Recensioni degli utenti

First of all a consideration: you are in a town besieged by an unknown entity, you are not a cop, but a girl. You hear a noise in a room that should be absolutely empty. Do you turn around slowly and slowly go to look what made that noise? HELL NO! You run away screaming like hell, find a fire weapon and annihilate anything you see. Said this, let's talk about movie.

The concept is really cute and the casting is good, but the characters are "thrown" in the story with no background and this can be a fault... The scaring parts are really predictable: music slowly increasing, than stops like "hm everything's alright" then "BAAAW!" someone or something pops out. I could turn the volume down every time there was a scary noise part in time :-)

The ending is also a bit poor and with the classic "I'll be back!" style.

However, not less than 6/10

Phantoms is one of my favorite horror/sci-fi films of all time (which is saying a lot). I've seen it several times and I find it still is entertaining. I actually purchased the book after I viewed the film and now it is one of my favorite books as well. Ben Affleck is good as the hero in the film. This was made before he made it as a big time star. Even Peter O' Toole does a very credible job as a "National Enquirer" type reporter. The tension is well placed throughout the movie. What I really enjoyed about the story was as the audience you didn't really see what the creature(s) looked like during the movie. You were given bits and pieces (pardon the pun) of this "monster" throughout the movie. Even as the movie ended it left it wide open for a sequel, which probably won't happen because it did not do well at the box office. However, if another movie company did decide to make a sequel, direct to video, I would be the first to rent it. I really did not want the movie to end. That is how much I enjoyed it. I'm sure you will to.

My Age: 13

Lisa and Jennifer Pailey, played by Rose McGowan and Joanna Going, visit their family in a small town called Snowfield. The whole town is quiet and appears abandoned until they find some dead bodies. They run into the town sheriff, played by Ben Affleck, and his deputies, who must save themselves from the mysterious things around that are out to get them. Soon the authorities show up, as does journalist Timothy Flyte, played by Peter O'Toole, who may know what is going on.

Phantoms is a mysterious, spooky film that is also fun and enjoyable. Good performances from Ben Affleck and Peter O'Toole as well as most of the others. There are some suspenseful scenes in the film and it is exciting. It is interesting and I find the plot to be quite a good one. Overall, it is a fun, spooky film with good performances and I recommend it.

Australian Classification: MA 15+: Medium Level Violence, Horror Theme

Rating: 70 out of 100

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.

I first saw this in the late 90s on cable tv. Revisited it recently. The Blob remake is much much better than this lousy film.

In this film nothing happens for almost an hour except squeaking sounds, flickering lights, shaky cam, lots of darkness, some dead bodies. Then almost aft an hour the film copies a bit from Alien n The Thing. The ending is a big meh.

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!

This movie really doesn't know to handle its tension well. The story had a promising premise but in the end all the movie ever is, is build up but without ever a pay off. It's like foreplay without sex. The ending is also disappointing and makes you think 'this is it?'. So only foreplay, no sex and no orgasm either...that's just cruel.

The movie is based on a novel by popular horror writer Dean Koontz. Let's say he's a Stephen King kind of writer, only he is lesser known. He himself also wrote the screenplay for this movie but just as is the case with most of the movies based on Stephen King novels, it (and then mostly its horror) doesn't translate very well to the big screen. I have yet to see a good movie based on a Koontz movie.

Like I mentioned before, all this movie does is building up its tension and mystery but very rarely does it ever have a 'shock moment' in it. The movie pays far too much attention to its build up and forgets all about its pay off. This is most especially notable in its weak and also quite sudden ending. This movie really doesn't leave a satisfying enough feeling, especially when considering that the concept actually did show some nice potential.

It also feels as if the movie is incomplete. At times it to me seemed entire sequences got cut out. Often you see characters doing things, which make you wonder; 'Now what are they doing exactly?'. Or, 'why is going there and why does he need that thing?'. It just doesn't always flow too well. The movie also doesn't feel like it does because of the reason that the first- and second halve of the movie are quite different from each other. The first halve is a mystery/thriller/horror, with the Ben Affleck and Rose McGowan character, among others, walking around in the ghost town, trying to figure out a way to survive and what is happening around them. The second halve of the movie is about the Peter O'Toole character really and the science starts to kick in. From this point on the movie also tends to become even more formulaic and also less interesting than its first halve. Because of this all the movie is also lacking a good main character. Basically in the first minutes of the movie the two sisters played by Rose McGowan and Joanna Going are the main characters. Then when Ben Affleck pops up he becomes the main character but even before the halve way point he gets relieved again by Peter O'Toole.

The movie features Ben Affleck and Rose McGowan before their days of fame. Affleck even hadn't done "Armegeddon" yet at the time of this movie. He's pretty miscast though in this movie. I'm no Affleck hater but he was just too young at the time to convincingly play a police sheriff. The actor that seemed in place though was Liev Schreiber and I'm not sure but I also think that the movie makers felt this and they extended his role in the movie. 4 years later Affleck and Schreiber would team up again in the movie "The Sum of All Fears". Both were already established actors at that time. It's of course always nice to see Peter O'Toole in a movie. It's quite funny but ever since his role in "Lawrence of Arabia" he hasn't starred in anything halve-classic really but yet he is still respected so much. He of course also is a great actor, which also can be seen from the fact that ever since his "Lawrence of Arabia" role he has received 7 more Oscar nominations, to this date, though he has never won one yet, except for an Honorary Award, he received in 2003.

For 1998 standards the special effects are simply good within this movie. Even better are its make-up effects but is it all enough and good enough to please the horror fans? I really don't think so!

Simply too much lacking as an horror/thriller flick.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

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.

