Phantasm

[J.D.]

Dude why do you come here if you don't like bad movies?        They're fun to watch!  I first watched this one about 10 years ago because if I was going to watch a Phantasm movie I was going to start with the first. I never did understand all of it.I think the II and III were most likely the best. This one was just plain cheese. Not the good cheesy 80s cheese! Though I have an idea to run by everyone!       

[Talisman]

This sounds familiar...is there a scene where large claws erupt out of mud puddles and try to grab Our Heroes? If so, I remember seeing it...well, scenes from it, anyway. The bug that got garbage-disposed creeped me out. Freaky.

[The Dungeonmaster]

Maybe you should start watching Hollywood s**t fest and give up pretending to be a B-movie fan.

Hmmm..."Hollywood s**t Fest". Don't think I've heard of that one, but it sounds promising. I'll youtube it and see if it's worth buying.

Good comeback 

Actually, that was a pretty horrible comeback.

Phantasm is 100% classic.

[Menard]

Maybe you should start watching Hollywood s**t fest and give up pretending to be a B-movie fan.

Hmmm..."Hollywood s**t Fest". Don't think I've heard of that one, but it sounds promising. I'll youtube it and see if it's worth buying.

Good comeback 

Actually, that was a pretty horrible comeback.

Phantasm is 100% classic.

Maybe you Phantasm girls should go hang out in the same asylum with the Zardoz nuts.

[Spiff]

Some sympathy to the reviewer, he obviously enjoyed the movie as little as anybody will enjoy reading his review. It really stands out on a website full of largely humourous reviews of bad movies as being completely humourless.
The big question is why you would write a lengthy whine about being unable to understand what was going on while admitting that you fell asleep repeatedly (and also indeirectly that you can't spot a dream sequence in a movie (maybe you're just to used to inserting your own dream sequences)) is beyond me. Regardless of anyone's opinion of the movie, if you're not bright enough to even follow what's going on, probably best not to do a review.

[Menard]

Some sympathy to the reviewer, he obviously enjoyed the movie as little as anybody will enjoy reading his review. It really stands out on a website full of largely humourous reviews of bad movies as being completely humourless.
The big question is why you would write a lengthy whine about being unable to understand what was going on while admitting that you fell asleep repeatedly (and also indeirectly that you can't spot a dream sequence in a movie (maybe you're just to used to inserting your own dream sequences)) is beyond me. Regardless of anyone's opinion of the movie, if you're not bright enough to even follow what's going on, probably best not to do a review.

Quite pointedly, if the movie makers did not do their job well enough to communicate to the viewer, and in this case they failed miserably, then they deserve no better treatment that what they gave.

[Spiff]

Equally pointedly, if you have trouble following a movie that many others do not, then it may not be the movie makers that are at fault. Certainly if you fall asleep during it and have trouble following it, then they're definitely not the ones to blame.
Above all, if you need a shot of somebody sitting bolt upright in bed, sweating to be able to spot what was very obviously a nightmare dream sequence, then perhaps you should just accept that the problem is with you.
I had no trouble following what was going on in this movie. You might well argue that it was ridiculous and badly acted (like a good many of the movies reviewed here) but hard to follow, I don't think you can make a case for.
Look:
Alien (possibly extra-dimensional) with shapeshifting powers uses an undertaker persona to steal corpses so he can reanimate them and use them as slaves on his home wrold (dimension). Local kid finds out and investigates. Whacky shenanigan ensue (fingers that turn into giant flies, flying killer spheres etc.)
Are you seriously saying that was hard to follow?

[Menard]

Equally pointedly, if you have trouble following a movie that many others do not, then it may not be the movie makers that are at fault. Certainly if you fall asleep during it and have trouble following it, then they're definitely not the ones to blame.
Above all, if you need a shot of somebody sitting bolt upright in bed, sweating to be able to spot what was very obviously a nightmare dream sequence, then perhaps you should just accept that the problem is with you.
I had no trouble following what was going on in this movie. You might well argue that it was ridiculous and badly acted (like a good many of the movies reviewed here) but hard to follow, I don't think you can make a case for.
Look:
Alien (possibly extra-dimensional) with shapeshifting powers uses an undertaker persona to steal corpses so he can reanimate them and use them as slaves on his home wrold (dimension). Local kid finds out and investigates. Whacky shenanigan ensue (fingers that turn into giant flies, flying killer spheres etc.)
Are you seriously saying that was hard to follow?

No, more dramatically obtuse.

The split of like/dislike for this film seems to be about 50/50, perhaps with the dislikes edging out the majority just a little. Even those who like this film have admitted that it was hard to follow.

If you read what you want to into a film, that makes it better for you, but don't push that same viewpoint off onto someone else as an excuse to make up for the film's general incompetence.

