One of the worst films ever made
Not even the soft-porn scenes can make up for how bad this movie was.
Stay away from it.
Jim
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Il fantasma dell'opera (1998) Discussion > One of the worst films ever made
Imagine my horror when instead of downloading the substantially better 2004 remake that is far truer to the musical i get THIS heap of crap. After sitting in front of my computer for what seemed like forever gently encouraging a stupid download speed. Sigh... serves me right for being a pirate i suppose. But yes this movie is absolutely awful!! Don't go near it with a barge pole, even if it's a pole the size of Jeremy Clarksons ego. (apologies to any non-UK ppl who don't understand that last bit)
sharehahahaha you had exactle the same problem as me. You used bittorents right?!
I also spent ages downloadin it thinking it was the latest remake, but to my dismay it was a load of *beep*
Jeremy Clarkson is the man tho! You gota love him, hes so funny
Jim
HAHAHA!! suckers ;)
I just came back from the theatres from seeing the 2004 one, pretty good, though this isn't the forum to be talking about it :p
------------
Fulci Lives!
[deleted]
Same here icyplanetuk that's exactly my story! (except the jeremy clarkson thing lol) I was very dissappointed! It's sick too! the scariest part is probably when he's masturbating with the rats... and when he "rapes" her! it's sick... it's supposed to be about love... ppl don't rape some1 they love!
shareLOL the same here! :D I am a big fan of the Phantom of the Opera after I listened to the musical with Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman and after I read the beautiful book by Susan Kay. I coudn't wait to see the 2004 remake and.... WTF?! What the fuc*ing hell is this suppose to be?! After 15 minutes i left the room absolutely repulsed. My family is still watching and they are laughing. It's so sad u just have to laugh.
Well, good luck to those, who are downloading movies :P
I have yet to read/hear one good thing about this movie...so a sick and twisted little part of my brain wants to go rent it...just to see for myself.
I watched the trailer at videodetective.com, and it looks like it might be one of those movies that you can pick apart and criticize. I like the music that plays at the beginning of the trailer.
I even did an image search for the blue ones and got nothing...Nothing pleasant anyways.
Just FYI, this movie is not supposed to be based on the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. It's based on the original 1910 Gaston Leroux novel. Although, it's nowhere near true to that either. Neither is the musical.
shareI just can't believe this has ever been allowed to come out to movie theaters or video/DVD.
Doesn't ANYONE there have ANY respect for the original novel?
For Christ sake - for the original Erik!!
There is no word in any tongues of this world to describe this sick thing.
Just now - today - I was the happiest fan thinking of the _beauty_ of Erik's character. And the _beauty_ of his and Christine's relationship even in all its bittersweet disfortunate fate.
And what do I have the misfortune to see? They seriously clame this _thing_ under that Opera house loves this girl? Proves his love by _raping_ her?!?!
Masturbates with a little help of RATS?!
Oh, WHATEVER.
Just how dare someone link anything concerning the actual novel to anything like this? How did they dare to name this film that? Stupid questions. If someone is sick enough to write a script like this and then even make it all the way into a movie...
That man there is NOT Erik. Is NOT the Phantom of the Opera and surely is NOT the "Angel of Music".
And still they clame this has something to do with him!!
I'm tired, and shocked.
I wanna learn that Punjab-lassoo thing and go kill them all.
Or maybe I won't. But anyway I just *beep* wish they would die. In the most painful way imaginable.
I'm sure Gaston Leroux must be turning in his grave. Ever since this movie came out.
I can not agree with you more. This is without any doubt the worst version of Leroux´s novel. 1983 version look´s like a classik now. And you are absolutley right. That was not angel or the phantom or Erik. If you remember, Julian Sands himself admits that in the movie: "I am not the Phantom. I am the rat!"
Well, there should become a faithful french mini-serie for next year, starring Jeremy Irons as Erik and Webber´s musical movie was very good, so everything is not lost.
I was hideously offended, being a Phantom Novel purist... Ugh. It really made me quite ill.
Ugh.
