Phantoms (1998) User Reviews

The Ancient Enemy

[sol1218 · 6/10 · 1 August 2005]

**SPOILERS** Kicked of of the faculty of the prestigious Oxford University because of his off-the-wall theories Prof. Timothy Flyte, Peter O'Toole, now writes for the supermarket tabloid Wide World News. You could imagine the surprise he had when one evening he was visited by these two FBI agents Hawtthorne & Wilson, Bo Hopkins & Robert Knepper.

It seems that Flyte was on to something in his writings of mysterious disappearances all throughout history since the beginning of life on earth. The disappearance of entire civilizations like the Mayans in 610 AD the English colony of Roanoke in the new world in 1590 and even more recently the 3,000 Chinese soldiers who vanished without a trace outside the city on Nanking in December 1939. This thing that was responsible, according to Flyte, for these strange phenomena has struck again and this time in the small town of Snowfield Colorado.

Sisters Jennifer & Lisa Pailey, Janna Going & Rose McGowan, traveling to Snowfield, where Jennifer runs a medical clinic, from L.A. they find the town eerily deserted. When the two sisters check into Jennifers home they find her maid Helda dead. Looking from house to house and store to store in Snowfield they find that everyone in town had either died of some mysterious disease or were hacked to death. It wasn't until the local sheriff Bryce Hammond, Ben Afflect, and his two deputies Stu Wargel & Steve Shanning, Live Schriber & Nicky Katt, came on the scene that they all realized that something out of, or under, this world happened to the people of Snowfield. The only clue that they had was a message scrawled in lipstick on a locked bathroom mirror stating "The Ancient Enemy, Thimothy Flyte".

Even though the story is a bit hard to follow the film "Phantoms" does have it shocks and thrills with the human race battling this ancient enemy that has resurfaced again to claim it's share of victims like it did over and over on earth since time immemorial. Living off life on earth these "phantoms" are not only able to wipe out whole towns cities or even civilizations they can even mimic their victims and absorb their minds and memories as well as their flesh and blood. Which makes them almost invincible even in the face of modern scientific and military technology.

The ending of the movie "Phantoms" was even more far fetched with Prof. Flyte coming up with this chemical component that has to do with cleaning up oil spills that does in the "Ancient Enemy" of all Mankind once and for all, or does it?

The movie has a very young and teenage-looking Ben Afflect playing not only the town's sheriff Bryce Hammond but also being a Harvard graduate as well as a former FBI agent who quit because he killed a little boy by accident and never wanted to touch a gun again. You wonder why Bryce would later get a job as a sheriff where he's obligated to not only carry but very possibly use handguns if he's so spooked by them?

At least give credit to Alcanivorax borkumensis.

[Fella_shibby · 3/10 · 29 October 2020]

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.

Beware that Thing which Lives Forever

[Bogmeister · 7/10 · 13 August 2005]

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.

Why are these people in this movie?

[easter.egg · 2/10 · 10 January 2003]

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?

Not bad...but should be credited as a remake

[Vigilante-407 · 7/10 · 18 July 2001]

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!

A fun, enjoyable, spooky movie

[CWP- · 4/10 · 16 August 1999]

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

Ben Affleck Is Da Bomb In Phantoms Y'all

[daveblythe69 · 7/10 · 3 January 2003]

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.

This movie really doesn't know to handle its tension well.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 5/10 · 11 December 2008]

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/

Intelligent, atmospheric and highly under-appreciated.

[willywants · 9/10 · 4 February 2004]

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.

The Rumor's True: Ben Affleck Is The Bomb In This Film

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 12 September 2006]

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.

Where do I start?

[sifaeli-tesha · 1/10 · 25 April 2006]

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.

Demons With an Oily Presence Take over a Small Town

[rick.spencer2 · 16 November 2000]

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.

...avoid it....

[drichardsong · 1/10 · 8 June 2011]

...one of THE WORST movies I've ever seen...paper thin characters that the viewer could care-less about....Ben Affleck could not be more inexperienced in acting...the entire movie feels like it's being made up on the spot...very uninformative in it's delivery....this movie truly is a waste of time...other movies with the same "vibe" but much more effective: The Blob, Children of the Corn, Event Horizon, all of which use similar filming techniques to build suspense but they actually work in most cases...also, nothing is worse than a movie that tries to incorporate elements of the occult or physics without providing anything in the way of true explanation...Outer Limits would have done this one better....

