the film in question, simply because I find it hard to believe that one of my very favourite and most well respected filmmakers could produce something as awkward, odd and downright incomprehensible as this. For me, the film was dull and sorely misguided. There's very little of Argento's once famous approach to cinematography, editing and production design, with a largely flat presentation that looks like a low-budget television drama, similar to that awful BBC adaptation of Tipping the Velvet (2002); which featured a similarly backroom recreation of a related time period. It's more surprising given the fact that the cinematographer here was Ronnie Taylor, who did such a fantastic job with Argento's earlier hit, Opera (1987), and would later create that exhilarating opening sequences for the director's subsequent film, the back-to-basics shocker Sleepless (2001).The film also suffers from a turgid script, poor performances, weak direction, obvious effects and some woeful lapses in judgement. I certainly respect Argento as a filmmaker, attempting to take the basic formula of The Phantom and do something a little different with it, but here the changes are silly and sometimes quite embarrassing. The subplot with the rats for example could have worked, and indeed, think about that great scene in his earlier film Inferno (1980) with the antiques dealer in central park. However, here it seems ridiculous and only adds to the more comedic characterisation of the phantom as a brooding, Mills and Boon style fop. Asia isn't as bad in the central role of Christine - moving confidently between the light and dark aspects of youthful naivety and pent up sensuality as she is courted by the ultimate in seductive evil - but by the end, the role was so underwritten that she simply could not elicit the right level of empathy and emotion from the (by now) somewhat jaded viewers. Obviously, if you enjoy the film, then I don't want to take that away from you, but as a long-time admirer of Argento's work, this was a real disappointment.Regardless of what you say about The Stendhal Syndrome (1996), Sleepless and The Card Player (2005), those films at least offered flashes of the old Argento magic; with tense, stalk-and-slash plot structures that brought to mind his giddy Giallo thrillers of the 1970's, unobtrusive use of camera and editing, and some fine performances from a variety of well known and well respected actors. The Phantom of the Opera lacks any traces of Argento's talent as a director of exceptional genre cinema, as he creates a cheap-looking film that is badly acted, poorly structured and sadly misjudged from the very beginning. Some have found an added camp value in the presentation and approached the film on that level, which I suppose could work, but anyone looking for the Argento of Deep Red or Tenebre to offer us a dark, disturbing and coolly self-aware interpretation of Leroux's themes of tragedy, obsession, madness and beauty will be sorely disappointed.

mpn_65 After hearing so much negative comment on this film I went and brought it, purely for the sake of wanting to see every Argento movie. Instead of being confronted with a silly dull rip off, it was an enjoyable thriller, slightly sad, violent and well made. Yes there was some silliness, namely the dwarf, but his end at the hands of the fallen rock was thrilling. I think Argento fans expect too much, and I have heard that Argento acknowledges the disappointments of his last films, but to me POTO is another Argento film of quality. Now I also agree with some comments about the rats being fake and the lack of plot (yet most know the story), perhaps Argento underplayed the obsession this Phantom had with Christina, but once again I can only say that this film was a great experience to watch, and I recommend this film, biased of course to anyone with an open mind and not worried it's not Suspiria or Inferno.