The Phantom

This is the kind of movie you start watching from the cynical forward-looking viewpoint of 2007 and start complaining that the premise is hokey, the set-ups are creaky and the dialog is loaded with clichés.

Then you realize that this film IS SO DANG OLD that it represents probably the first time that some of these set-ups, situations and dialog were ever seen on the movie screen! This dates from only the third year that talking pictures were widely available, so there wasn't much before this that this film could be ripping off, except probably stage plays. From this perspective, there is at least some originality here by definition, and lots of fun to be had with the murderer-on-the-loose-in-the-creepy-insane-asylum premise.

This would make a great double feature with "The Old Dark House," from 1932, creating lots of fodder which would be mocked in the ensuing decades by Bugs Bunny cartoons, Three Stooges shorts, Abbott and Costello films, sketches on "The Carol Burnett Show," "The Rocky Horror Picture Show," and Larry Blamire's "Dark and Stormy Night."

The four-feature DVD from Retromedia is worth the price if you are a fan of obscure, ancient, creaky horror movies like this. You can look up the other features under the individual titles for reviews, but they are all just about as entertaining as this feature. If black-and-white horror films from the dawn of time are not your bag, you should pass, otherwise this DVD is a worthwhile purchase. And these movies are so old that they won't really scare children except for the smallest tots. Pop some popcorn and go back to the 1930's.

I really enjoy classic horror, even the poverty row productions. This one, though,was tough to get through.

I agree with others who have said the acting is poor. They're also not well-rehearsed; especially at the beginning the actors are stepping on each others' lines.

I also have a problem with the editing. As the movie starts, it feels like we're cutting between three movies: a prison, the top of a train, and a helicopter. It becomes clear in a few how they connect, but the disjointed editing continues throughout the movie, making for jarring changes between scenes... sometimes lingering too long, sometimes not giving us enough setup or wrap-up.

I knew I was taking a risk when I started it. The description made it sound more like a murder mystery / police drama, and I should have trusted my gut on this one. It's played for laughs almost all the way through which is frustrating, and even when it's not intentional the laughs occasionally come anyway: when the phantom enters a room, it's truly laughable. (Watch carefully as no one makes any attempt to get away.)

You can watch it for free on Archive Dot Org, or on Tubi... but if you're looking for another Dracula or Frankenstein... this ain't it. It doesn't compare well to the. Basil Rathbone / Nigel Bruce mysteries about a decade later, either.

For completists only!

I just read all of the other reviews to verify my premise, which turned out to be true. They all take the position that this movie is pretty awful on many levels. Well, sure it is since it is obviously a spoof and a send-up. Taking it seriously is a preposterous mistake of judgment. For whatever reason the director chose to go beyond all the limits and that is what gives him away. Maybe just to have fun, maybe to get even with the studio for some transgression, could have been anything. Like it or hate it as you choose but take a chill pill and recognize that your leg has been properly pulled!

I would think that for the people of 1931, this would be quite a movie. The beginning (as many have already stated), was quite exciting - even by today's standards. Then the movie drags a bit.

But my reason for writing this review is only to add that the eclectic cast is worth watching. You can see the obvious influence of the silent era in their expressions and actions/reactions.

But to me, Lucy (played by Violet Knights) almost steals the show. She seems to me a very funny actress. I hope to get to see her in something else some time. However, I suspect this is probably her crowning achievement as an actress, as she made less than ten talking pictures, and was only credited in two of them. I know her acting is overboard, but her expressions and manners are worth the watching of this movie to me. Without her, I would probably give this movie only one or two stars.

The strange Swede (William Jackie?) is also a great comic in this, his only credited role (according to IMDb).

If you like unusual characters, I think this is definitely a movie worth a watch. Don't expect a great story - as others have mentioned, the plot is a bit over-used. But the cast to me is not a disappointment.

For those who enjoy old films and are not put off by poor prints and bad quality sound, this hard to find film is quite fun. Break out the popcorn on a Saturday night in front of the TV. It is spooky and atmospheric, with a number of very funny, intentionally campy moments thrown in, much in line with The Old Dark House. I loved the bit where the reluctant visitor to the spooky old house was being chased around by one of the deranged looking inhabitants with a large stick. When he was finally cornered and was going to give himself up to whatever fate that awaited him, the ungainly old servant just lightly bopped the guy on the head and asked "Hey, did you lose this?" I was quite struck by the connection this film made with me, even though it was made almost 70 years ago.