Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

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.

FlashCallahan Knowing that the Scream franchise was so huge at the time of this films release, Dimension and Miramax marketed this film as another nod to the audience, wink wink movie, as seen on the DVD cover.And why have they done this? Its a mess of a movie.Who sisters go back to their hometown for silly reasons, only to find that its desolate, and half the townsfolk have been wiped out by an unknown force. They bump into Ben Affleck and his gang, and things start to happen, like awful CGI critters wiping out the group one by one.Luckily the producers of the film had enough money to get Peter O' Toole on board to come in halfway through the film to explain what it's all about...The problem with this film is that it can't decide what it wants to be, full on horror science fiction, or tongue in cheek pastiche. One moment it can be quite gripping, the claustrophobic set is pretty suitable, but then you'll have someone like McGowan or Schrieiber saying something stupid, and it just takes you out of the moment.Affleck is okay, but has very little to do, and as said before, O'Toole is just there to okay Basil Exposition.The final third picks up, only because it has no other choice but to be totally bonkers and throw bad CGI cars at O'Toole, and it all ends up with a little wink wink at the end.Its a wasted opportunity, with half decent performances......

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.

BA_Harrison Dr. Jennifer Pailey (Joanna Going) and her younger sister Lisa (Rose McGowan) arrive in the remote town of Snowfield, Colorado, only to find the inhabitants either dead or missing, having fallen foul of a subterranean creature that believes itself to be a god. While searching the town for signs of life, the sisters meet local sheriff Bryce Hammond (Ben Affleck) and his deputies, but even with the lawmen's added firepower, survival looks unlikely—at least until the arrival of a team of government agents and their unlikely expert on the 'ancient evil', tabloid journalist Dr. Timothy Flyte (Peter O'Toole).Based on the novel by Dean Koontz (who also wrote the screenplay), Phantoms starts off very promisingly with the Pailey sisters' nail-biting search of the town's seemingly deserted buildings: a few delightfully grisly discoveries, some truly eerie sounds and the gradually dwindling daylight keep the level of tension high and the viewer right on the edge of their seat. An attack by a bizarre flying critter that leaves Deputy Stuart 'Stu' Wargle (Liev Schreiber) minus his face and several subsequent well-executed supernatural scares serve to heighten the horror.Unfortunately, with the introduction of O'Toole as Flyte, matters start to go downhill, the plot becoming more and more far fetched, eventually losing all sense of credibility during the inevitable showdown with the monster that involves the use of a handy experimental chemical that can break down the structure of oil—which just happens to be what the Lovecraftian creature is largely comprised of.However, despite its flaws, I'm happy to rate Phantoms a more than reasonable 6/10 simply for the wonderfully atmospheric first half, which surely served as inspiration for the successful 'Silent Hill' series of computer games.