The Phantom of the Opera (1998)

'The Phantom of the Opera' is one of those books that is impossible to film. part of this is to do with the grandeur of the set-pieces - in one scene, a massive chandelier is dropped on an opera audience; the book's setting, the Paris Opera House, is full of completely realised floors and basements, with a near-magical world of tarns and rocks as its substructure. That Dario Argento, working on a relatively low Euro-budget, cannot approach the novel's visual audacity, is not his fault, as his attempt is always inventive and entertaining.

A more difficult problem lies in the story's magic, in Erik's musical genius, and his bestowing on Christianne a voice of unearthly beauty - this can be easily imagined when reading, but is impossible to realise on screen - one good opera voice is as good as another, not helped here by having to sing what sound like hyper-ventilating scales; while the Phantom's organ-musings are more reminiscent of Sesame Street's The Count than tragic Baroque strains.

The most serious gap between book and film could have been averted by Argento. The book is called the 'Phantom' of the Opera, and although the anti-hero is revealed to be all too human, the first half compellingly records the subversive effects of this ghost, his inexplicable immateriality and omniscience. As the book goes on, the spirit becomes a body, and what was horrible becomes understandable, even sympathetic. Julian Sands is a body from the off, even given a bizarre back-story involving rats, and is thus robbed of his power, just as the narrative is denied its power to chill. There is no transformation, no sense of the body becoming a body, or conversely, no sense of the magic inherent in the real.

I say this could have been averted by Argento. The fact that it wasn't is surely a deliberate directorial choice. Because this is a very strange version of Leroux's tale, rescuing it from the mawkishness it has drowned in since a certain musical. Although constantly alluding to his previous work, especially 'Suspiria' (the ballet girls, the chases, the gynaecological interiors), the film is rarely scary, as if Argento is deliberately working against horror. Just as the film is at its darkest and most gory, Argento deflates the horror with his recourse to pantomime, Grand Guignol, farce, grotesquerie; alternating, as in a Shakespeare play, the high-flown love story with earthier nonsense. The rats bare more than a close resemblance to Roland, and yet, with gleeful viciousness, feed on the rat-trapped hand of a yokel ratcatcher.

Argento is attuned to the political ironies of Leroux's text. The film never leaves the world of the Opera, and still offers a rich, comic microcosm of contemporary French society, including Degas repeatedly sketching the little girls, and Verlaine and RImbaud hilariously brawling at a sauna-orgy. More seriously, the chasing of a gluttonous servant-girl by the Phantom is mirrored by the much more disturbing chase of a young ballerina by a paedophile bourgeois.

The Opera was built as the supreme edifice of bourgeois France, a monumental erection to vulgar taste, which the affronted Italian director mockingly exposes; it was a demonstration of prosperity, pretension, but above all positivism, the progress of science, the idea that the world could be empirically known. Like all great Gothic novels, this modern hubris is in conflict with lingering residues of the past, a material building haunted by phantoms, its

Fmovies: This is not a remake; it's a reconceptualization. Thus, it should be expected to be true to the original only where the writers, Gerard Brach and Dario Argento, see fit. Many people are up in arms that the phantom's face isn't disfigured, but that is not the problem. The problem is Dario replaces the disfigurement with a raised by rats story, yet we get a Richard Gere type of suave, supposedly poetic phantom instead of an uneducated Christopher Lambert in Greystoke. What makes this worse is that a totally literate phantom still has almost no chance to utter any decent dialogue.

Virtually the entire movie takes place within the opera house, but this is in no way limiting or constricting to the look of the film because this is Dario Argento we are talking about. Argento creates a bizarre underworld in the depths of the opera house that is original, but at the same time evokes memories of Jeunet & Caro's City Of The Lost Children and Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. Dario's pays great attention to detail when it comes to the look he wants, but seemingly could care less whether the set is plausible in the real world. This is Dario's world; accept it or watch boring, visually stunted, formulaic directors rehash bad scripts in a conventional manner.

The movie often succeeds in being darkly comedic, and the characters are only meant to be viewed in the sense of what the represent in the real world. This is why the outside world isn't normal the two times we see it. Julie Taymor's ancient Rome is the only one that had cars and video games, but that doesn't stop most people from thinking Titus is a good flick. Both are bold visionary movies that are not trying to be realistic. You can make a valid argument that certain unrealistic aspects don't add anything to the movie and/or simply dislike them, but things like electricity in the opera house were deliberate decisions that intentionally make it implausible in the sense of the real world.

