Phantom of the Opera | | Cast : | Julian Sands, Asia Argento | | Director : | Dario Argento | | Studio : | Unapix | | Format : | Color, Widescreen, Dolby | | Released Date : | January 01, 1998 | | DVD Released Date : | February 25, 2003 | | Language : | English (Dubbed), Spanish (Subtitled), English (Original Language) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | August 03, 2005 | | Summary | A rare Argento misfire | Content
 | I'm shedding a few tears as I come to the end of my two-year plus journey through Dario Argento's filmography. I've now seen his most celebrated works; films such as "Deep Red," "Suspiria," "Tenebre," "The Bird With the Crystal Plumage," and "Phenomena." After I work my way through the rest of his stuff--"Trauma," "The Card Player," "Four Flies on Grey Velvet," and a few other odds and ends--it will all be over unless the man makes a few more films before shuffling off this mortal coil. Never again will I watch one of his masterpieces for the first time. Never again will I watch those black-gloved killers rip into a shrieking victim with the same sense of anticipation I held during the first viewing. Ahhh, to go back in time and re-experience the bloody pleasures of Dario's best work! The director has fallen on hard times in recent years, unfortunately, as the quality of his films has dropped precipitously. He just can't seem to recapture the magic of his early days. Oh well. Even a substandard film from Argento is better than the vast majority of horror films on the market today. At least that's what I thought before sitting through the interminable torture that is "Phantom of the Opera."
This 1998 take on the classic Gaston Leroux novel ranks as the worst Argento film I've sat through. It's so bad, in fact, that even lesser works like "Sleepless" and "The Stendahl Syndrome" look magnificent in comparison. The story resembles most of the other versions of the book we've seen over the years, i.e. a social outcast hidden away in the nooks and crannies of an opera house develops an intense fascination with a lovely young singer whose obscurity practically ensures that her new fan will wreak bloody havoc on those around her. The Phantom (Julian Sands), unlike in other versions, bears no discernable disfigurement on his face or his body. He's actually a rather handsome fellow who somehow ended up in a byzantine series of caverns underneath an opera house while still an infant. A pack of telepathic rats raised the young boy to appreciate arias and bloodletting (not necessarily in that order). We learn that the Phantom is a thuggish goon early on when he tears a few workers into bloody shreds as they attempt to perform some work in one of the caverns. We also learn at roughly the same time that the understudy in the opera house's most recent production, Christine (Asia Argento), has caught the eye of the Phantom.
When Christine--greatly despised by the star of the production and generally ignored by the managers--flits onstage at the end of the day to belt out a few sweet sounding notes, the Phantom overhears her and immediately lays plans to win her heart. Clandestine meetings in out of the way places cause Christine to swoon with passion (must be that telepathy thing), but she's not quite sure who this man is or why she feels such joy at his presence. As this lovey dovey nonsense plays out, Argento treats us to a couple of subplots. One involves a pair of greedy lowlifes who think they can go down into the catacombs and find a vast treasure. The Phantom gorily dispatches these two dolts in a scene that, while bloody in an entertaining way, seems to drag on forever. A second thread concerns a greasy looking chap whose sole means of employment revolves around catching rats underneath the opera house. With the help of a diminutive helper, dirty ratcatcher builds a go-cart type device that sucks up rats and chews them up. The scene where we see this vehicle in operation, accompanied by appropriately "kooky" music, is wildly unfunny. Anyway, the movie wraps up with Christine oscillating between love and hatred for the hapless Phantom as human authority figures close in for the kill. The end.
Egads, "The Phantom of the Opera" is an atrocious film! Only two things help this production avoid a one star review: Asia Argento and the gore. Asia is one absolutely gorgeous gal even though her performance here is mediocre. The gore, thankfully, looks quite good. We've got bodies ripped in half, a nasty looking impalement, crushing by way of chandelier, throats cracking red smiles, and some French guy taking a rifle stock in the face. These things help, but fail to redeem the film. I didn't like the cinematography at all, which looked more like a television production than a feature film. I also didn't care for Julian Sands as the Phantom. He's not disfigured, which is hard to get used to after seeing other film versions, and thus he never really comes across as a sympathetic character. That's an important theme of the story, isn't it? That we come to empathize with this horrible creature? Maybe not. I've never read the book. But I do know a couple of the film versions I've seen embrace this idea. Forget about feeling anything for the Phantom here. To make matters worse, those special effects we see when the Phantom is daydreaming on the roof of the opera house? Embarrassingly cheesy, my friends. Try and watch them without cringing.
