How is this MASTERPIECE rated only 6.5???

Maybe because it's not a masterpiece. It's a pretty crappy movie and should be rated about a 3.

It's almost a 7 right now which is about right.

[deleted]

I gave it a 7. Not nearly as good as the first film, but still an okay movie.

Im watching it for the first time tonight. Im more than accustomed to 80s B-Horror movies. The first 3 1/4 really drags, inconsequential story telling. A road trip movie with no humour. Barely anything in the first half effects the 2nd half apart from the guy meeting a girl, because he dreamed of a girl in danger and having a connection with her, other than that nothing happened.

It takes 55 minutes to get going. Then it pauses again and again for the whole runtime.

Felt like a 4 hour film.

I heard from a podcast it was like the original but on 80s steroids.

More like sleeping tablets. And the score is a poor imitation of the original.

EDIT: Okay, the last 30 minutes really picks up. But I had to suffer over an hour for 30 minutes of really, really good stuff. Not worth enduring the first hour. Anyone new heed my advice, just skip to the end where the balls appear. It does get badass after that.

I wish there was a 0.5 rating on imdb so i could give it a 5.5, where I didnt hate it overall. Id give it a 5 "ok but meh" but have to give it a 6 because I really enjoyed the last 30 mins. Usually when I vote 6 I enjoyed, would probably watch it again in future, reliving a film worth watching again. But id never watch this again. Ive mined everything from this one so im conflicted over the 6 rating.

I love Phantasm II but I wouldn't rate it higher than 7.5. And I'd karate chop the throat of any dickbag who claims it's superior to the original 1979 movie.