The generation that was young during the cultural movement of the 1960's and early 1970's now are all in their 50's and 60's, and have young children (teenagers and kids in their early-twenties). This group of young adults, born in the eighties and raised in the 90's, are commonly considered the generation after the generation during Vietnam, JFK, and so on. But what about those in the middle of these two generations? Those that were born in the 70's and raised in the 80's? I believe that this group of individuals, now in their 30's, has been forgotten. Why? Because the 80's was and is totally insignificant, and doesn't even equal half of the importance of the 60's, 70's, or 90's. Should we even consider those raised in the 1980's a generation? Regardless, they definitely consider themselves a generation, and within that generation there are favorite 80's films. "Poltergeist," loved by those young during the 80's, is now mostly considered a silly and overrated escapade by all those that belong to another generation.
The rumor is that although Tobe Hooper technically directed this movie, the creative control and input from Spielberg was so concentrated and numerous that in some circles he's credited as co-directing the film. And by the end of this picture Spielberg's creative control is so blatantly appearant that it's sickening. This isn't surprising, considering Spielberg wrote and produced the film, but if Hooper was left on his own I believe this movie would have been much better. The reason for this is because Spielberg, widely considered the most formulaic and corny filmmaker alive (definitely so by yours truly), couldn't decide with "Poltergeist" whether he wanted to make a truly scary horror film or a fun-for-the-whole-family recreation of a Disney Land ride (complete with bright flashing lights and skeletons). Some parts of the film lean towards scary, and then Spielberg feels he's pushing a boundary or breaking routine, so he throws in bouncy music and comic punch-lines. Not to mention that there's literally about fifteen minutes of character development before the bizarre occurrences pop-up, and it takes about 10 seconds for the little girl (who, just like in "The Shining," made two years prior, can sense supernatural happenings) to convince her mom of what is actually going on ("It's the TV people mom"). So, after miniscule development, and after play-it-safe plot evolution, it's time for Mr. Lucas & ILM to come and save the day with some truly good special effects (one of the only positive things about this film in my opinion). But even in the midst of "terror," none of the performances are really convincing, and because of the lack in story, none of the haunted house-type situations seem conceivable. If you're 12 or 13, you'll probably really like this film (or if you were raised in the 80's), but if you're a more discerning film lover, comparisons to "The Exorcist," "The Shining," "Rosemary's Baby," and the rest of the greats are inevitable; and, unfortunately, "Poltergeist," can't stand a chance.
This film has great FX for its time, a few semi-creepy scenes, and one or two interesting cinematic moments, so I recommend it. But don't expect what you've heard, because it just ain't that good of a movie. 6.5/10
The rumor is that although Tobe Hooper technically directed this movie, the creative control and input from Spielberg was so concentrated and numerous that in some circles he's credited as co-directing the film. And by the end of this picture Spielberg's creative control is so blatantly appearant that it's sickening. This isn't surprising, considering Spielberg wrote and produced the film, but if Hooper was left on his own I believe this movie would have been much better. The reason for this is because Spielberg, widely considered the most formulaic and corny filmmaker alive (definitely so by yours truly), couldn't decide with "Poltergeist" whether he wanted to make a truly scary horror film or a fun-for-the-whole-family recreation of a Disney Land ride (complete with bright flashing lights and skeletons). Some parts of the film lean towards scary, and then Spielberg feels he's pushing a boundary or breaking routine, so he throws in bouncy music and comic punch-lines. Not to mention that there's literally about fifteen minutes of character development before the bizarre occurrences pop-up, and it takes about 10 seconds for the little girl (who, just like in "The Shining," made two years prior, can sense supernatural happenings) to convince her mom of what is actually going on ("It's the TV people mom"). So, after miniscule development, and after play-it-safe plot evolution, it's time for Mr. Lucas & ILM to come and save the day with some truly good special effects (one of the only positive things about this film in my opinion). But even in the midst of "terror," none of the performances are really convincing, and because of the lack in story, none of the haunted house-type situations seem conceivable. If you're 12 or 13, you'll probably really like this film (or if you were raised in the 80's), but if you're a more discerning film lover, comparisons to "The Exorcist," "The Shining," "Rosemary's Baby," and the rest of the greats are inevitable; and, unfortunately, "Poltergeist," can't stand a chance.
This film has great FX for its time, a few semi-creepy scenes, and one or two interesting cinematic moments, so I recommend it. But don't expect what you've heard, because it just ain't that good of a movie. 6.5/10