This movie is just plain bad


As someone who lists the original among the greatest horror movies ever, it stumps me how any fan of the original can like this movie.

I can understand how people like PII. It's a balls out horror movie, in the vein of Aliens. I like some of the imagery but to me it lacks the surreal dreamlike quality of the first.

I get why people like Oblivion. It was nostalgic and a honest attempt to get the series back on track.


But I will never understand how anyone can like this movie. The acting is horrible, the story is non-existent, and while your happy to see the originals return, they are only together for the last 30 minutes of the movie.

This movie is horrible. Period.

reply

I'm going to disagree. Phantasm 3 is the landmark sequel that got the original cast back together and the series back finally into the hands of Coscarelli from Universal (even though they distributed it, they didn't make it). Phantasm 3 has the best sphere effects and probably the best atmosphere and camerawork. The story isn't great, but otherwise it answers some questions and moves the story along. At least it's not a rehash of old, unused footage spliced together with some scenes of Mike roaming around in the desert like Oblivion turned out to be!

reply

I'll respectfully disagree from obviously one phan to another.

Yes I concede that PIII had some wonderful sphere effects, some great gore, and had some great camera work. The problem with the movie is the acting and the story. There isn't much point to reuniting the cast if they are going to phone their performances in.
It also fell into the same trap that Evil Dead did on it's third sequel. After the first which was a classic, they took the action/comedy route in the second. On the third it just became one slapstick scene after another.

reply

I will respectfully disagree with you in the sense that I love how Reggie was pretty much the hero of III. I wish more had been done with Rocky...and I love the details of the spheres. It is not quite as good as I or II but it has a lot of surreal humor and a dreamlike quality that more or less matches the others. I still got to see part IV and definitely Ravager when it comes out.

Jerry at the Movies
http://jerrysaravia.blogspot.com/

reply

Effects won't make a good movie. In this case, the effects were actually quite crappy when you think it was made in 1994. Terminator 2 was made in 1991 just for comparison.

reply

In this case, the effects were actually quite crappy when you think it was made in 1994. Terminator 2 was made in 1991 just for comparison.


Terminator 2 cost $102 million and I believe at the time of release it was the most expensive movie ever made. Phantasm III cost $2.5 million. Just for comparison.

If it does not scary you know movie will- IMDB user

reply

Yeah I really can't enjoy the 3rd that much. I watch it from time to time when I get a little bit Phantasm crazy but it is definitely the worst of the series. It sticks out like a soar thumb. I actually like 1 and 2, and 4 but this one is just a little bit different for me.

One of my complaints which hurts the movie in a big way IMO, is his henchmen. In the first and second his main henchmen were the dwarfs and the gravers, they are totally absent in part 3. Instead we get these 3 stooge zombies along with a kid and some kung fu black bitch helping Reggie. It's totally absurd. I'm so glad they were absent from the 4th, and I'm glad that stupid kid DIED.

I'm pretty sure the dwarfs were only at the beginning of this movie.

reply



I'm pretty sure the dwarfs were only at the beginning of this movie. In the first and second his main henchmen were the dwarfs and the gravers, they are totally absent in part 3. Instead we get these 3 stooge zombies



That was part of the problem I had with this one as well. It just seemed like the whole movie was directed by a fan of Army of Darkness and not Coscarelli.


Why the zombies? Dwarfs could have set up every scene that the zombie characters were in, and probably in a creepier way.

reply

Agreed. The series really got derailed here. Zombies, seriously? Jody the flying ballsack. Reg hard-cracking on Rocky Snipes. 

reply

I disagree at several levels.
Although Pahatasm 2 was a decent movie, phans were upset that Michael Bladwin was replaced with James Le Gros. Phantasm 3 returned Mike and he remained for the rest of the series, so I think that #2 kind of "sticks out.
I believe that Don was attempting to recapture the energy that Mike originally brought to the movie as a 12/13 yo boy going up against the tall man. Kevin Connors recaptured that and proved a formidable "avenger" against the adversaries. Agreed; the "looters" were rater bafoonish but they started out as humans and were converted by the tall man to attempt to avenge Reggie and the boy. Obviously they were only effective as looters, not as avengers of anything.
The car jump scene with the pink hearse was one of the BEST car jump stunts in history and it was a PRACTICAL stunt, no CGI or effects. Bob Ivy made stuntman history with this, nearly insane, stunt. But it WORKED and made history.
I DID not a bit more humor to this movie. Many horror writers feel that injecting a bit of humor to break the tension is a good thing. Obviously some disagree. Actually I thought that the boy guarding his house against various intruders, borrowed a bit on "home Alone"
but with a much more serious twist. I really enjoyed seeing (once again) a boy standing up to the tall man and his various threats. Unlike yourself. I didnt want to see him die.
He saved Reggie and others more than once. Its hard to downplay his role and importance to the movie.
The "rebirth" of the Barracuda in 3 was also a key component to keeping the movie in the context of the original. The car was a character in itself.
You will also see certain scenes that somewhat "mirrored" scenes from the first one. Iit was an attempt to recreate some of the elements that made the first one special
Phantasm took different twists and turns in each movie. I actually think that Ravager may have been a bigger disappointment to many.
Did it ever really explain or sum things up?