Wow...I rented what the box advertized as the 1925 version. I got this. WHAT THE HELL? I swear to god, this is just awful. No, I've never read the book and the only other PotO thing I've seen is the 2004 movie version of the play, but dear god, this was just ugly. Yes, the Phantom ought to be creepy and dark, but not in this fashion. He is supposed to wear a mask and be ugly (or a least a little part of him :/). What the hell? Argh. This was awful and very tasteless. If you consider renting or buying or seeing this, DON'T. ALW's interpretation is much better than this *beep*
sharethis movie was HORRIBLE, FRUSTRATING, and ANNOYING
PROVEHITO IN ALTUM
wow, I was gonna get this (I love the book and also the musical), now I won't, as every review I've seen has said it's bad. But, now I just want to see it to see how bad it really is lol or maybe not...
YOU'RE LOOKING AT ME BECAUSE I AM ALL WET?... Oh, my dear, it's raining cats and dogs outside!
THIS MOVIE HAS SCARED ME FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WARN EVERYONE THINKING ABOUT SEEING IT!!!!!!!!!!! The regular phantom of the opera, that ISN"T about an ugly guy that was raised by rats, is very good. As a matter of fact, it is excellent. The music in it is beautiful, and it's not low budget like this movie was. If you want to see a good movie, then see the new pahntom of the opera movie. You will be pleased.
We're Knights of the Round Table.
We dance whene'er we're able. -Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Ok, I was determined never ever to post anything on any of the ImdB.com boards but I just have to put in my two cents' worth. Because I actually like this movie.
1. You all might be surprised but there actually might be a few people out there who don't think that the 2004 remake of PotO is a good movie. Personally (and talking only for myself here, as for the rest of this looooong post), I don't like it because
a) I don't like musicals (ack - that's what scares ME for life)
b) I don't like Andrew Lloyd Webber
c) I think that Andrew Lloyd Webber version of PotO is just so kitschy and sugar-coated that I can't bear watching it - can't stand the music, can't stand the songs.
Thus, the version of PotO I'd recommend watching would be - no, not this here but the two-parter from 1990. I saw that one. I even taped that one. I really liked it. And yes, Erik IS wearing a mask there.
2. As for the phantom not being ugly and not wearing a mask - well, stop and think about it. He is ugly and he is wearing a mask, actually. When you look behind things. He's wearing the mask of a human being and he's ugly not physically but on the inside, where no one can see. His character is ugly, he's insane, completely crazy. That's why he can't love anyone - at least, not in a way a normal, sane person would. He's a psychopath. Look at all the things he does in the movie - would any sane person ever act like that?
And I personally find that's a really interesting approach. I mean - how long could you live in that kind of underground caverns and still remain sane? With other people all around you but you can't go near them because you're so ugly and they'll run away from you screaming or maybe, will even try to kill you? Ok, so I've never read the book. Yet. I might try it again. Tried it once already - didn't get beyond the first page because it bored me. *lol* I guess I was still too young - Gaston Leroux surely isn't the kind of stuff you like to read when you're only 13 ... At least, I didn't.
3. This is by no means my most favourite movie ever. Lots of flaws, lot of stuff that's just too unlikely (how DO rats teach you to talk, walk and dress indeed *lol*). Also, a lot gorier than I usually like horror movies. I guess I can put the reason why I like this movie as much as I do (and there's a lot of movies I like better) in two simple words: Julian Sands. I just like that guy, I like to watch him play, I like to hear his voice - though I have to admit I do prefer him in the Warlock-movies. :)
Alright. 'Nuff said. Just had to day something in defense of this movie. Because I've seen worse movies than this one. Don't ask me - there's people out there who'd probably tar and feather me for not liking them. *lol*
Ok, everyone who hasn't fallen asleep, yet - please raise your hands. ;P
I saw it and it *beep* sucks, here's why for 3 resuns.
1.the phantom had no mask with a scars on his face.
2.no death scens like from the old story just to much blood.
and
3.it not like the old story that much.
I'm glad for the new one in 2004.
It was terrible, it IS terrible. Truly, truly terrible.
It's it's it's just so pathetic, actually there are no words to describe how terrible it is.
