Where do I start? Bruce Willis should not be allowed to grow a mustache. But no, that's not my main complaint.

The main story in the movie is that he (Bruce) has roughly 2 hrs to transport a prisoner from the cell block to the court house, yet the cops are trying to stop him. OK, good idea. I'd watch the movie based on that.

The movie is slow from start to finish. I don't mind slow movies with a purpose. King Kong, for example, is slow in the beginning, yet I love it. 2001: A Space Odessy and The Birds are very slow, yet I find them good movies. This movie was slow because of poor writing. If you want to see some well done writing that is done in real time (1 hr video is 1 hr of story), watch 24.

But it goes down hill rapidly. Bruce Willis plays a depressed detective that really doesn't give a rip about his job. He's always tired. He's old and run down. He doesn't "snap out of it" enough to make his character interesting.

The prisoner, Mos Def. What the crap? Does he have mental problems? Is he a little eccentric? Is he just annoying? It's not clear. And what is up with his voice? The story was not written well. There were a lot of continuity errors. Like Bruce calls for some help, yet not only do they never show up, but they're never mentioned again. It's like it never happened. Then there were times where they acted like they had 5 minutes to get to the court house, times where they acted like they had 5 hours, and time where they acted like they'd given up on making it, or the time had already passed.

Far too many times, the bad guys were able to guess exactly where Bruce was going, yet it seems way to perfect. Almost like, he's a white male, aged 40, I bet he went to his old friend from college that works at K-mart for advice. That's not what happened, but it was way to precise of a guess to be written off as smart bad guys.

O, and the ending was predictable. There was a slight twist that I didn't see coming, but nothing huge. In the end, Bruce's character is still his old tired self, except he now likes his birthday.

The only movies I've seen that are worse are, Bulletproof Monk and Sphere. Bruce, I hope you get back to some real movies soon, like Sin City, Six Sense and Pulp Fiction.


When we first see Bruce Willis dragging himself up the stairs, his weariness as a human, and a cop, is evident. He is a spent man, a drunk, a Schmo, uncomplainingly taking on the scut work his brothers hand out to him. As it is Bruce Willis, and as we have seen the preview, we know that there is going to be an Epiphany moment around the corner.

It comes when he is asked to look the other way as his buddy's (most prominently David Morse, as the sociopathic ex partner) rub out an informant that Willis is dutifully transporting to the Court house.

When it comes, Willis keeps the brakes on, and continues to move slowly up to his crowning moment. Perhaps too slowly. For an action movie there is much down time, time enough for Def Moses to steal the movie, which is O.K., because in this movie Bruce is content to let his Co- Star have all the best lines, and most of the best scenes.

Thankfully both stay in character, so that the unexpected ending fits into the movie without jarring the mood of the piece. The mood is just like Willis's character: dark, weary, and dispassionate. It is, in the end, a movie that focuses on character rather than action. Just when I thought that the movie was going to have me accepting the epiphany as a typical Hollywood cliché, it offers an explanation that is quite believable.

I like my action movies to go at breakneck speed with occasional breaks to catch my breath. This one takes so many breaks that the pace often slows and my interest started to wander, but it had enough twists and "unlikely" moments that allowed our heroes to escape, that it kept the interest from waning too much.

Too often I had a hard time hearing Def, as he speaks in a street patois that, like most popular music, is ironically lyrical: it has a beat but the lyrics are hard to focus on. Like Bruce he keeps the brakes on, and I am grateful he did not go down the road of playing his role in the obligatory street wise, hyped up, smart ass jive mother******. He lets his character grow likable, and has the patience to let us catch up with him.

************SPOILER*****************

The premise of the movie is too laughable. Who is going to believe the testimony of a lowly Black "Hemmorhoid" over the word of dozens of New York's finest?


This is a truly terrible movie.

In most suspense films one is asked to"suspend disbelief" at some moment in order for the film to continue to entertain and keep you involved. In "16 Blocks" you are asked to suspend disbelief in the first 10 minutes of the film, regarding the basic premise of the movie. I found the premise and the execution of the plot of the film to be an imposition upon me, my time, and my money. It is poor movie of the week TV fare.

Bruce Willis is so obviously an alcoholic mess from the start that I shudder at the thought that the "blue wall" of police solidarity would close around him even for a moment. It is a shame that David Morse, an admirable actor in so many ways, is stuck in this mess.

Why don't movies come with a money back guarantee. This one certainly should.


Yes, it's true. This movie was awful and if I could get my money back I would. It was the kind of film that if you could go back in time to help out the screenwriter's, producers and the director and even Bruce and mos def you would. The pacing was wrong, the structure and plot lines were so lame and predictable.....Its like they took a bunch of different cop movies;copland, Narc, die-hard and yes even speed, and put them into one. Quite poorly I might add. And as annoying and pathetic of an actor mos def was, he was the best part about the film.

The people in charge; the director, producer, writer(s) should be ashamed for recognizing what kind of crap they were creating. Hope the paycheck was worth it.

Let me revert. AWFUL!!!!!


The annoying voice was bad enough, but the fact that he NEVER shut up at any point in the movie made this thing unwatchable. As they flee in the streets and hide from people trying to kill them, they still have time to sit and babble endlessly, and always loud enough to ensure that anyone looking could find them. Without ruining the movie for anyone who wants to witness this trash for themselves, I will say that the bus scene is the most absurd and annoying of them all.

Mos Def ruined the movie all on his own, but Willis didn't really do anything stop him. He could play this part the way he did in his sleep, and it looks like he did. The man playing the archetypal "bad cop" was just as lazy adding nothing to the hackneyed script and even contributing to its unoriginality with clichés of his own. This character's mindlessness, particularly in his final scene, was idiotic to the point of insult.

To be fair, the plot was interesting enough. If it were a little less cliché and unrealistic, and much better done, this movie would be as good as any run of the mill action thriller-type. I did find myself trying to add complexity and originality to the story as it went, though. As it is, it has to be one of the biggest wastes of time and $7.00 available to the general public.


Apart from all other variables this film is ruined by one thing and one thing only: Blabbermouth Mos DeF.

My god, this is the first time I have EVER seen a fair-budget movie been wasted by something like this. For a couple of weeks now my headphone has got a nasty screek which is annoying, but it's not half as bad as the continuous blabber in the most annoying tone of voice I have ever heard. After a good fifteen minutes a was yelling to my screen to shut him up. After 30 minutes I was praying to God to keep him quiet. After 45 minutes I was about ready to jump out of my window.

Thank God I got the sense to just press the eject button. And I think I will now play some deathmetal albums volume up to get rid of that nasty blabber echo still in my head.

Avoid this like the plague.


If you watch this movie be sure you are able to mute the sound. Not only that Mos Def only talks about opening up a bakery and baking cakes for children's' birthdays he does not even stop talking about it throughout the whole film. If I was Bruce Willis in this movie I would have shut him myself just to make him quiet. Apart from that the film contains lots of illogical behaviour from different characters. To sum up one can say that the flick was good in the first twenty minutes. Then Mos Def begins to fall on ones nerves what makes the the film worse and with the beginning of the bus kidnapping it loses any existence authorization. I wasn't as angry after watching a film as I was after watching '16 Blocks' for a long long time.


It's a story of a policeman Jack Mosely (Bruce Willis) who is nearing his service tenure and probably bored by his life and job. He keeps on drinking daily and on the job too, just to pass of his day. One day he is given a routine task of escorting a prisoner (Mos Def) from jail to the magistrate's office so the prisoner can record his testimony. Detective Jack Mosely later on comes to know that this prisoner is suppose to testify against many of the policemen who had done many bad things in the past. He decides to save the man and tries to make it to the magistrate's office in time, the detective risks his own life in the process, as the bad policemen are hell bent not to stop them from reaching the court.

The movie has some good moves done by Bruce Willis and the bad men to outwit each other, which keeps you interested in the movie, but at the same time some scenes are too long and take the interest out of their move.

Bruce Willis does a great job. Mos Def looks a perfect blend for an innocent looking prisoner who wishes to open a cake bakery one day. Mos Def voice is distinctly different, which suits his role.

It's a movie which tries to showcase that if a person decides something he can achieve it, no matter how big the obstacle is. It is the person's determination and grit which helps him to achieve great things. The movie is good but the speed of the movie could have been better as it's a bit slow.

http://moviesopinion.blogspot.com/


Many movies these days come up a few blocks short of that miracle mile. Be it casting, character development or the story in general, you're lucky if you are able to stretch your legs, let alone walk the dog.

16 Block will go down as a classic. It's a well done movie that showcases the acting ability of underground raper Mos Def solidifies Bruce Willis' ability to do more than blow up buildings and shine the spotlight on a personal favorite of mine, David Morse (Bait, The Rock, Green Mile).

The beauty of this movie is how things flow. You know the plot going in. A cop has to get a witness 16 block. The question then becomes Will he make it, how will he make it, who will survive the journey and whom will they meet along the way.

This is a great movie and reveals a great deal about people and their ability to change.


16 Blocks is a thought provoking movie. Should Cops go on the take or maintain their honesty? I think that Police Officers should maintain their honesty. In one scene the secretary of the Detective played by Bruce Willis gives him some breath mints to hide the alcohol on his breath. Another Jack once said to never trust a man who has no alcoholic drinks to serve you when you come to his house. That is why for American Shadow President Jack F Kennedy I keep Heinekin beer in my house.

A lot of people do not believe me when I say that there is a Care Rank Ki Alien American Secret Service Elizabeth Regina alliance but I am telling you truthfully that there is as the American Shadow Vice President Brad HD Morgan. My Grandfather King George VI Windsor is the Care Rank Ki Aliens Creators of Humans chosen Messiah. The efforts to stop global warming will be painful but they have been ordered by the Creators of Humans and we all must support the Care Rank Ki and Apophis-God. All of Bruce Willis other movies are worth watching even Hudson Hawk.


