| Title | Worst thing you'll see all week: Phantoms |
| Author | Tom Chick |
| Posted in | Movie reviews |
| When | December 4, 2012 |
Phantoms is forty five minutes of made-for-TV-level haunted house horror, and then forty-five minutes of scientificky sci-fi hoo-ha with soldiers and the dog from The Thing, but an adorable golden lab instead of an inscrutable husky..
Read the full articleaffleck was the bomb in phantoms
Watch The Wire, man. You don't owe it to yourself. You owe it to *me*.
I thought it was okay in the first half hour or so where you didn't know what had happened to the town. Spoilers, Tom >=(
But then at the end you get to see O'Toole and Afleck act face to face, a clash of titans rivaled only by DeNiro and Pacino in Heat.
The novel is way better than the movie, which is more of a guilty b-movie pleasure. Not at all saying that's a bad thing.
I'm normally very careful about spoilers, but I feel that Phantoms is fair game for two reasons: 1) it's over ten years old, and 2) it's really really bad.
Word, *&^%$, Phantoms like a &^*^%$#.
It bewilders me that Joe Chapelle can be responsible for The Wire, yet also this movie as well as Halloween (6): The Curse of Michael Myers.
I read that book and thought it was AWESOME. ...but that was in 1983. I was 14. Even then, I thought the second half, post-reveal, got pretty lame. I never bothered with the movie, as it appeared to be as Tom described.
Bah now I want to watch Phantoms again.
affleck was totally the bomb in phantoms, yo