Maybe "Phantom of the Opera" would have worked better had Dario slapped a pair of black gloves on this dude and given him a case full of funky looking knives. You know, turn it into a giallo. Something, anything would have been preferable to this film. The DVD version of the movie throws us a few extras in an attempt to make us feel better. An interview with Julian Sands, behind the scenes footage, photo galleries, and a text article lifted from Fangoria do little to take away the sting of this rare Argento misfire. Give this puppy a wide berth; you're far better off revisiting a few of the past glories than wallowing in this poor excuse for a horror film.
|
| Rating | | | Date | July 03, 2005 | | Summary | Not bad, had more potential.. | Content
| I liked this version because of it's closer tie with the novel.
Yes, the added "rats" and their story line were off beat but preferred by the directors drum. And it would have been 9x's better if he actually had a mask or some form of disfigurement. The director changed the physical with a mental thus the rats.
There were complete areas that were all direct from the novel. And I was very impressed with the addition of the artist Degas!
Roul was a weakly portrayed character but you were so drawn on what was going on between the psychic link of Erik and Christine, you really didn't care. I did understand the Opium den, if it were.
This is one movie where the brother Phillip is actually shown.
He is only hoping to change the mind of his little brother and the scene is meant to show you that Roul does truly love her.
The ending is beautifully done, but again it would of had more of an impact if he did have a mask.
I liked the way they portrayed the underground levels. I did enjoy the fact Erik and Christine finally were able to consume the flesh. More than once:)
And it did have a light sense of humor.
The blood and bones were a little to overdramatic. But that is the kind of art this director portrays.
I also believe that the direction and character of Christine was the best I've ever seen. I saw the true novel's Christine. Her attitude and charisma was perfect.
I would have enjoyed to see the majick itself come from Erik and not the rats. But then the movie would not have stood out so significantly.
But this is just my opinion.
|
| Rating | | | Date | April 26, 2005 | | Summary | This Phantom is just horrible! | Content
| Do not waste your money unless you are making a collection of dario argento's most embarrassing moments.
blah!
I was very dismayed after seeing this movie. So many things, I will just list the ones that are sticking in my mind.
1. how did the phantom learn so much from stinking rats?
2. why is christine bipolar with him?
3. Why so many naked love scenes when the guy is shooting his own daughter? gross
4. why does the phantom make easy kills out of all the other people who come to his "underworld" but he never seems to get the time to kill the freaking rat killer!!! hello! absurd!!
5. why is so very obvious that all of the singers are faking, and why is it also obvious that while the actors are speaking english, there have been voice overs done by people who make you sit there and think..." that voice did not come out of that person"...it's awful.
6. how the heck did christine and raoul fall in love? and i know the answer, but this movie, if you are not already a phantom lover, will most certainly not explain it for you.
Ok, so there are my bottom line reasons for thinking that this rendition of Phantom needs to be trashed. The only reason I gave this movie two stars is because Asia Argento has her moments where you can tell she might have a little real acting skill. |
| Rating | | | Date | January 29, 2005 | | Summary | If not the worst "Phantom" certainly the most unfaithful one | Content
| I have nothing against the idea of doing "The Phantom of the Opera" as a splatter flick. But with both Dwight H. Little's 1989 version starring Robert Englund and Dario Argento's effort from 1998 the problem is not the blood and gory but the liberties they take with Gaston Leroux's original novel. For the former it was the idea the Phantom had been marked by the Devil and was pursuing Christine Daae through time, and for the latter it is the idea that the Phantom was raised by rats. If you are not reminded of the flashback in "Batman Returns" where the infant Penguin is dispatched in a basket on a river when the parents of the Phantom do the same thing in the opening of this film when they send their baby sailing away on a Paris sewer then it is only because you have not seen both films. Apparently the rats are telepathic, which explains how it is the abandoned infant grows up to speak, play music, and build a pipe organ in the catacombs beneath the opera house.
Despite the cover art for the DVD this Phantom, played by Julian Sands, does not wear a mask. This is because he does not need to; there is nothing wrong with his face, but inside he is twisted as a result of being raised by telepathic rats. The rats actually become an important part of the story, but more in a "Willard"/"Ben" way than a "Tarzan of the Apes"/"The Jungle Book" way. But before we get to them let us consider the changes in the love triangle that Argento and co-writer Gérard Brach have come up with for this version of the familiar story.