If NYC bus drivers drove their MTA buses with the dogged determination that Det. Jack Mosley (played by a paunchy Bruce Willis) displayed in this action/adventure/crime/drama/thriller, the folks at the NYC MTA Complaint Department would have little to do but punch IN and OUT on a daily basis. Mosley's reason for hi-jacking an MTA bus coincides with his desire to successfully escort a fast-talking witness, Eddie Bunker (played with sublime brilliance by Mos Def), from police custody to a courthouse. The title of the film is derived from the distance--"16 Blocks"--between the police precinct where Bunker has been held to the courthouse where he is due to testify.

Relative to the plot: aging cop must escort witness 16 blocks, going into the film I had doubts that Director Richard Donner and Writer Richard Wenk would have enough skill to pull off an action-packed drama, let alone edge-of-your-seat thriller. But, giving credit where credit is due, they surpassed my expectations, and then some.

Like Det. Mosley, "16 Blocks" delivers the goods.

Of course, one does have to look the other way during some of the movie's sequences, especially the never-ending string of escapes that the gimpy detective and his ever-chatting custodial responsibility make in the course of their short trip. Believe it, Houdini would be impressed by these two if he were still around. Even after Mosley wedges the hi-jacked bus into an alleyway with no outlets they manage to elude their pursuers. But, as we all know by now, that is the nature of "thrillers." Most often the pursued are trapped in no-escape situations by slipping out the back door, or high-tailing it up a stairwell, or, as aforementioned, hi-jacking a city bus.

Willis and Def, the two lead characters in the movie, carry the load, and do so with a combination of dead-pan humor, knowing exchanges, and sheer will.

Playing the grizzled, alcoholic NYPD police detective, who is on the verge of retirement, or suicide (whichever comes first), Willis hits all the right marks. There's something in his face that plays perfectly to the tone of "been there, done that" without playing that tone as stereotypically jaded. That's not so surprising as Willis has shown his chops in a handful of previous flicks. What is surprising is Mos Def's performance as the inscrutable yet amiable Eddie Bunker.

Def's character brings to mind the character played by Mel Gibson in "Conspiracy Theory" (produced by Mr. Donner). One moment you think the guy is full of hot air and fantasy, but in the next his obtuse ramblings make sense. Thanks to the believable relationship these two build in their short time together, Def gets to deliver several of the movie's most hilarious lines, made all the more poignant in light of Willis' response, or lack thereof.

By movie's end, these strange bedfellows act in unison, achieving their individual goals by the only means left available to them. (I won't divulge their choice as it would give away too much of the ending.) Suffice it to say, this surprising movie succeeded as an action/adventure/crime/drama/thriller on the shoulders of its leading characters, and the talents of Donner and Wenk.

Work to the wise. As one might be tempted to do upon meeting Det. Mosley, don't underestimate what you see at face value relative to the movie's seemingly skimpy plot.

While "16 Blocks" might not seem enough distance for hold one's interest, escorted by Willis and Def, one's adventure is anything but uneventful.


The kind of movie that might have been made in the fifties, when Hollywood was beginning to discover police stories and the gritty cities, with a B cast. This is not a put down. this is praise. very well made. good story. and NOT morally ambiguous, a phrase that I have learned to hate. Mos Def's performance is Oscar worthy. He's very funny and touching. Willis is excellent as the weary cop who sees his last chance to do something right. There are some problems. The minute David Morse comes on the screen, you know he is up to no good before he opens his mouth. And when Willis and Mos are on the bus, why doesn't Willis just call in the police negotiator and explain things to him. But if that happened there would not be a story because the movie would have to end then.


"16 Blocks" was a very good movie, but there were some annoyances that severely took away from the movie-going experience. For one- and this has happened a lot to me- the sound and the music was very loud, but the dialogue was extremely soft, so soft that you had to strain to hear anything. And there were numerous people sitting there playing with their cell phones and talking, once a cell even went off. And a person two rows behind me was chunking loudly on their popcorn while talking. I mean really, you pay $8.50 to see a movie and you can't even hear the dialogue, and you hear people playing with cell phones. Jeesh!

Aside from that, the movie itself was very well done, entertaining, intense, fast paced, and had some great characters. Bruce Willis was great as an overweight, alcohol-addicted, cop named Jack Mosley who is transporting witness Eddie Bunker (Mos Def) 16 blocks to testify against Jack's precinct after seeing them doing some nasty things. But now the entire NYPD wants Eddie dead, and Mosley is there to protect him.

Mos Def does an excellent job as well, his nasal voice he made for the film made it hard to understand him though, but he sure was lovable. Director Richard Donner did a superb job with character development, making us care for Jack and Eddie despite their flaws. Something that was admirable as well was that the director kept the language to a minimum when he could've gone all out, and, while gritty, the violence is most of the time bloodless. Plus, believe it or not, there is even a message in this thriller; it's that bad people do change. Eddie repeats this to Jack throughout the movie, as Jack goes from drunken, depressed jerk to an unlikely hero. This is a very good movie that I think many people will enjoy.

I give it 8 out of 10.

"16 Blocks" is rated PG-13 for violence, intense sequences of action, and some strong language.


Go see the movie. Bruce Willis and Mos def will latch onto through this crazy ride of corruption and mayhem. The story is gripping and at times heartwarming. The villains are truly evil, and I found myself wanting to kick the snot out of them sometimes.

Jack Mosley (Bruce) is a stunning character that is willing to go all the way to do the right thing.

Eddie (Mos) is just a guy with a speech impediment that was at the wrong place at the wrong time, and saw the wrong things.

Jack and Eddie have to work together to survive the longest 16 blocks ever.

See this movie!


I am a die hard Bruce Willis fan (no pun intended) and it certainly wasn't him or Mos Def that kept this movie from being spectacular. Bruce Willis gave a very good performance, despite the fact that his role closely represented the same character he played in "Sin City." Mos Def performed incredibly well. Certainly his best performance to date.

The performances of both Bruce Willis and Mos Def are probably the only element that kept this movie from completely bombing. Any other cast and it would have been a flop (duh).

"16 Blocks" is a great action movie if that's what your into. The way I like to put it however is it's a good "twist(s) on an already overdone and cliché story line." I would go into further detail but I wouldn't want to spoil it for all of you. With plenty of suspense there isn't a dull moment that I can remember. This movie is definitely worth seeing if you like Bruce Willis or Mos Def. If not, then save your 9 bucks and rent a movie instead. If you are a Bruce Willis fan then maybe its worth it. If you're only a Mos Def fan and don't like the Bruce man then maybe the matinée price would better suit your tastes.

Enjoy.


Jack Mosley is an aging cop who has degenerated himself to a dead beat work horse of the police department. Indulging in drinking, even when he's working, Mosley is a man cruising along the rock bottom of his life and work. One day at work, Mosely gets another routine and uneventful assignment - bring a witness, some petty crook named Eddie, to court by 10am. He's got 118 minutes to do it and only has to go 16 blocks. Simple? Sure, Mosley even stops to pick up a bottle of booze along the way there. But then... the unexpected starts to happen and Mosely must snap out of his delirium because this witness is wanted dead. And not just by anyone, by fellow cops.

Film goers might be initially unimpressed with this film where Bruce Willis plays a "lone cop at the bottom of the barrel." He's done the cop role many many times - Die hard 'nuff said - and the cop with problems is also a re-run from Willis - Strking Distance & Last Boy Scout. But don't let that get you down, this film is no way in the shadow of the mentioned films. Director Richard Donner directs the film with strong characterization while keeping the action exciting, but critically incidental to what the characters go through. A good example of this is the scene where Mosley realizes that he could very well be in deep sh*t as he just shot a guy who tried to kill his witness - a circling shot with dissolves whirls around Mosely who stands with jaw agape. No sound, the character is still, and really nothing obvious goes on in the frame, yet you still get the feeling that Mosely has: "holysh*t, I just shot that guy." You can tell that he pulled out his gun and fired like he was trained, but that critical realization afterward propels the film as much into the mind of Mosley and Eddie (who is also shocked here) as it propels into the street of lower Manhattan.

Donner also chooses his settings carefully with key scenes taking place in basements and at Mosely apartment - not just in some random alleyway. The films takes leaps and dives throughout all of its settings like Mosely and Eddie do within themselves and this subtle touch is very effective. It shows how wild of ride it is for them, how low they have been driven by what they did or what has happened to them, and how close to home it may hit in the end. That makes this one of Bruce Willis's best performances. While not as high-octane as his many previous efforts, this film is clearly not meant to be, and that doesn't at all detract from the film's entertainment.

And it is not just Willis giving a fine performance. David Morse gives a typically strong supporting role, but mention must be made of Mos Def. There have been plenty of action films with rappers and hip-hop stars, even two in late 2005, and a film goer can only be skeptical with Mos Def playing opposite Willis. But, in a pleasant surprise, Mos Def actually plays his part not just for the cool. In fact, he is kind of an annoying brat that you'd like to smack over the head. Especially if you're a cop trying to get him to court and bullets are flying at you. This refreshing approach breathes a sort of life into the movie and the film moves even farther from "goofy action movie" category. And don't get me wrong, I love goofy action movies - The Last Boy Scout is one of my all time favorites and so are Donner's Lethal Weapon films - but enough is enough and it is a real breath of fresh air to see a great action director, an action star, and a rapper (or hip hop guy, I am not good at distinguishing that sort of thing) deliver a film that is good both dramatically and action-wise. 8/10

Rated PG-13: violence


OK: I guess the history of film's "dark ages" literally is so little remembered that Mos Def's subtle homage in 16 BLOCKS just flies over the heads of the mostly deaf (to history) critics, both professional and amateur. "Irritating", "annoying", and "aggravating" are the adjectives most often used to describe Mos Def's performance as Eddie in Richard Donner's latest film: a well-paced urban cop thriller which takes ordinary action-film clichés and raises them to about the pinnacle of their potential (while still remaining clichés).

A handful of the professional critics noted the similarity of Def's performance to those of the stereotyped cringing menials presented by actors such as Stepin Fetchit in Hollywood films of the 1930s. But these critics make this connection almost invariably in a disapproving, condescending tone.