The weakness of the movie, as usual, lies in the script. The most annoying aspect is that Sands has the special powers at the outset, but they mysteriously disappear when he needs them most as if they were provided by the Witchblade. The dialogue is definitely worse than the usual English as a second language stuff we get from Dario. The secondary characters are used well though, societal parodies. Some of the funniest work Dario has even done comes when he mocks the vulgarity of the opera society. The main characters don't provide chuckles or really elicit our love or contempt; it's hard not to be ambivalent toward them. The leading men seem to chase Asia because they become addicted to her at first site. Asia essentially professes to have no concept of love, so her feelings toward them are mostly based on their last action. Instinct vs. duality is a worthwhile concept, but unfortunately the characters only seem drawn to each other because they are supposed to be. It eventually clicks, but not until the final segment of the film.

The strength of Argento's movie, as always, is the look. Some aspects were a little below his own top standard, but this was not the typical Dario movie. The improvements in sets, staging, and costuming help balance off the areas that are obviously going to be weaker given the type of movie. He successfully branched out with the sex related scenes, particularly where the men are haunted by their desire for Asia. Scenes like these gave it the art house feel that made up for it lacking the haunte

In 1877, in Paris, rats save a baby from death and raise him in the underground of the Opera de Paris. This child becomes The Phantom of the Opera (Julian Sands), a half-human half-animal breed, who falls in love for Christine Daaé (Asia Argento), an opera singer initiating her career. He disputes her love with the aristocratic Baron Raoul De Chagny (Andrea Di Stefano), sharing Christine that equally loves them both.

This Dario Argento's bizarre version of Gaston Leroux's classic novel really does not work, and probably it is the worst movie of his filmography. I believe he tried to create a gore and Gothic atmosphere, but the screenplay is awful. The nasty origin of The Phantom is quite ridiculous, with the weird Julian Sands being created by rats, but playing organ very well and not wearing mask, as in the other versions. Asia Argento is simply horrible in her character of Christine, with a terrible dubbing of the operas. Her mouth is not synchronized with the voice of the singer, and she does not show any vibration of feelings in her role. Most of the lines in this story are very ridiculous, and the way Christine falls in love for The Phantom is amazingly pathetic and silly. The Phantom comes to her, introduces himself with an absurd sentence, and she immediately has a crush on him. The actor that performs the leading gentleman Raoul is not handsome, and really does not help our heroine to decide her sentimental fate. Last but not the least, how could a stupid man like Ignace, the rat-catcher, invent and build a sophisticated device like the one he uses to eliminate the rats in the underworld of the Opera? My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Um Vulto na Escuridão" ("A Shadow in the Darkness")

The Phantom of the Opera fmovies. It is not the best movie ever made but it is watchable, mainly due to Morricone's Music and the opera selections. Asia Argento plays the main heroine, young talented opera singer Christine. I don't think she was bad and her face is unbelievably beautiful - she reminds Olivia Hussey of "Romeo and Juliet" (1968) and Uma Thurman if Uma ever decides to dye her hair dark. Production values, costumes, special effects, decorations, and the singing voices are very good. I noticed that I laughed a lot during the film - perhaps Argento made a dark comedy of the familiar story?

I did not like Julien Sands as a non-masked Phantom. He looks a lot like the creatures that raised him.

The film has an orgy scene that is so funny it could've came directly from "Caligula"

Overall - I had a lot of fun, and and can call it one of my guilty pleasures.

I think the reason why I loved Phantom of the Opera so much, at least this version was because how cheesy it was. I mean "Life goes on"? How cheesy can you get? This movie was totally meant for Mystery Science Theater 3000 that it makes your sides hurt. I know that Dario Argento is pretty famous and one of the most popular horror directors of all time, but I don't know what he was on when he made this movie.

Basically, it's about The Phantom who is in love with a song bird, Christine, played by Dario's daughter Asia, wonder how she got that role, huh? But unlike the typical story, The Phantom has no scars, he just wishes to make Christine into a star, by killing the stupid and ugly lead singer that Christine is the understudy for. But of course Christine also has another lover Raul, who will do anything to protect her from The Phatom.

I mean, this was a pretty bad version of Phantom of the Opera, but it's so bad that it's actually good. Like I said, it has horrible lip syncing and an over-dramatic ending, but I think horror fans will enjoy this and just have fun, or at least the Mystery Science Theater 3000 fans, it's a good time for your own episode!

7/10

No, this movie was nothing like Suspiria. No, this movie didn't have anything to do with the classic Phantom of the Opera. Yes, the acting was poor and the lip sync sucked. Yes, the plot really was bad.

But still, I find this film very amusing and funny. Especially the gore parts were hell lot of fun.