Poltergeist (1982) (25th Anniversary Deluxe Edition)

[GOMEZFAN69]

Originally Posted by SexySamSosa67

Never seen this. It's really PG? How can it be scary if it's PG?

This is Poltergeist, it knows what scares you.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by SexySamSosa67

Never seen this. It's really PG? How can it be scary if it's PG?

It was scary when I was 8 years old. No movie has scared me since roughly 12 years old. Do adults really get scared by movies, PG or not?

[filmbuffTX]

Originally Posted by SexySamSosa67

Never seen this. It's really PG? How can it be scary if it's PG?

The PG-13 rating wasn't used until after 1984. Poltergeist came out in 1982. People complained that Gremlins and other movies were too violent, gory, or used adult language; so they came up with an intermediary rating between PG and R.

[SexySamSosa67]

This was awful. One of the worst "horror" movies ever. Not even scary at the slightest. Casper is more scary than this. The actors were awful, especially near the end with the fat lady yelling gibberish. Yeesh. This movie was so painful to sit through.

[Steve Freeling]

Originally Posted by SexySamSosa67

This was awful. One of the worst "horror" movies ever. Not even scary at the slightest. Casper is more scary than this. The actors were awful, especially near the end with the fat lady yelling gibberish. Yeesh. This movie was so painful to sit through.

[Movieman66]

Originally Posted by SexySamSosa67

This was awful. One of the worst "horror" movies ever. Not even scary at the slightest. Casper is more scary than this. The actors were awful, especially near the end with the fat lady yelling gibberish. Yeesh. This movie was so painful to sit through.

Originally Posted by Steve Freeling

You just had to go and do it, didn't you? You've gone and upset Steve Freeling. Don't you understand?

HIS LITTLE GIRL WAS TAKEN AWAY BY SPIRITS!!!!!

[dougotte]

I hadn't watched it for about two years, but I watched the blu-ray prior to Halloween. It's always been one of my favorites. Is it scary? Sure. But more important is that it's very emotional. Script, acting, cinematography, and score are all top-notch.

I had forgotten about the nice booklet with photos that came with the blu-ray.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by SexySamSosa67

This was awful. One of the worst "horror" movies ever. Not even scary at the slightest.

It was scary as hell when I was a kid, which is honestly the only time movies are truly scary IMO.

[1924]

agree this movie was pretty cheesy and not scary at all

[dudeabides34]

The clown scene scarred me as a child. Still freaky today.

[slimdude]

Poltergeist will always be a classic horror/thriller movie in it's own merit. The late Zelda Rubinstein (and the rest of the cast as well) were superb.

[Mister B Gone]

when a full grown adult complains about a movie not being scary enough

[DJR662]

It used to scare the living daylights out of me when I was a kid, nowadays not so anymore. There are still some great horror scenes but at times it's a bit cheesy. Still this is a Spielberg movie after all, so with that in mind it still works.

I just wished, and the same goes for the second movie, that they wouldn't show so much on screen. The monster at the end of the first movie for example and the tequila worm in the sequel. The kitchen scene with the chairs in part one is a perfect example of how something can be achieved without actually showing something, that scene still gives me goosebumps. Both movies are a bit too at times but I still enjoy them after all this time. I think in that regard, the sequel captures the "spirit" of the first one perfectly.

[darkness2918]

Are there still people who believe Steven Spielberg secretly directed this instead of Tobe Hooper? I was talking to a friend last week who still thinks this is true so I was curious if anyone here also felt that way.

[Steve Freeling]

Originally Posted by darkness2918

Are there still people who believe Steven Spielberg secretly directed this instead of Tobe Hooper? I was talking to a friend last week who still thinks this is true so I was curious if anyone here also felt that way.

It's possible. Poltergeist is full of Spielberg's style. It has his fingerprints all over it. It's more akin to his Jaws than Hooper's The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, in my honest opinion.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by DJR662

I just wished, and the same goes for the second movie, that they wouldn't show so much on screen. The monster at the end of the first movie for example and the tequila worm in the sequel. The kitchen scene with the chairs in part one is a perfect example of how something can be achieved without actually showing something, that scene still gives me goosebumps. Both movies are a bit too at times but I still enjoy them after all this time. I think in that regard, the sequel captures the "spirit" of the first one perfectly.

Heh, showing the monsters is the coolest part of each movie IMO. I'm not a scary horror ghost movie kind of guy though, admittedly.

[cherbert]

Originally Posted by darkness2918

Are there still people who believe Steven Spielberg secretly directed this instead of Tobe Hooper? I was talking to a friend last week who still thinks this is true so I was curious if anyone here also felt that way.

I have always thought that! There is no way Tobe Hooper directed this. I just can't think why Spielberg would have given the credit away.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Spielberg directed this film. Its as non Hooper as you can get. Just watch Hooper's other films and you'll see it right away. Both Hooper and Spielberg each have their own unique style and this definitely falls under Spielberg's style. I'm just shocked it isn't better. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy this movie but does anyone else think its very overrated? I think part 3 is even better and I don't get at all why that one is so hated. Part 2 is a disaster IMO

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by MassiveMovieBuff

Spielberg directed this film. Its as non Hooper as you can get. Just watch Hooper's other films and you'll see it right away. Both Hooper and Spielberg each have their own unique style and this definitely falls under Spielberg's style. I'm just shocked it isn't better. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy this movie but does anyone else think its very overrated? I think part 3 is even better and I don't get at all why that one is so hated. Part 2 is a disaster IMO

I've seen part 3 only once, but I really disliked it. I guess I should revisit it to see if my opinion changes. The original is great IMO and part 2 is decent, with a few highlights. I loved that the cast returned for part 2. Spielberg should have directed part 2 probably. Who knows. Really, the first movie didn't need any sequels. The ending is great with them wheeling the TV out of the motel room. You don't really get much humor in the sequels, if I remember correctly.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by master gandhi

I've seen part 3 only once, but I really disliked it. I guess I should revisit it to see if my opinion changes. The original is great IMO and part 2 is decent, with a few highlights. I loved that the cast returned for part 2. Spielberg should have directed part 2 probably. Who knows. Really, the first movie didn't need any sequels. The ending is great with them wheeling the TV out of the motel room. You don't really get much humor in the sequels, if I remember correctly.

Yeah the first one is solid and that was a great ending. I guess the reason I think its overrated is that its on so many lists of the scariest movies ever made which I don't find that its scary at all but I guess certain movies effect people in different ways. One thing that I loved about part 2 was the main theme "Carol Anne's theme" from the first one at the end credits of part 2. The choir sounded so much better in that version to me. I love part 3. Its dark and creepy IMO but its Def not perfect. The John Hancock Tower was a perfect location for the movie too.