Terrible, truly terrrible.
I think it is entirely possible that you should be beaten mercilessly with a piece of licorice for making this post. I offer my full rebuttal.
"You all might be surprised but there actually might be a few people out there who don't think that the 2004 remake of PotO is a good movie."
I don't.
"Personally (and talking only for myself here, as for the rest of this looooong post), I don't like it because..."
Off-topic.
"c) I think that Andrew Lloyd Webber version of PotO is just so kitschy and sugar-coated that I can't bear watching it - can't stand the music, can't stand the songs."
That's merely a matter of taste. The Webber version highlights the romance of the novel, as it should be approached in contrast to the horror film versions that have been made of it. It is undeniable that Leroux's Phantom was a part mystery, and largely love story. It is a little sugary, I'll admit, I don't think the Phantom was scary enough... as for the music being bad, well, as I said -- there's no accounting for taste.
"Thus, the version of PotO I'd recommend watching would be - no, not this here but the two-parter from 1990. I saw that one. I even taped that one. I really liked it. And yes, Erik IS wearing a mask there."
Are you referring to the Charles Dance version? Because it was quite good. *looks it up* Yes. The Charles Dance version is good, not fantastic or particularly as true to the novel as the Webber version is, but good. And how can you not help but love Teri Polo?
"2. As for the phantom not being ugly and not wearing a mask - well, stop and think about it. He is ugly and he is wearing a mask, actually. When you look behind things..."
If I wanted an allegory about beauty and ugliness, I would not be watching The Phantom of the Opera; I would watch The Breakfast Club.
The Phantom is meant to be twisted inside as well as out; but one is the direct of the other. If you simply make him evil because he's raised by rats, that's really quite stupid.
This movie was not only gorey and disturbing, but the cinematography was god-awful, the masturbation with the rats left me utterly speechless... The dialogue was so bad, I don't even want to think about it -- "If you value these enormous breasts, you won't sing tonight"? What the heck?
Julian Sands is not a really terrific actor, and didn't pull this part of well. His character was weird, but flat and static. I realize this is mostly due in part to the horrible travesty that was the script, but my God, has the man no standards?
Ok, I could like a great deal in return. However, all I'll say is: Well, let's agree that both of us like the Charles Dance version of PotO much better than this one here. ;)
Oh, yes, that "God, has the man no standards" is something that could be said about any actor there is, I guess. Every actor will star in a movie, at some point, that someone will think to be absolute crap and will make him go "Has that bloke no standards?" - that's just another matter of taste.
Another poster here who also was not wild about the Phantom of the opera 2004 version. I found it very tedious and can understand why you don't like it, but either way, if you want to like a Phantom of the Opera movie, then watch the 1925 version or the 1989 version.
I accidently picked this up thinking it was the version with Robert Englund (huge fan), when I realised it wasn't him I still decided to watch it and see if it was any good. And by God, it was simply the worst movie ever. And please do not think that I am picky, I actually like Batman and Robin, you got served. Jaws IIII the revenge and alot of the movies in the bottom 100. Those are hundred times better than this. Please to anyone who even wants to see how bad this movie is, do NOT watch it. It will scar you for life!
I am currently trying to get through the recent film based on Webber's musical (which i have never seen). It is extremely boring, the music is grating, the phantom looks like a hollywood reject, and the girl playing Christine has no charisma. It has reminded me of why I don't like mainstream musical theatre.
As I sat there trying to endure yet another song that sounded exactly like the song before it, I thought to myself, "I would rather sit through that godawful Argento movie again than finish this!"
I agree that the 1925 version is the best I've seen, though I'm also partial to Phantom of the Paradise. I haven't seen the Robert Englund one...but Jill Schoelen as Christine!? I have to check that out!
Let's not count our chickens before they're running around with their heads cut off.share
I dont get why everyone loathes this movie as much. Watch it as a comedy, it s the funniest movie since THE HANGOVER. And Im a POTO purist too. I knew this was gonna be a bad movie, so I enjoyed it as a bad movie. And as a bad movie, its pretty good.
shareThis movie for me has one big flaw, it doesn't contain a single likable character.
