The Phantom (1996)

I watched The Phantom becuase it’s on Netflix Instant and I had been searching for it for ages. I saw it when it came out on VHS in 1996 or ‘97 (I don’t remember when, but it was released in ‘96 and I’m assuming it was a quick-to-video kind of thing because it made exactly negative money). My only drive to watch this movie (I wouldn’t call it a “film”) was a strikingly traumatic childhood memory of a certain scene, which will be detailed below.

I need to preface this review by saying that I really did search high and low for this film for several years due to the traumatic scene detailed below. I have watched the first half hour of every 1990s non-Batman superhero movie (even braving Alec Baldwin’s performance in The Shadow) trying to figure out if it was this one because for whatever reason, I need to masochistically re-live all of the horrifying moments of my childhood.

Cast Highlights

• James Remar AKA Harry Morgan AKA Dexter's Dad from Showtime's Dexter (albeit not in his paternal, non-psychopathic character) as the antagonist's disappointingly in- competent minion (because everyone needs a minion).
• Billy Zane AKA Rose's douchey fiance in Titanic (which would explain why I absolutely loathed him for no apparent reason until I figured out that's where I recognized him from) as Kit Walker AKA The Phantom AKA that guy in purple.
• Kristy Swanson AKA the original Buffy from Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the movie) as the "strong" love interest (who ultimately needs The Phantom's help at every turn) AKA some chick.
• Catherine Zeta-Jones as a total BAMF babe (her character has a name, but just barely, so she is now dubbed "Catherine Zeta-Jones" OR "CZJ" OR "babe" for the rest of the review).
• Some Dude who should have been Kevin Klein AKA Treat Williams as the antagonist Xander Drax (X-A-N-D-E-R  D-R-A-X. Begins and ends with the letter "X").
• And the real stars: whatever animals played the wolf and the horse. Because they stole the show completely.

Now the part you've all been waiting for, the scene of HORROR:

About a half hour into the film, some dude looks into a microscope and when he tries to focus it, RAZORBLADES COME OUT OF THE EYE HOLES AND BLIND HIM! How could you not be traumatized by that!? Like, while this scene was being set up, I cringed and crawled away from the computer screen. I haven't done that since I watched The Crazies and that was (arguably) actually scary.

How exactly can a film feature a man being blinded WITH RAZOR BLADES and still be rated PG? I really will not understand, especially since "shit" is uttered twice within the first ten minutes and Billy Zane's abs probably qualify as pornography (not to mention the fact that, according to the United Nations, purple spandex suits are a crime against humanity).

Basic Summary:

It's 1930-something. Antagonist tries to accumulate 3 skulls that will magically harness the power of the sun and blow shit up when combined, much to the chagrin of pretty much everyone who's not evil/corrupt, especially The Phantom and Some Chick and her uncle (who is so inconsequential that he doesn't even get a cast write-up). Catherine Zeta-Jones flies planes, kicks ass, and doesn't mind threats of sexual violence as long as the people making them are on her side. Dexter's Dad has a tattoo or something and is basically a bumbling idiot. Also pirates roving the seven seas (but mostly two seas) (where they somehow rule dynasticly) (and kill people, thus initiating the plot). But mostly skulls. Skulls fuckin' e'rr'where. And animals who communicate without speaking.

Notes:

The movie is shot in a really tight letterbox format, which could be cool, but it's kind of awful. Almost ever shot is really crowded or unbalanced. They even used a wide-angle lens (in at least some shots) to cram EVEN MORE into each scene (see screencap below and notice how vertical lines are a little bowed out). That is not how you use letterbox. You use letterbox to communicate something. You use letterbox in Lawrence of Arabia or The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly to communicate a vast, empty landscape and immeasurable solitude. You do not use it because you think it looks cool.

There were a lot of problems with representations of colonialism, but since it takes place in the 1930s, that's kind of to be expected. No one treated colonialism right in the 1930s because it was still happening. But still, not good. The three explicit threats of sexual violence go ahead and undermine the the miraculous fact that this film somehow passed the Bechdel Test. Catherine Zeta-Jones and Some Chick have a conversation about fashion instead of men (until the Phantom shows up and it all becomes catty jealousy)! IT COUNTS!

But on the bright side, the art deco furniture and sculpture was AMAZING! I had a dec-arts-gasm with all that furniture!

The dialogue in this movie made me very uncomfortable. I don't know if it was because I just didn't want to admit to myself that I thought Billy Zane was hot or that it was just really bad (I'm leaning toward "it's really bad," though, since I appear to have no problem calling his abdominals pornographic).

Other Highlights:

When watching this, I remembered that animals non-verbally communicating was a decidedly 1990s phenomenon. Also, animals in general. Remember that one about the panda and the bridge? Or the giant motherfucking gorilla? Or Dances with Wolves or Jurassic Park (hey, dinosaurs are people animals, too!) or really any movie made in the 1990s ever? Yeah, they were all pretty much about animals.

If you decide to watch this movie, you will also be graced with the glorious sight of Dexter's Dad blowing perfect smoke rings (sorry for the lack of screencap), as well as some pretty great fake sharks. That's pretty much all I've got.

Also, Catherine Zeta-Jones's many outfits:

Rating:

I rated this three hearts because the more I think about this movie, the more it grows on me. I'll probably definitely watch it again (if only for Billy Zane's abs and Catherine Zeta-Jones's mere presence), and while I find some of it annoying in a completely beyond-camp kind of way, it was a decent movie. But since I don't think that ratings are a particularly good way to decide whether or not you want to watch a movie (unless you 100% of the time agree with the rater), I am also including suggestions as to whether or not you'd like the movie based on its content. (See: How I Rate Movies for more info).

So basically, you should watch this movie if you are inclined toward: superhero movies, typical '90s movies, Catherine Zeta-Jones, ponies, men in spandex (and latex), skulls, depictions of colonialism, sketchy stalker ex-boyfriends who get the girl, OR if you remember this from when you were a kiddo and want to see if it really lives up to the bad rap I'm giving it. Oh, did I mention Catherine Zeta-Jones?

You shouldn't watch this movie if you highly value cinematography, dialogue, plot development, or films that are overall considered to be "good" in a completely non-ironic way. You should also avoid this film if you have an aversion to people BEING BLINDED BY RAZORBLADES, the fact that Kevin Klein isn't in it, or the color purple (not the play by Alice Walker, but the actual color) (though it is very possible that if you didn't like the play, you won't like this film... but I'm not going to make any definitive statements on that one).

TLDR:

Billy Zane shirtless. Catherine Zeta-Jones being hot. Bad everything. Horrifying razorblade-to-eyeball scene. Horse and wolf. Crowded shots. Poor dialogue. Art Deco. Passes Bechdel test (barely). Three hearts.

But that being said, my only motivation to watch this was to relive my childhood horrors, which was through within the first half hour. Something compelled me to finish. It was probably my love for mediocre cinema.