Dull it ain't! Costumes and sets (Christine's dressing-room!), red roses and colour photography create GORGEOUS period Gothic look, very lush and elegant. Script by Gerard Brach and director Dario Argento, however... well, that's totally different matter: characters are sleazy and unsympathetic. Phantom is not deformed, just a serial killer who likes bestiality and gore, hates fat people, describes himself a rat and lives (how apt!) in the sewer. Hm, he only needs sadistic potty-fetish and you have typical net scum! Christine prefers his sleazy company to gorgeous red roses - "I like simple flowers"- and Raoul - compared some to artist formerly known as Prince - hangs in the brothel. Christine has also beautiful but foul-tempered maid who is clearly jealous of Christine. Acting is very weird, and those who dislike lip-synching in 2004 movie should see THIS!

Dario Argento's Phantom of the Opera is an undeniably absurd film. It's both silly and laughable, with moments that are hugely misguided. It features some truly terrible acting and dubbing that makes some of the actors seem mildly brain-damaged. Its plot is too stupid for words. And yet, and yet...somehow it's entertaining. How can this be? Well, it came across to me like a trashy comic book story. Nothing was realistic, nor intended to be, and the events were merely a succession of over-the-top violence and ludicrous melodrama; in some ways similar to the plot line of an opera (whether this was an actual intention of the director I am not sure). But once I accepted that this was going to be a blood-soaked cartoon version of the Phantom of the Opera, with lame humour, stupid gore, breasts and terrible dialogue, I actually began to sit back and enjoy this incredibly silly but fast-paced and entertaining schlock-fest.The background story of the Phantom himself gives us an early indication that this is going to be an interpretation that does not take itself too seriously. He basically is abandoned as a child and left to float down an underground river where he is saved by a horde of rats that subsequently bring him up. Yes I know it's just too silly for words but Argento has played this hand in the first few minutes, so he at least sets the tone early. The silliness of proceedings is not helped by the acting and dubbing. The scenes where Asia Argento is supposedly singing operatic arias are seriously unconvincing, as is her love scenes with Julian Sands. For some reason never explained, and despite the film being set in 1877, Sands and his love rival look like members of a doom metal band circa 1987. It's all rather odd. As is the scene with the rat-catcher and his dwarf side-kick riding through the catacombs in a rat-killing mini chariot. Words fail me yet again here – what exactly was Mr Argento thinking? This scene is topped off with the dwarf being beheaded in a highly comical manner. Honestly, you sometimes are left wondering if this was intended partly as a comedy. Some of the scenes are just too funny. I mean honestly what exactly was Julian Sands intending to do with those rats he so lovingly is fondling? He even starts to unbuckle his trousers but mercifully he is interrupted before an act of gross criminal behaviour ensues.As a horror film this doesn't really work, unless you're frightened of rats of course, in which case it could be terrifying. Instead of tense set-pieces it's made up of many scenes of ridiculous gory violence. These splatter moments sit quite at odds with the beautiful Gothic setting. It does have to be admitted here that the sets and costumes are all rather fine, and the film is shot quite nicely. Ennio Morricone is also on hand with a romantic orchestral score which is nice enough, if somewhat unmemorable.I think with the perspective of time I can more accurately assess this film. When it came out, and for a few years after its release, this was considered a travesty of a movie. The reason being that it appeared just so misguided and the director's cinematic sanity was called into question. It was released too close to the director's heyday of the 70's and 80's and people still expected an awful lot more from him. However, now from the viewpoint of 2010 and taking into account the quality of Argento's output of the past 20 years, Phantom of the Opera doesn't seem so bad. While many of the films that the director released in this period exhibited many of the faults contained in this movie – terrible acting, atrocious dialogue, stupid plot developments, etc – many of them also were a bit lifeless and seemingly unaware of their own shortcomings. Phantom of the Opera, on the other hand, is a film that has a consistent tone of the absurd and does actually seem self-aware in its succession of ludicrous and laughable events. And for this reason I don't mind it so much.

