wildblueyonder Hey look, if slow-mo machine gun fire an unexplained random "supernatural stuff" is yer thing... then go for it.I got sucked in by the cast - but O'Toole is laughable and Affleck shows why he has is a success - good looks and good one liners - otherwise no talent.Shreiber is great, but after that this is a total big hollywood bit of nonsense. If you don't need a real plot and like 'explosions and stuff'.. its fer you.

Christopher Smith Phantoms is probably better known for being a great punchline in Kevin Smith's Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back ("Affleck, you the bomb in Phantoms yo!") than it is as an actual movie. One of the many late 90s horror offering from Bob and Harvey Weinstein's Dimension Films, it was a box office flop when it hit theaters, and unlike several other Dimension releases from the same era, it hasn't become much of a cult favorite. Adapted by Dean Koontz from his novel of the same, Phantoms is Koontz's only screen writing credit. Reportedly, Koontz wasn't crazy about the final cut, blaming the editing in the postproduction process. While Koontz maybe right about the film's editing being messy, and while Phantoms is far from a great movie, I still kind of like it.Like most Dimension horror flicks, Phantoms has an amazing cast. Ben Affleck, Rose McGowan, and Liev Schreiber were regularly cast in Dimension Films, and it's not hard to see why. Their performances don't necessarily elevate the material, but they are a lot of fun to watch on screen, especially Affleck in a role he was especially too young for at the time of filming. Peter O'Toole is one of the most legendary actors who ever lived, and his presence definitely makes Phantoms seem classier than it would have been otherwise, although O'Toole plays his role straighter than I would have liked. Overall, the whole tone is a bit too serious considering how silly everything about the story is, but when Phantoms does show a sense of humor about its ridiculousness, the movie is at its best.Phantoms didn't have a huge budget, though visually it holds up better than a lot of the bigger budget offerings of the era. There seems to be very little CGI, and a lot of cool-looking practical special effects. Whether one likes or hates Phantoms, it's clear that there was hard work put into making the film look slick in a way very few horror flicks actually do. The cinematography looks great, the sets provide the film with the isolated atmosphere the story requires, and the directing is legitimately suspenseful in places. Phantoms is the type of film that almost never gets made anymore: an interesting R-rated horror flick not reliant on computers to make stuff look scary, and not reliant on twist ending after twist ending just for the sake of it. If made today, a movie like Phantoms would be either a limp PG-13 offering, or a much lower-budget, possibly found-footage VOD premiere not worthy of anyone's time.Unlike most horror movies made in the late 1990s and today, Phantoms wasn't made to launch a franchise. It was made to provide audiences with a 90 minutes' worth of scares and adrenaline, and more often than not, it succeeds at doing so. Phantoms may not even be close to the best the late 90s had to offer. With one more try to smooth things out in the editing room and a slightly firmer grasp on tone, Phantoms could have been a better movie, one that wouldn't be remembered just for being a joke (albeit an absolutely hilarious one) in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. As it is, the film is still fairly entertaining and worth checking out for genre fans. 6/10

bowmanblue Apparently, Phantoms is based on a book, but, seeing as I haven't read it, I really can't compare it to that. The popular consensus from those that have is that - as usual - the film doesn't compare to the book.It's about two sisters who come to a small town after their mother died, only to find that the whole town has also died, only in more hideous and disturbing circumstances. Luckily, the youngest Sheriff in America (aka Ben Affleck) is on hand to help them out and steer them through the danger. Add into the mix eccentric British academic, Peter O'Toole and you have a rag-tag bunch ready to combat evil. Yes, the American army does try to help, but it's fair to say that Ben and Peter are better at saving the world than any trained military force.Somehow I managed to watch Stephen King's (much maligned) 'Dreamcatcher' before I saw Phantoms and I found the two were pretty similar - both decent enough sci-fi/horror movies, but both also a bit flawed. Neither seems to know really which direction it's going and throws one new element into the mix after the next.If you regularly watch sci-fi/horror B-movies, then Phantoms is definitely a cut above those. It's just a pity that it wasn't a bit more focused, otherwise it might have been a classic.

LeonLouisRicci If you have never read a Dean Koontz Horror Novel this Movie will likely not inspire such wantings. Scripted by the Book's Author this adaptation of his own work is full of it. Full of clichés, uninspired Acting, mediocre SFX, unfunny funny lines and references (Patsy Cline's I Fall to Pieces is heard while you see, you guessed it), well that's enough, but there's more.The Cast seems to be standing around a lot with blank stares waiting for someone, anyone, to say Action, or something. Speaking of Action, early on there is a Scene that telegraphs just how lame and misdirected this is. A "Thing" shows up and we have our three Leads, standing shoulder to shoulder pumping hundreds of bullets at a window. It looks like something out of completely different Movie, or Genre for that matter.So the warning comes early, and it is right on. Nothing that happens after-wards is remotely scary, interesting, or worth your time. This is not the worst Horror/Sci-Fi Movie ever made but it tries really hard to be a contender.