Should we sympathize with the Phantom? No, he's a cruel, mindless killer. And Julian Sands wasn't right for this role.
Should we sympathize with Christine? No, because she is so stupid to fall for him and the way she acts in the end made me hate her even more.
So this is the 2nd Argento movie I don't like watch, the other one is the Stendhal Syndrome (which has basically the same flaws, not a single likable, believable character).
I think this film gets way to much heat. It's really not that bad. It has beautiful sets, costumes and at times it had a mesmerizing quality to it. It probably is Argento's weakest film but I found myself enjoying it.
share[deleted]
First of all i have to say that i agree 100% with everything that Judaskiss said. In fact the first thing that came to my mind when this horrible thing ended was that Leroux will certainly be turning in his grave!
"You all might be surprised but there actually might be a few people out there who don't think that the 2004 remake of PotO is a good movie."
Nobody said that everyone must like it but it certainly isn't a bad movie
"c) I think that Andrew Lloyd Webber version of PotO is just so kitschy and sugar-coated that I can't bear watching it - can't stand the music, can't stand the songs."
That's merely a matter of taste. The Webber version highlights the romance of the novel, as it should be approached in contrast to the horror film versions that have been made of it. It is undeniable that Leroux's Phantom was a part mystery, and largely love story. It is a little sugary, I'll admit, I don't think the Phantom was scary enough... as for the music being bad, well, as I said -- there's no accounting for taste.
That is correct. Btw let us not forget that after all it's the musical version of the film.
"Thus, the version of PotO I'd recommend watching would be - no, not this here but the two-parter from 1990. I saw that one. I even taped that one. I really liked it. And yes, Erik IS wearing a mask there."
Are you referring to the Charles Dance version? Because it was quite good. *looks it up* Yes. The Charles Dance version is good, not fantastic or particularly as true to the novel as the Webber version is, but good. And how can you not help but love Teri Polo?
A very good version indeed,plus the best looking Phantom after Gerry
"2. As for the phantom not being ugly and not wearing a mask - well, stop and think about it. He is ugly and he is wearing a mask, actually. When you look behind things..."
If I wanted an allegory about beauty and ugliness, I would not be watching The Phantom of the Opera; I would watch The Breakfast Club.
The Phantom is meant to be twisted inside as well as out; but one is the direct of the other. If you simply make him evil because he's raised by rats, that's really quite stupid.
That's exactly the point. If you wanted to see amovie about a gogeous guy who was actually a bastard you could pick something else-there are hundreds of the kind. Erik was deformity BEGAN from his face. That's exactly what led him to that kind of life. The most touching line on the book is when he says that all he ever wanted was to have an ordinary,normal life.
This movie was not only gorey and disturbing, but the cinematography was god-awful, the masturbation with the rats left me utterly speechless... The dialogue was so bad, I don't even want to think about it -- "If you value these enormous breasts, you won't sing tonight"? What the heck?
That was the sickest thing i have ever seen.Thank god i had it taped so i mainly watched on ffwd mode!
To sum up: The worst movie ever!!! share
[deleted]
This movie in my opinion was a complete waste of dvds! I got about 40 minutes threw it and wanted to burn the damn thing. The first Phantom of The Opera movie i saw was ALW's and i thought it was excellent, and so i decided to watch the older versions, but stumbling upon this rubbish / piece of crap version and renting it thinking it would be one of the good versions of it, was... A) a complete waste of my time... and B) a complete waste of money!
It was nothing i thought it would be and i dunno but something about the girl who played christine made me just wanna stab her o.0 ....
*Please note that this is my opinion and that everybody has their own so don't get pissed at me if its not the same opinion as yours and if you don't like my opinion for everybody should be able to speak their opinion openly without getting flamed!*
--ZeRø--
[deleted]
Watch this guy's review of the film. It is so worth it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfDOzvz4pPs
This movie sucks, but I actually hate the Schumacher version more. I'm a much bigger fan of the book than the musical though.
I'm Not There. I'm Gone.
[deleted]
[deleted]