The Phantom of the Opera (1999)

II Fantasma Dell'Opera 1998 starting Asia Argento & Julian Sands.i don't need to explain here who is Dario Argento & what he is famous for but i will say that this master of horror genre has lost his game this late 90s adaptation of the phantom of the opera is a solid proof.the cast of this film got wasted here i mean director chooses his daughter Asia Argento for a role here yes she is hot i am a fan of her since i saw her with Vin Diesel in film xXx 2002 & what was Julian Sands doing here simply embarrassing himself in this mess he gets shot multiple times in the end still he is immortal somehow & survives.Dario Argento totally changed the whole concept of classic phantom of the opera he made changes to the novel way too much the story is same but done in a different way he tried to turn it into a horror of art film but failed the main character phantom is a weird psycho who lives with rats & moles in sewers down below the earth he falls in love with Christine a opera singer but he is not really in love with her he lusts after her.this is the most stupid version ever i was on a hunt for this film as i saw some good reviews i love 90's decade & good suspense,horror films even soft core but what genre is this movie anyway i saw this & got disappointing,this just fails to keeps the viewer interested to watch the whole thing,this 1998 version is a disgrace the sex scenes are pointless i mean what was Dario Argento trying to do here there is no balance & chemistry between characters.the only good scene was when the whole opera gets blown up,this film takes itself way too seriously & ends up being a big hilarious joke.may i ask what was Christine doing she is just shrieking & not properly singing anything,the phantom have nothing better to do then having sex or kidnapping people & kills people for lame reasons.let me say this again this film has nothing to watch in it as there was no screenplay for this Dario Argento wanted to fulfill some fantasy so he let out all of the nonsense in his mind here forget the locations are awful,the opera looks more like a warehouse,camera work is terrible.what makes a phantom of the opera good is a romance vibe to it this is why the 2004 version of Emmy Rossum is superior i have the Disc of that one trust me guys it is by far the best film ever made this one sucks & who can forget the bad overacting adding & not even a single good musical score.Overall The Phantom Of The Opera 1998 is a waste of time & money do not watch this at any cost my rating is 2/10:Skipp It.

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.

Well I saw this movie because I enjoyed watching the "the phantom of the opera" (2004) and it was a magnificent, epic and classic which I would always remember with its beauty shown in the same way that it should have been and its charm portrayed in the same way it had to be.But I am highly disappointed with this release of phantom of the opera, it was more like a comedy film rather than being some remake or something horror. It was neither the horror nor the enchanting one. It was more like a taunt to the phantom of the opera.When it all started, the mice dragging the child and story beginning, I was quite at ease, as this was much normal to me. Then they showed the phantom appearing and frightening the people, with his mastery. Then he takes Kristen with him, and does the sex which in my view was absurd, why this had to be shown, I mean involving porn in a classic film, for god sake this is not a porn film and neither this is a horror film at all. The director ruined the film so beautifully that I must clap for this amazing and wonderful time-wasting film.In this edition, the phantom was shown to be just a horror introduction as well as amateur singer for him and he has no talent of music to teach to Kristen.At other moments, you will also find the Kristen has got no such talent, she is singing and watching here there so aimlessly instead of showing herself lost in the enchanting beauty of world of music with its legacy. This actress "asia argento" is highly misfit for this role, she is more a modern type of lady as she did acting in her other films. If I compare Kristen of 1994 version with the Kristen of 2004 version, I would give 2/10 to Asia Argento and 9/10 to Emmy Rosum, the Kristen in 2004 version.Later I found the phantom can't even die with bullets, he was fired so many times but he was busy rescuing the girl, fighting with guards and even watching her going. This is the height of ruining the classic with modernism. This movie must have been named "The Jason of the opera" or perhaps "the phantom prophecies" or best if named as "a hell night with phantom in the opera street" I am sure someone who likes classic and has some classic sense, would agree with me that this director did his best effort in ruining the beauty of the film.Though the "the phantom of the opera" 2004 version is the best classical version of this. I loved it too much.

Dario Argento's Phantom Of The Opera (1998: Starring Julian Sands, Asia Argento, Nadia Rinaldi, Andrea Di Stefano, Lucia Gazzardi, Aldo Massasso, Iztvan Bubik, David D'Ingeo, Zoltan Barabas, Kitti Kerri, Leonardo Treviglio, Enzo Cardogna, Itala Bekes, Tania Nagel, Csilla Ward, Gianni Franco, Gabor Harsai....Director Dario Argento, Written By Dario Argento.Released in 1998, this is Italian cinema director Dario Argento's Phantom but not the Phantom of the Opera as most people are familiar with nor the truest and most faithful adaptation of the old French novel by Gaston Leroux. This one is clearly a horror movie without any touch of romance. Fans of the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical and the earlier Phantom movies from Lon Cheney's classic performance to Claude Rains, Herbert Lom and Charles Dance, this film is entirely on a different level. It falls under the category of Italian horror and international casting in an unpleasant, disturbing and gory independent film. No wonder it did not do well in the box office and most Phantom fans aren't even aware of its existence. Dario Argento cast his own daughter in the role of Christine Daee, and British actor Julian Sands as the Phantom. This time around, the Phantom is NOT disfigured, which is the strongest violation of the original premise. Instead of having facial deformities, the Phantom is an abandoned child who was raised by telepathic rats that kill people. Living under the opera house with his rats, he's developed telepathy himself and a dirty, dark, predatory and disgusting personality. He looks like either a vampire or rock star but there is no real sense of romance. His feelings for Christine are carnal and nothing more. She becomes his lover but other than music and her voice, theirs is a purely sexual relationship. Because of this, and because he kills anyone he dislikes, he's not a sympathetic figure. Without the romance, we can't really feel anything for this Phantom who is pure evil. The story is only partially faithful to the original tale. It is set at the Paris Opera of the 1870's and the Count Raoul De Chagny is Christine's choice of a mate, but this time around we genuinely feel that she belongs with the normal, secure and more romantic Count than the sadistic and no good Phantom. The performances are over-the-top and boring, even Carlotta, the fat soprano who thinks she is above all else. The classic chandelier drop is here but this time it's far more bloody than usual. There are scenes of graphic violence that earned this movie an R rating and ought not to be viewed by sensitive audiences or children. The music is beautiful, haunting and evocative of the period (with the use of the aria from Lakme) and the cinematography, costumes and art direction is truly very Phantom, including the "Degas ballerinas" touches, but there is very little to like about this movie. For comic relief, there is a rat exterminator and a midget which seem absurd and out of place for this tale. The real problem is the lack of direction and lack of romanticism. It's just one movie of Dario Argento's dark ouevre that happens to have the Phantom of the Opera as subject, but he twisted it around to make it his work and his style. Unless you're a fan of the Italian director, you'll otherwise find it too dark and disturbing. The only other "horror-themed" Phantom I can think of is the 1989 Robert Englund Phantom, an American film starring the actor of the Freddy Kueger films, but even that one had more interesting qualities. This one is too sick.