trashgang If you think that you will see the master of giallo's delivering another gem than you are wrong. dario tried to make a twist on a classic story but it failed. Even the score from Ennio Morricone couldn't save this flick. Here and there Dario was able to put some nasty shots in it and a few nudity scene's but it isn't done to change the most important thing in the story, the phantom is not a disfigured individual, and he was raised by rats. By doing so the mystery and the cruel shot from the Lon Chaney version is missing. The gratuitous nudity didn't add anything towards the flick. It's just like you are suddenly in another flick. Of course Dario's daughter Asia is in it as Christine Daaé and you can guess it, she has to go nude. The phantom was played by Julian Sands and he was believable but the effects used to for example the rat-catcher was laughable and looked like Blackadder (British comedy). When he for example is moving with a rat destroyer it really looked stupid and teared this flick further down.If you want to see how a classic is destroyed or how gore can be added than this is one for you but I rather would classify it under another failure from Dario.Gore 1,5/5 Nudity 2/5 Effects 2/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

MartinHafer If you are looking for "Phantom of the Opera", I suggest you look elsewhere. This film in very few ways seems like the original Gaston Leroux novel--and even less like the famous musical. It's obvious that one of two things occurred to the folks making this movie. Either they were cynical jerks who simply didn't care about the original story and willfully injected MASSIVE amounts of depravity into the story...or they were smoking crack when they wrote the screenplay!! Yes, it is THAT bad--a repellent and downright stupid film.In many ways, the film looks a lot like "Batman Returns" when the movie started. Out of nowhere, you learn that a baby fell into the sewer beneath the opera house and was raised by rats!! But, unlike the other versions, this one stars the relatively normal looking Julian Sands and not the usual disfigured phantom. This makes you wonder two things: why does he remain in the sewer if he looks quite normal AND is there a film Julian Sands feels is beneath him (after seeing this and "Boxing Helena", you can guess my answer!)?Soon, you see that the 'Phantom' is probably one of the only semi-normal persons in the film. Sure, he lives in the sewers and kills folks, but everyone seems to have it coming, so to speak! Either the victims are deranged dwarfs who delight in murdering the poor rats in VERY grisly ways or they are complete perverts. Yes, I said PERVERTS. Now I don't remember the novel or previous versions of the movie having orgy scenes (complete with LOTS of gratuitous nudity) or pedophiles, but everyone seems sexually obsessed and just plain nasty in this film. I honestly think the film would have been better if they'd just made it a soft-core porn film--then at least audiences would have expected it had little to do with the original.If these were my only objections about this film, I might still see some value and be able to look past the countless flayings and the like in the movie. But, underneath it all, it suffers from something even worse than gratuitous writing--it's not very good otherwise. It's not fun, the acting is bad, the story is stupid and there are so many stupid clichés (I loved the lady suddenly getting her left caught in the rocks while fleeing from the Phantom!). And, it's almost bad enough to be a guilty pleasure for bad movie buffs--it's THAT bad. Apparently Dario Argento is NOT a genius when it comes to horror films--just horrible films.

