Phantoms

Phantoms is a classic B-movie thriller. Phantoms holds the viewer only the first third of the film, after it becomes clear what is happening, the film starts to give up a lot. The plot here is simple. The cast is not bad, Peter O'Toole starred and not yet star Ben Affleck. If the film had not been based on a literary source, I'm sure it would have been worse. That's what you can't say is that Phantoms is a horror movie. It doesn't scare at all. And you can't call it a thriller, there is no suspense most of the timekeeping, except for the first third of the film. Phantoms can be watched once and forgotten, it's an ordinary passing thriller.

This may have been based on a Dean Koontz novel, but Phantoms should acknowledge itself as being an unofficial remake of an old Hammer Studios film, X The Unknown, with which it shares it's main antagonist. The only real difference is that Phantoms lends a more mystical slant to the idea (though primarily just at the beginning of the movie).

As a horror film, this movie is fun...very reminiscent of a good old 50's or 60's horror movie that immediately immerses you in the situation. The one problem with the film is that each character is interesting by themselves, but they don't really gel together that well as a whole. Peter O'Toole is at his quirky best, and Ben Affleck is always enjoyable, so it's really hard to complain about that.

The SFX are okay to middling, but work well with the atmospheric cinematography.

Definitely worth a rent!

Ben Affleck is a sheriff who comes to the aid of two young ladies (one played by the smoking hot Rose McGowan) who are alone in an abandoned Colorado town. He, along with another cop (Liev Schreiber) and an occult professor (Peter O'Toole), must take on the Ancient Enemy, a creature of evil incarnate from before the dawn of man.

Starting in the Kevin Smith film "Mallrats" and escalating to Smith's "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back", there has been the cult joke that "Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms". But the sad truth is that "Phantoms" might just be Affleck's best role up to that time... (though he has done some fine work since, particularly "Extract").

"Phantoms" is something of a transitional piece. On one hand, the film clearly gets some of its imagery from other films, most noticeably John Carpenter's "The Thing" (the creepy alien-like dog). But, also, "Phantoms" has lent its imagery to those who have come after it. There is evidence to support the theory that "Silent Hill" took some of its abandoned town scenes from Phantoms. The exact connection, if any, is unknown to me. I also see similar themes in "X-Files: Fight the Future", with the petroleum-based alien. And the influence this had on "Mothman Prophesies" is undeniable.

But in short, "Phantoms" is an interesting story with above average special effects for the time and enough gore to sustain the average horror of science fiction fan. The story might be a little lacking, but when you keep in mind it's a Dean Koontz story, it's not a big shock.

Fans of "The Thing" might like this, and any Affleck or McGowan fans should definitely check this one out. I own it, and I have no regrets for my purchase. If it hasn't become one already, someday this will be a cult film. My only concern? The DVD is a bit too bare bones.

Ben kicks ass in a great little romp, destined to go down in cinematic history through the references in JASBSB. a great performance from all involved, clever story and an equally good if not better script curtosy of having the Author being there! becomes quite eerie and uses some good effects. a convenient movie full of coincidences, a few holes are left in the plot tho because of this. this being said it does start to drift off towards the end. not to take anything away from it a thoughrally enjoyable movie. Not a must see, but well worth watching.

Inappropriately titled, like the book itself by Koontz, Phantoms is a surprisingly effective monster movie, especially in the first half. The best monsters are the ones which are very difficult to kill; in addition, these types of monsters can destroy fragile human beings with ease. This is what is confronted here, with humans little more than insects to be crushed and absorbed. Of course, certain insects can cause a lot of damage when they put their minds to it. The atmosphere in the first half hour is very eerie and there's a lot of mystery. You have pretty much an empty town, a couple of young women just arrived, and a couple of bodies - no answers. That gloom & foreboding of doom may not be too difficult to create, but we hardly see it anymore, even in horror films. Even if one has seen this film, however, they may be compelled to watch that first half hour again just to get that sense of doom all over. When some cops show up, things get even worse. Then an entire army shows up and, of course, we think things are under control now, but it makes no difference. At least the pic is consistent with its menace.

This picture was virtually ignored on release and I don't think video has helped it much. When the monster is revealed, it obviously takes away all the suspense built up earlier, but it's still creepy going (without revealing too much, the monster is a more advanced version of a famous one from the fifties; think also along the lines of "The Thing" remake by Carpenter in '82). Writer Koontz was involved in the adaptation, which always seems to help. Actor O'Toole appears around the midway point as the only so-called expert on the creature, all based on conjecture, of course. He lends a bit of gravity to it all, tho I suppose he's slumming here in a 'typical' fright flic. The rest of the younger cast do fine, with Affleck a bit irritating as usual. I'm not sure what Schreiber was aiming at, but he was almost as creepy as the creature. There's a bit of a twist ending, which wasn't really necessary.