No one, it seems, gets it (or perhaps a few I have not read, but many, at least fail to recognize the significance of what Def has attempted-- and I believe successfully-- to do). Watch him in the film: how he walks, how he talks, his "irritating" voice: Mos Def IS Stepin Fetchit. It is a very special kind of homage.

In interviews over the years, Mos Def has time and again spoken about the African-American actors from those long-ago, racist years of Hollywood's early sound era. He is fully aware of the shoulders he stands on, and of the legacy he has inherited (from Fetchit to Bill "Bojangles" Robinson to Hattie McDaniel, Dooley Wilson, Juano Hernandez, Leigh Whipper, Dorothy Daindridge, Sidney Poitier. through to the success stories of today-- Lou Gosset Jr., Whoopi Goldberg, Cuba Gooding Jr., Denzel Washington, Hallie Berry, Morgan Freeman, Jamie Foxx, and so many more). So his Eddie in 16 BLOCKS is played as though Stepin Fetchit in his prime were somehow transported into the 21st century and given a role commensurate to his talents. "Look!" Def seems to be saying. "See what this guy COULD have done!" It is Def's subtle homage to the great Styepin Fetchit (Hollywood's first black "star"-- for what it was worth at the time) adds hidden depths to 16 BLOCKS, and it compliments Bruce Willis' affecting performance quite impressively.

See the other reviews for more specific details about the film. But in the end, remember: Mos Def's "irritating", "annoying", and "aggravating" performance is a very special kind of tribute, and it works!


I still believe that Bruce Willis is one of moviedom's most under-appreciated actors. Yes, he works a lot and makes millions doing it, but as he moves through his career, he just gets more impressive in his performances. I thought his work in Hostage was magnificent but here he's even better, especially early on the film, when he's tired and sore; at the start of 16 Blocks, Willis--who's portrayed some of the most macho characters in films over the last 15 or so years--is almost unrecognizable. He's old, all of a sudden, and got this little pot belly that probably came from his character's heavy drinking. But it's not just the make-up job and a (I assume) prosthetic gut, but his entire demeanor. At one point, when another character asks him an annoying riddle, he snaps, "Life's too long and you make it seem even longer." It's the perfect mantra for his character, and we believe it--that the character is done living and can't wait for it all to end--because of Willis' performance. The rest of the film is an amazing ride, sort of Die Hard meets The Odyssey. The plot simple: Willis's character, Jack Mosley, the tired cop even more tired after a night's work sitting in an apartment where some drug dealers have been killed and waiting with the stiffs until the medical examiner can get there, has one more chore to take care of before he can knock off and go home--most likely to drink himself to sleep. His job: transport a witness, Eddie Bunker (Mos Def, in an amazing performance) 16 blocks from the jail cell where he's been held to the courthouse where the witness is to testify before a grand jury probe of a crooked cop. There's a deadline (of course there's a deadline); Willis has to get him there in less than two hours. The simple transport job gets more complicated when it turns out that people want the witness dead before he can testify--and those people are cops, led by Mosely's former partner, Frank Nugent (David Morse, who--as he always does--turns in a riveting performance that's marvelously restrained). The scriptwriter, Richard Wenk, really knows how to structure an effective film as, once the chase begins, the film doesn't let up until nearly the end: time after time, you wonder: how's he going to get out of this? Okay, he miraculously got out of that last mess, but he can't possibly get out of this mess, can he? The only reason I give this film a nine instead of a ten is because there is one moment, late in the film, when the film uses a kind of tired trick on the audience; in case you're not as cynical as I am, I won't reveal what that moment is--but you'll recognize it just as soon as the moment begins to unfold. Sitting in the theater, I recognized exactly what was going on as it was going on and I felt annoyed more than anxious for Mosley and Bunker. That may be a small quibble, but it's enough to keep this film from earning the perfect score.


I enjoyed the movie - the plot line has some twists and Bruce Willis is as good as ever.

The only thing that spoilt the movie for me was the amateur filming - it looks at times as if the cameraman is holding a home movie camera. The swaying to and fro gives you the front row experience even if you are seated near the back.

At one stage they are in a Chinese laundry and you find yourself thinking about the drunken cameraman and not the story, to the point where it gets confusing as to what is really happening.

My recommendation is to wait for this movie to get to the dollar theaters or else wait until it comes out on DVD.

This is not the only movie to suffer from this amateurish filming - what has happened to our standards of film-making? Pay the stars a bit less and the technical crew a bit more.


It's very rarely that I get a chance to see an action film that has depth and introspect. Rarer still, is the film that has a prophetic nuance to it that touches the heart and drives home a powerful message. 16 Blocks is such a film. The touted star of the film is Bruce Willis, who plays Jack Mosely, a drunkard of a cop on a self-destructive path to oblivion, saved by the least likely of people - Eddie Bunker, the habitual thief with a heart of gold. Mos Def plays Bunker, in a driven performance that brings tears to the eyes as he tries to survive 16 Blocks of mayhem on the way to testify against crooked NYPD detectives. The quirky Bunker is really annoying at first, but his honesty and gentleness shows depth that should win Mos Def an Oscar, or at the very least, an Oscar Nomination.


That's called self-determination and how to know who you really are. This film is good for establishing a right vision of self-determination and why good guys in common should do right things. When life constantly suggests to give up and there not much reasons to continue your fight the main thing that drives you forward is understanding of only two things. They are: good and bad. And that you have chosen the right of those twos that rule the world. This understanding of right choice gives you strength to go forward step by step regardless surrounding life that's full of those who chose the wrong of that twos.

This film is full of self-determination and you will make your choice with the main character to every problem that film suggests.


During the 70's sleazy cycle numerous short lived sub-genres popped up to turn heads and enrage moralists every where. None were quite as offensive as nunsploitation and no nunsploitation was as trashy as this.

At a convent in Italy, a man arrives and the nuns begin feeling urges against their calling. It soon becomes clear that the devil has come and the nuns are under his control.

Though the plot suggests some exorcist-style horror, the film plays out much more like a quiet drama. A drama that includes oodles of explicit sexual activity. As the nuns fall into depravity the sexual stakes begin to rise. Of the assorted sored acts, viewers get to see some whippings, rape, oral sex, masturbation, hetero and homo couplings.

For a D'amato flick, it's surprisingly well made. Camera angles, lighting, pacing are all fairly good. Even the scripting and acting are better than the norm. So well is it made that I find myself wishing that all D'amato flicks looked this quality.

On a side note, it's interesting that with the exception of a short fellatio bit the hetero scenes are strictly soft-core while the lesbian scenes are fully explicit.

A well constructed piece of erotica, if one can get past the sacrilegious content.

7/10


This is a well shot, good looking erotic outing from Mr D'Amato making full use of his convent setting and realistic looking nun costumerie. There is a good old mix here of sex action, mainly but not exclusively girl on girl. Pretty explicit and suddenly, surprisingly hardcore for, of all things, the double rape in the woods. A story of sorts but this is really much as you would expect from nunsploitation but with just a bit more style and variation than usual. Slows just a tiny bit when the wizened little 'man of God' turns up to exorcise the place but we are soon storming to a super finale as the poor man walks the corridors splashing his holy water whilst the girls are inside their rooms making their own little splashes. In fact so carried away do they get that they are soon chasing after the little chap in various stages of undress eager to get him stripped off, God or no God!


The jury is still out as far as nunsploitation and I are concerned; it's not that I don't appreciate sleaze in movies, just that the idea of a load of God-fearing women living behind convent walls doesn't really appeal to me all that much. It's lucky, then, that cult cinema God Joe D'Amato is on hand to spice this theme up a little, with a load of nymphomaniac 'nuns' getting up to all-sorts with each other and any man that that happens to stop by. It's obvious that D'Amato was far more interested in making a porn movie than a film about nuns and their beliefs, and this shines through as the focus is always on the sexual antics, and any whisper of a plot line exists only to string more sex scenes together. There is a plot, however, and it follows a convent full of nuns. After taking in a wounded man against all the convent rules, the nuns soon find themselves making this man the focus of all their desires. However, he has also brought with him the devil (in the form of a statue), and this leads the local priest to visit the convent in order to expel the demon, only he ends up featuring in the nuns' desires also...

At first, I didn't think this movie was going to work as a porn film because the first couple of sex scenes are far too rigid and it seems like the actresses are just doing what they're told. However, D'Amato soon bucks this trend with a plethora of tender and perverted scenes that feature some of the most buxom nuns I've ever seen! D'Amato makes great use of his actresses' bodies, and this is a big bonus for the film; as it's much more full on than a lot of the nunsploitation sleaze. Despite the fact that this is a low quality sleaze movie, the production values are really good! The picture is crystal clear, and most of the acting is passable even when they've got their clothes on. The soundtrack courtesy of Nico Fidenco is infectious, and helps to make the overall film more erotic. This film is also bound to appeal to anyone that loves sleazy trash movies, as D'Amato is happy to go a little further than just showing your basic sex scenes, and the film also features lesbians, rape and wooden dildo's... Overall, Images in a Convent is a surprisingly good slice of nunsploitation and comes highly recommended to fans of this type of movie.


Yes friends, D'Amato does it again with another sleaze film that is sure to burrow it's way into all TRUE trash lovers hearts...IMAGES IN A CONVENT is that rare kinda film that D'Amato is sooooo good at. A good mix of atmosphere and filth that works well on both levels. I found the story a little convoluted, but here goes:

A girl is brought into a convent against her will to keep her Uncle from abducting her. Around the same time a wounded male traveler is allowed to stay in the convent to recuperate from his wounds. He tries to bone everyone in sight. There's a Pan-like statue that means something - maybe it's the Devil, maybe it's not. The nuns all touch each other inappropriately. A head nun is sent to fetch a Father to expel the Devil and is raped along the way. The Father comes to the convent anyway because he "felt" that he was needed and all the nuns try to screw him...The End.

