|
Re: Phantasm II (1988)
| | Added by Bill King on 2004-03-21 13:01:38 |
Good review. I liked it more, though I admit it has it flaws. The timeline is all screwed up, like Coscarelli forget when the movie was supposed to take place. (Mike aged five years between films, though a doctor says seven years have passed.)
Phantasm: ****
Phantasm II: **1/2
Phantasm III: **
Phantasm IV: ***
|
|
|
Re: Phantasm II (1988)
| | Added by Gizmola on 2004-03-21 21:04:10 |
These films were very low budget independent movies. The original is one of the classic pop corn low budget horror flicks of it's generation. Criticising gaffs and the lack of high quality special effects tends to miss the point... these movies succeeded in spite of the fact that they had no budget to work with.
|
|
|
Re: Phantasm II (1988)
| | Added by John Ulmer (email, web) on 2004-03-22 05:35:30 |
Yes but they're still quite awful IMHO. I don't see what they succeeded as. Maybe the first film, but the sequels just became tiresome and failed to actually reveal anything.
They're planning on making a fifth installment, too. Argh.
|
|
|
Phantasm 2
| | Added by Ron (email) on 2017-04-18 04:38:18 |
Review sucked. So easy to rag on somebodys elses work sittin on your butt NEVER having done anything of your own. Lets see you make a movie with same budget and we'll see how good you are at it. I'm guessing not very. Then I'll review it and pick out every flaw and tell you how stupid and idiotic everything you did was. Dont hack somebodys work apart untill you've walked a mile in their shoes. I'll file your review away as one of the most ignorant idiotic remarks I've ever read and pull it out when i need a good laugh.
|
|
Add new comment
All comments are owned by their posters.
Please e-mail [email protected] with complaints.
|
