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

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Ziggy smokes a lot of weed.

Moonfall (2022) (SPOILERS) For a while there, it looked as if Moonfall , the latest and least-welcomed – so it seems – piece of apocalyptic programming from Roland Emmerich, might be sending mixed messages. Fortunately, we need not have feared, as it turns out to be the same pedigree of disaster porn we’ve come to expect from the director, one of the Elite’s most dutiful mass-entertainment stooges, even if his lustre has rather dimmed since the glory days of 2012.

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.