Honestly, I couldn't really make heads or tails of the storyline, but there is enough tits, ass, and 70's puss-fros to not really care what the hell is going on plot-wise. The dual assault on the traveling nun is suitably sleazy as she's subjected to some graphic forced fellatio. The nuns all going' buck at the end is cool as one of 'em is ravaged with a wooden dildo. I don't know if this film had any real "point" - but it sure delivered some "goods". Not as "well-done" as some of the other nunsploit films, and doesn't quite beat out my favorite, SCHOOL OF THE HOLY BEAST...but it comes close if for nothing else than pure sleaziness. I love you Joe D'Amato...8/10


This is easily my favourite nunsploitation flick. The atmosphere was strangely haunting, and the nuns themselves were quite sexy...all the good elements to this genre are here.

The only scene I didn't enjoy was the rape of one of the nuns in the woods. Not only because it was ugly, but also the way she is made to seem completely helpless was unconvincing.

I suppose one could look at the nun's excursion out into the woods as her unfortunately confronting the ugliness of the world outside the convent, but I think D'Amato could of done better by it somehow.

Also, that scene is very ugly in relation to the other more beautifully erotic scenes between the nuns, especially those that occur during the final thirty minutes or so of the film. Though quite hardcore, they still are sexy, and even a bit humorous.

Well, the genre being such as it is, I guess there's no room for subtlety! Recommended for those who enjoy erotic 70's cinema, with women with real curves, real sexiness and a bit of the arcane strangeness of the genre and the era.


"Immagini di un convento" is a nunsploitation film that really delivers - I would rather call it "Sexual Revolution in a Convent". There's something weird and fascinating in the notion of women being locked or locking themselves behind convent walls, where they have to lead a life that denies their identity of women, all of it to serve an abstraction called God. But our lives are ruled by abstractions. Are they really necessary? But that's beside the point. Let's go to the film.

Joe D'Amato, in an interview featured in my DVD (Exploitation Digital), confesses that he always felt a kind of attraction for nuns. They lived in his fantasies (maybe something to do with the forbidden fruit).

The film credits say that the film is loosely based on Jacques Diderot's "La Religieuse". Very, very loosely, I should say (I've read the book). But that doesn't matter either. Anyway the film is really very interesting (in all senses). Our senses be praised!

"Immagini di un convento" pulls no punches. The film begins with the arrival of a noble woman, Isabella (Paola Senatore), who was confined against her will in the convent. The first thing she does when introduced to the Mother Superior is to uncover her breasts as a protest. The Mother Superior is aghast with shock (or maybe secretly excited) and orders Isabella with a trembling voice to leave her and go to her cell. This is just the beginning! We are then introduced to the nuns (all of them very beautiful). Suddenly a thunderous noise outside is heard. All the nuns go running to see what it is. They find a man lying on the ground bleeding, maybe he was another victim of the robbers that abound in the surrounding forest. They lodge him in a hut near the convent. He is an artist and also a veritable Don Juan with a magnetic charm. In the park that circles the convent there's a statue of Pan, the satyr with horns (or maybe the Devil). It's a laughing ironic statue with strange eyes. Strange things begin to happen in the convent. Lesbian affairs, whips, dildos, masturbation, and even rape (and what a rape!).

An exorcist is called, but the nuns are already wild and hot. While he tries to purify the convent, nuns are masturbating in their cells, one nun using a dildo on another, some are licking and kissing in a state of frenzy, while the Mother Superior is wildly throwing herself around the bed pressing her legs together, nearly out of her mind. And the serene exorcist proceeds along the corridor saying prayers in Latin and sprinkling holy water around. The nuns, naked or semi-naked, emerge from their cell doors and begin to follow the priest and... Well, I think it's not necessary to tell more. I think that by now you know what you're in for.

"Immagini di un convento" is very interesting, it is the strongest nunsploitation film that I've seen so far. Good cinematography. Highly recommended!


Policewoman Lacy Bond,played by small dynamic redhead Sondra Currie,is a "supercop" assigned to take down a band of female gangsters who are up to all sorts of fiendish criminal activities.She uses(pretty basic)martial arts skills against them,and is later joined by undercover agent Pam Harris,played by Jeanie Bell,to help her take down the bad girl mob.The guys are generally pretty unimportant in this movie.Tony Young,as Lacy's boss and partner is reduced to a hapless sidekick,muttering his disapproval when he thinks she is putting herself in danger(and at one point having to be rescued by our heroine from some murderous babes who are beating him to death!).Only Phil Hoover,playing a funny and pretty vicious villain,and the great William Smith,sending himself up in a cameo as a patronizing police fight instructor,really register among the male cast.This cheap but entertaining movie contains all the elements expected from Lee Frost's "drive-in" fare,some sex and nudity,scantily clad girls,and lots of action.Fans of female fighting in movies should like the scenes where Lacy and Pam use judo and karate battling the female villains-such as tough con Janette(Laurie Rose)and bikini bimbo thugs Caroline(Dorrie Thomson)and her gang.


"Policewomen" is an action/adventure film that is worth seeing, especially if you are a fan of women's martial arts. Sondra Currie is the main female action heroine whose knowledge of karate is put to use in a prison, in a gym, on a boat and on the back of a truck. Jeannie Bell also has notable fight scenes. Both of them prove that women can fight and that they can look very sexy while doing so. The story is a crime-fighting caper that is enhanced by a good musical score.


Spirited and supremely sexy Sondra Currie is Lacey Bond, a tough lady cop assigned to bust a crime wave perpetrated by women. The ringleader is aged Maude (Elizabeth Stuart), who happens to have a much younger boy toy (Phil Hoover). And Lacey has her own love interest in Lt. Frank Mitchell (Tony Young).

Enjoyable drive-in action flick definitely has its moments. It gets off to a lively start with a prison break sequence. It also has its fair share of cat fights, and we even get to see Ms. Currie wipe the floor with the almighty William Smith, who plays a karate instructor. Action scenes are fairly well done; at least there are some good vehicle stunts. The supporting cast is full of attractive young ladies, and the story is pretty straightforward and entertaining. Currie is an engaging lead, even if she's not that much of an actress. She does look like she's enjoying herself. Stuart and Hoover are very amusing in the villain roles; Hoover even bares his backside at one point.

It's true that this film comes up short in the sleaze department. There's not that much in terms of sex or nudity, but it's still an entertaining film. Exploitation veterans Wes Bishop (who also appears on screen as Raymond) and Lee Frost (who plays a Catalina attendant) keep it moving and keep it interesting. I certainly wouldn't consider it boring. As action flicks go, it does its job. And it's also got Jeanie "T.N.T. Jackson" Bell along for the ride, so that's worth something.

7/10


Policewoman Lacy Bond (Sondra Currie) longs for more interesting and meaningful assignments than guarding female prisoners. After almost single handedly thwarting a mass prison escape, Lacy catches the eye of her superiors and is finally given her big chance. Her assignment  go undercover to bust up an all-girl smuggling ring. But she better be careful, because this gang is deadly.

I loved the opening prison break scenes. They had a quirky feel to them that worked. After the first 10 minutes, I thought for sure I had found a winner. But after getting off to a great start, once the real plot kicks in, Policewomen loses steam. What should have been a wild, fun ride turns into . . . well, in a word, it gets boring. The plot has way too much talk and not enough action or sleaze. The case that Lacy Bond finds herself involved in isn't terribly interesting. I can't really blame Sondra Currie. She may not be the best actress I've seen (in fact, she's downright bad), but she sure does give it her all. I am happy, however, to see that after Policewomen she went on to have a good career. The casting of Elizabeth Stuart as the ring-leader Maude and Phil Hoover as her boyfriend Doc was an interesting choice. I'm not saying it was a good choice, just interesting. Policewomen also features some of the sloppiest editing I've run into recently. Big, obtrusive splices right in the middle of action scenes. It's pretty obvious that Currie and the other actors had problems with the action so cuts had to be made to set-up and finish a scene. It's really weak. The film's final scenes do help redeem the movie somewhat, but not enough to make me call the movie "good". For what it's worth, I've rated Policewomen a very generous 4/10.


After taking the series too far in the direction of horror-hokum, Don Coscarelli pushes Phantasm IV further into sci-fi than any previous film but brings back the narcoleptic approach the first that II and III were sorely without. In doing so, Phantasm IV becomes the most atmospheric and haunting one yet. Just don't expect long scenes of exposition or plot-details being unsubtly wrapped up, the mystery of the Tall Man is too strong to ever fully end.

As you should remember, at the end of Phantasm III Mike disappeared into the darkness after the Tall Man did some kind of unnecessary brain surgery on him and Reggie was literally left hanging after being pinned to the wall by a dozen killer spheres. Well you can relax, the Tall Man knows that killing Reggie will achieve nothing and focuses on catching Mike, who has a plan to draw him out into the open by hiding in the desert. Reggie closely follows, driving through loads of deserted towns already pillaged by the Tall Man. And the ghost of Jodie (now looking like the identical twin brother of Stellan Skarsgard) comes back to offer some suspicious advice.

It's all very, very minimalist and reminds me a lot of the Myst video games in regards to the overwhelming sense of abandonment and isolation, the journal-keeping, the doorways to other worlds, the stark silence of desert landscapes and the weird contraptions. The true identity of the Tall Man is finally revealed but the forces behind him are still kept in the dark. The answers are hinted at rather than announced and the dialogue sparse without being empty.

Another cool thing about this sequel are the many eerie and haunting (and haunted?) locations such as a lonely beach, spooky rock formations, a lifeless Wilshire Boulevard (the biggest street in LA) and barren salt flats that give it such an otherworldly and supernatural feel that the typical mausoleums and old graveyards of II and III didn't.

Again the Tall Man steals the show from Reggie, who is putting up a harder fight to make it his movie. Both are great characters who shrug off the typical characteristics of villain and hero and become people who you can REALLY root for. Yes, you can side with the Tall Man! It's a shame that Angus Scrimm has never really gotten any huge recognition outside of the cult-horror circles as his approach to the character is very unique and he takes his acting very seriously.

