The Phantom of the Opera (1998) User Reviews (105)

Prepare Thyself for Camp

[gwendolyn_of_slytherin · 5/10 · 10 July 2005]

Dario Argento probably wasn't trying to make a funny movie about The Phantom of the Opera. Probably wasn't, but the point is, he did. While the gore in the film is unnecessary, it is not as frequent as we may be led to believe. The film does start out fairly abruptly with a guy getting his upper half sawed off, and at this time you're wondering, "what the hell is wrong with this picture?" Other death scenes are fairly equally gruesome, but all are also expected, therefore lowering the "scary gore factor." Of course, then you see The Phantom. Now, of course, you're really confused by the blonde hair and lack of a mask. I wasn't complaining about his good looks, though. The acting on Julian Sands's part is sub-par but not horrible, while Asia Argento is somewhat better. The relationship between the two is not incredibly believable, a sort of instant-love instant-hate instant-sadness thing that just keeps the audience confused as to why Christine can't make up her damn mind. Andrea Di Stefano is likable as Raoul, but some of his scenes are just incongruous with his character.

The sexuality of the film is incredibly overdone. Argento seems to need to expose women's breasts as many times as possible, including a very large and very unattractive La Carlotta. The opium den/whorehouse scene pretty much makes the movie (along with the couple of really gory parts) rated-R because we are definitely talking full frontal nudity, both sexes, and if you aren't expecting it you are pretty much blown away.

However: despite its flaws in cinematography (annoying and constantly switching camera angles and a soap opera-like quality), below standard acting, strange and inconclusive love story, and numerous bits of unwarranted violence... there is something about this film that just makes me want to declare it a campy, a cult classic. It is absolutely hilarious to watch, though very disturbing at times. If you've got a twisted sense of humour and/or a love of the bizarre, then this version of PotO with a man sticking rats down his pants for pleasure is the kind of movie you will want to see! 5 stars out of 10 for just being fun, though about 3 stars out of 10 when watched "critically." But as I said above, "prepare thyself for camp" and you'll probably love it.

Bizarre Version of a Classic

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 30 August 2005]

In 1877, in Paris, rats save a baby from death and raise him in the underground of the Opera de Paris. This child becomes The Phantom of the Opera (Julian Sands), a half-human half-animal breed, who falls in love for Christine Daaé (Asia Argento), an opera singer initiating her career. He disputes her love with the aristocratic Baron Raoul De Chagny (Andrea Di Stefano), sharing Christine that equally loves them both.

This Dario Argento's bizarre version of Gaston Leroux's classic novel really does not work, and probably it is the worst movie of his filmography. I believe he tried to create a gore and Gothic atmosphere, but the screenplay is awful. The nasty origin of The Phantom is quite ridiculous, with the weird Julian Sands being created by rats, but playing organ very well and not wearing mask, as in the other versions. Asia Argento is simply horrible in her character of Christine, with a terrible dubbing of the operas. Her mouth is not synchronized with the voice of the singer, and she does not show any vibration of feelings in her role. Most of the lines in this story are very ridiculous, and the way Christine falls in love for The Phantom is amazingly pathetic and silly. The Phantom comes to her, introduces himself with an absurd sentence, and she immediately has a crush on him. The actor that performs the leading gentleman Raoul is not handsome, and really does not help our heroine to decide her sentimental fate. Last but not the least, how could a stupid man like Ignace, the rat-catcher, invent and build a sophisticated device like the one he uses to eliminate the rats in the underworld of the Opera? My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Um Vulto na Escuridão" ("A Shadow in the Darkness")

Guilty Pleasure

[Galina_movie_fan · 22 April 2006]

It is not the best movie ever made but it is watchable, mainly due to Morricone's Music and the opera selections. Asia Argento plays the main heroine, young talented opera singer Christine. I don't think she was bad and her face is unbelievably beautiful - she reminds Olivia Hussey of "Romeo and Juliet" (1968) and Uma Thurman if Uma ever decides to dye her hair dark. Production values, costumes, special effects, decorations, and the singing voices are very good. I noticed that I laughed a lot during the film - perhaps Argento made a dark comedy of the familiar story?

I did not like Julien Sands as a non-masked Phantom. He looks a lot like the creatures that raised him.

The film has an orgy scene that is so funny it could've came directly from "Caligula"

Overall - I had a lot of fun, and and can call it one of my guilty pleasures.

Great story, maybe not the best Argento's film but not bad!

[Gunnar_Runar_Ingibjargarson · 5/10 · 24 June 2008]

Leaden horror costumer that takes its tenuous starting point from the classic Gaston Leroux novel of the same name. The twist in this variation is that the Phantom was raised by telepathic rats in the subterranean caverns beneath the opera house. Thus our feral Phantom (Julian "Ratboy" Sands) develops an obsessive love for up-and-coming diva Christine (Asia Argento), and sets about to seduce her to his dark, rodent existence. Although beautifully photographed, with lots of ornate period detail to catch the eye, this is largely a by-the-numbers supernatural horror story with scant gory set pieces as diversions. Fans of Dario Argento will yell "Rats!" and all else will merely shrug. And why are the rats telepathic, anyway? Screen writing credits go to Gerard Brach, best known for his many collaborations with Roman Polanski, most notably Repulsion. However, none of his absurd sense of humor comes through in this film, which really needs it. A shame all around. The DVD includes a short interview with the film's star, Julian Sands, as well as a photo gallery, some dispensable making-of clips, spliced together to appear as a featurette (mostly in untranslated Italian) and a very informative article from Fangoria Magazine.

