Horror Digital Forum  

Go Back   Horror Digital Forum > All Things Horror > General

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-26-2014, 11:52 PM   #31
Screamy Bopper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 37

4 SsssUuuuCcccKkkSsss

Did I miss something?
4 is Oblivion right? The one where NOTHING happens!?
I think people just want to think they're intellectual-because that shit was unwatchable.

3 was entertaining and the first Phantasm movie I saw-rented it on VHS at a sleepover when I was 12 back in the early 90's.
dentists is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 01:05 AM   #32
MisterTwister's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,627
Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9 View Post
You think for one second the kid and the black military woman were 1/10th as annoying as LeGros and the blonde were boring? Wake up: the actor playing the kid did a great job and the character never went over-the-top nor was given a load of one-liners or anything like that. You clearly need to watch the film again or are merely reacting to the idea that there's a kid in the film. The film may have been using the character to shoehorn in another "Mike-from-the-first-movie" but that does not mean the actor was playing this. He was a lot stronger and more independent than Mike was in the first film, was given a set of skills that set his character apart from his cliched function in the story, and had anything but an annoying screen presence.

Rocky I will admit was not as strong a character, since the movie kept using her as a "Reggie's horniness will get him into trouble" prop. But, again, the movie didn't make the actress play up any stereotypes to make up for a lack of depth. If any claim could be made against her, it's that she's a bit hollow. Which is potentially true for every female character in the franchise (barring the 4th film which I haven't seen). And even then, I still thought Samantha Phillips was decent (and underused) as Alchemy in the 2nd film. (Too bad she wasn't given a meatier role.)

Sorry, Twist, but you have no case here. None. Not against the actors. If you're just reacting to the cliches, it doesn't matter. A film is allowed to contrive anything it wants to. What matters is how it puts its ideas to use and, for what it is and what it's trying to be, Phantasm III has almost no fat on it.

Well, as I hope you can tell from my reaction to the film, I don't think Character Loyalty or that all the same actors returning to play the protagonists is as vital to a film's success in this franchise as you seem to. The problem with 2 I doubt is a missing Baldwin so much as it's just LeGros is terrible in this role. After watching III, LeGros could have nailed that part- not much of the movie rested on Mike's shoulders either way. But he was, of course, at least half the movie in part 2. And, whether all the returning cast were in check or not, Paula Irvine butchered an interesting part and character. The film was coma-inducing enough (which sometimes I counted as a strength- during the sequences when we were supposed to feel something about all the towns being wiped out), it didn't need her feeding it further sedation.
It didn't matter to me if he was a kid or not, the character of Tim was annoying and Rocky was even worse. The "comedy" of III wasn't funny. The movie came across as more of a Three Stooges skit with the characters from Phantasm.

So you can call Phantasm II "coma inducing" but I find it far more watchable than 3.
+6 trader.
MisterTwister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2014, 02:52 AM   #33
Remaking My Soul
DVD-fanatic-9's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Horror
Posts: 3,312
Well, for something to be annoying- it must be overbearing or grating in some way. The characterization of Tim was extremely subdued. Extremely. The actor was not yelling or spouting off one-liners or being precocious or a knowitall. Pretty much the exact same thing with Rocky.

Were you drunk or high or something when you saw this and you imagined a different set of characters? Because, these characters were not annoying. Obviously, it's your call to say they were ineffective and you didn't care about them or didn't want to see them there. But you need actual criteria to characterize them as annoying.

And, yes, I still say the characters in Phantasm II were bores. I don't get why anyone calls it the action-horror sequel because the one thing the film did right is the whole "ghost town" section. The cinematography and camerawork were great but the story and characters were lousy. A lot of fat could have been trimmed by removing the Priest and all that pointless garbage from the flick- that guy was a drain. Only there to up the body count. And since his "story" ties in with the blonde, he robbed her of anything interesting to do either.
DVD-fanatic-9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2014, 04:39 AM   #34
SickNick89's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 496
The order they were released.
Follow me on Letterboxd: http://letterboxd.com/sicknick/

My DVD Collection:
SickNick89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 02:53 AM   #35
Thrash or be Thrashed
thrashard76's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 13,646

Never seen IV
Now Playing Movies: 2015 / 2014 / 2013
Facebook / DVD Aficionado / Last FM / YouTube / Steam
thrashard76 is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright 1999-2015 Horrordvds.com

No text or images from this site may be reprinted or used elsewhere without express consent from Horrordvds.com