Since Don Coscarelli shot so much unused footage for the original Phantasm film he incorporates some of it into the story, thus heightening the already warped space-time continuum the Phantasm universe exists in. As a result of this the ending may seem annoyingly ambiguous but can be interpreted in so many different ways. Since Coscarelli is busy with other projects right now it seems unlikely that the long-rumored Phantasm's End will happen any time soon. But when you enjoy a series of films so much do you really want to see it end? The non-closure of Phantasm IV keeps the story alive after the credits roll instead of finishing it for good. Which is how I would prefer it. If you watch it with company, this tends to lead to much discussion afterwards, something more straight-forward horror films don't. I've always thought that if you wish to tackle something outlandish and imaginative that you must have an equally as strong counter-imagination to fully take it in and comprehend. If you prefer films like Bridget Jones and turn your nose up to Lost Highway then your probably best steering away from the Phantasm series. If you're better than that then you're in for one helluva crazy ride.


I am one of the world's biggest fans of the original Phantasm. But I have to admit, that the sequels really do nothing for me.

Number four is the closest thing to the original. It lives the same world, but isn't distracted by pop culture phenomena of the time the way 2 & 3 seemed to be influenced/commentating on 'Evil Dead' and 'Home Alone'.

As much as I like seeing the Tall Man, Reggie and Mike back in action, Jody still seems forced into the series. I really wish that Coscarelli had just left him dead and moved on. The whole 'living ball' thing is plain silly.


If you remember the first movie at all, and you approach this movie with an open mind, you will find OblIVion quite satisfying. Though not as atmospheric as the first movie, there are several creepy scenes scattered throughout, including the opening scene and a dream sequence involving Reggie. In addition, there are several scenes from Phantasm (I) cleverly woven into the storyline creating continuity between the two films. Some, but not all questions are cryptically answered, which steadfastly adheres to the "nothing is as it seems",non linear flow to the movies. It definitely leaves room for one last movie. Maybe the last movie can spell it out (or at least somewhat) for "phans" needing closure.

In conclusion, if your not a fan of the Phantasm movies, or are just randomly renting movies out of boredom, I strongly suggest you don't bother and keep your cynicism to yourself. But if your willing to at least watch the first film, or if your addicted to Phantasm I, Phantasm IV will clearly keep you wanting more.


I cannot believe all of the bad reviews that this movie is getting! It is clearly the best sequel in the whole series! It may have had a bizzare ending, but it left you to come up with your own answer. Like one great philospher said, "When the end is upon us, that is where the beginning may arrive." I have my own answer, but I could go on for hours about what I thought the ending meant. Great movie, great sequel, long live the tall man!


I don't know why people complain about this film so much, it is easily as good as the other Phantasm Films.

This film, as usual, contains brilliant acting from the four leads, especially Reggie Bannister(who is God in the horror film genre, with Bruce Campbell as Jesus), and Angus Scrimm's aging appearance just add to his performance, (let's face it he look old, which is cool for the evil bad guy). The action scenes are excellently staged and the make-up is the best ever.

I find all the complaints about this film laughable and stupid.

1. Not enough revealed about the Tall Man's origins, despite promises. What do you what? An autobiography, with detailed plans for his world domination (which part 5 promises if it's ever made). What is revealed is enough to show evil comes from good, perhaps a metaphor for the Tall Man's quest for Mike over the ears.

2. Lack of action/gore. Rubbish!!!!!!!!! I'm going to sulk over this statement. Reggie (God) Bannnister is one mean Zombie-thing ass kicker. Reggie's entire journey to find Mike goes from one gun battle to another. And as for gore, there's more yellow custard flying around here than an Oscar losers after dinner party.

3. Bad script/direction. What a load of sh#te. This is one of Coscarelli's funniest scripts, loaded with wit ('this won't hurt a bit...Well...maybe just a little bit.' person hearing this then screams, priceless). And as for direction we need look no further than scenes featuring the Almighty, sorry Mr Bannister, the Motel Room scene is excellent, especially the end:

CREATURE:(ON THE FLOOR)Wait, we aren't finished yet! REG:(RAISING GUN)Sorry baby, but YES WE ARE! (GUN FLIES AT SCREEN AND BLACKOUT CRUNCHING NOISE)

4. Finally the end. Another cliff hanger, noting is resolved, no clear winner (again) main characters face death, how will they get out of this? Wait ten years for another installment. What's the problem, this is the best way to end the series if part five never comes - Reg aimlessly fighting for his friend's life, Mike Helpless to prevent his fate and the Tall Man appearing to be the Evil victor, but we know the good guys will win, don't we? This is just the perfect ending as it embodies the entire themes and events of the series. And should it lead to a part five it is also a brilliant cliff hanger.

I'm not saying that this film is perfect,the results of part 3's cliff hanger are disappointing, as are the ideas that Mike has about his 'abilities', but it is still a very enjoyable film. The desolated future scene is a Reg (God) send, apparently done without permission or blocking off the street, as are the flashbacks of unused part one scenes, the final one is very effectively haunting.

Let's hope this leads to part five, if it's even half as good as this. I saw part three first in 1994/5 on Sky and at the end thought 'Our heroes can't be left like this, Mummy (I was 12) how will they escape?' she told me to wait and see. Six years later I finally know. As good as this, part five would be well worth the wait twice over.


I'm pretty sure everyone has pondered just who The Tall Man is and what his ultimate goal really is. The first question gets an answer in Jebediah Morningside..an inventor on the brink of a major discovery, a portal that can reach endless time and space. The answer to the second is a bit more difficult and easy. The easy part seems to be that The Tall Man's goal is to turn Mike into a sort of Tall Man creation. Why this is doesn't quite get a satisfactory answer. We have our own thoughts to question The Tall Man's motivations for allowing Reggie to survive. He tells him that the final game is about to begin so is The Tall Man's main motivation to simply manipulate and control Reggie and Michael? Why The Tall Man allows any of this film's story to take place really is a deep mystery. I never could really understand why The Tall Man would need a cohort to join him in his "dwarfing business", but perhaps he's lonely or something..fact is we just don't get an answer because it seems like Coscarelli just wants to keep us head scratching. But, being an entertained fan of his previous three, this fourth entry seems to add a new puzzle to every answer. The one thing that seems to be a theme to the overall film is the past mistakes Mike made when facing The Tall Man. In his adult stage he seems to always try to escape The Tall Man, but lack success. We see in a past flashback Mike cut The Tall Man loose as he hung from a noose. This is an interesting piece to perhaps why The Tall Man took a liking to Mike..he seems to desire a partner in his schemes and maybe in Mike's cutting him down this was the answer to his idea. Reggie is pretty much a non-factor in this installment which is a bit disappointing because he was the major character in the other two. He actually carried the series on his shoulders because most of the entertainment came from his quips and charisma. He does shoot up some dwarfs and has a brief scenario with a supposed drifter(Heidi Marnhount). This little sub-plot provides a wild sequence where those metal balls come from an unusual location. But, Reggie still doesn't get laid and on his journey to help Mike he does encounter Jody. Jody's role in the film seems to be rather confusing. Which side does he work for? It seems he tries to help Mike and Reggie, yet he does pose a threat towards the end. Perhaps he is torn..Jody tries to help Mike stop The Tall Man, but is under control by the evil fiend. The story regarding how everything began with Jebediah is very fascinating, but a bit underdeveloped. Overall, the film has a "fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants" kind of feel. This provides unpredictability, but also confusion. Still, the film keeps you guessing and has enough ghoulish gags(like the zombie policeman who Reggie has a hard time killing)to keep a horror fan interested.


Phantasm IV just might be my favorite film of all time, and I'd like to explain why I adore it so much and feel that, in every sense, it IS a fitting end to the series, and that it leaves NO questions unanswered.

This series has always been a riddle, always an enigma, and the answers are as difficult to see when they're right in front of you as perhaps the destination of one of the Tall Man's dimensional forks.

I'm sure everyone has a theory of what was meant or implied by a lot of the events of Phantasm IV, and here's my personal take that I strongly believe in, so much so that when I watch part IV, it brings tears to my eyes, every time, without fail.

A lot of people get confused by the "contradictory" flashback scenes that depict different events than what happened in the original Phantasm.

Think about thisit IS true that the ending of Phantasm reveals that everything was just a bad dream, and that Jody died in a car wreck. But poor confused little Michael claims that everything felt so real Ten years later, his dream is proved a reality because the Tall Man is back, desecrating every town he travels throughhe also kills Reggie's family. Reggie then believes Michael and the two team up and the rest of the series plays out rather linearly.

Butthen how could everything have been a dream, if it all proved true? What.REALLY happened? In part IV, Michael is not only beginning to understand everything about the Tall Man's origins, but about the CORRECT origins to his own connection to it all. It WAS a dream, but something ELSE happened. All the flashback footage we are shown in part IV finally reveals what REALLY happened when Michael first encountered the Tall Man. Everything else we saw in the original was either one of many parallel universes we've witnessed in the series, or merely a dream caused by the Tall Man affecting Michael's perception of reality.

So.Jody DID die in a car wreck, but we never LIVED that reality. It's this disconnection and robbery of Michael's memory of his brother that makes this series so effective in it's sense of loneliness and emotional loss.

Also, I believe that the girl from Phantasm II that Michael has a telepathic connection to is a result of this. She looks extremely similar to the granddaughter of the psychic from the original, and I believe, that if everything from part I WAS a dream, then he knew that girl from a separate dimension of reality, the reality we never knew, that is, until we saw glimpses of it in part IV.

The ending of part IV brings tears to my eyes. Reggie tears through the fabric of time, to journey back to where his personal journey with Mike began. Sitting together in the ice cream truck, they truly have traveled back in time, where they can relive the battle, only this time, armed with something more powerful than a four-barreled shotgun.knowledge.

They will continue this battle, most likely forever. Yet every time they come back to where they started, they will have learned more every time.

It is for this reason that I do not wish for a Phantasm V, no matter how much I adore this "phranchise". I have never held so much love and compassion for a series of films or a cast of characters as much as what I've seen in the Phantasm saga. I would love another journey with them, but, in my heart, I know that Reggie and Mike are still out there, traveling across endless dimensions, fighting the Tall Man for all eternity. They are the Yin and Yang, the Life and Death, of Space and Time. For one to give in to, or to destroy the other, would probably unravel the very fabric of all reality. Let's hope their fight never ends.