Argento's Weakest Film, But Not As Bad As Its Reputation

[Witchfinder-General-666 · 5/10 · 3 April 2007]

Dario Argento's "Il Fantasma Dell Opera" aka. "Phantom Of The Opera" of 1998 is widely (and rightly) considered to be his worst movie, and regarded by many of his fans as a complete disaster. I am a very big Argento fan, and I agree that "Phantom Of The Opera" (not to be confused with Argento's excellent "Opera" aka. "Terror At The Opera" of 1987) is a disappointment, but I still don't share the wide-spread opinion that it is completely awful. The movie should certainly be avoided by people not familiar with Argento, or not familiar with the Phantom of the Opera Story. In case you don't know Argento's work, watch masterpieces such as "Profondo Rosso" of 1975, "Suspiria" of 1977, or "Phenomena" of 1985 instead of this, and if you don't know the story behind "Phantom...", go for the 1925 classic with Lon Chaney. People who like Argento, however, should at least give this one a try. It may be a disappointment, and it certainly is the weakest movie by this brilliant director, but it's certainly not complete garbage.

The story was changed in the way that the Phantom was raised by rats (Argento fans know that he likes to involve animals), and the film has some terribly cheesy parts. In some parts, however, the movie provides a great sense of macabre humor, and the gore is, of course, intense. Argento's daughter, the beautiful Asia Argento stars in the female lead in this, which is, in my opinion an advantage. I always like Asia Argento's performances, and this film is no exception. I also found Julian Sands OK as the Phantom, although his performance was far from being great.

The film may lack the typical Argento style in some departments, but the visual style and the intense colors will certainly make anyone recognize whose work this film is. The score was composed by the brilliant Ennio Morricone. I am a big admirer of Morricone, and many of his compositions, especially those composed for Sergio Leone's masterpieces, are without doubt some of the greatest scores of all-time. Still, in Argento's films I preferred the brilliant progressive Rock soundtracks by Goblin, since the music is not only superb, but it also harmonizes perfectly with Argento's style. I must admit, however, that a progressive Rock soundtrack would certainly not be appropriate for a movie set in the 19th century.

"Phantom Of The Opera" certainly is (by far) Argento's weakest film, but that doesn't mean it's completely bad. We're talking about a cinematic genius here, and I think the only reason this movie's reputation is that bad, is the fact that expectations are high when it comes to Argento. Argento's decision to get back to his old style, however, was certainly wise, as his next movie, "Non Ho Sonno" aka. "Sleepless" of 2001 was very good.

Concluding, I recommend to see this to my fellow Argento fans. The possibility that they will be disappointed is high, but, in my opinion, it is not as bad as people say it is. Is it a disappointment for Argento? - It Certainly is. Is it complete garbage? - No, Certainly Not. 5/10

This is not a REAL Argento's film!

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 3/10 · 23 November 2000]

What a total let-down!What a huge disappointment!I still can't believe that Dario Argento was responsible for this Hollywood-influenced piece of garbage.It's simply a romance with some splashy gore thrown in.All of Argento's trademarks are gone here:no cool camera angles,no Goblin music,no playing with colors,no black-gloved killer,no bizarre dreamlike sequences,and worse of all,absolutely no suspense.The direction is very flat,the acting is horrible and the characters are not interesting at all.The gore scenes are well-done,but the film is extremely boring.All in all,"Phantom of the Opera" is pretty hard to sit through since it is so lame and unscary.I wouldn't be able to watch this trash again.I only hope that Argento's next horror project "I Can't Sleep" will be really worth watching.Avoid "Il Fantasma dell'opera" like the plague.Better watch "Suspiria" or "Deep Red" again.Not recommended.

an artless failure

[Jonny_Numb · 1/10 · 25 January 2003]

Like so many other directors who peaked in the 1970s (Tobe Hooper, John Carpenter, Lucio Fulci, etc.), Dario Argento's recent work has been incredibly artless and boring. Last year's "Sleepless" was a disastrous attempt at returning to the giallos that made him famous, and "The Phantom of the Opera" (what is this, the MILLIONTH version?) is a murky, muddled, and indifferent stab at 'art.' Reviews that say this is Argento's worst film are not inaccurate--it's so dull I fast-forwarded through most of it, and I NEVER fast-forward through movies. The script is constantly pulling itself in different directions, the acting is downright terrible, the attempts at humor are awkward and unfunny, and the whole thing plays out with the look and feel of a soap opera. Through and through, this is terrible crap, with no redeeming value.

