PHANTASM I and II
Silly, yes. Entertaining, hell, yes.
Recent talk on alt.horror has prompted me to rent the first two Phantasm flicks, which I haven't seen in a while. I don't remember a whole lot from the first viewing of them way back when. But I was glad I refreshed my memory. I intend to revisit P3 (of which I have nearly NO memory) soon. These are not great movies, but they're fun ones, and I like fun.
The first film is pretty good, but is marred by two things. One is Michael Baldwin. One of the worst child actors I've ever seen, I hated, hated, hated this kid. He looks annoying, he sounds annoying...he manages to take one of the few halfway decent kid (well, young teenager) roles and turn it into somebody you just pray, pray, pray will get (ahem) balled. Baldwin damn near ruins every scene he's in, especially those that require him to talk. I don't remember him being anywhere near this annoying when he reprised the role in P3, but man, in this film...
The second problem is the ending, which is so ridiculously "huh?"-inducing that it makes the ending of Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers look like a masterwork or narrative clarity in comparison. Jody's dead? Reggie never had anything to do with this? And yet the Tall Man is still after the kid? Fuck that -the only logical way to look at the end of the film is if it's a dream, and the bulk of the film is "real". (and this is a minor quibble...Angus Scrimm was just too young and spry here. The Tall Man should bean old geezer, I think, and here he's got a spring in his step and color in his hair. That just isn't right.)
I remember enjoying the second film a little more, and I think I still do. It gets off to a lumbering, moronic start, however, in not only making the end of the previous film "real" (does Reggie just not remember the rest of the events? Why not?), but it starts dicking around with the same ideas in the beginning (does Reggie just not remember blowing up the house? Why not?). And yes, thirteen minutes in, and we've already seen two houses blown up.
All that aside, the second film is pretty enjoyable. I liked the views of the eviscerated graveyards. I really liked the chuckle-inducing introduction of so much macho male posturing from Reggie Bannister and James Legros (who makes a much finer Mike than Baldwin did...for that matter, he even manages to pull off the macho posturing because he kinda looks like Brian Thompson). And yes, I like the chainsaw duel. However implausible.
I remember the ads for this when it came out, proclaiming that "The Ball Is Back!" But the ball was only a very small element of the first film. Did it really stick so much in the fans' heads? Er...so to speak. (I'm just full of bad puns today) I'd heard that the first one was trimmed to avoid an X...but it's the second one that looks more obviously trimmed (like when the priest gets it).Any ideas out there what specifically was cut from either film?
Comparing this series to the Halloween series (as has been done much recently), however, seems a little unwarranted. A more appropriate comparison would be its fellow "rubber reality" series, the Nightmare On Elm Street films.