Dario Argento's Phantom Of The Opera (1998: Starring Julian Sands, Asia Argento, Nadia Rinaldi, Andrea Di Stefano, Lucia Gazzardi, Aldo Massasso, Iztvan Bubik, David D'Ingeo, Zoltan Barabas, Kitti Kerri, Leonardo Treviglio, Enzo Cardogna, Itala Bekes, Tania Nagel, Csilla Ward, Gianni Franco, Gabor Harsai....Director Dario Argento, Written By Dario Argento.Released in 1998, this is Italian cinema director Dario Argento's Phantom but not the Phantom of the Opera as most people are familiar with nor the truest and most faithful adaptation of the old French novel by Gaston Leroux. This one is clearly a horror movie without any touch of romance. Fans of the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical and the earlier Phantom movies from Lon Cheney's classic performance to Claude Rains, Herbert Lom and Charles Dance, this film is entirely on a different level. It falls under the category of Italian horror and international casting in an unpleasant, disturbing and gory independent film. No wonder it did not do well in the box office and most Phantom fans aren't even aware of its existence. Dario Argento cast his own daughter in the role of Christine Daee, and British actor Julian Sands as the Phantom. This time around, the Phantom is NOT disfigured, which is the strongest violation of the original premise. Instead of having facial deformities, the Phantom is an abandoned child who was raised by telepathic rats that kill people. Living under the opera house with his rats, he's developed telepathy himself and a dirty, dark, predatory and disgusting personality. He looks like either a vampire or rock star but there is no real sense of romance. His feelings for Christine are carnal and nothing more. She becomes his lover but other than music and her voice, theirs is a purely sexual relationship. Because of this, and because he kills anyone he dislikes, he's not a sympathetic figure. Without the romance, we can't really feel anything for this Phantom who is pure evil. The story is only partially faithful to the original tale. It is set at the Paris Opera of the 1870's and the Count Raoul De Chagny is Christine's choice of a mate, but this time around we genuinely feel that she belongs with the normal, secure and more romantic Count than the sadistic and no good Phantom. The performances are over-the-top and boring, even Carlotta, the fat soprano who thinks she is above all else. The classic chandelier drop is here but this time it's far more bloody than usual. There are scenes of graphic violence that earned this movie an R rating and ought not to be viewed by sensitive audiences or children. The music is beautiful, haunting and evocative of the period (with the use of the aria from Lakme) and the cinematography, costumes and art direction is truly very Phantom, including the "Degas ballerinas" touches, but there is very little to like about this movie. For comic relief, there is a rat exterminator and a midget which seem absurd and out of place for this tale. The real problem is the lack of direction and lack of romanticism. It's just one movie of Dario Argento's dark ouevre that happens to have the Phantom of the Opera as subject, but he twisted it around to make it his work and his style. Unless you're a fan of the Italian director, you'll otherwise find it too dark and disturbing. The only other "horror-themed" Phantom I can think of is the 1989 Robert Englund Phantom, an American film starring the actor of the Freddy Kueger films, but even that one had more interesting qualities. This one is too sick.

After hearing so much negative comment on this film I went and brought it, purely for the sake of wanting to see every Argento movie. Instead of being confronted with a silly dull rip off, it was an enjoyable thriller, slightly sad, violent and well made. Yes there was some silliness, namely the dwarf, but his end at the hands of the fallen rock was thrilling. I think Argento fans expect too much, and I have heard that Argento acknowledges the disappointments of his last films, but to me POTO is another Argento film of quality. Now I also agree with some comments about the rats being fake and the lack of plot (yet most know the story), perhaps Argento underplayed the obsession this Phantom had with Christina, but once again I can only say that this film was a great experience to watch, and I recommend this film, biased of course to anyone with an open mind and not worried it's not Suspiria or Inferno.