You can easily pick out the trio from the rest of the cast because they are the ones with long hair. This time around Raoul De Chagny (Andrea Di Stefano) seems to be as warped as the Phantom, although this might because he spends too much time with his brother at a local opium den surrounded by naked people of both sexes and all sizes. The Phantom does not spend a lot of time teaching Christine (Asia Argento, the director's daughter) how to sing, because she is sounds pretty good the first time she gets on stage in the empty Opera House and starts singing high notes. But he does establish a psychic link with her so that instead of fetching her down to his lair he can just send out a call. For all those of you who have been waiting for the Phantom and Christine to consummate their love, this is the version of "The Phantom of the Opera" to see. The problem is that I do not know why Christine turns on the Phantom or what besides a hail of bullets drives her into Raoul's arms. But then I do not know why the director wants to photograph his daugher naked (my Italian bloodline has been watered down too much I suppose).
Then there are the rats. Ignace (Istvan Bubik), the head rat-catcher has been around for eight years and has killed over 4,000 rats and counting. He keeps tabs by keeping the tails of each rat he kills in a jar of formaldehyde with the month, year, and tail total written on the label. Given that every time a rat gets killed the Phantom must be hearing the rodent equivalent of a death shriek in his mind you would have thought that the Phantom would have tracked down this murderer well before this time, but that is not the case. Instead Ignace has a bad encounter with the rats and decides the best recourse is to invent a killing machine that can be driven around on the smooth floors of the catacombs while it does all sorts of interesting things to the rats it catches.
You keep thinking that the whole rat catching bit is simply comic relief, and for much of the film it is. But it turns out that it is Ignace and not Raoul that the Phantom has to worry about. Besides, as long as Ignace and that pervert passing out Swiss chocolates to the under-aged girls of the corps de ballet is running around, the Phantom is not the biggest monster running around and/or under the opera house. However, if I had to pick a low point in "Il Fantasma dell'opera" it would have to be the way Argento caps off the fall of the chandelier with a joke. I was already trying to figure out how what the Phantom was doing with the big mallet would bring around the desired result (although I understood the work was hard enough for him to ditch his shirt), so my confusion turned to dismay when the famous disaster becomes just another joke at the expense of diva Carlotta Altieri (Nadia Rinaldi).
Is this the worst version of "The Phantom of the Opera"? I have no problem with the idea that it is the least faithful, even compared to Little's movie, but even if you disagree with the changes there are some things of interest here. The opera house in Budapest is gorgeous and there are some nice gory special effects, although certainly not as many as you would expect from Argento and none of them really standout pieces of blood and gore that are seared into your brain forever. The opium den scene is the most memorable scene and it has the least to do with the plot than anything else in the entire film, relying on dozens of bronzed naked bodies to make its impression. Ronnie Taylor's cinematography makes things look good to your eyes even when your brain is complaining about the story. The performances are all adequate, but I found that for me the most sympathetic character ended up being Carlotta: the Phantom attacks her and she still shows up to sing, the strongest moment of anybody in the movie.
Ennio Morricone is credited with the score, and there is also additional music by Maurizio Guarini, but the film makes nice use of actual operatic arias and overtures fom "Carmen," "Faust," "Lakmé: Air des clochettes," and "Romeo & Juliet." This also makes the film sound classier than it is. This DVD is the unrated director's cut, while you can get the original R-rated version on VHS (I have no idea where it is the gore or sex that makes up the differences). I am not enough of a fan of Dario Argento to be offended by this particular effort and have seen enough liberties be taken with the story of "The Phantom of the Opera" to be rather jaded by what happens here and knock off another star. There are enough warnings here and in other reviews to know whether you want to be disappointed either as a fan or the director or of the story. |
| Rating | | | Date | January 24, 2005 | | Summary | No...just no... | Content
| This was the worst version of the story I have ever seen, and I have seen nearly every form of it. The Phantom doesn't even have a mask. You cannot have a Phantom without a mask. And the movie seems to be little more than soft-core pornography. Gaston Leroux's novel is sensual, but *not* sexual. Perhaps this would be a good movie for horror/smut fans who have no interest in the actual story of Erik and Christine, but as a devoted Phan, I hated it. |
|