Zero/10

Argento's version of a classic story

[Coventry · 3/10 · 10 June 2003]

If you are familiar in the field of horror, you know Dario Argento is more than just the name of some director. He's a legend in the genre and is responsible for a large number of true classics like Profondo Rosso and Suspiria. When you see his version of "Phantom of the Opera" , you wouldn't give him this honor, actually. I'm sure most people know the story by Gaston Leroux so there's no need to summarize the plot. This version of Dario follows the story rather well but if you don't know it yet I recommend to see the original Lon Chaney film instead (1925) Also the Terrence Fisher version from the sixties will give you more satisfaction. The phantom is played by Julian Sands. A forgotten actor who once became famous for his roles in Arachnophobia and the very bad film Boxing Helena. I don't know why I refer to him as 'the Phantom' actually, cause his face is always showing. Without scars, without mutilation ...pretty lame phantom if you ask me. His muse is played by Dario Argento's daughter Asia. Always a pleasure to admire her beautiful face, but if that's the only thing to admire about a movie...well then there's something wrong. Argento has made "Sleepless" since this film and looked more like his previous work. He's currently working on "the Card Dealer" and this too seems real nice. So, we'll forgive him this mistake. My humble opinion: 3/10

Interesting take on a familiar story

[jodie-47 · 7/10 · 24 April 2006]

I've seen probably the majority of Phantom films ever made and own a number. This one I left until just last night to watch because I suspected it might be a little on the odd side. During the entire movie, I just wanted Julian to wash and brush his hair! Really, Dario wanted to make his own version of a familiar story and he did just that. If you look at it as merely someone's new take on the old story, then it can be viewed in an objective fashion. To be honest, I quite enjoyed it and loved the end scene. I actually felt some sympathy with Julian's phantom - Christine was just an irritation and obviously had no idea of how to fake a singer's breathing. Both she and the Phantom look pretty OK naked though.... Can't complain about that because every one wants the Phantom and Christine to get together, and here finally they did. It was a little more graphic that I had expected and a little more violent (I had imagined a more romantic tryst). The ratcatcher I would personally have gutted much much earlier in the movie - talk about a pain in the butt! Raoul was a nothing and could pretty much be ignored. Overall, I enjoyed the DVD and will be happily keeping it in my Phantom collection for a long time to come.

What a load of crap

[the_phantom_was_here · 1/10 · 5 February 2006]

To kick off, this film sucks! Call me immature, but it's true. I don't blame the actors, I blame the script. The whole gory shtick did nothing to add to the film. The whole movie is just a waste of talent and viewer time really. Julian Sands is great actor; unfortunately he will have to add this horror of a movie to his resume. I started to see the film's decline in the scene when Christine and the Phantom meet for the first time. The whole meeting was just...stupid. Basically, it was just him revealing that he can read her mind and communicate with her the same way. The fact that Christine fell in love with him because of this just made her seem like a weak-minded bimbo. This movie was so unrealistic and cheap, I had to watch Andrew Lloyd Webber's version TWICE just to rid the feeling of disappointment. I hear reviews saying that the movie wasn't as bad as what others might think. True -- IT'S WORSE. To anyone who even considered renting this pretense of an attempt to a good remake: Don't waste your money or your life on it. Stick to the Andrew Lloyd Webber or the original 1925 version.

A refreshing change for Dario.

[pep3 · 8/10 · 23 March 2000]

I've seen and liked most of Argento's films. "Phantom" has been bashed by most Argento fans, but I found the film a refreshing change. Dario has rediscovered his sense of humor that was so evident in "Bird with the Crystal Plumage" but almost non-existent in his subsequent films. The are some flaws but on the positive side, Asia gives a charming performance, the cinematography is beautiful, and the story is involving. Overall, the film ranks with "Tenebrae", "Phenomena", and "Opera" although the tone of "Phantom" is entirely different. I hope this film signals a new direction in Argento's work.

wonderfully bad

[billy_tom_logan · 6/10 · 18 July 2002]

Being a fan of horror films, I was naturally intrigued to see that Italian horror legend Dario Argento had made a version of Phantom of the Opera. I rented it without hesitation. Well, it certainly isn't his best work, to put it mildly. The film introduces several new and interesting elements to the Phantom story, which by now has been rehashed ad nauseum. Some of these elements include - the Phantom having been raised by rats, the Phantom is not (externally) deformed, and therefore, does not wear the mask that is almost mandatory for the part (despite the fact that it appears on the cover - though it does make a haunting appearance in one scene, if you can catch it in the background). Unfortunately, the potential of these new ideas is never fully explored, rather, they are reintroduced and reintroduced as if to say, "Hey, look what I thought of! Isn't that great?" It seems that Argento got so caught up in the atmosphere and style of the movie that he forgot there was actually a story going on. The commitment to atmosphere is obvious - the costumes _are_ positively marvelous, and the cinematography is also quality. Beyond that, the film more or less falls apart. The acting is, for lack of a better word, absolutely terrible. I was sighing with relief everytime one of the few actors who managed mediocrity came onscreen. Julian Sands as the Phantom is flat, not surprising for an actor who fell off the face of the earth ten years ago. Andrea di Stefano as his rival Raoul is neither good nor bad, but certainly inexperienced. Asia Argento as the singer is disappointing compared to some of her other performances - but as one reviewer noted, she always seems to be holding back when working for her father.

The biggest problem I had with it was the hideous line dubbing. At least I _hope_ some of those lines were dubbed. Another problem is just how quickly the movie takes things for granted. Almost before I had time to take my popcorn out of the microwave and sit down, the singer and the phantom were madly in love and communicating psychically. Yes, psychically, another new idea that is interesting of its own right but doesn't work because it is presented far too suddenly and with very little supporting detail.

Overall . . . it has its moments. Those moments could have made for a very refreshing look at the Phantom story, as well as a darn good movie. Unfortunately, it managed to do only some of the former, and none of the latter.

