|
Dario Argento's Phantom of the Opera (Widescreen/Full Screen) | 
| Director: Dario Argento
Actors: Julian Sands, Asia Argento, Andrea Di Stefano, Nadia Rinaldi, Coralina Cataldi Tassoni
Studio: Ardustry Home Entertainment
Category: DVD
List Price: CDN$ 12.30
Buy New: CDN$ 7.56
You Save: CDN$ 4.74 (39%)
New (10) Used (1) from CDN$ 7.56
Rating:  43 reviews
Format: Import, Ac-3, Ntsc, Widescreen
Languages: English (Original Language), Spanish (Subtitled)
Rating: R (Restricted)
Region: 0
Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1
DVD Layers: 1
DVD Sides: 2
Picture Format: Array
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5 x 0.6
MPN: 27013
ISBN: 1578482542
UPC: 783722701331
EAN: 9781578482542
ASIN: 1578482542
Theatrical Release Date: 1998
Release Date: November 23, 1999
Availability: Usually ships within 1 - 2 business days
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Brand new Item, factory Sealed. Buy direct from the U.S. and save! We only ship airmail to Canada (7-15 days).Caiman, les prix qu'on aime! Tous nos produits sont neufs. Envoi par avion des Etats-Unis
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
From Amazon.com
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? Screenwriting credits go to Gerard Brach, best known for his many collaborations with Roman Polanski, most notably IRepulsion/I. 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. I--Jim Gay/I
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 38 more reviews...
 Lord of the rats February 11, 2008
E. A Solinas (MD USA)
Once upon a time, a baby boy was washed into the Parisian sewers, where he was raised by telepathic rats to become the Phantom of the Opera, a serial killer, rapist and rat fetishist. br / br /Yeah, it sounds ridiculous. It IS ridiculous. And Dario Argento is clearly not even trying to make this gory, schizophrenic "The Phantom of the Opera" work. Instead, he apparently is determined to eradicate any traces of Gaston Leroux's original novel, and load the remaining shreds down with lots of gore, poor scripting, and a romantic lead that really should be eaten alive by rats. br / br /The baby who would later become the Phantom of the Opera was abandoned by his parents, and raised by a bunch of telepathic rats (I wish I were making this up). This doesn't explain how he learned to walk, talk, dress, wear a ghastly wig, play the organ, write music, and decorate his underground lair -- or why the rats would even do this. But it becomes pretty clear early on that Argento just isn't bothering with logic here. br / br /In due time, the Phantom (Julian Sands) hears the songs of the young diva Christine (Asia Argento), he contacts her and they immediately fall into a passionate love/hate affair. No reason, they just do. And the Phantom's passionate, psychotic attachment to Christine leads to more disgusting deaths, as he tries to make the budding diva into a megastar of the opera -- but his increasing murders lead to possible destruction for both ill-inducing lovers... br / br /My mother likes to tell the story of some people she knew in college -- apparently they had some sort of rat fetish, and would have sex while making rat squeaky noises. As far as I know, they never went to the level of rat masturbation/orgy (as the Phantom does at one point) but it did creep out their roommates. br / br /That story was all I could think about while watching this florid, hysterical, illogical mess, which only has a few scattered names and ideas from Leroux's novel. The script is simply a disaster -- a muddled mass of bizarre unanswered questions (Telepathic rats? Flaming traps in the sky?) and glaringly predictable "twists" -- will the pedophile be horribly killed by the Phantom? Do you need to ask? br / br /Even worse: the dialogue. Argento must have been asleep when he wrote this grotesquerie ("Your sweet female smell flows though my veins like the rolling ocean..."). That goopy adolescent stuff is basically when the Phantom says all the time, when he's not calling people fat cows. And Christine basically just yells all the time that she hates/loves/is going to have sex with him. Just make up your mind already. br / br /It must be admitted that Argento has some magnificently opulent sets, and the whole ratcatcher in his rat-killing go-cart is unintentionally hilarious. But the rest of the time, we're treated to very explicit gore for its own sake -- impalements on a chandelier, tongue ripping, etc. And the whole rat thing is presumably meant to make us squirm, but it just made me wonder if Argento has some sort of furry fetish. br / br /The final indignity to this disaster is the casting. It's weird enough to have a maskless, unscarred Phantom, but Sands is stuck with the role of a crazy, bloodthirsty rapist and murderer, who evokes zero pathos. And Asia Argento (yet again) plays a lusty sexpot who obviously can't sing, and spends most of the movie getting hysterical. The rats give good performances, though. br / br /Dario Argento was obviously not even trying to make a good movie in "Phantom of the Opera," and instead piled on everything that could make it fail. Well, it worked -- it's a florid, hysterical, ghastly mess that lacks anything worthwhile.
