Rating: 
Summary: Great movie with surprising good acting
Review: I'm not a fan of Dario Argento but I watchd several movies and I almost liked all of them. What I always was a bit confused about was the bad acting n most of his movies. But for "Phantom of the Opera" it was surprisingly good ! The story of the movie is known for a long time and his way in making a movie out of it was very good. The camera work and the shocking effects are brilliant. The best scene is the hunting through the cellars when a couple tried to steal the Phantom's treasure. The dialogues this time are more worked out and not so simple and sometimes stupid than in Dario's old movies. I guess fans of Dario wouldn't like this one so much because it's too good if you like his former...ways of making horror movies. And for the rats in "Phantom of the Opera", they're good trained and almos real cute :-) The movie is full of suspense ... You will like the music score as well !!! One thing that bothered me was that the Phantom was not wearing a mask and his look was more like of a beggar.
Rating: 
Summary: A Complete Disaster
Review: Let me preface this review by confessing that I have not seen any of the other film versions of POTO. However, I'm a fan of the Broadway play and was hoping to find a motion picture that would do the story justice. Well, this film is not it. And I don't think I have to wait to see all the other versions to say, without a shadow of a doubt, that this one is one of the worst (if not THE...).The list of dissapointing factors is too long to post in this forum. But, let's just start with the first 5 minutes of the movie. Eric (the Phantom) is shown as a newborn baby being carried inside a basket by a weeping woman. He is thrown into the river for no apparent reason and later is rescued from going down a waterfall by none other than a rat. This mighty rodent is strong enough to pull baby Phantom out of the water (against the current, mind you) and into safety. The film goes forward in time some 30 years and we learn that Eric has been raised in the depths of the city by the rats. Despite this, he's grown into a well groomed, slightly skinnier version of Fabio, with long blonde hair, and fingernails that don't seem to go a week without being manicured. This guy looks so good, he doesn't need a mask. As a matter of fact, he never wears one. If this Fabio-lized version of the Phantom has one defect it's that he has a knack for cannibalism... oh, and he likes to have rats crawling all over his naked chest and down into his pants. Christine and Raoul look more like brother and sister than lovers in this movie. It's probably better that way, though. This Raoul looks so feminine and weak that it'd be weird to think of him as a leading man. Christine is no gem either. We could, in the interest of fairness, forget about the fact that this movie has very little to do with the original story, or the Broadway play, and that the casting seems to have been done by a teenager who loves soap operas; and try to critique it as a work of art on its own metits. Even then, I'd still have to say that this is a horrible film. I haven't seen acting this cheesy since Earth Girls Are Easy. Besides that, the screenplay seems like it was written by a drunk. There are scenes that leave you just scratching your head, wandering what they were thinking. If your a lover of the POTO, or if you simply value your time on this earth, don't watch this film. As bad as this review sounds, the movie is even worse. The only reason I gave it a star was because I couldn't go any lower.
Rating: 
Summary: This can't be true - crap from Argento
Review: I love Dario Argento and his works, so this was a big dissapointement. This movie uses every exsisting cliché in the galaxy and contains some poor jokes who not even were close hitting. The only good things i can say about it is:
1: Not too bad camera work (but far from the best Argento has
done).
2: Good FX
But it is still a very poor movie to be a Dario Argento.
Rating:
Summary: Where's the mask?!!
Review: I don't know if you really care but, contrary to the cover, the phantom in this film does not wear a mask (though judging from his horse-like face, maybe he should!). Personally, I think the movie itself is worse than any face a mask would ever hide. The plot is tampered with in the worst ways, the intimate scenes (which shouldn't even be there) are horribly scripted, and Christine's boyfriend is a complete jerk!
Seriously, I can't think of any reason why anyone would want to make a POTO movie this way! I'm not even talking about the mask now, though the mask itself was somewhat symbolic in the original story. This is about taking a story and ripping virtually everything good from it. Yes ,there are some good parts, but they are few and far between.
Rating:
Summary: give it another try
Review: On my first viewing of this I was like so many people, a little disappointed but having stuck with it and now having seen it 5 times it's really grown on me.Argento's revisionist view of the classic tale is an atmospheric and oddly appealing film filled with many of his trademark flourishes.If any uk viewers are reading this make sure you go for the region 1 A-Pix version as it has an atmospheric 5.1 sound mix unlike the flat mono mix of the region 2 Tartan version.
Oh,I forgot to say Asia Argento looks amazing.