Four Points out of Ten

[235SCOPE · 1/10 · 2 December 1999]

I never thought I would find myself writing a bad review of a Dario Argento movie. I have been a fan of his films since the beginning and have every one of them on video, laserdisc or DVD.

I just purchased the DVD of "Il Fantasma dell'Opera," however, and I must say that I regretfully agree with those who feel this is an all-time low for the director. This movie is so basically bad that it makes me wonder if I haven't been making excuses for Argento for some time now. It's hard to believe that in this day and age, with a significant amount of resources and first-class collaborators like Ennio Morricone, Gerard Brach and Julian Sands, the picture still manages to completely fail in any kind of dramatic sense.

While credibility has never been a big thing for Argento, here he pushes the limits and trips himself into complete absurdity. The film opens with a sewer rat single-handedly saving a basket with child from the edge of a waterfall and goes all the way down from there. Are we supposed to even remotely accept that sewer rats could possibly save a baby from death and raise him like, say, the apes raised Tarzan? The bond between the Phantom and the sewer rats, which is central to the rest of the picture, comes from this scene. Unfortunately, this set-up is so ludicrous that every time the issue of "love" between the Phantom and the rats resurfaces (and it does, often and ineptly) you cringe because there is no way you can dispell the absurdity of it all. Why, did a tiny female rat breast-feed the Phantom until he was of age to feed himself? Puhleeze!

The story meanders hopelessly from one ridiculous scene to the next. One man dies and those around him react as if he had only burped. A woman gets her tongue ripped out of her mouth for no other apparent reason than the fact that nobody else in a Dario Argento movie had that happen to them before. Another man's hand is gnawed at by rats and he just leaves it there while the hungry little beasts go to work on it, just so that we can get a good look at it. Loyalties come and go for no reason whatsoever. The climactic "crash of the chandelier" scene looks cheap and completely unimaginative, with some gore trying to compensate for a total lack of spectacle. And even Ennio Morricone's music, unbelievably, seems oddly purposeless as it plays monotonously against every scene.

And then there's Asia Argento, who hysterically missacts every line and botches every shot of herself lipsynching to what is undeniably and all-too-obviously somebody else's singing. Would it have cost a lot to rehearse until her lipsynching looked real? Never mind. Asia has yet to prove, in my view, that she is anything but a one-note actress who plays every part and every scene as a possessed nymphette, and this script doesn't help. The script, in fact, never delivers any information about Christine or anyone such that we could even intuit what she finds so spellbinding about the Phantom (after all, he is a murderous sewer ratboy!) But Argento seems satisfied that Asia's lunatic-like expressions are enough for his audience to get the story. Well, they aren't, and the story is a bust.

The most perplexing thing about "Fantasma" is that Argento did not need to make it because he had already made his Phantom movie. It was called "Opera" and was filled with classic Argento bravura pieces. If you want to see the master's touch, take a look at the (and this is very important!) widescreen version of that film. Not this.

Not in the class with 1987's Opera, but better than it gets credit for

[rbmoviereviewsdotcom · 9 April 2001]

This is not a remake; it's a reconceptualization. Thus, it should be expected to be true to the original only where the writers, Gerard Brach and Dario Argento, see fit. Many people are up in arms that the phantom's face isn't disfigured, but that is not the problem. The problem is Dario replaces the disfigurement with a raised by rats story, yet we get a Richard Gere type of suave, supposedly poetic phantom instead of an uneducated Christopher Lambert in Greystoke. What makes this worse is that a totally literate phantom still has almost no chance to utter any decent dialogue.

Virtually the entire movie takes place within the opera house, but this is in no way limiting or constricting to the look of the film because this is Dario Argento we are talking about. Argento creates a bizarre underworld in the depths of the opera house that is original, but at the same time evokes memories of Jeunet & Caro's City Of The Lost Children and Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. Dario's pays great attention to detail when it comes to the look he wants, but seemingly could care less whether the set is plausible in the real world. This is Dario's world; accept it or watch boring, visually stunted, formulaic directors rehash bad scripts in a conventional manner.

The movie often succeeds in being darkly comedic, and the characters are only meant to be viewed in the sense of what the represent in the real world. This is why the outside world isn't normal the two times we see it. Julie Taymor's ancient Rome is the only one that had cars and video games, but that doesn't stop most people from thinking Titus is a good flick. Both are bold visionary movies that are not trying to be realistic. You can make a valid argument that certain unrealistic aspects don't add anything to the movie and/or simply dislike them, but things like electricity in the opera house were deliberate decisions that intentionally make it implausible in the sense of the real world.

The weakness of the movie, as usual, lies in the script. The most annoying aspect is that Sands has the special powers at the outset, but they mysteriously disappear when he needs them most as if they were provided by the Witchblade. The dialogue is definitely worse than the usual English as a second language stuff we get from Dario. The secondary characters are used well though, societal parodies. Some of the funniest work Dario has even done comes when he mocks the vulgarity of the opera society. The main characters don't provide chuckles or really elicit our love or contempt; it's hard not to be ambivalent toward them. The leading men seem to chase Asia because they become addicted to her at first site. Asia essentially professes to have no concept of love, so her feelings toward them are mostly based on their last action. Instinct vs. duality is a worthwhile concept, but unfortunately the characters only seem drawn to each other because they are supposed to be. It eventually clicks, but not until the final segment of the film.