Destroyed Themes..just wrong. July 9, 2004
Kim Pemberton (Reno, NV)
I saw this film with high hopes. I am very much into giving credit where it is due, but it's a bit difficult when you spend half of the film wanting to strangle the bejesus out of the filmmakers.pI am a huge fan of Leroux for his tale which shines off a classic story of love and mystery.The careful treatment that Hal Prince and A.L.W. gave to the story created an incredible and haunting show, and the ONLY phantom is Michael Crawford. He loved this character, and made a whole new outlook on Erik, as a tragic and enigmatic figure. All of these things come together to create a story which I adore and has evidently gained admiration from oh so many others.pMaybe this director was bored or something. Tossed ideas around..wanted to make an artistic statement..pFirst of all, this Phantom isn't horrifcally deformed but passable in appearance. You know that mask on the cover? Don't let that make you think that it's even THAT true to the story.The famous unmasking scene is left out, instead showing the guy abusively tossing her about. A Michael Crawford, he certainly is not. All this Phantom is is a flat character;a psycho with a passion for rats *another moronic change in the story* and a killer with bizarre methods. I (and hopefully you) could do without the gruesome rat trap effect..with a bunch of moving dying creatures in it..And the view of Christine as a Pin-up. Thanks for showing off the animalistic side of the phantom, but we have the rest of the movie to be sicked out of.pThe number one thing that bothered me..The Phantom and Christine's relationship.Erik is supposed to be honorable to her in the sense that he never touches her, like the mere idea of love is forbidden to him. This Phantom takes advantage happily..and Christine really does not give off the array of innocense that makes her character so powerful and keeps the story afloat.pNot to spoil it for you, but the end is worthy of an oscar for most overdone and SAD excuse for a SOAP OPERA I have ever seen. Although..the music and the last shot of the film was somewhat ethereal.pSome of the cinematography is beautiful, I must admit, and the costumes are tops.pBut hey..if you don't like the original story, or the show, this might float your boat when in the mood for upclose blood guts and gore and horrendous acting.pOh..wait.....
 my least favorite dario flick July 8, 2004
Andrew
I recently saw Darios' Phantom of the Opera after hearing all of the bad reviews on it. The film is not bad, rather its just not what we've come to expect from Dario. There were a number of things that I didn't like, the lighting being the first. The film is just too bright and direct, you never get drawn in. When you watch 'Suspiria', you forget your watching a movie and become mesmerised by what you're watching and hearing on the screen. This film never quite accomblishes that. The second thing i don't like about this film is the fact that Julian Sands is in it. I HATE JULIAN SANDS. The third and final thing i didn't like was the score. I became extremley excited when i saw that Enno Morricone did the music, but it doen't draw you in or create any kind of atmosphere. That being said there are still traces of Argentos' brilliance as a director. The camera work is outstanding (as always), the editing is tight and the set pieces and locations are top notch.brSumming up, this movie is not one of Darios' best, it just lacks atmosphere. It's still not a bad film, just the first Argento movie i've seen that isn't mind blowing (the same can be said about Morricones' scores).
Dario Argento's worst effort June 24, 2004
O. B. Tryggvason (Gardabaer Iceland)
This is easily Dario Argento's worst movie. It's got very little of his signature traits (most notably the cinematography), Ronnie Taylor's assistance (from Opera) doesn't help a lot either. It's biggest asset is easily Ennio Morricone's awesome musical score.brWhat we do get however, is some over the top gore (well served, of course) but for this movie it simply doesn't apply. It seems also that handling romantic situations isn't Argento's cup of tea. The love story between Christine and the Phantom gets more ridiculous as the movie progresses. The brothel scene is a bit hard to take. And finally, the humour misses big time.brThat said, a bad Argento film is not a total bore at all. Julian Sands is good as the phantom and is not to blame for the movie being unsuccessful, the music is wonderful and we at least get a very original take on this often filmed classic.
 Argento's Most Under-rated Movie April 4, 2004
Joseph Adams (Stockholm, Sweden, EUR)
I have every Dario Argento in my collection except for the not yet on home video Four Flies on Grey Velvet. Out of all Dario Argento films, this is the one I've watched the most. I am also a fan of the original Lon Chaney film, and have the Leroux novel but haven't read it yet. Like any Argento, this is to shock and disturb the viewer rather than to make a quality film. In this case, argento is shocking his diehard fans and Phantom fans. This is radically different than any other Argento because of the extent of plotting and character development in between a few gore scenes. Argento suffered the same fate as the heavy metal he used in Phenomena and Opera in the 90s- it was passe and most didn't think it was even halfway as good. As much as I love this film, it is not even close to essential viewing or essential Argento, but a rare commodity that you will eaither love or hate.
|
|
|
|
| |
