Wonderful character development!

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

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

Sometimes titles truly belie their content. I was looking for ghosts, apparitions, specters, etc. and I got some other creature."Phantoms" wastes no time jumping into the action. Within five minutes of the film's opening credits we're treated to a dead body in a cozy little vacation town. The cause is unknown but soon the two female protagonists show us more dead bodies. They meet up with three armed men (and later more armed men) but that only produced an increased body count.The movie was mildly entertaining but it lacked any real umph. The scene was bleak enough with the absence of people and a slight haze, but the actors were too nonchalant and cavalier. There was no real sense of danger, I don't even think I saw any of them sweat. Even the most threatening and tense moments were met with a slight apprehension at most. It was all too clean and too textbook.

I would not call this movie a guilty pleasure, I've seen this movie several times and i still think the same thing, this film is a diamond in the rough, there was so much it could do better, had a good chance to exploit all kinds of possibilities, they could build up more the mystery around the town, The idea of the creature is similar to the one in the The Thing, and they just scratch the surface of what the monster what capable off, instead we get minor character development, secondary characters with no purpose than getting killed off quickly.This movie attracted a pretty stellar cast in their earlier careers, there are a lot of good names attached to it Peter O'Toole, Rose McGowan and Liev Schreiber,Ben Affleck, how could anyone refuse to watch this movie in 2015."Phantoms" is reported as being an adaptation from a Dean Koontz novel of the same name i never read it but it has a lot of similarities but the ending is different, i honestly would check the book other than that if you are curious give this movie a look.

Drop-dead gorgeous doctor Joanna Going (as Jennifer "Jenny" Pailey) wants little sister Rose McGowan (as Lisa Pailey) to ease up on the Los Angeles fast lane. So Ms. Going takes Ms. McGowan to relax in the sleepy resort town of Snowfield, Colorado. The two women discover the town is so sleepy, it's dead. In fact, they are immediately greeted by creepy lifeless bodies. There are some live ones, too - like handsome sheriff Ben Affleck (as Bryce Hammond) and his deputies - gum chewing Liev Schreiber (as Stuart "Stu" Wargle) and heavily mustached Nicky Katt (as Steve Shanning)...Top-billed Peter O'Toole (as Timothy Flyte) is a tabloid reporter who may be able to solve the mystery. Appearing later, Mr. O'Toole's character writes articles about "Bigfoot" and "Elvis" sightings. More important is his series about an "Ancient Enemy" responsible for killing the Mayans, among others..."Phantoms" starts out well and goes downhill. Direction and editing go for a style which does not build much suspense. There are many slow pans, leading to and from close-ups. The special effects are mostly there for the cameras to document, without building tension. There is no intrigue about what is happening. However, you can see how the mysteries may have unraveled skillfully in the original novel, by Dean Koontz. It's likely many involved in this production wished their efforts looked better. Whatever "It" is shows good taste in music by liking Patsy Cline's "I Fall to Pieces".**** Phantoms (1/23/98) Joe Chappelle ~ Ben Affleck, Joanna Going, Peter O'Toole, Rose McGowan