Boring

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

If you love the Gaston Leroux novel or The Andrew Lloyd Weber musical don't watch this!This movie failed on every level! ~It tried to be scary and it FAILED ~It tried to be romantic and it FAILED ~It tried to be sad and it Failed (I Take that back the movie was pretty pathetic.)If this movie was called anything else besides The Phantom of The Opera I wouldn't be so mad. I've seen other Phantom movies that are totally different yet still great to watch! (Phantom of The Paradise and Phantom of The Mall)This one doesn't even follow closely to the Phantom story about: a young man is disfigured and hides himself from society yet falls in love with a beautiful movie. This movie can't even get that right!The gore was okay(unnecessary at times) and so were the production designs but other than that this movie was a mess!Even the ending was stupid too. It took the Phantom 7 shots and 2 stabbings before he could die?! WHAT?Plus this movie has unlikable characters, pointless scenes, confusing scenes etc.I'm sorry Dario but this is probably the worst Phantom movie I will EVER see. Want true advice from a complete stranger who cares about you?DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE!!

Having already seen 'Phantom' in several of its incarnations ... the 1925 silent film with Lon Chaney, the 2004 musical film with Gerard Butler, and the 2011 25th Anniversary stage version at the Royal Albert Hall ... I was in the mood to see this quite different version, on Netflix streaming movies. This version has a number of giant differences, while still following the basic story, of a musical genius who lives in the bowels of the opera house in Paris, and who inspires young Christine to become a fine opera singer. First, this Phantom is not disfigured, instead is mentally distressed from having been rescued by rats as a baby floating in the river underground, then raised by rats. Thus his response when he was called a Phantom, "I am not a Phantom, I am a rat."Julian Sands, with very long hair is The Rat (Phantom). Pretty Asia Argento is Christine Daaé, Andrea Di Stefano is Raoul, and Nadia Rinaldi is Carlotta Altieri . But this is not a musical, in that singing is infrequent, and only to further the plot, i.e. a rehearsal or a performance. The Phantom and Raoul never sing. It is really mostly a horror movie. Did I enjoy it? Yes, I did. Does it deserve a high rating? No, it doesn't. But it accomplishes what it sets out to do and, knowing the basic 'Phantom' story,it is fun to see how they changed it with a quite different Phantom role.It was not filmed in English but it is presented in English on Netflix. The dubbing is really done well, I had to look really hard at lip movements to see any irregularities, it looks for the most part that the actors were speaking English.Much of the filming was done in the Pertosa Caves outside Naples, Italy. It makes the underground scenes very attractive.

