Phantasm is a unique little horror series spearheaded by B-movie director, writer and producer Don Coscarelli(also known for cult classics such as 1982's The Beastmaster and 2002's Bubba Ho-Tep. The young Coscarelli put together the original film over the course of a year with massive support from his family and friends, who supplied the budget, filled in as extras and helped out with the special effects. Since the film had been a minor hit, Universal decided to cash in in the midst of the slasher craze and led Coscarelli to helm a sequel.
Whilst they never did get the popular horror series they hoped for, Universal's interference led Coscarelli to develop ideas for future sequels, solidifying Phantasm amongst the horror community, especially due to the writer's penchant for continuity(each sequel carries on immediately from the end of the previous film) and his ability to keep the original main cast coming back.
Now, let's take a look at each film and see how they stand on their own merits...
People like to say some films are "lightning in a bottle", but with Phantasm, there's really no other way to describe it. Made without a firm script, budget or shooting schedule, the film is a product of Don Coscarelli's wild phantasms and passion. Knowing that so much of the film was in flux(reportedly, the original cut ran for about 3 hours, and I don't know whether that includes all the alternate endings) definitely made me notice the seams a lot more. It's a patchwork film, with no coherent pacing. But with that being said, it's even more of an accomplishment that Phantasm is as great as it is.
The themes of abandonment and an adolescent perspective of death run through it, and the working class characters(barely professional actors) in the center of it all ground the film in reality in spite of the sheer absurdity of the plot. Coscarelli's cinematography is fantastic, and his creativity boundless. And the music, I simply have to tell you about the music. Composed by Fred Myrow and Malcolm Seagrave, the score to Phantasm is one of horror's finest, a haunting melody that'll both stick with you, and carry you buoyantly through its more sluggish segments.
I cannot recommend it enough. It's an experience, nothing more to be said.
I think whether or not you like Phantasm II depends entirely on what exactly you're looking for from this series, or maybe your mood in general. The film, made entirely under the supervision of Universal, completely lacks the psychological undertones and hazy dream logic of the original film, rather taking the memorable elements and repackaging them in an adrenaline-fueled road trip action adventure.
For the general audience, there's plenty of fun to be had - the gore is on point and the spheres have been upgraded to be nastier than before. Angus Scrimm maintains his dementedly wicked performance and is an unmerciful villain. The chemistry between leads Reggie and Mike(recast with James Le Gros) is very comfortable and they make for a great duo to watch for 2 hours. The climactic finale is suitably gross and exhilarating.
As satisfying entertainment, I can't fault Phantasm II. But it'd be disingenous to regard it as a true follow-up to the original's themes and storytelling. At best, it's a cartoony derivative of that film, more similar to its horror contemporaries like Evil Dead II and the Nightmare On Elm Street series. I wouldn't be surprised to hear if the idea of carrying over directly from the original was inspired by Halloween II, as it seems to only exist to be cool(the film has a time skip after the first act to accomodate Le Gros' casting).
It's not what Phantasm was designed to be and even taking all that out, the film doesn't add much to the mythology of the series at all aside from establishing the road trip blueprint that the rest of the sequels would abide by.
Phantasm III: Lord Of The Dead is sadly a rather tepid film. It follows the action-adventure road trip format of Phantasm II(which I wasn't all too fond of anyway), but without the bouncy feel, visual flair... or Mike.
Universal having handed creative control back to Coscarelli, he was able to bring back A. Michael Baldwin to play Mike again, but it's very obvious from this film that he hasn't done any acting between this and the original Phantasm. And this is purely a conspiracy theory, but I think Coscarelli may have recognised this, because Mike's role in the film is incredibly limited.
It's especially noticeable, because the previous film turned Reggie and Mike into a guntoting double-act with brilliant chemistry. Here, however, the Tall Man kidnaps Mike pretty much at the start of the film, and there's like a 40-minute stretch purely focused on Reggie and his hijinks. In Mike's absence, he teams up with two new co-stars, a nunchuck-wielding tough chick named Rocky and a Home Alone-on-steroids kid named Tim, who are tolerable, but hardly replacements.
Leaving aside cast issues, the film just feels lethargic and unsure of itself. Most of the time, the characters aren't really sure what they're doing and don't encounter anything interesting enough to push them into a new direction.
Clearly, Coscarelli wanted to return to some of the more surreal and stylistic aspects of the series that he'd been forced to ignore in Phantasm II, and all the scenes focused on the Tall Man and his mythology feel as if they're from a completely different movie. But there's not enough of them and even they are often dragged down by Baldwin's subpar performance.
Phantasm IV: Oblivion is a beautiful little film that sees Coscarelli return to the roots of the series in many aspects. The budget has significantly dropped off, forcing him to abandon any notion of excess in favor of far superior minimalistic filmmaking(with trademark visual flair of course - he may be stuck filming in the desert, but he milks that barren environment for all that it's worth).
