MovieChat Forums > Phantoms (1998) Discussion > So i liked the movie.

So i liked the movie.


But I'm intrested, is the book any different? because i Don't feel like reading what i just saw. =/

reply

I thought it was pretty good too!

Plausible monster movies with deep religious themes that haunt you after you leave the theater? Great stuff!

http://DanteDreams.com/ <-My webcomic
"Jesus saves, everyone else takes damage" -Tshirt

reply

same here, I thought it was cool concept and I liked the funny one-liners from the "thing" "You girls slipped me a mickey" after it was shot with the oil dissolving bacteria.

reply

You should still read the book. It's way better than the movie.

reply

The differences are very slight between the book and the movie. A few extra characters, a little more exposition . . . not enough difference to recommend it under your conditions. Generally, though, Dean Koontz is well worth reading.

Stop calling them films. Kodak makes films, Hollywood makes MOVIES!

reply

Yeah, but Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms, yo!

reply

The book, in my opinion, is very different from the movie. The plot is the same. A town with everyone dead or missing... the ancient enemy... stuff like that. The book is so much more detailed and way superior to the movie. The movie confused me and I had even read the book several times before seeing it (Phantoms is probably my favorite Dean Koontz books ever). They left out key characters, the characters were so poorly cast, important (to me) details in the book are left out. I wish someone would try to remake this movie. I do think the movie is scary, I just think it could be so much more scarier than they made it.

reply

The book has an entire sub plot missing from the movie about people worshiping the ancient enemy and doing its bidding. Its not really needed for the story but it is interesting and makes sense. If the thing believes its the devil, setting up worshippers would be a natural thing to do for the devil.

reply