The Phantom of the Opera (1999)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Sorry, this movie sucks

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

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.

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.

Leaden horror costumer that takes its tenuous starting point from the classic Gaston Leroux novel of the same name. The twist in this variation is that the Phantom was raised by telepathic rats in the subterranean caverns beneath the opera house. Thus our feral Phantom (Julian "Ratboy" Sands) develops an obsessive love for up-and-coming diva Christine (Asia Argento), and sets about to seduce her to his dark, rodent existence. Although beautifully photographed, with lots of ornate period detail to catch the eye, this is largely a by-the-numbers supernatural horror story with scant gory set pieces as diversions. Fans of Dario Argento will yell "Rats!" and all else will merely shrug. And why are the rats telepathic, anyway? Screen writing credits go to Gerard Brach, best known for his many collaborations with Roman Polanski, most notably Repulsion. However, none of his absurd sense of humor comes through in this film, which really needs it. A shame all around. The DVD includes a short interview with the film's star, Julian Sands, as well as a photo gallery, some dispensable making-of clips, spliced together to appear as a featurette (mostly in untranslated Italian) and a very informative article from Fangoria Magazine.

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.