Argento's work has often been criticised for its violence, portrayal of women and the apparent emphasis on style over substance. In most cases, these criticisms do hold some weight, but to look at them outside of the context of the world that he creates and the characters that he focuses on is somewhat unfair. Argento's work, regardless of content or theme, is pure cinema, and when done right, results in unforgettable films like The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970), Deep Red (1975), Suspiria (1977) and Tenebre (1982). Many fans and critics would argue that his more recent work over the last twenty years has failed to reach the same creative level of those particular films - and they would be correct, to an extent - but for me, there's simply no way that he's made a film that comes close to the level of this particular "reimagining" of Gaston Leroux's perennial classic, The Phantom of the Opera (1998).Now, as a general rule, I don't like to write negative reviews for films. I find it adolescent. There are so many fantastic films out there that are rich in imagination, style, character and intelligence that it seems almost counterproductive to waste time highlighting only the negatives. However, I feel I must contradict this notion somewhat with this review of the film in question, simply because I find it hard to believe that one of my very favourite and most well respected filmmakers could produce something as awkward, odd and downright incomprehensible as this. For me, the film was dull and sorely misguided. There's very little of Argento's once famous approach to cinematography, editing and production design, with a largely flat presentation that looks like a low-budget television drama, similar to that awful BBC adaptation of Tipping the Velvet (2002); which featured a similarly backroom recreation of a related time period. It's more surprising given the fact that the cinematographer here was Ronnie Taylor, who did such a fantastic job with Argento's earlier hit, Opera (1987), and would later create that exhilarating opening sequences for the director's subsequent film, the back-to-basics shocker Sleepless (2001).The film also suffers from a turgid script, poor performances, weak direction, obvious effects and some woeful lapses in judgement. I certainly respect Argento as a filmmaker, attempting to take the basic formula of The Phantom and do something a little different with it, but here the changes are silly and sometimes quite embarrassing. The subplot with the rats for example could have worked, and indeed, think about that great scene in his earlier film Inferno (1980) with the antiques dealer in central park. However, here it seems ridiculous and only adds to the more comedic characterisation of the phantom as a brooding, Mills and Boon style fop. Asia isn't as bad in the central role of Christine - moving confidently between the light and dark aspects of youthful naivety and pent up sensuality as she is courted by the ultimate in seductive evil - but by the end, the role was so underwritten that she simply could not elicit the right level of empathy and emotion from the (by now) somewhat jaded viewers. Obviously, if you enjoy the film, then I don't want to take that away from you, but as a long-time admirer of Argento's work, this was a real disappointment.Regardless of what you say about The Stendhal Syndrome (1996), Sleepless and The Card Player (2005), those films at least offered flashes of the old Argento magic; with tense, stalk-and-slash plot structures that brought to mind his giddy Giallo thrillers of the 1970's, unobtrusive use of camera and editing, and some fine performances from a variety of well known and well respected actors. The Phantom of the Opera lacks any traces of Argento's talent as a director of exceptional genre cinema, as he creates a cheap-looking film that is badly acted, poorly structured and sadly misjudged from the very beginning. Some have found an added camp value in the presentation and approached the film on that level, which I suppose could work, but anyone looking for the Argento of Deep Red or Tenebre to offer us a dark, disturbing and coolly self-aware interpretation of Leroux's themes of tragedy, obsession, madness and beauty will be sorely disappointed.

The late 19th century in Paris... opera is popular, but there's a catch. The local opera house is haunted by a horrible phantom (Julian Sands), raised by rats and eager to kill anyone who tries to get his treasure or stop his beloved Christine (the erection-inducing Asia Argento) from becoming the next big star of the stage. But can Christine really love a man who lives in the sewers and thrives on violence? Love can overcome so many boundaries... who knows? This version of "Phantom of the Opera" is one of the less popular and less appreciated. And I can see why. The story isn't very strong and what there is of a story really deviates from the traditional tale. This phantom, for example, doesn't need a mask at all and isn't deformed. Which really makes you wonder what reason he has for living as he does... The film quality is also poor, at times appearing more like a television soap opera than a film. Coming from Dario Argento, it's one of his most disappointing pieces -- perhaps he was distracted by the filming of his daughter making love with Julian Sands? Let me pinpoint one good thing about this film and one bad thing. The good: the gore. Argento loves gore (have you seen "Jenifer"?) and he shows it here, opening the film with a maintenance man torn in half. Another man, who catches rats for a living, has his thumb horribly mutilated. A woman gets her tongue bitten out. A man is impaled on a stalagmite. And this is just some of the carnage. Argento and the phantom are here to wreak havoc...The bad: Unless I just wasn't paying attention, much of this movie just doesn't make any sense. Sure, I shouldn't be thinking about it and just enjoying the violence. But I need rational explanations -- or at least sensible ones. And this film has neither. How does the phantom recall being dumped in the sewer as a baby? Where did he get his bed from? His organ (which just barely fits in the caverns and isn't likely to get hauled around much)? His clothes? Who taught him to play the organ? Who taught him English (both speaking and writing)? The change from being deformed to being raised by rats was fine, but it opens a huge plot hole: where are his human benefactors? Argento completists will want to see and perhaps own this film (I own it). Fans of Sands will like it and fans of Asia will find her to be at her most beautiful here. Apart from that, the film is nothing special -- a second-rate telling of a familiar tale. See the Lon Chaney or Robert Englund versions instead, or see it on Broadway with Sarah Brightman. The gore, as good as it is, doesn't make up for the shambles of this film.