Phantoms

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

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.

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 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