Poltergeist (1982) (25th Anniversary Deluxe Edition)

[WaverBoy]

The digibook of this just arrived for me today.

[Ernest Rister]

I still haven't seen the Poltergeist remake. Opinions?

[OneWayFilms]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I still haven't seen the Poltergeist remake. Opinions?

DON'T. Seriously. Just do yourself a favor and save the time and money. you're MUCH better off without it.

[javy]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I still haven't seen the Poltergeist remake. Opinions?

I think it's cool. Like, if it didn't have the name Poltergeist it may not have so much hate, maybe. But I like it. It has cool visuals, creepy atmosphere, great story to which new things have been added, and great acting. Ignore the hate and check it out for yourself. I totally dig it, and that's coming from some one who's loved the original for a good 25 years.

[Ernest Rister]

Hear you guys. Will ponder. Alert the local media. Ernest Rister ponders watching Poltergeist remake.

[OneWayFilms]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Hear you guys. Will ponder. Alert the local media. Ernest Rister ponders watching Poltergeist remake.

If you DO watch it, PLEASE come back and post your review/thoughts. I'd be MOST interested.

[Marv Inc.]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I still haven't seen the Poltergeist remake. Opinions?

It dosent exist like Ghostbuster 3 and Indy 4. Just keep away from it.

[RedHarvest]

Originally Posted by OneWayFilms

DON'T. Seriously. Just do yourself a favor and save the time and money. you're MUCH better off without it.

It was a wasted opportunity, in the truest sense.

[MJD64]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I still haven't seen the Poltergeist remake. Opinions?

Although I found it mediocre overall, it's a passable enough time-killer. The cast is surprisingly decent, with Sam Rockwell, Rosemarie DeWitt and indie darling Jane Adams. I rather enjoyed Jared Harris in the Zelda Rubinstein role who, in a slyly witty twist, is played as one of those huckster types from all of these ubiquitous "ghost hunter" shows. The real problem is that it feels especially needless, as the original still holds up so well (and of course, is miles better).

At 93 minutes it doesn't overstay its welcome and (here's where I get myself into trouble ) I find it far superior to the two official Poltergeist sequels, neither of which I've ever been able to sit through in their entirety.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by MJD64

Although I found it mediocre overall, it's a passable enough time-killer. The cast is surprisingly decent, with Sam Rockwell, Rosemarie DeWitt and indie darling Jane Adams. I rather enjoyed Jared Harris in the Zelda Rubinstein role who, in a slyly witty twist, is played as one of those huckster types from all of these ubiquitous "ghost hunter" shows. The real problem is that it feels especially needless, as the original still holds up so well (and of course, is miles better).

At 93 minutes it doesn't overstay its welcome and (here's where I get myself into trouble ) I find it far superior to the two official Poltergeist sequels, neither of which I've ever been able to sit through in their entirety.

I saw both in the theater. Really disliked Poltergeist II, and thought the third was schlock. Sam Rockwell is a great guy, though. Really nice and a terrific actor. If anything, I'd check out the remake to see what he brought to it.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I saw both in the theater. Really disliked Poltergeist II, and thought the third was schlock. Sam Rockwell is a great guy, though. Really nice and a terrific actor. If anything, I'd check out the remake to see what he brought to it.

Poltergeist II wasn't a great film, but I did like certain elements. I thought the old man was very effective and scary, and I enjoyed the Indian character too. Without the them the film would have been much worse imo. It did have it's moments. The first film is in a totally different league though for sure. The third was awful. I hated the remake with a passion. And it's rare for me to dislike a movie that much. It captured none of what the original offered.

[Vandal Savage]

The original Poltergeist is a certified classic.

Poltergeist II is a decent sequel, though nowhere in the same league as the original. I did like that it brought in some new characters and elements (the preacher, the shaman, the tequila worm).

Poltergeist III is a mess. It's like one of those horror sequels where they took a script, changed a few names, and made it into a franchise sequel.

The remake was kind of okay, but ultimately forgettable.

[Win Slow]

Poltergeist - Instant Classic. Scary, fascinating and a total thriller. A great cast, amazing effects for it's time and the kind of movie u can revisit many times over. These kind of movies are sorely lacking in today's cinema.

Poltergeist 2 - Felt like a rush job to capitalize on the success of the original, but had some decent moments. No one can dispute the creepiness of the old man & the sorrow you feel for the Freeling's as the movie goes on. So-so flick.

Poltergeist 3 - The film has some nice effects and really takes advantage of it's settings in the tower but otherwise the story is sloppy & the cast is less than average. It was a sad ending to the series & Poltergeist should have never been revived after this ...

Poltergeist Remake - Another in a long line of remakes Hollywood just can't get right. Save for some cool effects & decent use of 3D (if you are able to see it that way) the cast is hard to care for & the story is all over the place. I don't even think i finished it. Hard pass.

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by Win Slow

Poltergeist 2 - Felt like a rush job to capitalize on the success of the original, but had some decent moments.

A rush job...that somehow took four years to hit cinema screens (despite taking place "a year later"). This in the decade where there was a new Halloween, Friday The 13th and Nightmare On Elm St. movie every twelve months on the dot.

[rroeder]

LOVED this movie since I saw it at the theater back in the day! A new 4K scan would be awesome of course, bluray or UHD would work for me

For me I rate this right up there with his best work-

Raiders
Jurassic Park
Poltergeist
CE3K
ET
Jaws

[klauswhereareyou]

Kane and the tequila monster are pure gold in Poltergeist II, if it weren't for those two things I probably would not care for the movie at all. Poltergeist III is kind of bad, but I still enjoy it.

[klauswhereareyou]

And yes as far as why people keep bringing up the director controversy it's because we're all trying to speculate that out of all the genre classics put out in the 1980's, this film has consistently gotten the shaft in regards to extras going back to the days of DVD. Don't want to be the conspiracy theory guy, but it's obvious that there has got to be something screwy going on when pretty much every genre movie from then has at least one or two behind the scenes things, and this has zero (heck even Gremlins and the Goonies have a tiny bit of extras).

[Win Slow]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

A rush job...that somehow took four years to hit cinema screens (despite taking place "a year later"). This in the decade where there was a new Halloween, Friday The 13th and Nightmare On Elm St. movie every twelve months on the dot.

I just said it felt that way lol. I was not aware of when the movies were released but 2 has that "feel" of wow the original was great, here is a sequel for you to chew on before you forget about the original !

[pmil]

Originally Posted by rroeder

LOVED this movie since I saw it at the theater back in the day! A new 4K scan would be awesome of course, bluray or UHD would work for me

For me I rate this right up there with his best work-

Raiders
Jurassic Park
Poltergeist
CE3K
ET
Jaws

The current Blu-Ray is an excellent transfer; it simply needs a higher bitrate. That would probably squeeze out a bit more detail. As it is, it has excellent detail where the scenes are already detailed to begin with. The movie is not very consistent in that regard, but that's what's already on the film. No fixing that.

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by Win Slow

I just said it felt that way lol. I was not aware of when the movies were released but 2 has that "feel" of wow the original was great, here is a sequel for you to chew on before you forget about the original !

Who knows, just because it came out 4 years later doesn't mean it wasn't rushed from script to release. From what I understand there is a good chunk of the film that was cut out, especially from the end of the film where they go to the other side.