Not the awful movie everybody says

[erixal · 6/10 · 15 December 2004]

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

Is THIS supposed to scare me??!!!!!!!!

[DorianWynHowells · 1/10 · 18 January 2002]

Ben Affleck. Not the most consistent of actors is he? He can really pick a bad film when he wants to, and THIS, is no exception! Hard lines Ben, you should have read the script first I think!! Better luck next time eh?

How did this ever get made? Based on a book you say? really? I think I'll use it as toilet paper! Actually no, I know from experience that the books are always far better than the films, so that's a BIT harsh.

And harsh is what this film is. Harsh. There are other far more meaningful words that I could use to describe this film, but I don't think my review will be posted!!

It started well, as well as it could, but boy did they loose the plot!!!

A finely deserved 1/10!!!

AND I'M BEING VERY, VERY, VERY NICE HERE!!!!!!

enjoy!

Affleck versus the slime monster

[ctomvelu-1 · 7/10 · 15 March 2009]

PHANTOMS is one of my favorite guilty pleasures. Based on a Dean Koontz story, it takes place in a small town that is being consumed by a primordial force, which is essentially The Blob with shape-shifting ability. A young doctor and her sister arrive in town at the worst possible moment, and are saved from the creature by Sheriff Benjamin Affleck and Deputy Barney Fife -- oops, I mean Liev Schreiber, who plays creepy quite convincingly here. Peter O'Toole later shows up as a government-recruited scientist's who may know something about the ancient creature. He is escorted by Army troops. After that, it's a battle to the death. The first half of the movie is suspenseful and a mystery as to why the town is dying. The second half is a standard monster movie, not dissimilar to the 1982 remake of THE THING. Affleck is a bit young to play a sheriff, but he's the star of th show, so go with it. You won't be sorry.

The Thing's long lost cousin (sort of) in an isolated town in the mountains of Colorado

[Wuchakk · 6/10 · 15 September 2018]

Two sisters (Rose McGowan & Joanna Going) visit a town in the Rockies, which is mysteriously absent of people except for a few corpses. They eventually encounter a Sheriff (Ben Affleck) and his deputies as the mystery deepens (Liev Schreiber plays one of the deputies). Peter O'Toole is on hand as an eccentric British writer who assists the group while Clifton Powell plays the commanding officer of an Army unit sent to the town.

The movie came out in 1998 and was written by heralded horror author Dean Koontz (both the screenplay and the novel). The story is basically "The Thing" (1982) set in a Rockies town with various nuances, like the addition of two females. Speaking of whom, Rose and Joanna have stunning faces, but their beauty is never really capitalized on in the film. Joanna, for instance, wears ridiculously baggy tan slacks the entire runtime.

The first half is nice & mysterious with several genuinely creepy sequences whereas the second half focuses on the incredible source of the horror and the complexities thereof. People complain about the latter portions, and I can see where they're coming from, but I like the way the protagonists put their heads together to try to figure out and defeat the diabolical phenomenon.

The film runs 1 hour, 36 minutes and was shot in Georgetown, Colorado.

GRADE: B-

Really really boring

[interunic · 2/10 · 3 May 2007]

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!

a very entertaining horror/sci-fi

[Van_Zan · 8/10 · 21 January 2002]

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.

90's

[yusufpiskin · 7/10 · 3 January 2021]

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.

Stupid Movie

[david-546 · 2/10 · 9 February 2002]

Maitlin's Movie review gave this one **1/2 out of ****. I guess he is allowed a few mistakes. It should have been about * maybe as a stretch *1/2.

Its problem? The first half of this film had good tension, scares and a real sense of foreboding and mystery. Then along came the monster or whatever it was. Then it was just computer generated gibberish, bad dialogue, inane acting twists that lacked any sense of credibility. When will the people that do horror films realize that it is not what you see that is scary it is what you don't see. If you want a movie that leaves the heart pounding and the pulse racing rent Mimic yet we rarely see the monster(s). This one just made my brain go mushy and wish it were soon over.

I had a terrible time accepting Ben Affleck as the Sheriff. That was a miscast but I guess they needed a pretty face. Better was Leif Schreiber as Deputy Sheriff Stu Wargle. Except when he was dead they should have just left him that way. Morphing back into the monster he was forced to mutter idiotic lines that left me rolling in the aisles rather than eliciting any fright. Finally it is sad to see how low Peter O'Toole has sunk reduced to doing stereotype parts.