reply

For a long time, I used to think that Phantasm III was the worst of the bunch (mainly, due to its over-the-top sense of humour) and I ranked Phantasm IV: Oblivion higher in my podium.

Nevertheless, when a fifth installment was announced to be in the works (and subsequently scrapped once again) I finally came to the conclusion that Phantasm IV: Oblivion didn't really meet my expectations at all and left me wanting more... WAY MORE.

Overall, I believe that Phantasm IV: Oblivion, although being a very good movie in its own way, fails to close the saga effectively and turns out to be very dissapointing in general terms.

I think it's time for phans to stop attacking Phantasm III and start to appreciate it for what it is: a fun ride filled with lots of action, thrills, weird characters and situations and plenty of sense of wonder and pulp fiction.

It may not be the best of the saga, and it may not even be your standard "good movie", but I think that calling it "plain bad" and be surprised that many people actually like it is going a bit too far.

Think about it.


"I'm a lucky man. Nothing has ever been easy to me in life" Sigmund Freud.

reply


PIII almost killed the credibility of the series, and nearly brought it to the level of the Chucky movies. Lets be honest here. It was just a bad movie.

Phantasm was a all out assault on the psyche and even if you hated it, the movie made an impression in your psyche. While PII was more of an action film it kept enough elements of the first one to keep us fans of the original entertained. PIII was a disaster though because Coscarelli thought he knew how to be funny intentionally. He can't. It's only the unintentional *beep* like fingers that turn into giant flies for instance that we find hysterical. I just don't find zombies ,or Reggie trying to mack on Rocky every five seconds very funny

reply

Well, in fact, I'm already being fully honest and I DO think that Phantasm III it's not such a bad movie simply because you didn't like it.

By the way, your comparison with the Chucky movies is totally out of place, as "Bride of Chucky" was intended ever since it was conceived as a self-parodic, post-modern relaunch of the Child's Play movies, in a totally different goofy tone in order to set a distance with its predecessors. You may not like them either, but Bride of Chucky (and Seed of Chucky) don't have anything to do with Phantasm III. Sorry, but it's a completely different ball game, pal.

As I said before, Phantasm III it's not the best of the saga, but it's far for being rubbish and way better than other third parts of horror series such as "Leprechaun 3", "Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest", "Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III", "Poltergeist III", "Friday the 13th Part III" "Critters 3"... etc. (The list can go on indefinately...)

I don't know, maybe you're taking the Phantasm movies TOO seriously and forgetting what they truly are after all: pulp fiction.


"I'm a lucky man. Nothing has ever been easy to me in life" Sigmund Freud.

reply

as for the Chucky series goes....

I respected Bride of Chucky for trying to be completely different, and it was completely different. I quite enjoyed Bride of Chucky, but then Seed of Chucky is totally different story, and that completely ruined it for me. I will never forget that.

reply

There are few if any "phans" or non fans that like this movie. The only people who go out of their way to defend it are those who think any thing Coscarelli does is genius. It's a horrible movie, made by someone who obviously ran out of ideas.

All the movies you mentioned ("Leprechaun 3", "Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest", "Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III", "Poltergeist III", "Friday the 13th Part III" "Critters 3") are essentially on the same level of PIII - pure junk that doesnt qualify as pulp fiction.

reply

Well... let me start telling you that by no means I consider that anything Coscarelli does is genius. If that was true, he wouldn't have directed "Phantasm IV: Oblivion".

Do you actually REALLY think that PIII is essentially pure junk on the same level as movies like "Leprechaun 3", "Poltergeist 3" and "Friday the 13th Part III"??? Come on, you gotta be kidding. I refuse to believe you're so narrow-minded... By the way, I NEVER said those movies were pulp fiction at all... I was refering to the Phantasm saga as a whole!