The strength of Argento's movie, as always, is the look. Some aspects were a little below his own top standard, but this was not the typical Dario movie. The improvements in sets, staging, and costuming help balance off the areas that are obviously going to be weaker given the type of movie. He successfully branched out with the sex related scenes, particularly where the men are haunted by their desire for Asia. Scenes like these gave it the art house feel that made up for it lacking the haunted house feel Dario wasn't going for.

I don't see where the movie would have looked any better with an overbloated American budget. The only thing lacking visually is the innovation we used to get from Dario. There aren't any shots/scenes that really stick out in terms of being shockingly different or original. The tongue being bitten out was the gory highlight, but that would normally be no better than the 4th part you'd mention. The gore is mainly close-ups. Argento & Stivaletti do them better than anyone, but they've overused the grinding/biting/ripping stuff here.

The film doesn't have the edge or create the suspense Dario's used to. That's mostly purposeful because I don't believe Dario intended to make a horror film. Sands is the cartoon avenger who kills off grotesque characters and sinners that we should only feel contempt for, so why should we be worried whether they get decapitated? That's why rats were a great choice of animal to raise Sands. They aren't fluffy little kittens that everyone supposedly likes and can't stand to see harmed; they are vermin. The people who try to steal from the phantom, sin in his presence (note that he saves the little girl, who then returns and tells the tale only to get slapped by an adult), or outright harm `his family' are considered lower than vermin. Of course, no one films animals and insects better than Argento's crew. Sometimes he gets better `performances' out of them than from humans.

Sands & Asia do a very good job considering the extremely limited material. Sands is able to exude the right amount of confidence by being much lower key than usual. Unfortunately, there is not credible material to give him a chance to be scarred inwardly; he just seems too content. Asia is active enough with her body to get over the bad dialogue, but she sometimes looks ridiculous `singing' and the audio dub during these scenes is occasionally atrocious.

The movie certainly has many problems and doesn't hold a candle to Opera. That said, I'd still rather watch this than most films because it offers a unique visual experience that very few directors have the ability and the balls to provide. 6/10

R-Rated Phantom Without The Romance

[FloatingOpera7 · 4/10 · 4 February 2009]

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.

Tele-movie quality ham and exploitative tackiness. Not a patch on the 1925 version.

[Ben_Cheshire · 5/10 · 26 June 2004]

(spoilers, sexual references)

Like most movies made by people who don't speak the language of their actors - the acting is terrible. He was clearly going for a superlative Victorian style, which would have included larger than life performances - but the actors don't nail it - it just comes off as hammy, mainly due to the dubbing.

Like most italian movies (this is in english, but clearly made in Italy with Italian crew, etc), it looks like the dubbing is terrible (even though it is in synch) because the voice performances, recorded later, bear little resemblance to the tone of the visual performances.

The film stock also makes everything look like a tele-movie. The actors never gel with their backgrounds, and the camera is usually too close, which results in everything looking like rehearsals for a movie, just not quite cinematic. Unnecessary bursts of sex and violence are Argento's contributon to this story, which are ironically the two elements most out of place in it. By the way, i'm at a loss as to why anyone would hire Julian Sands after Boxing Helena.

But Argento's biggest crime was doing away with the device Its probably because no actor today would be able to harness their ego and agree to being a mysterious figure who only eventually appears, sort of like Orson Welles' Harry Lime in The Third Man. That's the treatment Rupert Julian gave the Phantom in 1925, and it'll never be topped. The Phantom first appears as a shadow, then only as a mysterious voice, then as a hand, then a profile, then as a masked creature, till finally the climactic moment when he is unmasked! All that's gone in Argento's version: we see Julian Sands' face in the first five minutes! The prime interest in the original story was the mystery of the phantom - he's a phantom! Phantoms are mysterious: they disappear and reappear. This Phantom is about as subtle as a porno, which at least is appropriate for the context of THIS movie.

Highlights: the first murder scene, with some guys on a pulley down a shaft fixing some walls, is quite wonderful. The best thing in the movie. There is also an automatic rat catcher that is quite fun (the rat catchers are good characters), and Asia Argento is a good leading lady (though perhaps not as beautiful as the Christine we all imagine). The whole rat subplot is unique to this version: Argento has devised a history for the Phantom which suggests he was raised by rats! The real highlights, though, are the laughing-at-corn ones: watching Asia Argento miming to opera music: its unintentionally hilarious. She's clearly had some lessons about how opera singers look when they sing, but not nearly enough! A sex scene later on: only an Italian would think of this: they're setting up a gothic romance, which to an Italian means "porno," so when Christine and the Phantom get to copulating, he flips her ass-up and rides her like a pony. Its only a two-second grab, but so laughably wrong it deserves mention.

Clifford's Tips: Please don't bother with this. I hear Argento made some wonderful shockers earlier in his career, but this is not one of them.

Mediocre Argento

[ODDBear · 5/10 · 3 June 2005]

Dario Argento's take on this classic tale is pretty weird indeed. I think this is the first time the Phantom isn't disfigured although the poster indicates he is. I certainly don't remember the Phantom being raised by rats. And what's the deal with those guys who are killing the rats. Somebody said Argento was smoking something he shouldn't have. Well, who knows.

