vitaman2007
Sentinel Sphere
"Be de be de be de...f#@ you Buck!"
Posts: 698
|
Post by vitaman2007 on Jul 6, 2011 10:10:42 GMT -5
Missed it as well. Neat.
I also agree with the isolated towny thing.
Imagine today, a couple of brothers and a close friend/neighbor trying to figure out something for themselves without dialing 911.
|
|
|
Post by lupus on Sept 2, 2011 11:27:32 GMT -5
Eheh, I know nobody has posted in this thread recently, but...
I agree that the first Phantasm film works better as an isolated story. Always, in my opinion, horror stories work better that way.
There is a real sense of being alone in the first film, that Mike is facing it all himself, after all, it's only halfway through that he convinces Reggie and Jody that there's something strange about the Tall Man, and that was through his experience anyway(by showing the Tall Man's severed - and living - finger to Jody).
In another way, it's a child's nightmare and fears brought to life - from the creepy old man in the suit, to the idea that beloved family members are dying but heading to a worse fate. Even the Lurkers and Sphere are the sort of things you'd get in a nightmare as a kid - slightly ridiculous and yet scary.
|
|
|
Post by gopher in heat on Sept 2, 2011 16:43:59 GMT -5
Welcome to the boards, Lupus!
I couldn't agree more. I love the absolute sense of loneliness in the first film--something that isn't captured again until P4. It works better in P1 for me , however, since Mike was a child living in a normal world as opposed to an adult going through a transformation in a very unreal world.
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Sept 3, 2011 3:58:45 GMT -5
As I get older, when I start to think about alot of the great franchises of the past (horror and otherwise), I've begun to think that maybe less is actually more--that these stories maybe would've been better is they didn't have all of those sequels to begin with.
Take "A Nightmare on Elm Street" for example. I like the first three very much. The first one was groundbreaking and brilliant. The second was ballsy for its time. And the third was what could've been the best way to end the series, and a superb flick in its own right. As for the rest...while they were entertaining, I could really do without them if push came to shove, story-wise. Hell--you could even leave out part two...and the original plus Dream Warriors would've been all we really needed for a great couple of flicks.
IMO, Halloween and F13 also could've been summed up with the first two as well. In both franchises, the third installment was still great fun...but I think that the overall stories would've been stronger without all of the nonsense that came with all of those sequels.
When it comes to Phantasm, I've only seen the first one all the way through. And, it's literally brilliant. Consequently....it's all I feel I need.
|
|
|
Post by prymal on Sept 3, 2011 14:22:16 GMT -5
I like the attitude Tanner. I myself like sequels (when they are well done & yes i realize most are not) but i would agree most seem to degrade into something so far away from the original it is hard to see the point. I try to respect the fact that my 'hated trash movie/sequel' may be someone's 'Phantasm'. I simply take what i like and ignore any sequel i deem disappointing. Take the last Indian Jones, i didn't think it was great, but i really liked that Indy was back! Some people around me just despised it and trashed it so my suggestion was yours-"Simply turn 'em off at #3 if that was enough for you". Here is a great example: M. Night Shyalaman's "The Village", number 1 at the box office for who knows how many weeks, everyone around me loved it, It was one of the few movies i seriously considered walking out of, i can not stand that movie. Because most of the people i have ever talked to about this movie loved it, i have to conclude it must be that it is not a bad movie, it's just not my taste.
|
|
|
Post by scubasteve on Sept 4, 2011 13:54:17 GMT -5
For me I really like he way that the films have to be physically made, it makes a director and his/her team be more ingenious and unique. I like seeing stunts actually being done, make up and special effects being solid and real. That's one of the many things I like about the Phantasm series as a whole. I don't think I've seen anything more disgusting than Tally face melting off or well, anything Shohstrom did on the movies.
The new Indy film annoyed me because it moved away from one aspect of movie making they did so well. Real, breath taking, death defying stunts and replaced it with too much CGI and swinging about in trees with monkeys. M. Night Shyalaman's movie's I just find a bit predicatable.
