ericrnolan I revisited "Phantoms" (1998) the other night, and I thought I'd just speak up briefly here on its behalf. Because this critically and popularly panned movie is one that I happened to like.Ben Affleck actually wasn't "'the bomb' in "Phantoms.'" (Referring to something as "the bomb" was, at one time, a high compliment in American slang.) He mostly phoned it in, and even seriously flubbed a scene or two. (Hey, I actually like the guy a lot, and I'm willing to give him a chance as the next Batman.) The headline above is actually some particularly meta humor from another character played by Affleck, in Kevin Smith's "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" (2001). Affleck was poking fun at himself a little here, along with his fellow denizens of Smith's "View Askewniverse."Roger Ebert dismissed "Phantoms" as "another one of those Gotcha! thrillers in which loathsome slimy creatures leap out of drain pipes and sewers and ingest supporting actors, while the stars pump bullets into them." You can read his entire review right here:http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/phantoms-1998No, "Phantoms" isn't classic sci-fi-horror. It's sometimes pretty thin stuff on a number of levels … but primarily the levels of acting and screen writing.But, dammit, I still liked this movie a lot. If you're a fan of the book (I've suggested it's Koontz' best), you'll be happy to discover that it indeed conscientiously sticks to its wicked-cool source material. We see a small Colorado mountain town where all the inhabitants have vanished; a clutch of wayward visitors then try to escape the same grisly, mysterious fate as its residents.)The book's central plot device is a nicely conceived and executed idea for a monster, with some effectively creepy historical and scientific context. (I can still remember a colonial victim's warning, which is referenced in the book, but not the movie: "It has no shape; it has every shape.")Despite its clunky script, the film brings us a story that is pretty intelligent — thanks to retaining so many elements of the novel. This is a thinking man's monster movie — like somebody rewrote "Beware the Blob" (1972), but put a hell of a lot of smarts and creativity into it. We've got two groups of bright people who fight back against "the Ancient Enemy," and their actions and strategies generally make sense.Also … Liev Schreiber does creepy incredibly well, and Peter O'Toole does everything incredibly well. The former's face and mannerisms do much to unsettle us. And the latter brings the "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962) treatment to the fifties-esque trope of the monster- fighting hero scientist.Finally, this might be an odd thing to praise a film for, but I loved its sound effects. Because that voice (or voices) on the story's single working telephone was exactly how I wanted the adversary here to sound.Slam it all you want. I'll watch this one again.

TFSpectre Sadly the basis of the book was not translated very well to the big screen, now that special effects are much improved, it may be time to rekindle the dying embers of what should have been a great film.The taunting of the people in Snowfield, the arrival and setup of a cordon, the reason why Santa Mira police were there in the first place were all dismissed. Sadly in many ways, the whole point of the movie wasn't really realised because they were so focused on getting to the end that they seem to have entirely forgotten about the story, no suspense moments whatsoever, no what's gonna happen next..It was a major disappointment sadly because it didn't get the treatment it deserved; it should have been so much better, one can only hope that the script is redone; with a better understanding of the book and the nature of the story.

atinder the phantoms (1998)I saw this on Netflix, I did not think it sounded that good but I gave a chance . I was not aware it was based on one dean Koots books , which I have not read that book , this also be compared a old movie called x unknown , which I have seen either.I liked the movies dose not take long to get going , as the first half the movie was kind fast moving at times.First we don't know who or what is talking or whispers over the phone but dose take long to find what the thing is!I liked some effects in the movie , were really good, the loved dog scenes, it kind of reminded me of the thing a little.The middle part of the movie was bit dull at times but it picks up again near the end.5 out of 10!

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.