Anyway, Dario is my favourite director of all. Films like Bird with the Crystal Plumage, Deep Red, Suspiria, Tenebrae, Phenomena, Opera and The Stendhal Syndrome are all masterpieces as far as I'm concerned. With movies like Opera and Tenebrae, it took several viewings to fully appreciate them and so far I've only watched Phantom once. I somehow doubt I'm gonna fall in love with it later, I simply found this film to be the least in his fabulous filmography.

I'm really not a fan of this period in movies. Opera's give me a headache (unless Argento's 1987 Opera, which is a full throttle suspense film) and I don't think Argento handles romantic subplots all that well. It's just not his cup of tea. To liven things up Argento throws in plenty of gore (one sequence especially which would make gore hound Lucio Fulci proud), and while it's pretty shocking and gruesome, it simply feels like it doesn't belong here. To me, this Phantom is very hard to understand, and his relationship with Christina (Asia) isn't wholly believable. There's not exactly passion to burn between Asia and Julian Sands and they're forbidden love never grabs hold of you. I find it hard to figure out the end, that is, why Christina acts the way she does, I don't want to spoil the ending, it's her reactions that puzzle me. She can't seem to make up her mind.

I'm giving this one a 5. A bit generous, but I'm hoping that when I watch this film a second time I'll appreciate it more.

Spoiler alert

But the love scene with the rats is still beyond me

Complete Excrement

[MetalMiike · 1/10 · 29 November 2004]

There maybe spoilers in the following; if you get to see the film, you really won't care.

It is no wonder Asia is no longer appearing in her dad's films. She has certainly proved herself an infinitely better director all round; true, it would be hard for anyone to ever match the dizzying heights of Suspiria but this stinks. Really, it does; its a floater in the phantom's sewer. Most of the characters look like typical Eurotrash, especially the long-haired Raul, who is impossible to take seriously and WHY, Dario? WHY? WHY take away the mask? The Phantom's mask! What next? Porn without the sex? James Bond without his tux? Oi! But that isn't the half of it; we are exposed to such treats as Sands sticking rats down his trousers (yes, you read that right) and does it not worry anyone else about the amount of nudity Pop requires of Asia? But the film's crowning achievement is surely the crazy idea of Rats... yes, RATS... raising the Phantom from a baby. Where did he learn to speak? To dress? How did he come to be so good in bed? Did he read the Rata Sutra? or is it the Karma Ratra? OK, enough of that. I remember reading at the time a industry insider (who remained nameless) saying that if the film did not do well, the Italian film industry was in big trouble. No wonder they're shooting all their films on digital these days.

My 31st birthday viewing.

[morrison-dylan-fan · 5/10 · 13 February 2018]

Counting down the days to my birthday,I decided that I would watch a double bill. Picking The Evil Dead 3 as the second flick. I took a look at the remaining works of auteur Dario Argento I had left to watch. Initially just finding the "workprint cut" of Trauma and his "live Opera" Macbeth, I spotted that I had never seen his Phantom adaptation,which led to me booking a ticket for the opera.

View on the film:

Going historical for the first time since the very interesting, 1973 non-Horror/non-Giallo The Five Days of Milan, co-writer/(with Gérard Brach & Giorgina Caspari) director Dario Argento reunites with Opera's cinematographer Ronnie Taylor (who also worked on Phantom adaptations Popcorn and Phantom of the Paradise) aim for an epic Gothic Horror,complete with a magnificent Opera house and winding catacombs. Working on a healthy budget,Argento (who throws sex scenes between the Phantom and his own daughter in to up the sleaze factor!)becomes unsteady in reaching the grandiose ambitions,as the stylisation of camera moves is pulled to focusing on rubbery gore effects, and the lighting is dimmed to the point of the impressive locations being covered in pitch darkness.

Whilst losing the directing ambitions he had shown in Opera,the screenplay by Argento/Brach and Caspari brings to the front one of Argento main themes across his work,via the parental (and sexual!) love the Phantom has for the rats that raised him.

Following the path in his directing,the writers appear undecided over what direction to take this loose adaptation, where the would-be sweeping romance between Phantom and Christine lacks any feeling of passion,and the bonkers, rat catcher surges into Gothic Horror (that would be the main element in Argento's next historical Horror: Dracula)are clipped before they become fitted into the mask of the movie. Joined by a sultry Asia Argento as Christine, Julian Sands tries to give the Phantom a brooding, Dracula-style allure,but fails due to Sands being extremely timed in digging his rat fangs in,and lifting the curtain on the phantom of the opera

Worth seeing, if only for the dwarf's demise!

[BA_Harrison · 6/10 · 22 March 2006]

Dario Argento's adaptation of Gaston Leroux's classic tale is a below-par offering from the Italian master of horror - but even Argento's worst films still manage to be thoroughly entertaining, thanks to his energetic direction, unconventional storytelling, lavish production values and graphic gore.

Dario's daughter, Asia, is Christine, an understudy at the Paris Opera. Christine is lusted after by suitor Raoul – but Raoul has competition in the form of crazy killer, Erik, The Phantom of the Opera. Erik, abandoned at birth and raised by rats in the underground caverns beneath the opera house, uses telepathy to woo Christine and lure her to his lair. Then he bonks her.

