The Phantom Of The Opera [1998] [DVD]

If there is a major flaw to be found, it is perhaps that since Argento has chosen to do the film in the same vein as Coppola did with Dracula, he might have been better off had he cut loose a little bit. The film feels much too restrained. The material would have been perfect for Argento to return to his roots and produce an explosion of experience such as Suspiria or Inferno. Alas, he did not. But annoying oneself with things he didn't do is a fruitless effort, so lets focus on what he did do: He has changed the original story quite significantly (which doesn't bother me the slightest)and he has toned down both his bravura style and mayhem. Worse crimes have been committed, I must say.

I for one was quite pleased with Phantom. It's not one of Argento's best films - not even one of his "better" films - but it is a decent one, and a lot better than most of the horror crap that we get each year. Personally, I'm much more for a slice of "different" horror cinema than the traditional Hollywood ghost-stories like The Sixth Sense or The Others. There's something exotic and special about Argento's films and even Phantom, despite its numerous shortcomings, features this special touch. If you go in expecting vintage Argento, you'll be disappointed. If you go in with no expectation whatsoever, you might like it.

The original story of the masked Phantom (Erik) living in the catacombs of the Paris Opera and falling in love with his young protegee Christine Daae is absolutely unrecognizable here, it seems that the director-Dario Argento- has simply attempted to create a typical no plot 'blood and gore' horror flick without properly considering the storyline, or the relationships between the characters within the story. The Phantom in this version is simply a recluse who has never known anything else apart from isolation and in direct contradiction with all other versions of "The Phantom of the Opera" I have come across, is not dis-figured. This has to be one of the biggest mistakes that a director making a 'Phantom' movie can make; the film credits state that the film is based on Gaston leroux's novel when in reality the entire novel has been butchered just for the sake of the film's 100 minute running time and a few horribly mutilated corpses. I have been a Phantom of the Opera phan for almost three years now and counting and this disgusts me. Even in the original novel the Phantom didn't kill helpess people for the sake of killing someone, he killed only when he needed to for defence and protection against people who deliberately went snooping around... (any Phantom phan will tell you that), an element that Argento's Phantom sadly lacks. Even the Phantom's love for Christine Daae comes across lewd and obscene the trademark of a director who does not properly understand the relationship between the two principal characters and the relationship between the Phantom as Christine's singing teacher is lost. I believe I am also right in saying that the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical version beats this hands down! No-one could of got their interpretation more wrong than Julian Sands, his Phantom comes off as a weak malicious pyshcopath with no real life or character. There is no in depth character exploration of any kind with Sand's intrepretation of the Phantom and to me this film only deserves a place in slasher horror fiction not as an enjoyable, timeless, horror film such as Dracula or Frankenstein. Please, please, please do not buy this video if you are looking for a quality Phantom film that has all the esstential elements of Gaston Leroux's Phantom in it - leave that to the 1925 silent version!

Just viewed as a film, rather than an Argento film, it's only just passable. Julian Sands is the wrong choice for the Phantom, but I doubt anyone could make anything of the role. Though he lives with rats in caves his hair's very nicely done and the caves are always well lit. His hygiene is impeccable. He talks in "poetic" language which could come from the most embarrassing efforts from a bottom-set English class. He has no physical deformity, which could be Argento's way of saying that the disfigurement is mental, but this would work more if any of the characters were characters. They're not. Character development is not really Argento's strong point. Why does the Phantom kill people? I'm not really sure, since he kills some but spares others without rhyme or reason. Why does Christine love him? Again, I've no idea. On the other hand the comic relief is actually funny and Ennio Morricone's score is far too good for this film- but your film's in trouble if the most memorable part of it is the music.

And as I've mentioned above, we don't get any advantage from having Argento direct it. His creativity with the camera is almost snuffed out. Very few of the deaths are anything to write home about. It was a relief to find that his next film was Sleepless, a much better effort which showed he hadn't burnt out.