Phantoms

One of the greatest horror novels of recent years (Two sisters and a small police force are trapped in a small town where something has killed the entire population) and this is the movie we get? For shame. And Koontz even wrote the script, which makes the disappoint all too close to home. I appreciate some things get lost from book to screen but the director doesn't have a clue what 'suspense' means. In the book the policemen are old haggard guys but here we get Ben Affleck and Liev Schrieber to satisfy the teen market after the success of Scream (Dimension produced both). Read the book and you'll be scared to death. See the film and be scared to death at how BAD it is.

This wasn't a bad movie (of course, my standards for defining a 'bad' movie are pretty low), but if you've read the book, it's bound to be disappointing. The richness of the characters (of ALL Mr. Koontz's characters, in ANY book, in fact) is lost when brought to the silver screen, and in order (I assume) to shorten the film, several of the relationships (especially that between Lisa and Jenny) are changed, often for the worst. On the other hand, if you've read the book, you've at least got an unofficial explanation for why some of the cops act the way they do, which is better than you'll get if you've not read it...

Despite the talent of its prolific creator, Dean Koontz, Phantoms really didn't make much of a blip. Which is a shame, since it's a half-way decent movie. My only real complaints are that it is very rushed, and Lisa Pailey is recast from being a 10-year old girl to a college-age senior - huh?? It does keep a great deal of the original source material though, and Peter O'Toole seems to be having fun. What more can you ask for?

I just finished watching this movie and I have to admit that it was not as bad as the critics stated. Sure, the last 30 minutes of the movie lack direction, but were still mildly interesting. The storyline and the presentation appear to be consistent with slasher horror flicks of the seventies and eighties. But let me be clear, the suspense and attention to detail is not in the same league as Halloween, or even Child's Play. The gore is not consistent with the gore element in John Carpenter's "The Thing" or the recently released " Underworld". Nope, this movie does not take itself that seriously in terms of gore or suspense. I have never read Dean Koontz, (personally, I love Stephen King for my horror), but I've been told that the screenplay is consistent with the book. Nevertheless. I have to say that this was a decent rental. I've seen worse, much worse!!!!!!

Jennifer (Joanna Going) rescues her sister Lisa (Rose McGowan) from the evils of LA as they enter the small sleepy town of Snowfield. Jennifer and Lisa discover that the housekeeper, phone, and their vehicle are all dead as are most of the town folk. They find three law enforcement men, with Stu (Liev Schreiber) providing a little comedy relief. The film starts feeling like "Andromeda Strain" meets "Silent Hill." Unfortunately it fails to maintain a good creep factor as Peter O'Toole enters the film as a tabloid author. The production moves into a monster chase film with uneven scenes. Decent sci-fi and worth a peek. It is part of a $5.00 action 12 pack.

The story starts promising and freaky. Two sisters driving a car to see they're parents, living in a small village. When they get there (about two minutes in the movie) the entire village is abandoned, and weird things start happen. The first 40-50 minutes of the movie is really good, filled with a creepy atmosphere, and the feeling of that an unknown force, with the ability to be everywhere, anytime. But then the story progresses and we realize what is causing this to happen. The writer of this movie did too good of a job to explain a seemingly supernatural occurrence, to make it "logical" and thereby ruining the scariness of it, making the last thirty last minutes really unscary and more of a action oriented movie. The story and beginning are great, but fatal flaws in the progress of story ruins the atmosphere, bringing this movie down to its knees.

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.

Come on, this movie's really bad! I've seen 3rd class TV- movies, which were more exciting than this trash. A boring town, very boring actors (yea, Affleck in his worst movie) and the most boring monsters I've ever recognized (did I?). Let's face it: Dean R. Koontz is the most untalented producer out there. If you've got Affleck, O'Toole and cutie Rose McGowan, a movie just needs to become somehow good, or acceptable at least. Even if the story has been used for so much times in movie history: Evil monsters in an abandoned town... man! I recommend "Alone in the Dark" with C. Slater if you want to watch a non-high-quality-excitement-movie with some action and fun. I know, this movie's not that great at all. But way better than this ultra- boring phantom- crap with bad visual effects, stupid dialogues and the worst storyboard ever. Don't watch it... please!