Doctor_Mabuse1 Paris Opera understudy Christine Daae (Asia Argento) is corrupted by a human rat and indiscriminate killer known as The Phantom (Julian Sands) who lurks in the bowels of the opera house. However, the mindless prima donna cannot decide between her weird seducer and an equally unappealing nobleman, and the threesome's tiresome sexual excesses eventually result in a nasty mess.This visually striking but ludicrous film version of Gaston Leroux's famous story unaccountably proved to be the nadir in the illustrious career of Dario Argento, successor to Mario Bava as the master creator of such ultra-violent and brilliantly cinematic Italian "giallo" thrillers as THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE, DEEP RED, TENEBRAE and THE STENDAHL SYNDROME. Argento had stumbled before (FOUR FLIES ON GREY VELVET, TWO EVIL EYES and TRAUMA) but never with such promising material and on such a grandiose scale. The debacle of PHANTOM seemed to indicate a premature decline, exacerbating a schism among the director's admirers that persists to this day and has negatively impacted acceptance of such superior recent films as MOTHER OF TEARS and GIALLO.It's been my understanding that Dario Argento made this film under duress, the subject having been chosen for him in a contest-poll of fans. Argento had already created his variation on the theme as one of his best gialli, OPERA/TERROR AT THE OPERA, which displays all the passion, energy and genuine artistry his PHANTOM lacks.I don't pretend to know what goes on in Argento's bizarre head, but my gut feeling is that he expressed his disinterest and resentment for this unwanted project by deliberately trashing it. It is uninspired, disorganized, and never begins to express the genuinely surreal mystique of Argento's ambitious art films such as SUSPIRIA, INFERNO and PHENOMENA. Most of this unfocused mess could have been "directed" by any hack (Luigi Cozzi?), as only a few scenes and choice moments display evidence of the Maestro's usual creativity and high style.The ill-conceived project shows every sign of having been further botched in the editing process, usually one of Argento's strong points. Unlike most of the artist's films, PHANTOM is based on a literary source, but the narrative structure is hopelessly choppy and confused, with events occurring out of order and a sense of much story footage having been deleted. Far from the mesmerizing, dream-like effect often achieved by the director, the film's sense of flow is undone by the barrage of barely-related scenes crashing one upon the other like a traffic pile-up.The main problem is the script, written with former Roman Polanski collaborator Gerard Brach, which treats the material as grotesque parody and unromantic romance. The absurd scenario focuses almost entirely on extraneous episodes, and unworkable "ideas" such as the Phantom's relationship with rats, while the central story is left to die miserably. Argento and Brach plainly intended a burlesque but turned out a dismal travesty betraying a sleazy disrespect for the source material. The notorious low-points are the effete leading man's visit to a brothel, a slapstick sequence involving the rat-catcher's phallic Ratmobile, and the so-called Phantom's infamous rat-masturbation scene.Even the obligatory, overdone gore scenes do not grow out of the substance of the piece but seem perfunctorily shoe-horned in. Not only is gross-out gore inappropriate to this story but there is not sufficient blood and guts on display to satisfy the jaded expectations of a contemporary Horror audience likely to be bored silly by the film's dreary pretensions.The undeniable assets of the production are the gorgeous Budapest locations, at a sumptuous opera house, in the cellars of a real castle and in actual caves featuring a genuine underground lake. Costumes, except for the Phantom's chintzy-looking cape, are attractive. Although several classical pieces are excerpted, there is a notable absence of operatic production. This is more than atoned for by the great Ennio Morricone's eerie and bittersweet, if listless, music score (more absorbing when heard separately on CD).Even the visual and aural grandeur are diminished by the flat video-photography, poor dubbing and the film's air of cheapness, carelessness and haste. There is also some really awful CGI imagery and a ridiculous animatronic Mother Rat that only a desperate Phantom could love. Overall the film looks suspiciously like an unfinished made-for-TV movie that went to theaters instead.Such a fiasco might have been salvaged if the film offered a reasonably effective Phantom. Although the character wears no mask in this version, there is something unbearably ghastly about his face: it is that of Julian Sands, whose ugly-pretty features (in a fright-wig) are seen throughout. Sands' dire miscasting is the production's central death-blow. Supporting casting and performances are not much better.Unaccountably, Dario Argento even fumbles the project's golden opportunity as a showcase for his actress daughter, Asia Argento, who appears to have gone through this experience entirely on her own. Generally she is in control, but too often is allowed to flop awkwardly about as if unguided by the director or even a coach. There are also disturbing scenes in which Asia has been instructed by her creepy father to behave like a depraved porno starlet. Still, Asia's distinctive screen presence and offbeat characterization are among the film's primary assets; a forlorn remnant of grace and beauty left standing in the ruins.Seen in perspective, it is clear that period Gothic Romance is simply not Dario Argento's gig. Yet such a perverse artist as Argento can make only a fascinating failure. Any viewer interested in the Argentos, the classic story or Euro-Horror cinema should see this film at least once, and some will be drawn back to fathom its odd mysteries. RATING: MEDIOCRE.NOTE: Be aware that the 5.1 Dolby track on the 2003 Ardustry Home Entertainment DVD is out of synch, wreaking especial havoc with the dubbed arias. The 2.0 Stereo track is correct.

mpn_65 After hearing so much negative comment on this film I went and brought it, purely for the sake of wanting to see every Argento movie. Instead of being confronted with a silly dull rip off, it was an enjoyable thriller, slightly sad, violent and well made. Yes there was some silliness, namely the dwarf, but his end at the hands of the fallen rock was thrilling. I think Argento fans expect too much, and I have heard that Argento acknowledges the disappointments of his last films, but to me POTO is another Argento film of quality. Now I also agree with some comments about the rats being fake and the lack of plot (yet most know the story), perhaps Argento underplayed the obsession this Phantom had with Christina, but once again I can only say that this film was a great experience to watch, and I recommend this film, biased of course to anyone with an open mind and not worried it's not Suspiria or Inferno.