Rating: 
Summary: Awful!!
Review: As a huge fan of Dario Argento, I usually pick up anything with his name on it. "Phantom of the Opera" has made me change that policy. This is the worst film I have ever seen in my life, challenged only by "Howling: Bad Moon Rising". Anyone interested in checking out Argento's work should watch "Bird with the Crystal Plummage", "Four Flies on Grey Velvet", "Deep Red", "Suspiria", "Inferno", "Tenebre", and "Opera".
Rating:
Summary: yawn!!
Review: i typically like anything that Argento does but this movie is simply dull. it is not even interesting to look at.
Rating: 
Summary: What kind of a movie is this, anyway?
Review: I really couldn't tell. To some extent, it was a regular horror movie (even though I found myself laughing out loud during the "scary" parts), but sometimes I thought it was, in turn, a comedy, a parody of horror movies, drama or porn. It was a mixture of all kinds of genres, and the result was very confusing. All of the scenes went in completely different directions, and the film didn't follow the usual rules of dramatical narrative. I had the feeling this film must have at least 14 different directors!
The greatest disadvantage of this movie was its lack of focus. There was really nobody you could identify with, nobody you cared about and could follow throughout the movie. The characters were inconsistent and shallow. You never found out anything about their personality - they acted one way one moment and another way the next. The acting left a lot to be desired on most parts. Most of the (bad) special effects seemed to serve no other purpose than shock value. The result was often unintentional comedy.
As for faithfulness to the original story, some incidents, like the chandelier falling, were there. The character of the Phantom himself was very altered, though. For one thing, he wasn't hiding in the catacombs and killing people because he was disfigured (he wasn't!) and bitter, but rather because he, well, was fond of rats! It's true he did make a sacrifice for Christine at the end, but this good deed came completely of the blue, so you never really felt for him (i.e. it's hard to have compassion for someone who tears out the tongue of a helpless woman with his teeth!).
So why do I give this film 2 stars instead of 1? Well, it does have a few redeeming qualities, like nice sets, creative camera technique and - at least that can be said for it - originality...
Rating: 
Summary: The Phantom with a touch of The Penguin (Batman)
Review: This is not the best version of Phantom, but it's not terrible either. It might be best to refer to this as an interpretation of the Gaston Leroux book and not simply a film version of the book. The opening scene makes me think of Batman Returns as the basket carrying The Phantom as an infant journeys along a watery path undergound. He is rescued by a rat who drags him ashore. (I wonder if his name was Ben - the rat from Willard and the sequel Ben.) You actually see the red-eyed rat pulling the basket. He is raised by the rats just as Tarzan was raised by apes and The Penguin was raised by underground penguins in Batman Returns. I'm starting to thinking Tim Burton was a bigger influence here. The Phantom is not physically deformed at all. He is handsome and has telekinetic and mind control abilities. As you can imagine, he doesn't seem to like the rat catcher and causes him to harm himself. You do have a newspaper reporter walking around trying to solve the mystery of the events going on at the opera house. He seems to almost represent Leroux. In the book, Leroux is studying the strange events at the Paris Opera - but after all of the events have passed, not during. You also have Mame Giry looking after The Phantom's box. ...or at least a character representing her. Although it's not completely accurate, I usually envision Carlotta as she is presented here - only not this big. The attitude she displays here is an exaggeration of her attitude in other versions of the story. I'm annoyed with the managers being shown as having a thing for young girls. It doesn't fit their characters or anyone else's. I have no idea where the idea came from. It had to be an external source and not Leroux's book. Some of the camerawork is nice, but I don't care for the level of gore presented. Personally, I think it's more graphic than the Robert Englund version. The 1989 version was bloody, but it was not like this. Here you see the remains of a worker torn in half. You have a man who had his thumb partially eaten by rats, and there is a close-up of him bending his thumb with the bone showing. The Phantom himself had me wondering what Patrick Stewart might look like with long hair. My first impression was that The Phantom looked like an evil Fabio. Then I started thinking of Capt. Picard as a hippie. However, Raoul is presented here with long hair too - braided I believe. You don't hear much about people having long hair in Paris in the 1890s so I'm curious how historically accurate this might be. Gentleman from that period are typically shown with short hair. However, filmmakers have been known to take some liberty with facts. I tend to find any version of The Phantom interesting to watch, but this is not a favorite.
Rating:
Summary: easily Argento's worst film to date
Review: This film, PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, is without question, without doubt or without whatever, Italian horror director Dario Argento's worst film to date.... I'm of the belief that if you haven't got a good script, well then you haven't got a good movie either. And this film's script has no redeeming qualities. What were they thinking!? It's not scary. Not the least bit. And it never manages to be funny in a dark sort of way. It's just boring. So when the basic premise for the film is this lousy, it doesn't really matter if the photography is pretty and that the cast is all-in-all o.k. The film was simply built on a much too lousy foundation, and thus it crumbled to pieces upon where it stood. It's best that we just forget about PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, and instead see SUSPIRIA one more time!
Rating: 
Summary: stylish violent horror
Review: BRAVO This is what I expected from the Italians reworking "Phantom" , vague storyline , spooky images, sex deaths - a lil' of this,.. a li'l of that.
Rating:
Summary: It hurts to watch!
Review: Bereft of trademark menacing camera tricks, garish lighting, and propulsive rock music, Dario Argento creates a plastic and unbalanced film, complete with Julian Sands doing his best Fabio impersonation, while feeling inexplicably like a made-for-TV foreign production. The one shining light, Argento's daughter Asia, whose beauty helps us forgive some of the perfunctory B-movie dialogue (I can't believe the screenwriter was a Polanski regular!). Argento's custom over-the-top gore is well represented, but here it feels as incongruous as Argento's American films, as the movie's themes are concerned with internal flaws not external (such is Sand's physically unflawwed Phantom). Overall, just a big waste of time that will only interest Argento completists or those just willing to see how bad the master of "Opera," "Suspiria," "Deep Red," and "Tenebre" can get--is this the same film-maker?! Not since Coppola made "Jack" has there been such a bad film in a great film auteur's canon. Please stay away from this wretched movie.
Rating:
Summary: DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME
Review: This movie is a complete gore-fest with halfhearted acting and a lukewarm plot line. Do not even waste your time with this drivel. See the musical. Watch Saturday morning cartoons; they are better made. Twiddle your thumbs or do a crossword puzzle. BEWARE. Take my advice and steer clear of this abomination masquerading as a classic!
Rating:
Summary: Strange, Strange film
Review: This movie is a strange film. It is definately not the Romantic film that the musical is. This film is definately a horror film with several gratutitous scenes of senseless, and expected violence. This movie reminds me of a B movie. Some people might call this a 'Movie House' movie but I would have to disagree. It appears to be made on a large budget and is bad. Scenes play out as any melodramatic horror film would. You have seen all of these bad scenes before without the guise of a "Classic" wrapped around them. This reminds me of some movie experiences where you hope the movie will get better, and it never does. Strange bordello scenes, skillful erotic scenes, and bad horror film making really don't mix well.
Rating:
Summary: Good Acting, Bad Movie
Review: Julian Sands, along with supporting cast, does a great job acting. Unfortunately, the movie is almost totally a waste of time, money, and effort. The ONLY thing that saves this prodution from being a complete BOMB IS the acting. Alas, poor Mr. Argento, you couldn't quite convince this viewer that you were even somewhat sane to approach the material as you did.
|