Rating: 
Summary: Something new, something different
Review: I've read most of the negative reviews about this movie. Fortunately, I read them only after I purchased it. Having never seen any of the previous "Phantom Opera" movies, and never having read the book I was presented with something completely new. Perhaps the negative comments are from those previously exposed to the subject, and having pre-formed opinions about what the movie should be about clouded the objectivity of many. I found the movie refreshingly different. I did not take the movie seriously, as apparently many did. I believe Argento was striving for more of a comic book feeling, ala Batman, Re-animator, etc. Those approaching the subject with an open mind will find the movie interesting, even if somewhat disjointed, and a worthy addition to their Argento collection. Julian sands performance was certainly underwhelming at best, and I feel his performance should have been over-the top to really pull it off. But all in all I liked the movie.
Rating:
Summary: A dark, forboding version...
Review: A deeply gory and darker version of the universally popular Gaston Leroux tale. Sands is a perfect choice for the phantom role. (and to think Argento wanted John Malkovitch to play the phantom!) Still, what we have here is an often obscure, confusing and sometimes lethargic movie. Many of the characters fail to have any depth and yes Asia Argento does'nt always seem with it. I liked the idea of the phantoms ugliness being on the inside (as Sands didn't want "cartoon-style make-up" again). The film also contains some eroticism and even the sleazy undertone of paedophilia. Sands' phantom is not all monsterous, he also shows some human emotion and even cries when he sees his beloved Christine find comfort with another man.
Argento's version is very Art-House and won't appeal to everyone, but it is still a great movie worth seeing once, also the soundtrack is wonderful. Overall I think it is one of the better versions available.
Rating:
Summary: A severe disappointment.
Review: Actually, this movie is a disgrace to the title made famous by Andrew LLoyd-Webber. Julian Sands would have been better served if he had done the third and final installment of the Warlock movies that were so popular, if somewhat campy. First of all, a phantom should have some form of facial deformaty. I saw no flaws on Sands face or body. At least David Staller had a deformaty in the disgraceful stage version done in English. It does amaze me though, that all of these recent "Phantoms" have white teeth, Stallers are straight and bonded for stage presence, like Crawford's, Lom's, and Dance's. Secondly, at least the directors didn't force Sands to sing. Like Englund, I had no idea he had any musical ability at least enough to play the big pipe organ in his lair. This is why I gave it one of two stars. This second star came when he protected the ballerina, a young girl, from an 'overexcited' patron with chocolate. I never thought he was human until this scene. Watch the movie to see what I mean. The rat scene after the Phantom and Christine made love the first time turned my stomach, but it did make me laugh to see Charles Dance dump a trunkful of rats on Carlotta in the 1990 version. It still cracks me up. Carlotta got off easy in this version with Sands. His mind was definitely "disturbed". Being raised in a sewer with rats might do that. He acts like a spoiled child when he doesn't get the 'attention' he thinks he deserves from Christine a second time. Sorry but you will have to watch the movie to see what I mean here, too. We all know she has had previous experiences with men because she walks out on stage in her slip and doesn't even blush about it. Yes, the costumes were great as was the locale, but there was no plot. There may have been a previous psychic connection but we, as viewers, don't see any evidence in the beginning when the Phantom says, "Read my thoughts". We also have to draw our own conclusions when he yells, "Look toward the light!"
Rating:
Summary: Whatever
Review: This movie follows its own idea of a story, which would not be bad, if it were worth watching. The movie is dark, and has a dark theme, the costuming is very good, and the location is fabulous, but that is about all I can say for this movie. It is so far from anything--the Leroux, Webber, even the Robert Englund, it should have more nudity, which is why I gave it 2 stars.Julian Sands is a great actor, and I feel he was wasted here. We are supposed to put aside all knowledge of every other Phantom story, and believe the disfigurement in this tale is on the inside, which it must be: Sands has a weird and gross affinity with the rats in this movie. After he abducts Christine, he takes her to his lair, where he makes love to her. He rises later, and she goes looking for him, only to find him covered in rats, which are drinking his blood and licking the remains of his union with Christine off his unwashed body. Sick!Asia Argento is no Christine Daae'. Her looks are too dark, and she seems out of it all through the movie. The dubbing of her voice during the Romeo & Juliette is applauded; her speaking voice is bad enough without having to hear her trying to sing. Her portrayal of Christine misses...lacks the human aspect; she does not have that vulnerability all female singers identify with that make us want to portray Christine. This was an ambitious undertaking that failed miserably. If you watch this movie for anything, it is sort of humorous, on a sick level, from the point of view that it is so far-removed from the other stories.
Rating: 
Summary: Great movie
Review: I think it was a interesting. Julian Sands act's very well in the movie. But it was sad in the ending. The movie has a few weired part's.
| 