All in all a waste of celluloid and a wasted evening on a flick that should have been better.

Fun rip off of somepast sci-fi greats

[monstermania · 10 July 2002]

This film was a fascinating melding of various classics and not-so-classics of the creature feature genre done with style. It did exactly what a good B-movie Sci-fi should do: Rip off better films and do it knowingly with tongue firmly in cheek. The cast was interesting and had decent star power for the grade of motion picture (film legend Peter O'Toole, "Scream 2" Star Liev Schreiber, Ben Affleck and "Boston Publics" Nicky Katt"), except for Rose McGowan, who, as talented as she is, was way too old to play a 14-year-old. It was also good to see Ben Affleck not trying to win awards in some silly Michael Bay movie. Whoever did the makeup effects must have seen 1989's "Leviathan" and the script had elements of the movies "Leviathan," "The Thing," "Virus" and even the remake of "The Blob" (the final scene had shots that were exactly the same, minus the snow machine, of course) In short, if you are kicking back and want to see something with some cool effects but not much thought, rent this and have some fun.

A lesson in bad...a mediocre-at-best horror movie

[Adam E · 1/10 · 10 June 1999]

"Phantoms" was pretty decent book by Dean Koontz that I was looking forward to seeing on screen. When I went with my girlfriend, the theater we went to had only 5 other people there by themselves. I had the feeling there that this movie would suck from then on and I wish we would've left the theaters and got a refund. This was the slowest 90 minutes I've spent in the movies. I don't know how so many people can rave about this; it was basically every horror movie cliche taken and thrown into one movie. At one point, I was so bored, in my mind I was playing a game of "guess which movie this is ripping off of." Sure, another movie, "Virus" was exactly the same, taking elements from millions of horror films, but at least "Virus" was campy and it came off as mindless fun. The audience I went to in this seemed bored to death, I even heard some loud yawns behind me in the movie. For how much he complains about screenwriters screwing up his novels by bad adaptions, Dean himself did a pretty p**s-poor job adapting this one. This one makes "Watchers" look great. Enough with the script, the director (who brought us the crap-fest "Halloween 6") can't seem to know what to do with the script and just has the cast endlessly walking around a quiet town looking dazed by how quiet everything is, while we're stuck waiting for a cheap pop-out to appear or someone to shout out some stupid one-liner about how bad things everything thats happening around them is. The actors give it their worst and obviously needed a paycheck; Ben Affleck is miscast as a hick sheriff, Liev Schreiber makes an ass out of himself, overacting terribly as a retard deputy and deserves an award for actor most making an ass out of himself. Rose McGowan, who wasn't bad in "Scream," though her cleavage did the acting for her there didn't improve any bit from "Doom Generation," and what the hell was the great Peter O'Toole thinking when he signed on this film. Since I hated so much about this movie, the only good thing about the film was the performance by Joanna Going, she isn't given much to do, but she makes the best out of her one-dimensional character and is the only one who you hope won't get hacked to pieces. The make-up effects were really bad as well and were only a small improvement over "Plan 9 From Outer Space" (no pun intended on that movie). This is probably one of the worst movies I've had to sit through. .

Affleck was the bomb in phantoms

[ultimate_dare_devil · 6/10 · 30 June 2002]

a good film, good story, good performance's again another good film affleck was the better performer of all the cast enjoyable flick something to just stick in and escape reality for 90 mins. most people i know didnt like phantoms, but i did, good fun,

6 out of 10

Worst writer ever... Directors and producers, look elsewhere for movie ideas.

[anago-nigiri · 3/10 · 10 March 2013]

I read the novel and also watched the movie (although one could question why I would see the movie after reading the novel.) By the way this review contains no spoilers although it's hard to spoil a story as predictable a this one. My minivan broke down in the middle of nowhere (Salina, Utah - a town of 2,393 persons) while I was trying to move to California from Florida. The hotel I stayed at had a lending library and the woman at the desk recommended this book while I waited the two days for my vehicle's repairs. Now I must say that this isn't the first Koontz book I've read but it was the worst. And the movie didn't make things any better. The same predictable plots and plot devices. You still know who the love interest is right at the beginning (which works for a rom-com plot but not a thriller, usually). You know who's going to die right away. You can even predict how they will die. Everything about this movie is cliché squared. I cannot recommend to anyone who likes suspense. There is no suspense to be had here... move along.