Such a frustrating disappointment

Excellent but underrated film

Excellent adaptation.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Right from the start you can tell that Argento hasn't lost his touch, with a distinctively unique approach to the colouring of his film which gives it a real period look and feel. And, right from the start, you realise that this isn't going to be one of Argento's best movies. Far from it in fact: it is a film many, many people consider to be his worst film, at least to date. I'm afraid I have to join that camp because there is almost nothing of any worth in this disjointed mess, full of poor judgements and a lack of intelligence all-round. Argento introduces unwanted moronic humour when he should be going for scares, gives us a tragic ending even though its completely unwarranted - why should we suddenly start caring about the Phantom after all his crimes and gore murders? - unbelievable character actions - what is it with Christine? Talk about a love/hate relationship... - extremely poor acting (Argento has never got the best performances from his cast, but this is something else) and dodgy digital effects all over the place which detract from the visual appeal.Sick comedy is something you don't usually find in Argento's movies, but you'll see it in abundance here. Whether the Phantom is ripping the breast of an opera diva or a young girl is being chased through the catacombs by a would-be paedophile, Argento badly misjudges his scenes making for an often distasteful and tasteless movie. The silly comic interludes ruin any attempt at dramatics and one has to wonder whom exactly Argento was aiming at with the introduction of a comic sidekick dwarf (yes, even in a film this recent), intelligent rats, and, in the nadir of his whole career, a rat-shredding machine which drives along and sucks up rats through a huge vacuum cleaner hose at the front. Any fan of Argento's classic gialli movies will simply shake their head at the sorry state of Argento's current directorial career.Acting-wise, the film is dreadful, especially Asia Argento (yes, the girl who was pretty effective in THE STENDHAL SYNDROME) who is just embarrassing as Christine - Dario really doesn't know when to reign in his daughter's overacting and you can't help but feel sorry for somebody when you know they're capable of far more than this. Julian Sands seems to have lost the ability to be naturally creepy like he was in the early '90s and his Phantom is more of an impish wimp than a scary screen horror icon. Bad miscasting alert there! As for the supporting Italian cast, well once again there are fresh-faced youngsters whom you don't give two hoots about and forget instantly once the film is over (what happened to all the up-and-coming actors and actresses that used to star in films and stay in your mind?) and annoyingly whiny female characters the likes of which haven't been seen since the Universal horror cycle of the '30s and '40s, like the stupid maid.Mind you, the script has such bad characterisation and dialogue that you can't pin the blame entirely on the cast. Then there's Ennio Morricone, usually somebody you can rely on for some good music, putting in a score so bland and unnoticeable it's a mystery why Argento hired him in the first place. The famous Argento set-pieces are in short supply here, with the exception of the notorious "chandelier" sequence which should be horrific and instead, incredibly, is played for laughs. Has Argento really lost touch with his audience this much? The computer effects work is lamentable, particularly a really lame "fantasy world" sequence which is so unconvincing as to be downright laughable.Thankfully Argento has stuck with Sergio Stivaletti who supplies some nicely juicy gore effects once again which don't disappoint, including bodies torn in two, a small but excellent effect of a bone protruding from a guy's thumb, tongues being torn out, decapitations, and a stand-out impaling on a stalagmite. Unfortunately these are usually shown in brief only with quick jump-cuts away but you have to make do with what you get in a film this poor. All serious film fans and Argento fans should give this a wide berth, and curiosity-seekers are better off looking elsewhere for entertainment. The only people who should watch this are those looking to write about it such as this unfortunate reviewer...

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.

One of the worst films i have ever seen. Empty, not coherent, Asia Argento is just a plastic doll opening her mouth on the music. Nobody is saying that the story itself is a drama example but from any story one can make just a film or just a thing. I consider that i really lost my Saturday evening watching this film! Do you remember th scene when the phantom scratches's the breast of the diva? He scratches the left one but in the next scene she has scratches on the right one... Then all those pseudo erotic scenes!!! Horrible and badly filmed. The secondary characters play better than the main ones. The diva and the two underground outcasts look pretty great.

They butchered the original. If you are going to make a movie based off of a book, try to make it somewhat like it. Otherwise, don't. Give it another name for goodness sake! I liked the creativity and all put into this film, just don't ruin the story line for me. I have loved this story since I was a child and as an adult I would still like to have it in my memory as a good story, not some type of killer film. That is not how it is supposed to be...I don't care if you make the movie "original." Just if you are going to name it after something, try to a least make an attempt to make it like it... Otherwise, name it something else.PLEASE!