Le fantôme de l'Opéra

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 haunted house feel Dario wasn't going for.

I don't see where the movie would have looked any better with an overbloated American budget. The only thing lacking visually is the innovation we used to get from Dario. There aren't any shots/scenes that really stick out in terms of being shockingly different or original. The tongue being bitten out was the gory highlight, but that would normally be no better than the 4th part you'd mention. The gore is mainly close-ups. Argento & Stivaletti do them better than anyone, but they've overused the grinding/biting/ripping stuff here.

The film doesn't have the edge or create the suspense Dario's used to. That's mostly purposeful because I don't believe Dario intended to make a horror film. Sands is the cartoon avenger who kills off grotesque characters and sinners that we should only feel contempt for, so why should we be worried whether they get decapitated? That's why rats were a great choice of animal to raise Sands. They aren't fluffy little kittens that everyone supposedly likes and can't stand to see harmed; they are vermin. The people who try to steal from the phantom, sin in his presence (note that he saves the little girl, who then returns and tells the tale only to get slapped by an adult), or outright harm `his family' are considered lower than vermin. Of course, no one films animals and insects better than Argento's crew. Sometimes he gets better `performances' out of them than from humans.

Sands & Asia do a very good job considering the extremely limited material. Sands is able to exude the right amount of confidence by being much lower key than usual. Unfortunately, there is not credible material to give him a chance to be scarred inwardly; he just seems too content. Asia is active enough with her body to get over the bad dialogue, but she sometimes looks ridiculous `singing' and the audio dub during these scenes is occasionally atrocious.

The movie certainly has many problems and doesn't hold a candle to Opera. That said, I'd still rather watch this than most films because it offers a unique visual experience that very few directors have the ability and the balls to provide. 6/10

Dario Argento probably wasn't trying to make a funny movie about The Phantom of the Opera. Probably wasn't, but the point is, he did. While the gore in the film is unnecessary, it is not as frequent as we may be led to believe. The film does start out fairly abruptly with a guy getting his upper half sawed off, and at this time you're wondering, "what the hell is wrong with this picture?" Other death scenes are fairly equally gruesome, but all are also expected, therefore lowering the "scary gore factor." Of course, then you see The Phantom. Now, of course, you're really confused by the blonde hair and lack of a mask. I wasn't complaining about his good looks, though. The acting on Julian Sands's part is sub-par but not horrible, while Asia Argento is somewhat better. The relationship between the two is not incredibly believable, a sort of instant-love instant-hate instant-sadness thing that just keeps the audience confused as to why Christine can't make up her damn mind. Andrea Di Stefano is likable as Raoul, but some of his scenes are just incongruous with his character.

The sexuality of the film is incredibly overdone. Argento seems to need to expose women's breasts as many times as possible, including a very large and very unattractive La Carlotta. The opium den/whorehouse scene pretty much makes the movie (along with the couple of really gory parts) rated-R because we are definitely talking full frontal nudity, both sexes, and if you aren't expecting it you are pretty much blown away.

However: despite its flaws in cinematography (annoying and constantly switching camera angles and a soap opera-like quality), below standard acting, strange and inconclusive love story, and numerous bits of unwarranted violence... there is something about this film that just makes me want to declare it a campy, a cult classic. It is absolutely hilarious to watch, though very disturbing at times. If you've got a twisted sense of humour and/or a love of the bizarre, then this version of PotO with a man sticking rats down his pants for pleasure is the kind of movie you will want to see! 5 stars out of 10 for just being fun, though about 3 stars out of 10 when watched "critically." But as I said above, "prepare thyself for camp" and you'll probably love it.

I'm a brand new Dario Argento fan, having only seen 4 of his films (Phenomena, Tenebrae, Suspiria, and this). But I'm definitely planning to see more (my copy of Stendhal Syndrome is preordered and should be here next week). I bought this simply because it was Argento, and I was actually surprised. I was told that this was his worst film, and some even called it his swan song. I rather liked it, myself. If it is made by Dario Argento, it will be good. Dario took a few liberties, making this more of his own instead of yet another adaptation of the novel. I have to applaud him for that, even though some of it hardly makes sense. And there is the fact that electric light was not around at the time. But if you spend your life analyzing movies and hating them for the smallest detail, what's the point of watching movies? I watch to be entertained. The visuals aren't nearly as great as Suspiria, and the special effects are hardly special (you can smell a CGI shot from a mile away). Not to mention some performances. But I still liked it, because it had that Argento touch that all of is films have. Besides, Argento's worst films are still better than most of the 'horror' America has, today. I'd probably give it 3 out of 4 stars if I had to grade it. Check it out.

Being a fan of horror films, I was naturally intrigued to see that Italian horror legend Dario Argento had made a version of Phantom of the Opera. I rented it without hesitation. Well, it certainly isn't his best work, to put it mildly. The film introduces several new and interesting elements to the Phantom story, which by now has been rehashed ad nauseum. Some of these elements include - the Phantom having been raised by rats, the Phantom is not (externally) deformed, and therefore, does not wear the mask that is almost mandatory for the part (despite the fact that it appears on the cover - though it does make a haunting appearance in one scene, if you can catch it in the background). Unfortunately, the potential of these new ideas is never fully explored, rather, they are reintroduced and reintroduced as if to say, "Hey, look what I thought of! Isn't that great?" It seems that Argento got so caught up in the atmosphere and style of the movie that he forgot there was actually a story going on. The commitment to atmosphere is obvious - the costumes _are_ positively marvelous, and the cinematography is also quality. Beyond that, the film more or less falls apart. The acting is, for lack of a better word, absolutely terrible. I was sighing with relief everytime one of the few actors who managed mediocrity came onscreen. Julian Sands as the Phantom is flat, not surprising for an actor who fell off the face of the earth ten years ago. Andrea di Stefano as his rival Raoul is neither good nor bad, but certainly inexperienced. Asia Argento as the singer is disappointing compared to some of her other performances - but as one reviewer noted, she always seems to be holding back when working for her father.

The biggest problem I had with it was the hideous line dubbing. At least I _hope_ some of those lines were dubbed. Another problem is just how quickly the movie takes things for granted. Almost before I had time to take my popcorn out of the microwave and sit down, the singer and the phantom were madly in love and communicating psychically. Yes, psychically, another new idea that is interesting of its own right but doesn't work because it is presented far too suddenly and with very little supporting detail.

Overall . . . it has its moments. Those moments could have made for a very refreshing look at the Phantom story, as well as a darn good movie. Unfortunately, it managed to do only some of the former, and none of the latter.

'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 very materiality (the chandelier scene) vulnerable, the modern architecture on a prehistoric substructure, like a palimpsest, home to a man raised and pleasured by rats, an affront to contemporary Darwinism.

This breadth was taken further by Leroux into the realm of the metaphysical, avoided by the strictly somatic Argento, although the opening scenes brilliantly play with the idea of absence and presence that form the thematic basis of the book. This is by no means vintage Argento, but his use of interiors and light and shade remain quite inspiring, and there is a hilarious scene involving the ratcatcher and the fate of his dwarf assistant.