tieman64 Dario Argento's "Terror at the Opera" stars Cristina Marsillach as Betty, a young opera singer who is menaced by a mysterious serial killer. The killer forces Betty to witness various murders – literally pinning her eyes open in some sequences – a routine which he enacts out of "love". We later learn that the killer once performed the same routines for Betty's mother, also an opera singer. The film ends with Betty and her director fleeing to the countryside, where she proposes marriage to the killer prior to slaying him before prying eyes. By the film's end, "Terror" has a become a giant metaphor for Argento's own filmography, the director spilling blood out of love for both audience and art.Unlike Argento's best films, which tend to be minimalistic and which tend to rely primarily on a fusion of images and music, "Terror" is cluttered. It's an overly busy, overly verbose film, and most of its sets are gaudy or ugly. Compare, for example, with the clean lines of Argento's "Deep Red", or the sleekness of Hitchcock and De Palma, Argento's chief influences.Like most of Argento's later works (in particular, "Tenebre"), "Terror" is heavily self-reflexive. Pinned eyes allude to an audience Argento himself holds captive, giant opera stages recall Argento's own blood operas, and the film is filled with loopy tunnels and corridors, which coil in the shadows like the brain stems of poor little Betty.Incidentally, the opera Betty performs is an avant-garde rendition of Giuseppe Verdi's Macbeth, historically renowned for bringing bad luck to its casts. The "bad luck" in "Terror" mostly consists of gory murder sequences, primarily designed for gore-hounds and fans of splatter horror.5/10 – See "Rear Window" and "Body Double", better films which implicate audiences and artisans. Worth one viewing.

Tim Kidner "Like sticking pins in your eyes" - indeed. Whether it's teeth, testicles, fingernails or eyes, when it comes to mutilation of sensitive and delicate (& vital!) body organs, actual ones at that and not prosthetic ones, then one can feel REALLY uncomfortable!The young stand-in opera singer has pins taped to her eye sockets, if she closes them, the pins embed into her eyes. As she's watching utterly brutal acts of death and massacre, at the hands of a masked mad-man, she may really want to.From its outset, with the Moulin Rouge sort of Italian opera house theatrics and Edgar Allen Poe metaphoric ravens, that look on menacingly, the Kubrick-styled swirling camera that swishes and floats add to the Arty high of grandiosity. This is a delicious mix of superb visuals and utter shocks. Knives that skewer up through the chin and through to the roof of the mouth, YES! Ravens feasting on posh patron's eyeballs, TICK!The version I saw was on The Horror Channel and was in its original Italian, with subtitles. Subtitles aren't always such a good thing for horror as they can can take too long to read and diminish the visuals. However, the spirit and passion is maintained here by being in Italian. The sound quality was extremely good, too.I would probably have bought the DVD on the strength of how good the film was, but, frankly, I couldn't physically watch it again; an honour which must say how effective a horror it is.