So... you say that "There are few if any "phans" or non fans that like this movie". All right. Let's pretend for a second that it's true... ok?

Now... how the heck do you explain that Phantasm III has an average of 5,6 in imdb, actually beating the 5,3 rating of Phantasm IV? According to the vote statistics of Phantasm III:

241 people gave it a 10 (26 people more than Phantasm IV)

87 people gave it a 9 (27 people mora than Phantasm IV)

172 people gave it a 8 (20 people more than Phantasm IV)

333 people gave it a 7 (100 people more than Phantasm IV)

364 people gave it a 6 (127 people more than Phantasm IV)


And finally...

314 people gave it a 5 (50 people more than Phantasm IV)

That makes a total of 1.511 people who DON'T share your opinion. Can you please give me a reasonable explanation of that, if, according to you, "there are few if any "phans" or non fans that like this movie"?


"I'm a lucky man. Nothing has ever been easy to me in life" Sigmund Freud.

reply

That's cast and crew and their families who gave this turd a 10. This movie is pure junk in so many levels.

reply

I must beg to differ on Children of the Corn 3: Urban Harvest - it was by far better than part 2. Hell, it was the best of all of the sequels!!

reply

COTC III does have one of the worst endings in film history though. I do disagree with anyone saying Friday the a3th part 3 is crap though. I think its one of the best films in the series.

Judas Priest Cult #2
let the mass begin....
Your wife died from cyanide in the scotch

reply

Correction on my part, the gravers were not in the first but the dwarves were and they kicked ass in the first and second. The second offered more action than the first and introduced the gravers and they were a nice touch to the movie (the chainsaw scene is great.) I remember the graver's and the dwarves had only bit parts in the 3rd, i can deal with the graver's being left out but how can you leave the dwarves out???

And yes like blackknight said all of the scenes with the zombie stooge henchmen could have been replaces with dwarfs and gravers. The gravers could have been driving a hearse to chase down Reggie and Mike, and the dwarfs could and graver's could be the ones fighting everyone inside the mausoleum, Instead for all of these scenes we get a group of 3 stooges driving a pink hearse and that's who we get as villains for our heroes to fight off. This movie could have been an equal to part 2 or even surpassing it, but it didn't.

Notice how the opening scene is probably the best scene in the whole movie, with Reggie confronting the Tall Man and being surrounded by dwarves?

reply

"Notice how the opening scene is probably the best scene in the whole movie, with Reggie confronting the Tall Man and being surrounded by dwarves?"

And the movie just kind of fell apart after that. Between the looters/zombie characters, to the introduction of Tim and Rocky it was just way to much.

He should have centered on the main characters (especially since he had the original cast back), and kept the road picture vibe.

Its kind of hinted that the surviving people he encountered knew what was going on but were scared *beep* Maybe having Reggie lead some kind of redneck uprising against the Tall Man and his minions would have been an interesting way to go. Or perhaps inserting deleted scenes from the original (ala oblivion) where Jody explains to Reggie the real circumstances that lead up to Mikes "dream".

reply

I tink it would have been a fine film if i was just more serious, with the exclusion of Tim, Rocky, and the 3 stooges. They could ahve had Reggie meet with some funny black guy cracking one liners here and there, but not some black kung fu bull dyke. Such a shame.

There was actually a theory that Coscarelli made part 2 so well by accident, when the studio forced him to include a love interest.

Then once he had so much freedom with part 3 he completely erased Liz's character from the story with out even mentioning her.

reply

Gravers, dwarves AND spheres are also absent from most of Phantasm IV: Oblivion.

You complain a lot about the three stooge zombies and the character of Rocky in Phantasm III, but... what about the stooge Demon Trooper and that useless, throw-away female character called Jennifer who doesn't add anything to the plot in Phantasm IV?

Disclaimer: My favorite sequel is Phantasm II... hands down!


"I'm a lucky man. Nothing has ever been easy to me in life" Sigmund Freud.

reply

There was one action scene with the spheres in part 4 which was a let down, but HEY we never said part 4 was all that great either. It was low budget, and a disappointing end to the series. And gravers were quiet absent from the movie completely, however the dwarves were used quite a bit in part 4. So you're very wrong about that, my friend.

