User Score
3.5

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 213 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 32 out of 213

Where To Watch

Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. May 22, 2015
    6
    If you're stingy about remakes, stop reading now and stay far away from this movie.

    Okay now that the basics are gone, this was actually a good movie. Good. Not great. It's obviously more inspired by the likes of Insidious than the original Poltergeist, which does make this significantly different than the original. It's certainly not a shot-for-shot remake. The first act is really busy
    If you're stingy about remakes, stop reading now and stay far away from this movie.

    Okay now that the basics are gone, this was actually a good movie. Good. Not great. It's obviously more inspired by the likes of Insidious than the original Poltergeist, which does make this significantly different than the original. It's certainly not a shot-for-shot remake. The first act is really busy with a lot of scares popping out at you like a haunted house at a carnival, but some of them are very well constructed. After calling the paranormal investigators, it does become significantly more tame. It's never boring, but the scares die down after the 30 minute mark. The scares also get a little more intelligent. There's one scene in particular involving a drill that could rival anything from the original movie. It's a very scary and clever scene that is certainly the most memorable part of the movie. The performances from a majority of the cast are very good, especially Sam Rockwell. What surprised me most was the last 15 minutes. It went a direction I certainly didn't expect, and it ended the movie very well. The biggest problem with this movie is that it is underwhelming for the most part, and the short running time doesn't allow the viewer to really connect to the family. Poltergeist is still a satisfying and worthy remake of the classic; just don't expect to lose any sleep over it.
    Expand
  2. May 25, 2015
    2
    The whole Modernizing of the movie makes it worse. The Teenage girl is very annoying complaining all the time. The CGI was horrible. As-well I'm not sure if this even a horror movie. The 2 scariest things where this one jump scare and the CGI squirrel. This movie had no rime or reason to be made. Much prefer the original. It gets 1 point for Sam Rockwell, and 1 point for the fact that itThe whole Modernizing of the movie makes it worse. The Teenage girl is very annoying complaining all the time. The CGI was horrible. As-well I'm not sure if this even a horror movie. The 2 scariest things where this one jump scare and the CGI squirrel. This movie had no rime or reason to be made. Much prefer the original. It gets 1 point for Sam Rockwell, and 1 point for the fact that it looked like the tried. Expand
  3. May 31, 2015
    6
    What makes a Poltergeist remake unnecessary is that recently movies like the Conjuring and Insidious gave me some Poltergeist deja vu. In those films a psychic showed up to help a family with supernatural problems and brought a team along to record their findings. Despite both being good films I already felt like I was watching two Poltergeist remakes.
    The remake is better than they say
    What makes a Poltergeist remake unnecessary is that recently movies like the Conjuring and Insidious gave me some Poltergeist deja vu. In those films a psychic showed up to help a family with supernatural problems and brought a team along to record their findings. Despite both being good films I already felt like I was watching two Poltergeist remakes.
    The remake is better than they say due to a good cast and decent enough acting. Besides the Conjuring and Insidious it seems like movies about ghosts targeting a family come out 2-3 times a year these days. So there's just nothing fresh this remake could give us that wasn't done in recent movies or especially the classic original.
    The best thing about the movie is that Sam Rockwell (The Green Mile, Iron Man 2) for some reason is in this as the father. He is believable and makes a good replacement for the original father who was played by Craig T. Nelson. What's missing though is the smart humor of the original. The mom putting a football helmet on the daughter and then putting her on a spot of the kitchen floor that magically pushes objects across the room. Was funny in the original and yes bad parenting. This movie tries too hard to be scary and lacks the originals sense of humor.
    I watched the original last week; the film still works and I can't say updated effects made this remake superior in anyway. Which goes for pretty much every remake these days. While it's hardly Poltergeist without Zelda Rubinstein who was great as the psychic in the original.
    Expand
  4. Dec 22, 2015
    0
    My review does not contain spoilers, I clicked that by accident. Here it is --- I have too many problems with this movie. First of all, it was just like the original. I mean, I understand it's a remake, but changing 3 things about it is not enough. You need to change a lot about it, and not make viewers think that they're watching the original. Secondly, the actors just give up on acting.My review does not contain spoilers, I clicked that by accident. Here it is --- I have too many problems with this movie. First of all, it was just like the original. I mean, I understand it's a remake, but changing 3 things about it is not enough. You need to change a lot about it, and not make viewers think that they're watching the original. Secondly, the actors just give up on acting. Sam Rockwell tries so hard, but his acting just doesn't work for the film. The wife can't even act, and the kids sound like they're reading the script for the first time. The directing is less than average, and I'm surprised a studio like 20th Century Fox would even supervise this film. Making the same film that came out 20 years ago, just with flat-screens, is not OK. Third, the film just isn't scary. I am always scared during horror films, but the only part I was scared at was the clown scene. Finally, you shouldn't waste your money on this film. You will be as disappointed as me and the other reviewers are. It is a waste of time, and you'll be sleeping more than watching the film. Expand
  5. Jun 5, 2015
    10
    Good Remake that is close enough to the Original and less close to give some new story details.
    Good actors and a dense Atmosphere. The Original is still a classic but for todays Young People ithe original is too much 80s to enjoy
  6. May 23, 2015
    4
    The only problem with this mediocre remake is that it fails to live up to its genre. I found only two good scares throughout the entire film, and both were cheap jump scares.