[Spiff]

I'm not pushing my viewpoint onto anybody else. The outline of the plot that I gave is in fact the plot outline.
My post is neither dramatic or obtuse (I would suggest you actually look those words up).
My original post was mostly making the (correct) points that
a) the review was poor - it was unfunny and dull to read and basically belongs with all the other 'worst movie ever' rants on IMDB rather than on a site of humourous reviews of bad movies.
b) that if you admit that you have fallen asleep during a movie, you have lost all credibility in claiming that there was something wrong with the movie because you couldn't follow it.

However, since we seem to have wandered off that point, in light of you last comment, perhaps you'd like to explain to me how the outline of the plot that I gave is incorrect. At the very least enlighten me with the parts of the movie that you had trouble following.

[Menard]

I'm not pushing my viewpoint onto anybody else. The outline of the plot that I gave is in fact the plot outline.
My post is neither dramatic or obtuse (I would suggest you actually look those words up).
My original post was mostly making the (correct) points that
a) the review was poor - it was unfunny and dull to read and basically belongs with all the other 'worst movie ever' rants on IMDB rather than on a site of humourous reviews of bad movies.
b) that if you admit that you have fallen asleep during a movie, you have lost all credibility in claiming that there was something wrong with the movie because you couldn't follow it.

However, since we seem to have wandered off that point, in light of you last comment, perhaps you'd like to explain to me how the outline of the plot that I gave is incorrect. At the very least enlighten me with the parts of the movie that you had trouble following.

Bulls**t!

Since someone has seen this film (really stretching to call it that) in a different light than you, that somehow bothers you.

Someone falling asleep during a movie might suggest the damn movie was boring.

It might even suggest that it was a bad movie, period. Of course, not if it is contrary to your viewpoint; then it must be a bad review if the reviewer disagrees with you.


The primary context of the review is that a flurry of witless twits have said 'hey dude, like this movie rocks'. The reviewer discovered otherwise. Where do you have a problem following that?

[KYGOTC]

Some sympathy to the reviewer, he obviously enjoyed the movie as little as anybody will enjoy reading his review. It really stands out on a website full of largely humourous reviews of bad movies as being completely humourless.
The big question is why you would write a lengthy whine about being unable to understand what was going on while admitting that you fell asleep repeatedly (and also indeirectly that you can't spot a dream sequence in a movie (maybe you're just to used to inserting your own dream sequences)) is beyond me. Regardless of anyone's opinion of the movie, if you're not bright enough to even follow what's going on, probably best not to do a review.

OOOOO I just LOVE all the possitive reception I'm getting! you get karma.

[cannibalholocaust]

Your comebacks are worse then your taste in film. If you had a hard time following Phantasm and since Cannibal Holocaust is s*** in your eyes then I would suggest something along the lines of the next hyped up Spielberg movie. I could personally give a flying f*** what you watch or like just as long as you actually watch the film your reviewing. Falling asleep during a film doesn't sound like you watched it. As far as the Cannibal Holocaust statement I'm not even going to go there. You couldn't get through that one without "falling asleep" is my guess.

[KYGOTC]

Your comebacks are worse then your taste in film. If you had a hard time following Phantasm and since Cannibal Holocaust is s*** in your eyes then I would suggest something along the lines of the next hyped up Spielberg movie. I could personally give a flying f*** what you watch or like just as long as you actually watch the film your reviewing. Falling asleep during a film doesn't sound like you watched it. As far as the Cannibal Holocaust statement I'm not even going to go there. You couldn't get through that one without "falling asleep" is my guess.

I'm slightly confused. Are you talking to me or Menard? Because I didn't say anything about Cannibal Holocaust, that was Menard's deal. But I DID fall asleep the FIRST time I watched Phantasm, so that makes me think you're talking to me. CONFUSION!!



On a seperate note, I like that the majority of the responses in this thread are negative. It makes them more interesting to read. I like it when peoples opinions differ from mine on topics of entertainment (movies, books, music, video games, ect.) It lets me 2 points of view on the film.

[Andrew]

I wondered if this review would inspire some anger.  The thing to remember is that someone's opinion of a film can never be wrong.  If you liked it, but they hated it, both of you are right.  The film just worked for you, but not for them.  Should a movie put someone to sleep, that also possibly reflects on how the film entertained them.

To me, the first "Phantasm" is a good attempt to film a nightmare.  Parts of it make sense, parts of it do not, there are weird occurrences and changing facts.  One minute, the young protagonist's brother is one character, then suddenly it changes to another.  It all reminds me of those  nightmares that wake you.  Sometimes you even get some rational ability while having them and recognize that reality is changing under your mental feet as you experience the late night terrors.  And, like the killer jawas, things you have seen in films or read in books intrude into the nightmare.

I would probably only give it two slimes in my book, but it does strike me as a good attempt to recreate a nightmare.

[KYGOTC]

  And, like the killer jawas, things you have seen in films or read in books intrude into the nightmare.

That is a very good point. I have had a bad dream involving Saved By the Bell, one involving Godzilla, and another involving  spoungebob and Willy Wonka. And since this movie is from the late 70's, the Jawa theory makes good sense.