Reggie fought off a bunch of them in the finale and there were a few spread out during the movie. At least part 4 went back to more serious roots of the series.

The Demon Trooper wasn't that bad either, it wasn't a goofy bad guy. That scene was written in just to have an action scene, they even said on the commentary.

So in No way is IV particulary a good movie, I just think its the better of the second half of the series. It's funny how there are two halves, part 1 and 2 being Great films, and 3 and 4 are quite iffy. I really hope they continue at least 1 or 2 more times and completely finish the story. They still need to continue off where Reggie jumped into the dimension fork, and where Mike lays dying.


reply

Reggie also fought off a bunch of dwarves in the beginning of PIII, so their screen-time in both movies is pretty similar... specially when you compare it to PII & I.

I'm not THAT wrong anyway.


PS: I also love the start of PIII and I agree all that follows seems kinda let-down next to it.


"I'm a lucky man. Nothing has ever been easy to me in life" Sigmund Freud.

reply

[deleted]

I still think the best part of Phantasm III is the commentary track.

reply

Michael Baldwin in that commentary seems to echo many of the thoughts in this thread. He couldn't figure out how the stooge gravers fit into the story and posed it to Angus who seems to have an answer for all Phantasm plotholes.

reply

I like how Michael Baldwin doesn't take the Phantasm movies seriously (especially PIII), while Angus in the commentary seems to think he is doing some kind of high art.

reply

It had been years since I watched the original Phantasm and never did see part 2,3 and 4, Well over the last week I watched Phantasm 1,2 and just finished watching 3 tonight and would have to agree part 3 was just awful and corny, I can only hope part 4 isn't this painful to watch.

reply

[deleted]

So...anyone wanna wager on how many more times blackknight273 will post his opinion?

You didn't like it. We get it.

THE ONLY CHURCH THAT FEEDS THE SOUL, DAY IN AND DAY OUT, IS THE CHURCH OF BASEBALL.

reply

Amen!

:o)


Visit my movie blog at:
http://productoragavafilms.wordpress.com/

reply

From a guy who has posted 6 times in this thread, I'll take it as a compliment.

Btw - the movie still sucks :)

reply

i found all the movies as comedies but they are not listed on imdb as such so i get the impression they are meant to be serious horror but i dont think so.

reply

Sadly, I must agree.

You know a movie's in trouble when the most interesting scenes are the flashbacks to the original. This movie plods along and has none of the suspense of the first two "Phantasms," mainly because it has no story. And what's with the zombies, anyway?

I was surprised that this was directed by Don Coscarelli, because this doesn't seem to have his creative touch.

reply

[deleted]

It totally feels like a TV movie, or a straight-to-video flick (was it?). It doesn't even feel like a whole movie, just a lot of random scenes in search of a plot.

Though I enjoy the original "Phantasm," I think it's slightly overrated. But this film even makes me question whether the original is all that great.

reply

[deleted]

I still haven't seen 4, so it's 1 way out front, then 2, and 3 wayyyyy behind.

reply

[deleted]

Will do. I like the fact that it seems to take chances. Thanks for the recommendation!

reply

Just bought 3 and hadn't seen it since it came out. Phantasm 2 was not only my favorite of them all but one of my all time favorite movies. 3 wasn't as bad as I remember but it was very disappointing. The three zombies were an insult.

reply

Phantasm is my favorite all time movie saga, ever!. These films mean a lot to me. I understand your frustration with part 3. The bottom line with the Phantasm series is that Baldwin is a flat out crappy actor. Coscarelli should have found a professional child actor for the original Phantasm, planning on sequels being made. James LeGros is clearly more professional in part II as Mike. As someone who has spent time acting, I feel qualified to say that Baldwin stinks. I seriously don't have any other complaints about the acting in this series.





"You think that when you die you go to heaven? You come to us!" -The Tall Man

reply

Phantasm III is a poor movie. Lousy acting and dicombogulated plot lines that never quite fit together.
------
If God created the universe, then who created God?

reply

[deleted]

You honestly thought the black bitch was a good actor? Hahaha. Also the kid was terrible. Cute but terrible actor. Some kids can actually act like Haley Osment or even that Home Alone kid whatshisname.

reply

I dont understand how anyone could not like this movie. I love this movie. I've seen it a few times and I always enjoy it. I guess a lot of people complain about too much humor but as a fan of horror-comedy, I think its a perfect blend of both. To each his own, but it's one of my favorites. I'll probably by the DVD.

reply

[deleted]