The Phantom of the Opera

1999
4.3| 1h44m| R| en| More Info
Released: 18 June 1999 Released
Producted By: Cine 2000
Country: Italy
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A series of terrifying accidents and brutal murders leave a bloody trail into the subterranean caverns of an Opera house. Below the theatre stalks a man raised by creatures of the underworld.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Cine 2000

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Evengyny Thanks for the memories!
Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense
AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,
Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;
DD Panda This is by far one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Beginning with a very fast approaching 'fantasma' (no real introduction of the characters)and a following love-story (both in 1 minute) the movie is quite fun sometimes. Only the blood-splattering scenes from time to time and the slight feeling that there is no sense behind all the actions is a bit disturbing. Unfortunately there is no really suspenseful scene, despite that my girlfriend left the room twice. Don't watch this if you are not stoned or intoxicated by other chemicals. The whole story is nuts, including an out of place reference to Edgar Degas... The only element worth in this movie is the music, so I gave it a fair 2.
Awaix Javaid 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.
Gunnar_Runar_Ingibjargarson 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.
Graham Greene Argento's work has often been criticised for its violence, portrayal of women and the apparent emphasis on style over substance. In most cases, these criticisms do hold some weight, but to look at them outside of the context of the world that he creates and the characters that he focuses on is somewhat unfair. Argento's work, regardless of content or theme, is pure cinema, and when done right, results in unforgettable films like The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970), Deep Red (1975), Suspiria (1977) and Tenebre (1982). Many fans and critics would argue that his more recent work over the last twenty years has failed to reach the same creative level of those particular films - and they would be correct, to an extent - but for me, there's simply no way that he's made a film that comes close to the level of this particular "reimagining" of Gaston Leroux's perennial classic, The Phantom of the Opera (1998).Now, as a general rule, I don't like to write negative reviews for films. I find it adolescent. There are so many fantastic films out there that are rich in imagination, style, character and intelligence that it seems almost counterproductive to waste time highlighting only the negatives. However, I feel I must contradict this notion somewhat with this review of the film in question, simply because I find it hard to believe that one of my very favourite and most well respected filmmakers could produce something as awkward, odd and downright incomprehensible as this. For me, the film was dull and sorely misguided. There's very little of Argento's once famous approach to cinematography, editing and production design, with a largely flat presentation that looks like a low-budget television drama, similar to that awful BBC adaptation of Tipping the Velvet (2002); which featured a similarly backroom recreation of a related time period. It's more surprising given the fact that the cinematographer here was Ronnie Taylor, who did such a fantastic job with Argento's earlier hit, Opera (1987), and would later create that exhilarating opening sequences for the director's subsequent film, the back-to-basics shocker Sleepless (2001).The film also suffers from a turgid script, poor performances, weak direction, obvious effects and some woeful lapses in judgement. I certainly respect Argento as a filmmaker, attempting to take the basic formula of The Phantom and do something a little different with it, but here the changes are silly and sometimes quite embarrassing. The subplot with the rats for example could have worked, and indeed, think about that great scene in his earlier film Inferno (1980) with the antiques dealer in central park. However, here it seems ridiculous and only adds to the more comedic characterisation of the phantom as a brooding, Mills and Boon style fop. Asia isn't as bad in the central role of Christine - moving confidently between the light and dark aspects of youthful naivety and pent up sensuality as she is courted by the ultimate in seductive evil - but by the end, the role was so underwritten that she simply could not elicit the right level of empathy and emotion from the (by now) somewhat jaded viewers. Obviously, if you enjoy the film, then I don't want to take that away from you, but as a long-time admirer of Argento's work, this was a real disappointment.Regardless of what you say about The Stendhal Syndrome (1996), Sleepless and The Card Player (2005), those films at least offered flashes of the old Argento magic; with tense, stalk-and-slash plot structures that brought to mind his giddy Giallo thrillers of the 1970's, unobtrusive use of camera and editing, and some fine performances from a variety of well known and well respected actors. The Phantom of the Opera lacks any traces of Argento's talent as a director of exceptional genre cinema, as he creates a cheap-looking film that is badly acted, poorly structured and sadly misjudged from the very beginning. Some have found an added camp value in the presentation and approached the film on that level, which I suppose could work, but anyone looking for the Argento of Deep Red or Tenebre to offer us a dark, disturbing and coolly self-aware interpretation of Leroux's themes of tragedy, obsession, madness and beauty will be sorely disappointed.