I admit that I've never read a Dean Koontz book, but I have nothing against the horror genre. I watched this movie mainly because Peter O'Toole is in it, and I also like Rose McGowan for her edgy roles.

I was impressed, but not in a good way, by three things. First, the cinematography was awful. Badly shot, it had special effects that looked like special effects instead of being part of the movie. The whole thing looked amateurish, as if it was shot to be a CBS after-school movie (was it?)

Secondly, the dialogue and it's delivery was very weak. The lines were delivered as if they were the best words ever to be said on screen and not part of the dialogue, which would have been a better choice. In short, it came across over-acted. Very strange considering there is some real talent in this one.

The last thing is the story. Not to slam Koontz - maybe it's not his error- but there doesn't seem to be any consistency or reasoning in the characters. Why is Shreiber's character such a happy goof in the face of such danger? No reason. Why are McGowan's and Going's characters able to pick up shotguns and shoot them like they've been using them all their lives? No reason. For that matter, how is a dentist able to calmly give an autopsy on a gory, faceless corpse that has just been brutally murdered by a supernatural force? no reason. Why not, I guess...

This movie left me wondering why it was made so poorly, and more importantly why, in 1998, when most of these actors had decent careers, did they choose to be in this garbage?

Phantoms is a cracking film...I'm slightly reluctant to admit this given it's standing (and the fact it stars Ben Affleck) but I went into it with low expectations and enjoyed it thoroughly. Its a fast paced piece of sci-fi/horror hokum with some great shock moments that'll have you jumping out of your seat or cowering behing the sofa..If you're looking for a scary film for Halloween that doesnt revolt, try this.

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.

I'm right in saying that it's fairly uncommon nowadays for a horror movie to have been based upon a novel or at least one that wasn't based on a Stephen King novel . Most horror movies seem to have been produced at a pitch though how on earth you pitch a movie that has horny teenagers getting their heads chopped ( Yawn ) I have no idea , so I guess a Dean R Koontz novel being produced is a rare event and the original author has adapted his own novel but my gut instinct is that the author has adapted it very badly for the screen

Two sisters Lisa and Jennifer Pailey arrive in a small California town in Winter and find it deserted . Something is very wrong but Lisa and Jennifer arrive at the conclusion as to what's happening far too readily thereby diffusing all tension and mystery . Not only but it makes for very unconvincing charaterisation and it's not only just the Pailey sisters who suffer from this poor characterisation it's everyone else too . This is a movie where scientists feature but the two most intelligent people happen to be an author of mystical speculation and a small town sheriff ! Yes very likely . Mind you characters hypothesise and speculate and answer things they would almost have no knowledge of and there's no explanation as to how they arrived at these conclusions . Of course in a book you can print characters thought process and why they thought such and such a thing , on screen it's impossible but Koontz obviously thought everyone who rushed out to watch this film had read the source novel so explanation wasn't a priority . Either that or it's a marketing ploy for confused audiences members to buy his novel . Sorry Dean I won't be writing off to Santa for a copy of PHANTOMS - Or any other of your novels

PHANTOMS comes across as a good idea but a very mediocre movie and would perhaps have worked better as an episode of THE X FILES . The only interest it had for me was trying to spot what other movies it reminded me of : THE FOG ( 1980 version ) , THE BLOB (1988 version ) THE THING ( 1982 version ) etc etc

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 is the worst film I have seen this year. I pride myself on the ability to seek out and endure a truly terrible flick and this did not disappoint. Affleck does not act. How the stock of one of Hollywood's brightest young starts has fallen so low so fast is a mystery.The two girls are there to look fit and Liev Schreiber character has no place in the film. To get such a meagre return from such a stellar cast is also disappointing. Perhaps if they spent more on production values than they did on attracting star names there may have been some redemption. However the makers gambled on star power over quality and lost. The plot had potential but the way it was executed made it sound like nonsense. Even the effects are average. All in all this is an underwhelming waste of money. Nobody involved emerges from this cinematic debacle with any credit unless Phantoms is supposed to be a cringe worthy comedy. I can't believe it got a cinema release.

An atmospheric Lovecraftian horror. Takes a simple, but focused and no nonsense approach and it works well. There's pretty much zero downtime and it does a good job building tension.

In the peaceful town of Snowfield, Colorado something evil has wiped out the community. And now, it's up to a group of people to stop it, or at least get out of Snowfield alive. The first time I saw "Phantoms", I liked it, but didn't think too much of it. Recently deciding to rent it again for the hell of it, this film is so much better than the previous viewing, I mean REALLY good, one of the best Hollywood-produced horror films I've seen in a while, not to mention THE best Dean Koontz adaptation. Joe Chappelle, who's films in the past unfortunately haven't been very good, does an excellent job directing here, delivering a dark & genuinely haunting atmosphere, not to mention great cinematography and a strong visual style. This film proves he's capable of directing a good movie if he's given a strong script. Oh, that brings me to the script, which Koontz penned himself, having been (Quite understandably) disappointed in the previous adaptations, has done an excellent job with the screenplay. Not only is it intelligent and thought-provoking but is also tightly written. When was the last time we got a SMART horror film? OK, there are plenty out there, but not many that Hollywood have made recently, mind you! Performance-wise, everyone does a great job here, especially the creepy Liev Schreiber (scream 2). Special effects are carefully used, few and far between but generally quite good. Once we finally see the creature it's kind of disappointing (I wish they had used the giant winged serpent described in the book) and quite vague. There's some nice gore too.

"Phantoms" is a smart, creepy, underrated horror gem that deserves better than it's gotten and really makes you think.

9/10.