Skip to main content

Free cake and sandwiches are being served in the Hall of Nature.

The Phantom
(1996)

(SPOILERS) It’s curious how perverse many of the comic adaptations were in the wake of Batman. Some of this was obviously down to rights and development hell (how to get Spidey webslinging, how to bring back Supes), but the likes of The Phantom, The Shadow and Dick Tracy – even, or especially, with Warren Beatty vouching for him – weren’t exactly the kind of iconic figures studio execs ought to have been imagining punters flocking to see. The Phantom wasn’t enormously expensive, but still not cheap (about $77m adjusted), and in fairness to Paramount, there was still speculation over what would work, outside of the DC icons; by the time it came out, there’d been successful recent outings for both goth Batman and camp Batman, so maybe a guy riding a horse in a purple leotard, with a pet wolf, would be just the ticket. There’s also the small detail that the movie that was made wasn’t the one that was envisaged.

Lee Falk’s comic strip first appeared in 1936 and has been running ever since, but that doesn’t mean it ever mustered mass audience appeal. Certainly, screenwriter Jeffrey Boam (who died in 2000) hadn’t heard of it. It was, however, a likely influence on Batman – appearing three years later – with its crimefighting non-superpowered playboy. Like Batman too, lineage plays an important part, although here, it’s the passing down of Phantom duds from generation to generation since the sixteenth century. The Phantom has his own (skull) cave, but it’s in jungle-infested Bengalla (rather prettily visualised as The Man with the Golden Gun’s Thailand island), rather than Gotham. The Phantom also carries a pair of hand guns, not very Bats (at least, not the Bats we mostly know).

As far as the movies are concerned, there was a Sergio Leone version brewing at one point; it appears he was interested in making it during the 1970s (and that he turned down Flash Gordon, due to dislike of the script) before Once Upon a Time in America took precedence.

Then came Joe Dante, increasingly looked at askance by studios, owing to his movies either not fitting the pigeonhole of their tastes or not doing the business they wanted or both. After The Mummy fell apart – why, oh why, oh why did we have to get the Stephen Sommers when we could have had Dante – Joe signed on as The Phantom’s director in mid-1994, prepping for an Australian shoot. Unsurprisingly, his collaboration with Jeffrey Boam (Innerspace, later Indy and Lethal Weapon sequels) was conceived as “a kind of spoof”. In Joe Dante by Nik Baskar and Gabe Klinger, it was cited as postponed for cast and or weather reasons. Talking to Den of Geek, Dante suggested “the plug was pulled over the budget and the presence of a winged demon at the climax”.

Dante suggested the remounted picture failed because “nobody seemed to notice it was written to be funny, so it was – disastrously – played straight”. However, it appears new director Simon Wincer had Boam change the script to a tone and style closer to the Falk original. Boam mentioned no spoofery or wrangling in an interview, simply that the source material worked (“I figured if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”). Boam was having his own run-ins with things that were broke at that time, of course,

His involvement in Indy IV purportedly involved the Roswell UFO crash or the Soviets establishing a missile base on the Moon or both. It sounds as if this followed Jeb Stuart’s draft (that’s the one named Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars), and that it would have all been filmed a decade earlier than it was – despite being as terrible an idea then as it was later, no matter how many writers tried to ameliorate the mess – if not for Independence Day (interesting too that Boam was confirming right at the start that it would be pretty much based in the US for filming, aside from maybe Honduras).

The Phantom links to Indiana Jones are worth noting, though. It was set in the same period as classic Indy. The plot of both this and the fourth Indy movie revolve around skulls of great power. There’s a phantom in the title (okay, that one’s Star Wars). Boam wrote The Last Crusade. Wincer, the eventual Phantom director, jobbed for Young Indiana Jones. As Simon Wincer tells it, The Phantom’s renewed movie life occurred thanks to Val Kilmer and the delays – read: massive reshoots – on The Saint. Paramount needed to fill a summer slot (The Saint eventually surfaced in spring 1997). The Phantom is generally very sub-Indy, what with its jungles, fedoras (James Remar’s Quill is a bad Indy, basically) and indigenous tribes.

Wincer’s the very definition of the journeyman; a reliable TV director (Prisoner: Cell Block H), albeit he made oddball Robert Powell supernatural thriller Harlequin early on, along with several respected Australian period pictures (Phar Lap, The Lighthorsemen) and several less-respected US ones (D.A.R.Y.L., Quigley Down Under, Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man) before Free Willy made him freshly bankable in the early ’90s. Mostly, he was cheap, reliable, and wouldn’t say no when a studio wanted something on time, on budget and in a hurry; when The Phantom flopped, studios stopped calling. Crocodile Dundee III was his next movie.

And unfortunately, whatever Dante says, it’s the director, not the tone of the screenplay that’s the biggest problem. There’s no flair or panache or pace to Wincer’s work. If you’re talking television, and this were an episode of Zorro, that would be fair enough. Dante’s right about one thing; if you’re going to have a guy in purple on a horse in New York, with a wolf, he needs either to be shot by Zack Snyder or not taken entirely seriously.

That’s a shame, as a fair bit else here is working. Billy Zane’s pretty good; he absolutely looks the part, he’s bulked up, he’s smart enough to do the Adam West deadpan. He isn’t however, really a leading man, no matter how much he’s a cool guy. Wincer seems to suggest he was part of Dante’s plan for the picture (“Originally, when they were gonna make it some years earlier in Australia he had already been cast and Paramount liked him. So he was pretty much attached when they decided to revisit”). Others rumoured were Bruce Campbell – probably Boam’s influence, owing to The Adventures of Brisco County Jr – and a different Kevin Smith (the Oz factor?)

By the same token, Zane’s not out there enough to make the picture more than it is; he’s simply a solid fit. Quite why they got Patrick McGoohan as his dad, I don’t know, as he’s entirely underused (he’s in about two scenes) and too old to have been a recently active Phantom; he may even have been there just to ensure a bookend narration. He was apparently infuriated by Zane (“Occasionally he would pump up before a take and it used to drive Patrick McGoohan crazy”).

The rest of the cast and crew do their jobs. Treat Williams is having a ball as villain Xander Drax, relishing every OTT line. Catherine Zeta-Jones shows she has Hollywood chops as villain-come-sympathetic Sala (she’d largely fail to fulfil that potential, perhaps because she’s better being a bitch). Kristy Swanson was at the back end of failing to make it as a lead post-Buffy bombing. Remar’s hissable. Zane Back to the Future co-star Casey Siemaszko appears, as does Samantha Eggar. David Newman delivers a serviceable score. David Burr makes Thailand look pretty.

But it looks like what it is too; a strictly functional, mechanical attempt to adapt a superhero movie, without any passion, zest or enthusiasm. None of the tropes carry any weight, be it in terms of hereditary peerage, the skull symbolism, the fake-out of immortality, the ruthless Sengh Brotherhood or even the ghostliness of dad. I’ll readily admit I was unclear if McGoohan was supposed to be an actual ghost or Billy’s imagining. And because Wincer’s so routine in approach, it’s easy for things to slip by. Like wondering why Diana (Swanson) is telling Kit Walker (Zane) it’s six years since they last saw each other when they shared the previous scene. Duh, because he was the Phantom in that scene, stupid! The Clark Kent convention of failing to recognise threw me for a moment.

Inevitably, The Phantom has earned cult status in some circles. Which is fine. It’s not unlikeable. But it’s anaemic where it counts. I’ll admit I’d much rather have seen Dante’s Batman than his The Phantom, but if it had been half as good as Innerspace, it would have been about three times as good as The Phantom we got.


Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.