Matialth
Good concept, poorly executed.
Calum Hutton
It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...
Loui Blair
It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.
morrison-dylan-fan
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
Leofwine_draca
Right from the start you can tell that Argento hasn't lost his touch, with a distinctively unique approach to the colouring of his film which gives it a real period look and feel. And, right from the start, you realise that this isn't going to be one of Argento's best movies. Far from it in fact: it is a film many, many people consider to be his worst film, at least to date. I'm afraid I have to join that camp because there is almost nothing of any worth in this disjointed mess, full of poor judgements and a lack of intelligence all-round. Argento introduces unwanted moronic humour when he should be going for scares, gives us a tragic ending even though its completely unwarranted - why should we suddenly start caring about the Phantom after all his crimes and gore murders? - unbelievable character actions - what is it with Christine? Talk about a love/hate relationship... - extremely poor acting (Argento has never got the best performances from his cast, but this is something else) and dodgy digital effects all over the place which detract from the visual appeal.Sick comedy is something you don't usually find in Argento's movies, but you'll see it in abundance here. Whether the Phantom is ripping the breast of an opera diva or a young girl is being chased through the catacombs by a would-be paedophile, Argento badly misjudges his scenes making for an often distasteful and tasteless movie. The silly comic interludes ruin any attempt at dramatics and one has to wonder whom exactly Argento was aiming at with the introduction of a comic sidekick dwarf (yes, even in a film this recent), intelligent rats, and, in the nadir of his whole career, a rat-shredding machine which drives along and sucks up rats through a huge vacuum cleaner hose at the front. Any fan of Argento's classic gialli movies will simply shake their head at the sorry state of Argento's current directorial career.Acting-wise, the film is dreadful, especially Asia Argento (yes, the girl who was pretty effective in THE STENDHAL SYNDROME) who is just embarrassing as Christine - Dario really doesn't know when to reign in his daughter's overacting and you can't help but feel sorry for somebody when you know they're capable of far more than this. Julian Sands seems to have lost the ability to be naturally creepy like he was in the early '90s and his Phantom is more of an impish wimp than a scary screen horror icon. Bad miscasting alert there! As for the supporting Italian cast, well once again there are fresh-faced youngsters whom you don't give two hoots about and forget instantly once the film is over (what happened to all the up-and-coming actors and actresses that used to star in films and stay in your mind?) and annoyingly whiny female characters the likes of which haven't been seen since the Universal horror cycle of the '30s and '40s, like the stupid maid.Mind you, the script has such bad characterisation and dialogue that you can't pin the blame entirely on the cast. Then there's Ennio Morricone, usually somebody you can rely on for some good music, putting in a score so bland and unnoticeable it's a mystery why Argento hired him in the first place. The famous Argento set-pieces are in short supply here, with the exception of the notorious "chandelier" sequence which should be horrific and instead, incredibly, is played for laughs. Has Argento really lost touch with his audience this much? The computer effects work is lamentable, particularly a really lame "fantasy world" sequence which is so unconvincing as to be downright laughable.Thankfully Argento has stuck with Sergio Stivaletti who supplies some nicely juicy gore effects once again which don't disappoint, including bodies torn in two, a small but excellent effect of a bone protruding from a guy's thumb, tongues being torn out, decapitations, and a stand-out impaling on a stalagmite. Unfortunately these are usually shown in brief only with quick jump-cuts away but you have to make do with what you get in a film this poor. All serious film fans and Argento fans should give this a wide berth, and curiosity-seekers are better off looking elsewhere for entertainment. The only people who should watch this are those looking to write about it such as this unfortunate reviewer...
M MALIK
II Fantasma Dell'Opera 1998 starting Asia Argento & Julian Sands.i don't need to explain here who is Dario Argento & what he is famous for but i will say that this master of horror genre has lost his game this late 90s adaptation of the phantom of the opera is a solid proof.the cast of this film got wasted here i mean director chooses his daughter Asia Argento for a role here yes she is hot i am a fan of her since i saw her with Vin Diesel in film xXx 2002 & what was Julian Sands doing here simply embarrassing himself in this mess he gets shot multiple times in the end still he is immortal somehow & survives.Dario Argento totally changed the whole concept of classic phantom of the opera he made changes to the novel way too much the story is same but done in a different way he tried to turn it into a horror of art film but failed the main character phantom is a weird psycho who lives with rats & moles in sewers down below the earth he falls in love with Christine a opera singer but he is not really in love with her he lusts after her.this is the most stupid version ever i was on a hunt for this film as i saw some good reviews i love 90's decade & good suspense,horror films even soft core but what genre is this movie anyway i saw this & got disappointing,this just fails to keeps the viewer interested to watch the whole thing,this 1998 version is a disgrace the sex scenes are pointless i mean what was Dario Argento trying to do here there is no balance & chemistry between characters.the only good scene was when the whole opera gets blown up,this film takes itself way too seriously & ends up being a big hilarious joke.may i ask what was Christine doing she is just shrieking & not properly singing anything,the phantom have nothing better to do then having sex or kidnapping people & kills people for lame reasons.let me say this again this film has nothing to watch in it as there was no screenplay for this Dario Argento wanted to fulfill some fantasy so he let out all of the nonsense in his mind here forget the locations are awful,the opera looks more like a warehouse,camera work is terrible.what makes a phantom of the opera good is a romance vibe to it this is why the 2004 version of Emmy Rossum is superior i have the Disc of that one trust me guys it is by far the best film ever made this one sucks & who can forget the bad overacting adding & not even a single good musical score.Overall The Phantom Of The Opera 1998 is a waste of time & money do not watch this at any cost my rating is 2/10:Skipp It.
TxMike
Having already seen 'Phantom' in several of its incarnations ... the 1925 silent film with Lon Chaney, the 2004 musical film with Gerard Butler, and the 2011 25th Anniversary stage version at the Royal Albert Hall ... I was in the mood to see this quite different version, on Netflix streaming movies. This version has a number of giant differences, while still following the basic story, of a musical genius who lives in the bowels of the opera house in Paris, and who inspires young Christine to become a fine opera singer. First, this Phantom is not disfigured, instead is mentally distressed from having been rescued by rats as a baby floating in the river underground, then raised by rats. Thus his response when he was called a Phantom, "I am not a Phantom, I am a rat."Julian Sands, with very long hair is The Rat (Phantom). Pretty Asia Argento is Christine Daaé, Andrea Di Stefano is Raoul, and Nadia Rinaldi is Carlotta Altieri . But this is not a musical, in that singing is infrequent, and only to further the plot, i.e. a rehearsal or a performance. The Phantom and Raoul never sing. It is really mostly a horror movie. Did I enjoy it? Yes, I did. Does it deserve a high rating? No, it doesn't. But it accomplishes what it sets out to do and, knowing the basic 'Phantom' story,it is fun to see how they changed it with a quite different Phantom role.It was not filmed in English but it is presented in English on Netflix. The dubbing is really done well, I had to look really hard at lip movements to see any irregularities, it looks for the most part that the actors were speaking English.Much of the filming was done in the Pertosa Caves outside Naples, Italy. It makes the underground scenes very attractive.
