The Phantom (1996)
Last Watch Date - February 14, 2026
Total Times Watched - Twice
Comments
Let it be known that the only "superhero" types I like are the ones who have no actual powers. Like Batman. Or.. THE PHANTOM! A quick little backstory here: my grandfather used to collect comics and had tons of goofy old Western ones that I never really liked much. One thing I did like about them was the art style though. Specifically those old comics of the 40s and 50s. Man they looked cool. I still believe this. He used to give me some of the ones I liked more like old X-Men to look through. He also showed me The Phantom from the newspaper. I think when I was that young, they were a bit beefy to read. I still loved the art style. STILL DO. In fact, I was just at Universal Islands of Adventure last weekend and saw the Phantom in their Toon Lagoon area.
That reminded me of this movie. I hadn't seen it in ages. I don't even remember the last time I saw it before today, but it's been a LONG time. I didn't remember much of anything in it except Kristy Swanson and Billy Zane.
I may as well start there – the acting in this is weird. I know for a fact BZ can act better than this, so I assume the script was a bit dull for him. The character of the Phantom really isn't fleshed out very well in this movie in general. I'll give him a pass. Kristy Swanson, however, I have now seen in a few movies (or pieces of movies) lately and she is 100% only in movies because she was pretty. She's such an atrocious actor. Her delivery is kind of like she's reading from a teleprompter but she doesn't quite know how to read. So one-dimensional in every movie. Ugh. Catherine Zeta Jones is in this as a minor character and reminded me of why everyone loved her. Spoiler: it's her FACE.
The other actors were all middling to good. I particularly like Ajax from The Warriors in here, but he's pretty good in everything. What an odd voice he has...
Given that this is a "superhero" type of movie, it does a bit of exposition in spots that probably don't really need it. Do we need a narrator (who turns out to be his dead dad) to tell us the background when the movie eventually tells this via dialogue over time? It seemed like they thought the audience was fully incapable of understanding the story based on what they shot, so they added in some extra pre- and post-story footage to dump more history on you.
At this point in time, the comic had been around for like 60 years. That's pretty crazy and a LOT of options for telling stories. They ended up choosing a few to tell .. sort of? They changed some details here and there, but by and large it does stick to some comic-related storylines. I have no complaints about this, but I would've preferred if they used some of the less supernatural stories. Ok, and MAYBE they didn't play up the air pirates and CZJ enough. She was a cool character and so much better than Kristy Swanson, even if KS's character is far more vital to the whole of the Phantom storyline.
This movie is only 1 hour and 40 minutes, so you're not likely to feel any "when will this end?!" whilst watching it. It is played like an adventure movie, similar to Indiana Jones in some ways, so it moves things along quite well. It also has that old 30s pseudo-nostalgia that I love. That time period had the most amazing art and architecture of American history.
If I have one complaint watching this movie back years and years later, it's that the CGI looks really funny in a bad way in a few spots. Overall it's solid, but there are times when you'll be like "wtf is this?" Also .. why does he change into his Phantom costume in New York City? That will never make sense to me.
Recommended?
I like it. If you like adventure movies, you'll probably like it.