Crazy Erik then sabotages the opera house, killing members of the audience and injuring prima-donna Carlotta, which results in Christine becoming star of the show. On Christine's first night, the opera house's ratcatcher (who secretly spied on Erik and Christine getting it on) reveals that Christine is 'the Phantom's whore'. The Phantom rescues Christina from an angry mob, who pursue them underground…

Although Dario's film is far from a masterpiece, it is hugely enjoyable thanks to the inventive gore (courtesy of Sergio Stivaletti), wonderfully preposterous characters (the ratcatcher is a scream, as he and his dwarf sidekick take delight in slaughtering rodents) and a good deal of gratuitous nudity.

So, in a nutshell, this isn't classic Argento... but it is fun!

Be warned!

[woinaroschy_1979 · 5/10 · 29 November 2010]

This movie looks to me like some type of experiment. Something like "Let's see what we could do with the Phantom of the Opera story to shock people a bit and make it different". Because it's totally different from any other Phantom of the Opera take.

First, the phantom is not deformed, he's an abandoned child raised up by...rats in the catacombs of the Opera. If I remember correctly (there has been a while since I've read the book by Gaston Leroux) there is a weird character in the book that has the power to command the rats and is always walking around in those catacombs surrounded by rats, and the Phantom was avoiding him and letting him be (yeah, looks like all weirdos of Paris retreat under the Opera, I know). So here there's a mesh-up of this character and the Phantom: the guy is raised by rats, is able to command them, has telepatic powers (where did that come from?? no idea), loves music and plays the orgue. How he learned to talk, play the orgue, or got his things down there in the caverns we don't know. He's not at all deformed, looks more like a rock star (weird looking wig, by the way, but it's supposed to make him look sexy...), so you also ask yourself why he likes staying in those catacombs when he could be living quite normally above ground. Perhaps his weird childhood left its marks upon him and he's not adapted to live differently. In fact he's a pretty sick pervert, bites the tongue out of a woman's mouth, is killing people left, right and center, and almost masturbates in front of his rats(!). Well he does kill a child molester on the other hand...

Christine is in this movie no Saint Mary, she's always almost fainting with desire when she sees the Phantom, and she can't decide if she loves him or not. One time she's offering herself to him like a slut, then she's all rebellious and shouts at him, telling him how much she hates him. It's the typical Italian love story this! Then later when the Phantom returns from his killing spree she shouts at him a bit more, he rapes her but she likes it, then she runs away into the arms of Raoul and tells him not to let her go.

Then there's a weird guy in the movie and his friend, a midget. These two weirdos like to hunt rats, and invent a steam motored vacuum cleaner machine with which they drive around in the caverns and kill the rats of the Phantom. That was so hilarious I almost chocked on my popcorn! Of course they're such bad drivers they hit a rock and the midget gets his head cut off. His friend then finds the Phantoms layer and watches the hot action going on between Christine and the Phantom. When he finally manages to get to the surface, he tweets to everyone the truth, that Christine is the Phantom's whore, which makes the Phantom become Batman, swoop on the stage and save her.

And here the plot becomes so laughable I thought I was gonna burst: Raoul appears and shoots the Phantom in one of the most ridiculous scenes ever, Christine suddenly realizes how much she loves the freak and cries like a baby while the Phantom is all like "Life goes on, dear girl". Then it all comes down, gore and slashing at the Phantom while Christine is in the boat with Raoul, screaming her brains out and crying, instead of jumping in the water to get to him (maybe she doesn't know how to swim?)

So a movie where I had a few good laughs, have been shocked a few times by the gore and some other stuff (Christine is the director's daughter, and she has some sex scenes in the movie with daddy-o filming, pretty creepy, but OK, artists are not to be judged like other people) and I'm not sure if I like the Phantom, but find him attractive nonetheless. If you want a movie completely different from the usual Phantom of the Opera, watch it, but be warned that it's an experiment.

A misunderstood film

[matheusmarchetti · 10/10 · 19 October 2005]

Dario Argento's Phantom of the Opera is, unfortunately a misunderstood film. It's much different from your usual Argento work and almost every film based on the classic Gaston Leroux novel. Sure, there ARE some issues with the film, but it's much better than people think it is. For instance, I did have a problem with the fact that this Phantom wasn't disfigured at all, and the fact that the Phantom IS DISFIGURED in the novel is one of the things that made such an enduring tale. However, it's not without a purporse. When you realize Argento's true meanings, you see that it can actually work in the film. His 'Phantom' and his 'Christine' are entirely different characters. The Phantom is indeed deformed, but on the inside, and the film is able to show that. Also, I loved how Christine is somewhat the Phantom's 'partner in crime' in this version. She's not the same naive character as she is usually portrayed. Another point that most people can't understand is that the film is itself more of a parody of the crazy world of the theater than anything else. We have everything from the overweight tempered 'prima donna', to the peadophile directors, everything. The film is often not serious, and while some might say 'unnintentionally funny', it is not. It's intentional. That being said, the use of CGI in the film was really unnecessary and looked really bad, one of the issue I have with the film as I've said earlier. The acting is often wooden and most characters say stuff that nobody would EVER say in 19th century Paris, but I suspect it's the result of bad dubbing. Anyways, the photography is really to die for. Ronnie Taylor proves once again he is a master at what he does, and sometimes it actually reminds of Argento's all time masterpiece, and my personal favorite horror film - Suspiria. As a matter of fact, lots of aspects of the film remind me of Suspiria: the dance school, the ballerinas in peril, the fairy-tale ish feel, etc. The Phantom's first appearance in the beginning of the film is also haunting, with the voice of Christine echoing through the lonely, empty corridors of the cavernous theater, and the Phantom standing in the dark, up in the boxes, just listening to her, like a shadow. And when he appears, seating at the end of the hallway, staring at the ground, it's also quite creepy. Another highlight is the musical score by Ennio Morricone, which is also one of his most underrated works. It's so beautiful and never fails to bring me to tears, but that is to be expected from him. Overall, it is a very good film. Yes, it IS flawed, but it's much better than what people say it is. Remember, watch it with an open mind and don't take it too seriously, because it wasn't the director's intention (not in a bad way, that is).