felixoteiza I watched four Argento movies during the holidays--only because they were available at the Public Library—and it would seem that I got the best ones first. Those are Red Deep and Opera. Not that they are great movies, or even good ones, but compared to the other two—Suspiria and Inferno—they are pretty watchable. They have a plot too-or something that looks like that--and I know that because in them Argento follows the lives and tribulations of their two respective central characters. I don't know about other works of him, but if I judge for what I have seen, just one character in one film (with a real plot) will be enough to leave him with his hands full. Now if he has to worry about two, well, there she is--or was--Nicolodi, to get him out of trouble.I'll say Opera is the best of the whole package, even if I was ready to throw the towel and forget all about it during the second needles--on--the--eyes murder, that of the wardrobe clerk (same old, same old.) The only reason why I didn't do it is because of Cristina Marsillach. She is cute. Not only cute; she's very likable and when doing her Callas number she is almost adorable. So I kept on it and I swallowed the whole two hours of Opera only to keep watching her. Her acting is atrocious, yes, and when in the taxi with Marco after her boyfriend's killing, she looks only just P.O., like someone's thinking: "Oh, what a drag". Like any ordinary girl would be after missing her appointment with the hairstylist instead of one having being brutally forced to witness a horrendous murder. Anyway, I found Opera the most interesting Argento to analyze, if only because here you can see what could have made of him a good, even great director, and at the same time what are the flaws that kept him wallowing in the mediocrity of empty, plot-less, gore feasts.One thing I noticed about him is that he never loses the opportunity to ruin the good subplots, stories, situations, he stumbles upon. For instance, there are in Opera at least two great moments—probably the only ones I'll remember of him ten years from now—which, if correctly followed, could have made for classics of world cinema. The first is--oh, yeah--that beautiful ''bullet through the door, right into the eye''. That was great. That's exactly how I like my murders served: fast, efficient, with no superfluous theatrics or gore. Even better is Betty's reaction to the horror: for the first time she is active, energetic, and even angry--''SOB, you're not going to get me, I'll kill you'!'. That would have made for a superb ensuing sequence of suspense, struggle and pursuit. Instead, he allows the pace to drag, the tension to subside and the whole situation cools off. Then, the appearance of the girl in the vent duct springs up yet another chance to revive things; but once again he ruins it, when the kid's mother expels her from her apartment. The other "classic moment" I'm referring to is that of the crows diving on the public in the theater, looking for the killer of their peers. That was also great, but Argento completely ruins the follow up to this superb bit with the completely unlikely, ridiculous, episode of the vengeful one-eyed killed. Sure, anyone who have just had one eyeball ripped off from its socket by a swarm of enraged crows would feel that self-assured and physically, and psychologically, fit as Santini was by then.The second thing I'd mention is the incredible stupidity of his characters, which make their murders not exactly acts of ruthless violence, but rather the natural result of the mysterious way in which the Darwin Law works. That's why we don't feel sorrow for them when they are cut down because it's their own stupidity which brings about heir demises. In Suspiria, it's not really that they ran afoul of the witches what condemned Daniel and Pat but that they couldn't keep their mouths shut. In Opera the seamstress commits the ultimate nonsense of engaging in some puerile game—or so she thinks-- with a ruthless killer, as if it wasn't a question of life and death for her. Instead of doing what every sensible person would have done in her case, with the man on the floor—something even the Three Stooges know--to get hold of something to tie the guy up, she goes and yanks off his mask. What a dope! Third thing is, Argento's bad habit of getting rid of likable actors, characters, as son as he has presented them to us, offing them or forgetting about them. He did it in Inferno with Rose, Sara, Carol and the surreal Pieroni; in Suspiria he did it with Pat and Sara; and in Opera with Mira, the kid and her mother. That greatly works against the movie.Finally I may add the tacky, phony looking murders. And see that I have said nothing about plots, acting or pacing.In general, I consider Opera much better done than the other films I mentioned. Also, a film where all the usual Argento cinematographic antics—colors, settings, score--find their right place and are not put there just for the sake of it. The crows are a great addition, they are great at helping giving atmosphere to the movie, and I don't think for a moment they were over exposed or that the film looks at times like an episode of National Geographic, as some say. And maybe the most important thing, this is the only Argento where I felt true empathy for the main protagonist, I really felt for Betty, which made me forget all about her bad acting. Marsillec shows, at least to me, how much mileage a director can get from a likable lead, how many things he can get away with.

gavin6942 After the lead actress of the opera is killed in a car accident, her young understudy, Betty, is brought to the forefront. That's very lucky for her, with one problem: she has an admirer that has decided he will kill all her friends and make her watch. What is his connection to the opera, and what is his fascination with Betty? I love Dario Argento with every part of my body. And I'm not an orthodox fan, I think. Many people, particularly critics, praise his earlier work ("Suspiria" and "Deep Red") but really frown on later films, such as "Sleepless", which I liked. My favorite, "Phenomena", is usually vastly underrated. "Opera" tends to fall somewhere in between. Some consider it one of his last great films, others see it as part of his so-called decline. I loved it.The picture is crisp, the music is great (unlike other critics, I love the metal soundtrack), the female lead is someone I can feel for (not unlike Jennifer Connelly from "Phenomena"). And the imagery... wonderful. Great cinematography, and some amazing kill scenes. The concept of taping needles to a person's eyes so they cannot blink... brilliant. My assistant Tina thinks this looked fake, but even if it does, the idea is more than enough to pay off. And some great effects, like a knife blade coming up inside a man's mouth? Awesome.Jim Harper calls the film "stunning" and calls attention to the "innovative cinematography, well-constructed shots and exceptionally violent murders." I agree with this completely -- one shot follows the camera through winding tunnels, and there is a very interesting visual use of crows throughout the story. Mike Mayo likewise calls it "visually fascinating eye-candy" and lauds the "crisp editing and flowing camera-work". It's really a wonder that this is not one of Argento's more highly-praised works.Argento returned to the opera with "Phantom of the Opera", which was a bit of a failure despite the casting of his daughter Asia and Julian Sands. Even more interesting, this same year offered the release of Michele Soavi's "Stagefright", which (like "Opera") has a killer loose inside a theater killing off the people involved with the presentation. Both are great films, with Soavi's more on the slasher side. (Soavi actually served as second unit director on "Opera"... you can make your own conclusions.) My only complaint with this film is the length and pacing. While it is very beautifully shot and the kill scenes are glorious, they are not as frequent as they should be. The first one takes over a half hour, and then we get down times between them. The lead actress should be in constant terror, but she is given time between kills to calm down as if everything is normal again. Not cool, Dario. We need to keep the suspense low and the intensity high.