Thank you, Don, for giving us the most endearing, complex, and compassionate horror film saga that has ever been created. I will cherish these films until the day I die.

Your undying Phan, Justin Warren


A horror movie that is fourth in a series should be terrible. This one actually stands on its own as a good movie, though perhaps not great as fourth in the series.

As other users have commented, this movie does not answer questions about the Phantasm series. It shows a little background on the tall man, and that's it.

On the other hand, looking at it as a stand-alone-movie, it works! It has very coherent and often beautiful art direction. There are very few characters (I assume to save money), but that works. It keeps the movie from bogging down in goofy dialogue and laughable characters like Phantasm III.

The movie actually gets rather artful at times. Just observe the desert scenes with the field of metal rods to see what I mean. The Tall Man doesn't seem too threatening in this one. He come across much more as a constant pressure instead of an acute danger.

The individual characters aren't really developed any more than the previous films. They are reaching archetypal roles of heros, seekers, fighters, etc.

This is not a slasher film. It almost is not a horror movie. Oddly enough, it is almost stepping out of its low-brow beginnings (except for the breast scene in the hotel) and nearly reaching art movie status. I would love to see Phantasm V taken further in this vein. Unfortunately, I think this is the last of the series. Enjoy it if you can find it!


I am a die hard fan of this series and part IV is my favourite. It is alot like the orignal but manages to surpass it. Angus Scrimm is at his best in this movie. Dont listen to all the negative feedback. Remember this film was made on a budget of only $650000....thats less than a million...The special effects were VERY GOOD. Bring on part V.


I made a huge mistake when I began to watch the 'Phantasm' series. I started with this one and only because I couldn't find the original and just wanted to see this series so badly. I'd heard good things about it, but that was decreased a bit after seeing this film. It was made worse after I saw the first three because they're all so good by comparison. Every series has at least one installment that can be called the weakest and 'Phantasm: Oblivion' seemed to be this one's example, but then I gave it another chance. It's still my least favorite of the series, but I've realized that after all is said and done it's really not a bad film. It is however a mediocre finale, which may not be the case if V gets it's funding.

Pros: A really powerful opening five minutes, which includes an unnecessary, but well done series recap. As usual the performances are excellent. It's cool to see alternate footage from the original in the form of flashbacks. We finally start to get some answers as to when and how this all started. Another really good music score. Setting a large portion of the film at night increases the chill factor. Pace is kind of slow, but steady. Some decent effects.

Cons: Lacking in action. Still a lot of unanswered questions. Though it's nice to see the deleted footage from the first film, a lot of it feels like padding. It's also cool to see Bill Thornberry again, but he's way underutilized.

Final thoughts: As another sequel, 'Oblivion' is above average and much better than I remember. But as a fan it just doesn't feel like a satisfying end to it all. A fifth film is said to be in the works, but it needs financing and to happen soon. This is overall a great series, but the wait for this next sequel is starting to get excruciating.

My rating: 3.5/5


It's rare that the same creative team are still around 4 films into a series, and even rarer that a 4th film has anything new to add, so this makes a refreshing change.

The tone is a little uneven, with Coscarelli seeming torn between delivering the slapstick gore and laughs of the previous 2 sequels and going for the darker more surreal approach of the first movie, so a lot of Reggie's scenes seem like they could have been pasted in from a different movie. Speaking of which large chunks are made up of deleted scenes from "Phantasm", which, while suggesting money problems during development, actually works very well in bookending the events so far.

It also goes some way to filling in the gaps, giving the Tall Man a proper origin story and answering a few questions while still leaving enough up in the air to justify the 5th film which is apparently in production currently.

That said, even if a 5th film never materialises, this makes a nicely apocalyptic ending to a series that has actually come to life in it's sequels. There's still plenty of laughs, but there's a very downbeat tone and some nicely creepy touches, making this a very enjoyable, if slightly schizophrenic addition to a fun series.


This movie keeps on getting better and better by the minute! Mike(A. Michael Baldwin) and Reggie(Reggie Bannister) keeps on trailing the sinister Tall Man(Angus Scrimm). Every time they go after him, they keep on finding things that weakens him. Time after time Reggie finds something, so did Mike. On the last movie, one of the silver spheres attacked the Tall Man was Mike's brother Jody. Not only Reggie was a Ice Cream truck driver, he was also a musician on the side. And he encountered the silver spheres himself. When he was spending the night with a woman, she later had spheres for breast. That was very freaky. All the other footages from the last three movies have been very helpful. The encounters, the people, and the unstoppable evil that constantly plagues the town that they are in. They remember that the sphere were not only weapons, they can be used as a key to open the portals. I liked the part when the ball was used to take out the minions of the Tall Man. When Reggie left in the Ice Cream truck, the question remains, "Is it over?" The movie puts the "I" in Intensity, out of all the other horror movies, Phantasm is tops! 5 stars!


"Phantasm IV: Oblivion" is the fourth installment in the "Phantasm" series, and this film continues from where "Part III" left off. Mike (Michael Baldwin) and Reggie (Reggie Bannister) continue their relentless fight against the evil Tall Man (Angus Scrimm), a ghastly grave-robber from another dimension who is slowly taking over the dead one town at a time. Mike, after the events in "Part III", finds himself in a strange limbo of dimensions in the Tall Man's world, trying to save his own life and stop the evil villain.

Being a big fan of the "Phantasm" series, I really, really tried to like this movie as best as I could, but I had a little trouble with it at times. Like each film in this series tends to do, it's style and overall tone is a whole lot different than that of it's three predecessors. "Part III" threw in a lot of black comedy and humor for some comic relief, which did draw away some of the tension. "Oblivion" sheds all of the punch-lines and humor, and gets things back to the gritty, scary world of The Tall Man, and for that I have some respect for this movie. It maintains this feel of inescapable terror throughout, and the utter bizarreness and the dreamlike atmosphere is strong as ever. The entire film is like one big nightmare that you can't wake up from, and this nightmarish feeling succeeds in making you feel uneasy.

However, I do have to complain that at times the storyline becomes a little lost in the vast dreamlike landscape and bizarre imagery. It's hard to distinguish what is exactly happening at times, and this film challenges you to put some pieces together yourself, and I'll admit it is a bit tough in certain areas. It takes a little thinking and it's not a movie you can really understand immediately, so I will advise a second viewing if needed, it may make you appreciate the movie more. There are a few minor inconsistencies concerning the dimension-travel and a couple of plot holes that are never explained (one of them being, whatever happened to young Timmy from "Part III"? We are led to believe he died, but nothing is ever really explained, his character is just kind of sloppily thrown out of the picture. I suppose it isn't too terrible though because his character wasn't of much relevance to the overall story, but still).

Beside the storyline becoming a little lost at times, I can't complain about much else. There are some truly frightening scenes here, and I have to praise this movie for it's atmosphere, cinematography, and the truly eerie feeling that it emanates. Michael Baldwin is featured much more in this sequel, and holds up well, as does Reggie Bannister as his long-time friend and co-fighter against The Tall Man. Angus Scrimm is just as scary here as he was in the original "Phantasm". His presence is really something of screen legend, especially within the horror genre. The conclusion to the movie is open-ended for a sequel (as are all the endings in these films), but we're still awaiting another installment to try and help answer a few questions and possibly bring a close to this utterly bizarre gem of a movie series.

Overall, "Phantasm IV: Oblivion" is an installment that most "phans" won't be too disappointed with. Personally, I enjoyed it. It has some script problems and it does become hard to follow at times, but the surreal atmosphere and the downright ambiguity and eeriness brought through the imagery and the cinematography is really wonderful. It's a weird sequel, but I liked it a lot, all things considered. I'd strictly recommend it to "phans" of the series though, because all others will likely despise it. 8/10.


Opening up with a recap on what has happened so far, "Phantasm IV: Oblivion" begins with the ending of "Phantasm III: Lord of the Dead" and continues the ongoing struggle of good vs. evil with Mike (A. Michael Baldwin) and The Tall Man (Angus Scrimm). We see Mike driving a hearse down a desert road in effort to get as far away from the mysterious Tall Man with Reggie (Reggie Bannister) following Mike. While Reggie deals with demon cops and a sexy lady (Heidi Maranhout), Mike travels through multiple portals and discovers how The Tall Man came to this dimension and if his brother Jody (Bill Thornbury) is really what he seems to be.

Phantasm IV is the most recent entry in the series to date but thank god it is not the last as there will be one more film on the way. While Phantasm II and Phantasm III were both very straightforward, Oblivion brings back the strange and unique feel of the original. So in short, you often have no idea what the hell is going on. ANd the fact that they show deleted scenes from the original Phantasm as part of the story really doesn't help either. I consider Phantasm IV to be a little better than the disappointing (but still good) third entry of the series, but my issue with this one is that even though you are entertained throughout and your eyes will probably be glued to the screen, nothing really happens when you think about it. You see a lot of Mike driving. Then Reggie driving, then Mike sitting in the desert. Reggie driving some more. Mike still sitting in the desert. Had the movie had more than one setting (not counting the ones in the portal jumping) it may not have felt this way. Towards the end it gets a lot more interesting and a lot of stuff happens but everything else was more or less a build up. The other thing is the ending. Thank god Phantasm V was announced because this has an extremely vague and unsatisfying ending. If you have seen 1-3, which all have the same ending more or less (which is vague also), this one blows it out of the park. Basically the film reaches it's climax, drifts to something completely random, and just ends out of the blue. And this is ten years (1998 at the time) before another film will be seen. Wow...