Give it a chance - it's better than it seems.

[the red duchess · 6/10 · 6 December 2000]

'The Phantom of the Opera' is one of those books that is impossible to film. part of this is to do with the grandeur of the set-pieces - in one scene, a massive chandelier is dropped on an opera audience; the book's setting, the Paris Opera House, is full of completely realised floors and basements, with a near-magical world of tarns and rocks as its substructure. That Dario Argento, working on a relatively low Euro-budget, cannot approach the novel's visual audacity, is not his fault, as his attempt is always inventive and entertaining.

A more difficult problem lies in the story's magic, in Erik's musical genius, and his bestowing on Christianne a voice of unearthly beauty - this can be easily imagined when reading, but is impossible to realise on screen - one good opera voice is as good as another, not helped here by having to sing what sound like hyper-ventilating scales; while the Phantom's organ-musings are more reminiscent of Sesame Street's The Count than tragic Baroque strains.

The most serious gap between book and film could have been averted by Argento. The book is called the 'Phantom' of the Opera, and although the anti-hero is revealed to be all too human, the first half compellingly records the subversive effects of this ghost, his inexplicable immateriality and omniscience. As the book goes on, the spirit becomes a body, and what was horrible becomes understandable, even sympathetic. Julian Sands is a body from the off, even given a bizarre back-story involving rats, and is thus robbed of his power, just as the narrative is denied its power to chill. There is no transformation, no sense of the body becoming a body, or conversely, no sense of the magic inherent in the real.

I say this could have been averted by Argento. The fact that it wasn't is surely a deliberate directorial choice. Because this is a very strange version of Leroux's tale, rescuing it from the mawkishness it has drowned in since a certain musical. Although constantly alluding to his previous work, especially 'Suspiria' (the ballet girls, the chases, the gynaecological interiors), the film is rarely scary, as if Argento is deliberately working against horror. Just as the film is at its darkest and most gory, Argento deflates the horror with his recourse to pantomime, Grand Guignol, farce, grotesquerie; alternating, as in a Shakespeare play, the high-flown love story with earthier nonsense. The rats bare more than a close resemblance to Roland, and yet, with gleeful viciousness, feed on the rat-trapped hand of a yokel ratcatcher.

Argento is attuned to the political ironies of Leroux's text. The film never leaves the world of the Opera, and still offers a rich, comic microcosm of contemporary French society, including Degas repeatedly sketching the little girls, and Verlaine and RImbaud hilariously brawling at a sauna-orgy. More seriously, the chasing of a gluttonous servant-girl by the Phantom is mirrored by the much more disturbing chase of a young ballerina by a paedophile bourgeois.

The Opera was built as the supreme edifice of bourgeois France, a monumental erection to vulgar taste, which the affronted Italian director mockingly exposes; it was a demonstration of prosperity, pretension, but above all positivism, the progress of science, the idea that the world could be empirically known. Like all great Gothic novels, this modern hubris is in conflict with lingering residues of the past, a material building haunted by phantoms, its very materiality (the chandelier scene) vulnerable, the modern architecture on a prehistoric substructure, like a palimpsest, home to a man raised and pleasured by rats, an affront to contemporary Darwinism.

This breadth was taken further by Leroux into the realm of the metaphysical, avoided by the strictly somatic Argento, although the opening scenes brilliantly play with the idea of absence and presence that form the thematic basis of the book. This is by no means vintage Argento, but his use of interiors and light and shade remain quite inspiring, and there is a hilarious scene involving the ratcatcher and the fate of his dwarf assistant.

I'm at a loss of words! (may contain sexual references, spoilers)

[bored_intellect_scorpio · 1/10 · 14 April 2005]

I had been intrigued by the phantom of the opera when i saw the 2004/05 Andrew Lloyd Webber's movie. When i saw this movie i was in complete and utter shock. The acting AND singing was quite awful (although I LOVED Julian sands in ROSE RED), the fake singing hadn't even been very good. Even the horror scenes seemed pathetic, they were just plain gory, no plot. The characters have NO development and are mainly confused me. I guess I understand that Erik had power over Christine but one moment, she hates him (for no apparent reason), the next, she's letting him hump her, and then she's crying because she doesn't want to leave him, like it's going to kill her! This movie fits better in the category as "porno" if i were to WANT to watch "porno" i would, i was hoping for a creative possibly scary movie and was severely disappointed! The fake Gore, the sick sex scenes, the horrible acting, horrible singing, and overall pathetic state of this movie cause me to suggest that anyone who's considering seeing it, you'll regret it unless you like a movie such as this. (it's one of those things that i'd just like to completely forget)