Phantoms

Audience Reviews

View More (657)

thiago s Filme fraco, o roteiro é fraco, as cenas são fracas, a história é fraca, o elenco é fraco, e ninguém ajuda a melhorar o filme, os personagens são fracos, e o filme deveria ter cenas bem melhores e relevantes, para fazer o filme ser bom Rated 0.5/5 Stars •  Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars 10/01/25 Full Review Zom L At first glance, Phantoms sets itself up as an intriguing slice of late-’90s horror. The opening act works surprisingly well — a small Colorado town eerily abandoned, a sense of creeping dread, and a few genuinely unsettling images that hook the viewer right away. The premise, adapted from Dean Koontz’s novel, feels like it’s going to deliver a mix of The Thing and Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Unfortunately, once the story gets rolling, the tension steadily evaporates. The film quickly shifts from eerie atmosphere to muddled exposition and clumsy pacing. Instead of building on its initial mystery, the script drowns itself in pseudoscience and awkward dialogue. The characters, despite being played by a respectable cast (including the legendary Peter O'Toole, Rose McGowan, Joanna Going, Liev Schreiber, and even a young Ben Affleck), never rise above one-dimensional archetypes. Their reactions feel stilted, leaving you more detached than invested. By the time the big reveal arrives — centered around a shape-shifting ancient entity — the execution borders on laughable. The special effects haven’t aged well, and the once-promising suspense gives way to unintentional camp. Where the movie could have leaned into psychological terror, it instead relies on shallow explanations and CGI that strip the menace right out of the monster. In the end, Phantoms is a classic case of wasted potential. A strong, moody opening earns it some credit, but the film completely unravels as it lurches forward, leaving you wishing it had maintained the eerie restraint of its first act. Rated 2.5/5 Stars •  Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars 09/10/25 Full Review Rae S I LOVE the book. The movie.....didn't do it justice. Rated 1.5/5 Stars •  Rated 1.5 out of 5 stars 03/21/25 Full Review Jelisije J A horror movie that immediately starts the plot and let me satisfied with the overall product at the end? How did this film get such a low score? Definitely worth a watch and its definitely a good memorable popcorn flick. Rated 2.5/5 Stars •  Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars 10/29/24 Full Review Korra N A so-bad-it's-good movie with moments of real tension and terror, Dean Koontz's Phantoms has a great story and incredible antagonist, but it's squandered on a rushed plot and a bunch of two-dimensional characters, save for the scene-chewing Liev Schreiber in one of his wildest roles ever. I would still call this a must-see for horror fans, but just know you're in for a weird as hell movie. Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 10/12/24 Full Review C B An enjoyable movie for fans of the genre. The film has a strong cast who all perform well especially Peter O'Toole. Set in idyllic George town, the abandoned environment in the shadow of the mountains adds to the eeriness of the story that is also aided by the score, which is limited but serves it's purpose. The plot is a little thin and does not do as much justice to Dean Koontz original story as i would like, but it seems they did the best they could in under two hours. The CGI is a poor by todays standards, but it does its job which is light so excusable. Over all i really enjoyed this movie and re-watch it often. It is the perfect sort of spooky 90s monster movie for a rainy afternoon or dark cold evening. Yes, it is not a masterpiece and has its flaws but i am honestly surprised by how low its RT rating is. If you are looking for a spooky monster movie set in a deserted town with decent characters and enjoyable acting then i would recommend you give it watch. Rated 4/5 Stars •  Rated 4 out of 5 stars 06/09/24 Full Review Read all reviews

Phantoms

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now