Continuity errors are what really disappointed me about the third movie, but aside from The Tall Man's need for Mike to be alive carried over from the third, one this one luckily has none. The amazing Phantasm score isn't really played, but a slow violin version that sounds great is herd often which adds to the drama of the film (also herd in 2 and 3). Despite that there isn't much going on in the middle, the film manages to be extremely entertaining and if you are a fan of the series your sure to really like this one. Reggie Bannister serves as the source of humor and bad-ass hero who once was an ice cream vendor once again gives a great performance as does Angus Scimm as the sinister Tall Man as usual. Michael Baldwin gives a much better performance than in Phantasm III which was good to know. Like Phantasm III, Bill Thornbury is just kind of there but unlike Phantasm III he actually has importance in this one.

The Breakdown:

PROS: Captivating story, Great score, Likable characters, Dosen't contain many continuity errors unlike it's predecessor, Attractive women (Heidi Maranhout), Very surreal, And who wouldn't like to see a bald and middle-aged ex-ice cream vendor dressed in his old uniform shooting demon midgets with a quad barrel shot-gun?

CONS: The ending will really annoy you for a really long time, Though the film contains many of silver spheres, there arn't any real drilling's:(, and you occasionally have no idea what is going on.

OVERALL: It isn't as good as "Phantasm" or "Phantasm II", but "Phantasm IV: Oblivion" is yet another satisfying entry to this amazing fantasy/horror series. While the series tends to be more horror, this one seems more of a fantasy/drama. Not that thats bad thing though. If you haven't seen any of the Phantasm movies I recommend you do as it is a great franchise. Also Reggie Bannister does a surprisingly good song called "Have You Seen It?" played in the credits and was made for th film.

Rated R: Mild Violence and Language; Runtime: 1 hour 30 minutes; Score: 8/10


The original Phantasm is such a landmark cult film because it truly bent the limits of the horror movie genre. It blended horror, scifi, comedy and good old Ingmar-Bergman-like surrealism and gave us something no one could have expected. Here, 20 years later, we finally get a worthy successor.

Unlike Phantasms II & III (which were entertaining but in a superficial way), Phantasm Oblivion takes us away from the formulaic action and throws us into a bizarre dreamscape where anything goes. Much of the movie happens in a desert setting out in the middle of nowhere (Death Valley). The scenery and camera-work are absolutely spectacular, and the images of desolation make us feel as if we're watching a classic old Twilight Zone episode. I don't know about you, but I love this kind of stuff! From there, the plot takes so many strange twists through the use of flashbacks, dreams and acid trips, that I'm sure most people are left bewildered. But some of the most interesting ideas are introduced. We get a peek into the origin of the Tall Man (with some fantastic acting on the part of Angus Scrimm who finally gets to read more lines than "BOYYYYYY!"), and we learn the significance of the dimensional portal introduced in the first movie.

But don't look for everything to be answered straightaway & tied up with a pretty bow, Hollywood style. Remember back to Phantasm I which left us with more questions than answers. In classic minimalistic/impressionistic style, Coscarelli resumes this tradition and gives us just enough to get our brains primed. I wasn't kidding when I compared this to the works of Ingmar Bergman. Maybe even Fellini and Jean Cocteau. Coscarelli and his crew have matured very nicely.

Get ready for some great stuff with some of the best one-liners in the biz ("I thought cars only blew up like that in the movies!"). And of course there's Reggie, the ass-kicking ice cream man. Folks it don't get any better. I give it 8/10 which is very high on my scale.


Many did not like this addition to the series. That is probably because this film differed from the rest in the way that it made some sense. It tied the rest of the movies together in a pure piece of brilliance. Over-all, an excellent movie.


I had read all of the bad reviews of this film, so I didn't know what to expect. To be truthful, I thought the movie was a great addition to the Phantasm series. For all those who hate the ending being so weird and it just leaving you hanging, well think about this: ALL OF THE PHANTASM MOVIES END THAT WAY!!!!! All of the films leave you wondering "what happened next?!?!?!" I thought oblIVion was cool and just as good as the other sequels...


Phantasm Oblivion is undoubtedly the best sequel in the Phantasm series!! It took the humor out of Phantasm III, and got back to the dead serious tone of the first film. Phantasm fans Must see this movie. Great movie, great sequel. Long live the Tall Man!!!!'


I highly recommend this film. Some friends of mine got together with a tape and watched this with much anticipation. We were all fans of the Phantasm series. We were not disappointed!!! The original cast is back and Reggie is just as appealing as ever. The Tall Man can still deliver the looks that scare. This film was a bit more sophisticated than the previous sequels while not compromising any of the traditional fun, scares, gore or witty one-liners we come to expect from Phantasm. You won't be disappointed!!!!


I don't know about some of you people, but this is the most interesting phantasm yet. Sure, there isn't enough violence or gore, but that is the way that it was intended to be. This was supposed to be the final fling, and its supposed to explain a,lot of things, and it has. The plot is just hard to explain, and it's very complex. It seems that some of you can't see that and just write it off as being dumb. Well, you have to have a little bit of intelligence to understand the series, so don't even try understand if you can't.


The best sequel to the original. This movie implements philosophical overtones that the previous two films left out. While II and Lord of the Dead provided the necessary action that plot needed to develop, OblIVion actually made viewers think. The storyline also revealed a lot more than it physically displayed on-screen. The origins of the Tall Man were explained wonderfully. Angus Scrimm did a remarkable job of transforming his evil character into a nice lemonade offering old man, even if it was for only a few seconds. With characters jumping through dimensions and time, it was left for the viewer to determine why the characters where the way they were, and how they became that way. However, Coscarelli actually plots it out in a not so obvious way. It seems that the unused footage from the original film was intentionally left that way. Coscarelli tied in the 1979 scenes perfectly in conjuncture to the 1998 story as if the 19 year time difference was planned all along. Many viewers gave negative reviews to this film because it was not your typical slice em dice em horror flick. The two most common complaints have been that the movie didn't explain much and the original footage was worthless. If you think either of these two things, go watch a Friday the 13th movie where all you'll have to use your brain for is pressing "play" and "rewind." If this is the last Phantasm, so be it. If another one can be made to show what is already implied, that would be great too. Either way, this is one of the few movies that has passed the test of time with a quality product. 8 out of 10.


When I first saw this movie I was a little disappointed. I felt that writer/director Don Coscarelli had once again did the best he could but that this time he had definitely bitten off more than he could chew (hence the "filler" material, as I saw it, made from unused scenes from the original Phantasm movie). Luckily, I rewatched the film recently and saw it for what it was: a wonderful end (probably) to a series that had taken a momentous effort to get made in the first place. If things aren't always as polished as they could be, well, bear in mind that Coscarelli IS working within the kind of budget that I imagine wouldn't even pay for the catering trucks on a Michael Bay picture.

This time around it's Reggie doing the chasing as "The Tall Man" has taken Michael and is almost ready to complete whatever grand plan he has had for the boy all along. As the clock ticks away on Michael's chances of survival we learn even more about the origins of the evil icon and how his plans were initially made.

And don't worry, we have even more action from the spheres of doom along with plenty of interesting musings on inter-dimensional travelling and how to really create that shrunken little slave you've always hankered after. There are also a few twists and turns that, while well signposted, impress once again by showing how fearless Coscarelli really is when he has such faith in his own material.

All of the main cast members return (Bannister, Baldwin, Thornbury and Scrimm), thankfully, and Coscarelli goes out of his way to provide each one with a fitting final moment in a series that will surely be loved by horror fans for many years to come.

See this if you like: Phantasm, Phantasm II, Phantasm III: Lord Of The Dead.


Ten out of ten stars go to an old friend. That's what I consider the "Phantasm" cast and crew to be, old friends. None of the "Phantasm" sequels have been able to live up to the legendary mystique of the original. What else is new though? Very few sequels ever are able to match originals? Nonetheless, "Phantasm" sequels are overall better than the majority of horror sequels. And in part four, Mike and Reggie continue their struggle to unravel the mysteries of the Tall Man, and save Mike from becoming a flying sphere.

But back to old friends... I guess you could say that I'm one of those people that, "Gets Phantasm". I understand why some people might not find any redeeming values in this film series; but to me this film and the characters it portrays are dear friends. Perhaps it's my own life experiences that enable me to level with the "Phantasm" plight. The "Phantasm" experience lies within each of us to most appropriately interpret.

I, like many other "Phantasm" friends, have found solstice and understanding in Coscarelli's phantasmal imagining. I've been able to find solutions to my own real life problems and relive past memories through the help of all of the "Phantasms". Part four is definitely a highly nostalgic imagining that die hard fans will certainly appreciate and understand. Others may have problems with part 4 and I understand, but don't know how to convert these people.

This film was produced for slightly less than $1,000,000 in 1997! And while I'll be the first to admit that this fourth installment has it's fair share of problems, I commend the production team for a job well done. Part four is just smart film making, plain and simply, done on a minute budget. Coscarelli is a talented film maker; he's really quite a master of visual imagery and camera manipulation.

Just think of the staggering number of movies in any genre that are made every year for ten or twenty million, yet still are total garbage. Most of what comes out of Hollywood is overpriced garbage anyway: In 1998 and in 2009. Part four is far from being garbage at any production cost level. Everyone that worked on this movie worked on it because they cared about the people involved and expected something more than money out of it. The actors and production crew were there to make a movie for the fans that have supported the "Phantasm" legacy.


The only interesting thing about this movie is seeing the original cast members after all these years. There is also a neat flashback sequence, with footage shot for the first film, but not seen before. A bunch of seemingly unrelated would-be scary scenes plod along aimlessly towards a big explosion at the end. (Was that a spoiler?) The oblique origin of "The Tall Man" is just more meaningless stuff. The first movie was a unique experience, the sequels have been pretty bad. Give it up guys.