But more importantly, Phantasm IV returns the story to Mike and focuses on our group of recurring characters as real people rather than heroes and villains. Whilst the horror is certainly there, the film is more of a character drama and a mental match of wits between him and the Tall Man. The dynamics have naturally changed due to aging - Mike is no longer a little boy running from an unstoppable terror and afraid to lose his family. He's a cynical adult who now has an equal standing with his enemy, and views his absent brother with disdain more than anything.
Similarly, the Tall Man himself is far less conventionally menacing than in previous films and depicted as more of a psychological foe pestering at Mike's mind and trying to push him towards an outright nihilistic outlook. One could even say that he tries to supplant Mike's family and isolate him from his true loved ones.
There's neat little character arcs for Reggie and Jody as well - the former being naturally worn out by the events of the previous films, but still coming through for Mike whilst the latter's mysterious appearance in Phantasm III gets a satisfying explanation.
Of course, it must be acknowledged that Don Coscarelli only made this film as a kind of prologue to the unfilmed Phantasm's End script written by Roger Avary, which would've taken the series to an apocalyptic level. Coscarelli lacked the funds for it, and sought to keep the series in the public eye with this smaller scale film, whilst also adding some direct foreshadowing to the events depicted in that script.
With all that in mind, it's more than a little surprising how well Phantasm IV worked as an open-ended finale(it was the last film for 18 years). Once again, lightning in a bottle. It's an atmospheric and thematically rich film, and a brilliant counterpart to the iconic original.
Originally a web series, Phantasm V: Ravager became the only film in the series not to be directed or solely written by Don Coscarelli. Its production history is reminiscent of the original's - filmed over the course of a long period of time(it came out in 2016 and was already filming in 2008), with most of the crew being friends or family and the budget being whatever they had in their wallets. There's a lot of passion that went into making Ravager from everyone involved and it shows onscreen.
Which is why it's extra awkward to say that it's not really a good film at all. In fact, it's a complete mess. And there's one main reason I can narrow down.
David Hartman(who's career up to this point involved directing cartoon TV) is terrible at his job. Everything is so painfully amateurish. The script was written without any kind of adherence to budget, which means the film is full of very poor CGI and greenscreen work to try and sell the apocalyptic nature of it. I hear Coscarelli had loved Roger Avary's original Phantasm's End script, so this feels almost like an attempt to try and get something of that nature done, no matter what.
The camerawork is also really bad, with constant goofy zoom-in shots and close-ups. There was no attempt made in post-production to make the digital footage look like film so visually, it looks homemade.
I think all of this could be forgiven by the fandom if at least the story was good, but it's really not. I can appreciate Hartman and Coscarelli focusing on fear of death again, this time from the aged, loyal Reggie, who now has dementia and is losing track of reality. The film's also full of pleasing fan service moments. If you're just in it to see the characters do their thing one more time regardless of quality, Ravager will give you that fix.
But if you want any kind of resolution or even a story that adds up, it's just not here. I've heard people defend this by suggesting the original Phantasm was also very hazy in its plot points and whilst that is true to some degree, it still had a basic point A to point B script. We learned about the Tall Man gradually as the film went on and Mike and Jody ended up defeating him. It's a weird film, but you can follow it.
Ravager is frustrating, because it keeps changing the rules and throws Reggie into different, seemingly random scenarios, which might fit with the dementia theme, but is hardly satisfying viewing especially when everything else is so shoddy. Whenever I finally felt I had a working theory about how all of it makes sense and got to enjoy the film, some new wrench was thrown into the works and I just tuned out by the end.
With poor Angus Scrimm gone, this film is the series' swansong. I enjoyed parts of it, but honestly, I'd much rather have the cerebral and extraordinary Phantasm IV as closure.
BONUS CONTENT:
As a massive phan, I couldn't resist the temptation to read Roger Avary's famous Phantasm's End(also known as Phantasm 1999 AD and Phantasm 2013 AD) script to see where the franchise might have gone.
Of course, without an actual movie it's impossible to truly judge what this could have been, but based on the script, I doubt I would have enjoyed it all that much. Avary was clearly more inspired by the action-adventure side of the franchise, as it's 100% an Aliens-style shoot'em'all romp, complete with a bantering military team(led by B-movie legend Bruce Campbell) and more quips than anyone should be asked to bear with.
The eventual Phantasm: Ravager stole a number of concepts and plot points from this film, but hilariously enough, that film, as incompetent as it was still stayed far more true to the franchise than this, giving a nod towards Mike's story arc as opposed to completely cutting him out of the film(he only cameos in the script - Reggie and Bruce Campbell are co-protagonists) and trying to harken back to the chilling atmosphere and thanatophobia of the original.
I will credit Phantasm's End for its surrealism(although not in the dream logic sense, but rather the plot itself) and creativity in its revelations about the Tall Man's world and the setting of the post-invasion United States, but these are surface elements. The story and characters are paper thin. Which makes sense, since this is an action movie, but for a Phantasm sequel? A movie that was all about metaphors and symbolism-laden character growth? Poor. Very poor.
It's a likable action film, with a decent pacing and what possibly could have been great visuals(at least judging from the descriptions). But it's a terrible, terrible entry or finale in the series.
No comments:
Post a Comment