What gripped me about the first movie was it's simplicity and small town feeling. It really gave you a sense of this could happen to anyone. Especially you! And the only thing which will save you are your friends and a load of firepower. Great! No superheroes, just average people standing in for the good guys.
|
|
|
Post by prymal on Sept 4, 2011 16:06:36 GMT -5
Again, i agree Steve. I do think that the inginuity of Don and crew is what made the Philms. I just don't know if Phantasm would be such a hit if it had an unlimited budget and mainstream hollywood behind. I think perhaps because Don and his incredible team were so alone in how they came up with the money, learning to film, and all put so much into these philms personally, that it somehow just reflected into that 'lonely' feeling that Phantasm reflects so well. P2 was my first experience and i was 15 years old, i was like, wow, this could be me in this situation!
|
|
vitaman2007
Sentinel Sphere
"Be de be de be de...f#@ you Buck!"
Posts: 698
|
Post by vitaman2007 on Sept 5, 2011 14:01:00 GMT -5
...The new Indy film annoyed me because it moved away from one aspect of movie making they did so well... I was channel surfing last night and this was on "regular" t.v.. You're right. Just plain horrible. Couldn't watch it.
|
|
|
Post by lupus on Sept 5, 2011 15:28:14 GMT -5
...The new Indy film annoyed me because it moved away from one aspect of movie making they did so well... I was channel surfing last night and this was on "regular" t.v.. You're right. Just plain horrible. Couldn't watch it. Couldn't agree more. Spielberg should have stuck to his original resolution to not make any more Indiana Jones films.
|
|
|
Post by thetallwoman on Nov 10, 2011 20:59:35 GMT -5
I agree with Gopher. For me the tug of the first film was the relationship between the brothers and the story of a family (and, especially, a younger child) trying to make sense of death. I think the isolated world helps us focus on what's important to the story -- the relationship. Don talked in the P1 commentary about how that film was about "the American way of death" -- all the funeral and embalming rituals which are, when we face it, a little odd.
To me, P2 and P3 were too focused on flame throwers and car explosions. I find that these movies are less horror films and more action-adventure movies. The Tall Man's menace becomes a mile wide, but an inch deep.
Besides, there are certain continuity problems that arise if the Tall Man is enslaving the entire world. I mean, at some point, wouldn't the Marines, or the National Guard or the Oregon State Police or *someone* figure out what was going on and (as Reggie might say) "snag that tall dude and stomp the s**t out of him"?
|
|
|
Post by gopher in heat on Nov 12, 2011 22:01:19 GMT -5
Agreed. It takes away a bit of the scariness when it seems as though the Tall Man is a worldwide threat. It also undermines a lot about what made the first film so intriguing... namely the focus on a close, intimate relationship between two brothers who may or may not have been experiencing a sinister threat in their own backyard.
|
|
|
Post by deepred on Mar 20, 2013 14:01:14 GMT -5
. To me, P2 and P3 were too focused on flame throwers and car explosions. I find that these movies are less horror films and more action-adventure movies. The Tall Man's menace becomes a mile wide, but an inch deep. Agreed, 3 and 4 do not hold up as well on repeated viewings. They have great visuals but feel kinda empty as they really weren't bringing too much new to the table. And one new thing that was brought (the spheres being brains), I didn't really care for. On repeated viewings, P2 feels very choppy and undercooked - kinda like a collection of cool scenes with little in the way of character. I would have loved to seen Michael Baldwin in it and for it to have a more mysterious and dreamy vibe.
|
|
sharpsphere
Drilled
The Undead Walks The Earth
Posts: 43
|
Post by sharpsphere on Mar 24, 2013 8:33:11 GMT -5
Hello Gopher it's so good to see you here dude! Honestly, I'm home sick and love that home feeling that you are talking about, I think it should be remote to the small town sorta thing, that's what made The Thing the remake so special, I think that's the only Remake l love because it's done so much like the original a remote testing facility, on the other hand PHANTASM is an awfully tough subject regarding this because fans are either going to love it based on this or hate it, I'm like you I'd love it either way, but how could the home town story be implemented? I think a very cool story plot to bring it back home where it belongs is strangely he acquired properties belonging to that town, putting up stores, homes etc, for dirt cheap prices dispersing adds in the papers and opening up a real estate company using ghouls in suits, solely to bring new comers to the area, so the Take over the world theory would still be an eliment as well as the home town feel, what you think?
|
|