CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
5.4/10
24 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
En la tranquila ciudad de Snowfield, Colorado, algo maligno ha acabado con la comunidad. Y ahora, depende de un grupo de personas detenerlo, o al menos salir con vida de Snowfield.En la tranquila ciudad de Snowfield, Colorado, algo maligno ha acabado con la comunidad. Y ahora, depende de un grupo de personas detenerlo, o al menos salir con vida de Snowfield.En la tranquila ciudad de Snowfield, Colorado, algo maligno ha acabado con la comunidad. Y ahora, depende de un grupo de personas detenerlo, o al menos salir con vida de Snowfield.
- Premios
- 2 nominaciones en total
Valerie Chow
- Scientist Yamaguchi
- (as Rachel Shane)
Robert Knepper
- Agent Wilson
- (as Rob Knepper)
Opiniones destacadas
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.
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.
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.
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.
I thought this quite a scary science fiction/horror film. I would compare it favorably to "Wishmaster," for example.
The special effects were up to par. Peter O'Toole did seem a bit uncomfortable in his role, but the other actors did OK given the limited character development of their parts.
The typical "There Will be a Another" ending was supplied. You just can't get rid of those darned worms it seems
The special effects were up to par. Peter O'Toole did seem a bit uncomfortable in his role, but the other actors did OK given the limited character development of their parts.
The typical "There Will be a Another" ending was supplied. You just can't get rid of those darned worms it seems
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.
Phantoms (1998) Ben Affleck, Peter O' Toole, Rose McGowan, Joanna Going, Liev Schreiber, Nicky Katt, Clifton Powell, D: Joe Chappelle. When two sisters drive into a small Colorado town, they find the whole place depopulated, but corpses keep turning up. What caused it: disease or something else? Enter sheriff Affleck and his snickering deputy (Schreiber), who are just as clueless about these unexplained happenings as they are. Then an army of scientists and a professor-turned-tabloid journalist (O' Toole) come into the scene, discovering what wiped out the 500 residents came from deep underground. Better-than-average from a Dean Koontz novel, written by its author and well-acted for a thriller this ridiculous, that really pushes your buttons with suspenseful scenes and doesn't need to rely fully on special effects. O' Toole's character makes little sense, and we don't believe Affleck's chief graduated from Harvard. Running Time: 91 minutes and rated R for sci-fi violence, gore, and language. ** ½
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThe "flatworm theory" used in the movie (that flatworms can eat the remains of their own kind and absorb their knowledge) is based on actual tests given to flatworms which involved seeing how quickly they would make the "correct" turn at a Y-intersection after eating the previous experimenters. The results were more inconclusive than the film says.
- ErroresThe spent 9mm shell casings on the floor of the police station are from blank rounds.
- Citas
General Copperfield: The first thing we'd like to know is what we're dealing with: Biological, chemical, or other.
Sheriff Bryce Hammond: ...Well, I'm leaning towards "other".
- Bandas sonorasI Fall to Pieces
Performed by Patsy Cline
Written by Hank Cochran and Harlan Howard
Courtesy of MCA Records
Under license from Universal Music Special Markets
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Phantoms?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
Taquilla
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 5,624,282
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 3,065,951
- 25 ene 1998
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 5,624,282
- Tiempo de ejecución
- 1h 36min(96 min)
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta