Phantasm

* My favorite IMDB user reviews about Phantasm:

A Creepy Little Dream... Or Is It? - 19 April 2011
Every decade or so, the horror genre gets re-defined by an iconic movie. In the 30s, it was Universal with their classics. In the 50s, it was giant animals and atomic-age monsters. In 1960, it was PSYCHO. In 1968, it was NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. in the 70s, audiences witnessed the rise of wild and unhinged directors with equally unhinged movies: "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", HALLOWEEN, DAWN OF THE DEAD, SUSPIRIA and ZOMBIE all terrorized audiences in their own ways. Near the end of the 70s, along came this little movie made on a shoestring budget about two brothers dealing with a mysterious mortuary. At the very beginning of the movie, we're given what appears to be a gratuitous sex scene. But at the end of it, we realize something more sinister is going on. From that point on, anything could happen, and a lot does. The plot makes virtually no sense (as other critics have noted) and that's kind of the point. Just look at the title: PHANTASM means "dream" or "nightmare." And the best way to view this movie is through the logic of a nightmare. Sure it makes sense while you're asleep. But upon waking up, it seems absurd. The appearance of the Tall Man is a truly unsettling moment, as are numerous others. The most famous of which involves a flying silver ball. Imagination brims all over the place, which is one of the benefits of a small independent production: It dares to risk trying new things. Watch this movie and be prepared for a thrill ride through a nightmare world!

the most proudly incomprehensible film ever made - 13 March 2000
this movie takes the prize for boldly spitting in the face of such old standbys as plot, structure, character development, narrative arc, tone, reason, common sense, temporal cohesiveness, and logic more effectively and with more glee than any other film ever made. the story elements (namely, a funeral home, a tall man, a silver ball with a drill on it, a killer housefly, a musclecar, an ice cream man, killer jawas, and a tuning fork) are not really combined so much as stuffed into 88 minutes, and the scariest thing about the movie is that this stream-of-consciousness approach to horror filmmaking actually works. a creepy location, some genuinely startling imagery (the funeral home interior shots are downright kubrickian), and a lack of any exposition/explanation keep you wondering what in god's name is going on until the last frame. hats off to writer/director don coscarelli for pulling it off -- it's a great time.

Nightmarish dream logic and some powerful, gruesome images make it better than it should be - 26 June 2005
This seems to be a case in which the relative paucity of the budget worked for the film instead of against it. The director was forced to keep things pretty lean and focused instead of indulging in a lot of fancy flourishes and details, so he didn't waste any screen time or film with stuff that wouldn't help tell his story.

Admittedly, the plot is so thin, and the room the budget leaves the director to work is so spare, that often the movie drags, or simply wastes air time. The body count and SFX occurrences are spread quite thin, as horror movies go, in fact...I remember maybe five deaths and a maximum of three-to-four minutes of actual special effects.

But what the movie DOES have going for it is: atmosphere. Almost from the beginning, "Phantasm" does a great job of instilling dread and anxiety into the viewer. The setting of the plot, a small, isolated town, with weird goings on at the local mortuary, is guaranteed to unsettle even the most matter-of-fact, unimaginative viewer after a while. And because the plot and crisis events are so thin, when something awful DOES happen on screen, there is very little to muffle or diminish the impact of what you just saw as the movie goes on.

Years after I first saw "Phantasm" as a young man, four major images still stuck with me: the "Tall Man" leering at the camera, oozing menace from every pore; the Sphere burrowing into the henchman's forehead and spewing his brains out the back; the dismembered finger leaking yellow fluid all over and turning into an insect; and the hellish vision of the alternate dimension beyond the twin pillars which the hero sees before his friend manages to yank him back.

That's pretty good shooting for a low budget film from the 70s. If I were the director, I would be proud to be known for this movie.

Not for the faint of heart or the squeamish, and not for the SFX junkies who cut their teeth and had their expectations molded by multi-million dollar extravaganzas like the Dark Castle remakes ("13 Ghosts", "Ghost Ship" "THe House On Haunted Hill". etc). If you have some patience, and can accept the movie on its own terms, "Phantasm" will make you squirm.

A masterpiece of the creepy and bizarre - 2 June 2008
Towards the end of the 1970s horror was in an interesting trend. A lot of genre films featured a supernatural angle. Films like 'Carrie' and 'Suspiria' took viewers into a world where power was the ultimate dark force. Another one of the best examples of this is Don Coscarelli's 'Phantasm,' a low budget late 70s horror/fantasy film that's impossible to forget once you've seen it. It's one of those films that plays with your imagination rather than shows you blood, guts, and big ugly monsters. It's like one big, long, surreal and terrifying nightmare.

Pros: A fairly original concept. Good performances from a very likable cast. A somewhat dated, but still very effectively eerie musical score. Some really nightmarish images. The Tall Man is one of the creepiest villains ever thought up. Predictable this film is not. The film has a really sinister feel about it, especially in the night scenes. Well-paced. A great set-up for number 2.

Cons: Doesn't make a lot of sense. One really cheap effect involving a monster fly.

Final thoughts: Your brain may hurt a little after watching this strange film, but in this case that's not really a bad thing. It's nice to see some filmmakers try new and interesting things in the genre instead of just churning out the same crap a lot of others are doing. Watch this one alone with the lights off and see if you can sleep afterwards.

