Watch The Phantom of the Opera For Free

Simply Perfect

Sadly Over-hyped

Best movie ever!

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

This movie looks to me like some type of experiment. Something like "Let's see what we could do with the Phantom of the Opera story to shock people a bit and make it different". Because it's totally different from any other Phantom of the Opera take. First, the phantom is not deformed, he's an abandoned child raised up by...rats in the catacombs of the Opera. If I remember correctly (there has been a while since I've read the book by Gaston Leroux) there is a weird character in the book that has the power to command the rats and is always walking around in those catacombs surrounded by rats, and the Phantom was avoiding him and letting him be (yeah, looks like all weirdos of Paris retreat under the Opera, I know). So here there's a mesh-up of this character and the Phantom: the guy is raised by rats, is able to command them, has telepatic powers (where did that come from?? no idea), loves music and plays the orgue. How he learned to talk, play the orgue, or got his things down there in the caverns we don't know. He's not at all deformed, looks more like a rock star (weird looking wig, by the way, but it's supposed to make him look sexy...), so you also ask yourself why he likes staying in those catacombs when he could be living quite normally above ground. Perhaps his weird childhood left its marks upon him and he's not adapted to live differently. In fact he's a pretty sick pervert, bites the tongue out of a woman's mouth, is killing people left, right and center, and almost masturbates in front of his rats(!). Well he does kill a child molester on the other hand... Christine is in this movie no Saint Mary, she's always almost fainting with desire when she sees the Phantom, and she can't decide if she loves him or not. One time she's offering herself to him like a slut, then she's all rebellious and shouts at him, telling him how much she hates him. It's the typical Italian love story this! Then later when the Phantom returns from his killing spree she shouts at him a bit more, he rapes her but she likes it, then she runs away into the arms of Raoul and tells him not to let her go. Then there's a weird guy in the movie and his friend, a midget. These two weirdos like to hunt rats, and invent a steam motored vacuum cleaner machine with which they drive around in the caverns and kill the rats of the Phantom. That was so hilarious I almost chocked on my popcorn! Of course they're such bad drivers they hit a rock and the midget gets his head cut off. His friend then finds the Phantoms layer and watches the hot action going on between Christine and the Phantom. When he finally manages to get to the surface, he tweets to everyone the truth, that Christine is the Phantom's whore, which makes the Phantom become Batman, swoop on the stage and save her. And here the plot becomes so laughable I thought I was gonna burst: Raoul appears and shoots the Phantom in one of the most ridiculous scenes ever, Christine suddenly realizes how much she loves the freak and cries like a baby while the Phantom is all like "Life goes on, dear girl". Then it all comes down, gore and slashing at the Phantom while Christine is in the boat with Raoul, screaming her brains out and crying, instead of jumping in the water to get to him (maybe she doesn't know how to swim?) So a movie where I had a few good laughs, have been shocked a few times by the gore and some other stuff (Christine is the director's daughter, and she has some sex scenes in the movie with daddy-o filming, pretty creepy, but OK, artists are not to be judged like other people) and I'm not sure if I like the Phantom, but find him attractive nonetheless. If you want a movie completely different from the usual Phantom of the Opera, watch it, but be warned that it's an experiment.

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.

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!

Dario Argento's "Il Fantasma Dell Opera" aka. "Phantom Of The Opera" of 1998 is widely (and rightly) considered to be his worst movie, and regarded by many of his fans as a complete disaster. I am a very big Argento fan, and I agree that "Phantom Of The Opera" (not to be confused with Argento's excellent "Opera" aka. "Terror At The Opera" of 1987) is a disappointment, but I still don't share the wide-spread opinion that it is completely awful. The movie should certainly be avoided by people not familiar with Argento, or not familiar with the Phantom of the Opera Story. In case you don't know Argento's work, watch masterpieces such as "Profondo Rosso" of 1975, "Suspiria" of 1977, or "Phenomena" of 1985 instead of this, and if you don't know the story behind "Phantom...", go for the 1925 classic with Lon Chaney. People who like Argento, however, should at least give this one a try. It may be a disappointment, and it certainly is the weakest movie by this brilliant director, but it's certainly not complete garbage.The story was changed in the way that the Phantom was raised by rats (Argento fans know that he likes to involve animals), and the film has some terribly cheesy parts. In some parts, however, the movie provides a great sense of macabre humor, and the gore is, of course, intense. Argento's daughter, the beautiful Asia Argento stars in the female lead in this, which is, in my opinion an advantage. I always like Asia Argento's performances, and this film is no exception. I also found Julian Sands OK as the Phantom, although his performance was far from being great. The film may lack the typical Argento style in some departments, but the visual style and the intense colors will certainly make anyone recognize whose work this film is. The score was composed by the brilliant Ennio Morricone. I am a big admirer of Morricone, and many of his compositions, especially those composed for Sergio Leone's masterpieces, are without doubt some of the greatest scores of all-time. Still, in Argento's films I preferred the brilliant progressive Rock soundtracks by Goblin, since the music is not only superb, but it also harmonizes perfectly with Argento's style. I must admit, however, that a progressive Rock soundtrack would certainly not be appropriate for a movie set in the 19th century."Phantom Of The Opera" certainly is (by far) Argento's weakest film, but that doesn't mean it's completely bad. We're talking about a cinematic genius here, and I think the only reason this movie's reputation is that bad, is the fact that expectations are high when it comes to Argento. Argento's decision to get back to his old style, however, was certainly wise, as his next movie, "Non Ho Sonno" aka. "Sleepless" of 2001 was very good.Concluding, I recommend to see this to my fellow Argento fans. The possibility that they will be disappointed is high, but, in my opinion, it is not as bad as people say it is. Is it a disappointment for Argento? - It Certainly is. Is it complete garbage? - No, Certainly Not. 5/10