The Tall Man returns with the original Phantasm cast for Phantasm IV: Oblivion. The fourth and supposedly final chapter in the Phantasm series takes off were Lord Of The Dead (Phantasm III) left off. In this one Reggie continues after Mike as Mike learns about The Tall Man's history. The kid from part 3 who knew everything about guns and fighting is dropped and Rocky who left in the car at the end of part 3 is also out of the picture. This leaves Reggie alone in search of Mike. As the Tall Man's history unfolds in a series of scene's from the original Phantasm, a majority of these scene's were cut from the original release of Phantasm and are being scene for the first time, other scene's are just scene's created specifically for this film. We learn about the Tall Man's history and even what his name is. In the end Reggie and Mike meet up for an unusual ending which leaves the viewer to figure out the rest. The first time I watched this I hated it, the second time I loved it, I don't know why, and now every time I watch it I love it, I guess the first time I just didn't like it. Phantasm 2012 A.D. is a possible release for yet another Phantasm film. ***1/2 out of **** it is a great film for die-hard fans like me, but on the other hand if your just sitting down to watch this you may be extremely confused. Thumbs up again to all the actors who have done an extremely well job with the acting in the series and hopefully will continue to do so in other movies or in the next Phantasm movie. Angus Scrimm did an amazing job playing 2 characters (a "nice tall man" and an "evil tall man"). Make sure you've seen the other 3 before this one, it should help a lot.


(Some major spoilers--read at your own risk.)

Apparently Don wrote the script for this in his sleep and started filming the next day without checking for a storyline or inconsistencies. While PHANTASM II was just okay, and PHANTASM III was actually pretty decent, this is definitely the worst sequel. There are so many problems in this film I hardly know where to start, but I'll try.

1. Half of PHANTASM IV is made up of cut scenes from the original PHANTASM. While it's interesting to see the deleted scenes, most of them had no relation to what was happening in IV and did nothing to further the plot or the series in general. Examples: The bit with Mike chasing the ice cream truck, and the part with him visiting Jody's grave. The only deleted scene that had anything to do with IV was the hanging scene (and I can see why they cut it from the original... it wasn't that great).

2. Mike and Reggie were only together for literally about 60 seconds of the movie. These actors have such great chemistry, it's a shame to see them apart for the entire movie. This was probably the biggest reason I did not enjoy the movie.

3. I hate to say it, but Reggie was next to useless in this sequel. The only thing he did that had any real bearing on the story was when he gave Mike the tuning fork. Otherwise about 90% of his screentime was totally useless, especially the entire sequence with the woman and scene with the undead police officers. The one liners were stupid, too. "Blow me"?? Since when did Reggie become Arnold Schwarzenegger?

4. We learned nothing new in this movie except a little bit of the Tall Man's history. There are so many interesting mysteries and unanswered questions from the first three films, surely they could have picked a few points to expound upon? Instead we get a lot of futile running around by the main characters.

5. The time travel and dimension-jumping were done very poorly, resulting in tons of inconsistencies and scenes that were so confusing they didn't seem to make any sense at all. For example, how did Mike know how to use the old-fashioned wheel-and-cog portal apparatus if he'd never seen it before? In the scene where Jody and Mike go back in time to visit the Tall Man, Jody tells Mike he can't kill the Tall Man because they're in different dimensions (Mike tries and he goes right through him like a ghost). But then when the Tall Man returns to the room through the portal, he can see Mike? At one point Jody is seriously maimed and apparently dies, but then in the very next scene he shows up looking good as new, and has to be killed AGAIN. Mike has a dream that he is in a Civil War medical tent being operated on by the Tall Man. It was never explained what signifigance this had (other than Mike fears/hates the Tall Man, which we already know!). Those are just a few of the things that make little sense. I could go on and on.

6. The ending is really lame and the most pathetic excuse for a sequel I have ever seen. As someone else noted, it seems like they just ran out of money and had to stop filming regardless of whether the end made any sense or not. I have no problem with ambiguous or cliff-hanger endings, but by the end of a film SOME element of the plot should be resolved. The Evil Dead movies all have open endings, but there is also a lot of plot development and resolution of problems. There is none of that in PHANTASM IV, and it makes you feel like you watched the whole movie for nothing.

I can only recommend this movie for die-hard fans of the series. If you are interested in seeing the deleted scenes, the little bit of the Tall Man's past, and just watching Reggie and Mike again, then by all means rent it. Just don't expect any plot or character development. If you're looking for a good horror movie, rent the first one!


"Oblivion" is right; further misadventures of Reggie and Mike pursuing the Tall Man still leave too much unexplained; we do find out the Tall Man's identity (Jebediah Morningside) and how he became interested in his "work", but it's never explained exactly how he got his supernatural powers, what exactly the "other side" is, what the flying spheres are or where they came from, how the "other side" transforms bodies into gnomes, and most of all, we still don't know what in the HELL the Tall Man means to do with his evil power. To quote Joe Bob Briggs: "We never find out what it all means, but it looks cool." Cool looks will be just about all you get from this film; it's loaded with flashback footage, and it's virtually impossible to distinguish the time-traveling sequences. To cap the iceberg, the ending (which I won't reveal, for fear of being declared a "spoiler" by the IMDB) is ponderous and inconclusive, leaving room for yet another sequel to keep this tired series alive. My rating: *1/2 out of ****.


the series just gets better and better.dont want to spoil it for anyone who hasn`t seen it yet but it is the best ending yet. it also leaves some unanswered questions that i hope will be answered in part 5. as i have said in my comments on the rest of the movies i hope pt5 is the final part cos we dont want the best horror series ever going on and on and on. the tall man isn`t exactly 25 years old now is he.it would not be the same if they replaced him with some one else i hope they make part5 the last.


Okay, I know there is some controversy as to whether part III or IV is the better sequel. After seeing this one, I have to say that I was disappointed in this installment. It didn't have the humor that we crave, the excitement or the ultra violence that the others had.

The best part of this one is the explanations of where The Tall Man came from. These scenes are very interesting. This whole movie ties in so well with the deleted scenes of the first one, though, it is obvious the director is making this up as he goes along. There are very few characters in this one b\c it focuses on The Tall Man's relationship with Mike (yet, of course, like the others not explaining all we need to know!). Reggie is severely downplayed, and I'm sorry but Reggie Bannister is the one of the main reasons these films are entertaining. I wanting to drown in my beer at the horrible one liners Reggie was given in this one (and I mean HORRIBLE). I thought the whole ice cream man uniform at the end was a little gay, though funny. Yet, the movie is okay on it's own. There isn't much action except at the end, there are a ton of plot hole (PLEASE! Someone tell me how Reggie escaped The Tall Man from being pinned up by the spheres at the beginning. This drove me crazy throughout the whole movie! Did he just LET HIM GO?!?).

Anyways, a below average movie...waaayyyy too slow, and not paced nearly as well as the other movies (the fast pacing makes them more exciting). Only for true Phantasm lovers, I did enjoy what this movie was, but unlike the others, I will never watch this one again. 5/10 stars.


I loved "Phantasm" of 1979, and i liked the first sequel "Phantasm II" of 1988 a lot. "Phantasm III: Lord of the Dead" of 1994 was quite poor in comparison, but i was still entertained. This third sequel, "Phantasm IV: Oblivion", however, has hardly any positive aspects. This film's only qualities are Angus Scrimm as the Tall Man and Reggie Bannister as Reggie. These two actors still deliver good performances as the Phantasm series' two memorable characters. Even those two characters have become a lot weaker though. The film tells a lot about the Tall Man's background, which takes a lot of this wonderful Horror villain's creepiness away. The character of Reggie also becomes less likable, since director Coscarelli obviously found it necessary for this formerly very cool character to annoy with 'hip' one-liners. Still, it is Bannister and Scrim who are responsible for the only few good moments in this film.

Other than these two, the movie delivers one disappointment after another. Due to the total lack of new ideas, Coscarelli just decided to put in several scenes that were cut out from the great 1979 original. These recycled scenes basically serve as flashbacks - as flashbacks that don't make any sense and seem extremely out of place. The main purpose of "Phantasm IV" seems to be to recycle ideas from its predecessors. Even worse, the film destroys a lot of what the previous movies had built up. Even the super-creepy Tall Man's creepiness is destroyed by an idiotic story about his background. Not only is "Phantasm IV: Oblivion" an unworthy sequel to the brilliant first, and cool second part, it is not even a worthy sequel to the, already poor, "Lord Of The Dead". Another sequel is scheduled for 2008, and now that I've seen all other parts of the series, I'll give it a try (It can't be worse than part 4). To those who enjoyed the first 3 "Phantasm" films, and haven't seen number 4 yet, I recommend to skip this sorry attempt of a sequel, since all it does is destroy some of the magic of is predecessors.


This film is a chilling view of how New Zealand could be if ruled by a totalitarian oppressive Government, like so many other countries around the world. It focuses primarily on one character named Smith (played by the now famous Sam Neil). The direction is excellect thanks to the talents of Roger Donaldson (Dantes Peak). But if you read those names and expect a big budget, action-packed, thriller your out of luck, it was made back in 1977 when they were starving artists. This may not appeal to those unfamiliar with New Zealand, but its worth a look if you like well scripted well acted emotional movies


'Sleeping Dogs' was the first major New Zealand feature film to find a wider audience.

Featuring a young Sam Neill as a loner caught up by accident in the fight between a Fascist government taking control and those resisting the loss of freedom.

The film is directed by Roger Donaldson (whose main stream movies include 'World's Fastest Indian','Dante's Peak' and 'Species') and is based on the excellent book 'Smith's Dream' by C.K.Stead.

It features Warren Oates (US) and Ian Mune (who co-wrote the screenplay) as well as a cast of other New Zealand regulars.

While action packed the human drama behind the movie is also of interest and the DVD (a double with 'Smash Palace') features an excellent making of documentary highlighting the issues of making a movie in New Zealand in the mid-1970's.

This is an excellent movie which realistically portrays a nation accepting the gradual loss of freedom for all the right reasons - which seems very topical even today.

The story will grip you and the end will... well see it for yourself!


I recall being confused the first time I saw this film, not long after it was first released, probably due to being young and naive at the time. Having revisited the film 30 years later I find that I have been able to follow the subtleties of the plot more easily.

The movie is a commentary on life's challenges and how one young man - Smith (Sam Neill) - responds to some of these challenges.

I like this movie now because not only does it show something of New Zealand's past and the possibilities the film-makers foresaw (some of which later came to pass as part of NZ history) but because it is an early vehicle for several New Zealand film-maker's craft.