30 years later and still rockin' - 6 January 2009
OK, I saw this movie in 1979. I was 13 at the time, just like Mike in the movie. Well, I liked it a lot. I found it superb, flawless, scary, and I could go on and on. But I was 13 years old.

I never saw "Phantasm" again, not even a segment on TV, never. Today, 30 years later, I watched it again with my wife. Scared? Sure I was scared. Scared to discover that the perfect movie that I still remembered from my skate and moped days was - in reality - a very mediocre film, with low budget, bad acting and embarrassing special effects.

I was wrong. Definitely wrong. I liked it again, and this time I appreciated things that I couldn't notice when I first saw it, like the ingenious use of light, cut scenes and flashbacks (or forward?). The acting is not superb, but it doesn't matter. Effects are a little too-low budget, but again it doesn't matter. What's really important is the atmosphere that Coscarelli creates, full of dark forebodings yet very normal. Fantastic. It was a pleasure to hear the first notes of its "Carpenterish" score, and to see the Tall Man again. As the movie went on, I remembered every scene, it was just like tasting a cake little by little.

They don't make movies like this anymore. My advice? Highly recommended!!!

Crazy drug-addict B-shlock horror classic mania. - 25 October 2008
This is a much-revered horror classic, and it's easy to see why. It's supernatural, it's edgy and it's also very dark and grainy, both in picture quality and mood! What they don't tell you is how this movie basically comes off as a long, elaborate crack fantasy, filled with bright lights, magic and...well, yellow mustard blood. But it is pretty creepy at times, with decent performances from all the actors for their respective genre and some very good atmospheric moments, like pretty much every time you see the Tall Man.

And speaking of Angus Scrimm, he is damned creepy here. Seriously, you would be running and screaming too if you saw this guy running after you. That's right, running. He puts the typical laughable horror stereotype of walking serial killers catching their sprinting victims down with ease. Great performance.

Phantasm doesn't make much sense, and it is pretty thin at times in terms of plot, but it is a fun watch, and essential if you're a B-horror fan. Get this one this Halloween, and make sure to keep the lights on...

Whoa - 20 November 2007
"You play a good game, boy...but the game is finished. Now you die!" Sports the #2 scariest ending ever. Terrible acting, an original story, great lines, superb music, and some really messed up other stuff like evil dwarfs, an insanely tall mortician, a flying metal ball that performs lobotomies, and a huge fly make this an 8/10 for me.

Sometimes I find myself laughing (mainly at the lead's acting and its dated look), and sometimes I find myself genuinely creeped out. It's also totally original and inventive. Loved it. I wish there were more movies like this.

Recommended. :)

* My favorite trivia about Phantasm:

* The film was originally rated X by the MPAA (on four different occasions) because of the silver sphere sequence involving a man urinating on the floor after falling down dead. After Los Angeles Times film critic Charles Champlin made a telephone call in a favor to a friend on the board, the rating was changed from the (commercially non-viable) X-rating to R. Champlin's positive review was quoted on the film's promotional posters.

* Don Coscarelli rented all of the filming equipment used to make this movie, always on Fridays so he could use it all weekend and return it on Mondays, all the while only actually having to pay one day's rental on the equipment.

* The iconic bed nightmare sequence was number 25 on the cable channel Bravo's list of the "100 Scariest Movie Moments".

* The mansion used for the exterior shots of the mausoleum was also seen in the James Bond film A View to a Kill and also the 1976 horror film Burnt Offerings.

* The dwarves were played by children.

* The "ball" scenes were simple special effects. The sphere was being guided around a corner by a fishing line. The sphere was thrown from behind the camera by a baseball pitcher and then the shot was printed in reverse. The ball attaching itself to the man's head was filmed by sticking it on his head, then pulling it off, and printing the shot in reverse.

* The genesis of the story came to Don Coscarelli in a dream. One night, being in his late teens, he dreamed of fleeing down endlessly long marble corridors, pursued by a chrome sphere intent on penetrating his skull with a wicked needle. There was also a quite futuristic "sphere dispenser" out of which the orbs would emerge and begin chase.

* Don Coscarelli got the idea of The Tall Man's living severed finger while drinking from a styrofoam cup. He punched his finger through the bottom and started moving it. He loved the visual effect of it and decided to include it in the story.

* Although being very tall, standing at 6 feet 4 inches, Angus Scrimm wore suits several sizes smaller and boots with lifts inside that added 3 inches to his height.

* Co-Producer Paul Pepperman approached Angus Scrimm at a sneak preview of Kenny & Company and told him that Don Coscarelli had written a role for him in his next production. When informed that he would be playing an alien, Scrimm became very excited and immediately asked to know what country his character would hail from. Pepperman said: "He's not from another country, he's from another world."

* There are several references to Frank Herbert's Dune, including a bar named "Dune" and a scene where Mike is forced to insert his hand into a black box that inflicts pain as part of a test.

* The title was changed to "The Never Dead" for Australian audiences as not to confuse it with the popular Aussie sex comedy World of Sexual Fantasy, which was also known as Fantasma.