    Poltergeist refused to waste time. It jumps into the action as soon as reasonably possible. While the scares themselves were okay, very many of them had barely any build-up preceding them and seemed to end before
    The only problem with this mediocre remake is that it fails to live up to its genre. I found only two good scares throughout the entire film, and both were cheap jump scares.

    Poltergeist refused to waste time. It jumps into the action as soon as reasonably possible. While the scares themselves were okay, very many of them had barely any build-up preceding them and seemed to end before the viewer could get a proper grasp on 'em.

    But besides that, the action was quite good, especially the last sequence. Acting was okay, even for the children. Poltergeist isn't a film that will give me nightmares anytime soon, but it was a decent way to spend a Saturday night. Bottom line: if you've got nothing else to do, Poltergeist 2015 is worth a shot, but if you've got other plans, you may want to pass.
    Expand
  7. Jun 1, 2015
    4
    Is Poltergeist bad? Not incredibly, which means it’s not as bad as I thought it was going to be, but I would hardly call it good and it’s fairly obvious when you are watching it that you could save your money and just stay at home and watch the original. I would refrain from calling it a disastrous re-make, but I would hardly call it a good one! Everything just feels a lot like you areIs Poltergeist bad? Not incredibly, which means it’s not as bad as I thought it was going to be, but I would hardly call it good and it’s fairly obvious when you are watching it that you could save your money and just stay at home and watch the original. I would refrain from calling it a disastrous re-make, but I would hardly call it a good one! Everything just feels a lot like you are watching the first film, but with a lot less! What this film really needed was a better screenplay writer and a better director, because I think there was every possibility that this film could have been better. As it stands, just see the original, there is really no need to see this one. The effects are less good, the actors are less good, the plot’s less good, everything is just less good!! That just shows the futility of this film and fans of the original need not apply. Expand
  8. May 22, 2015
    8
    Poltergeist, the remake of the 1982 horror movie by the same name, ingeniously re-invents one of the horror genre's most iconic films in history, and the film does it justice. All of the original feature's elements can be found in the new adaptation, with modern twists and new ways to convey the same scenes in order to still give the audience a fresh, unique experience. The film makes forPoltergeist, the remake of the 1982 horror movie by the same name, ingeniously re-invents one of the horror genre's most iconic films in history, and the film does it justice. All of the original feature's elements can be found in the new adaptation, with modern twists and new ways to convey the same scenes in order to still give the audience a fresh, unique experience. The film makes for a great date-night thrill, or a hangout with the friends. My own 'plus one' was wrapped around me like a classic long-arm velcro monkey toy. Expand
  9. Jun 25, 2015
    7
    I didn't expect to like this but I really enjoyed it! Great special effects and solid scared. Sam Rockwell was really excellent and the rest of the cast were all good. Apart from the cool CGI the visuals looked really great all round with some nice shot framing and colour grading. The script had a level of self-awareness that was fun and quite amusing but the horror was well done and moreI didn't expect to like this but I really enjoyed it! Great special effects and solid scared. Sam Rockwell was really excellent and the rest of the cast were all good. Apart from the cool CGI the visuals looked really great all round with some nice shot framing and colour grading. The script had a level of self-awareness that was fun and quite amusing but the horror was well done and more intense than your average family friendly film. I don't understand all the negative reviews, I thought this was very well done and really enjoyable. Expand
  10. May 22, 2015
    6
    Well the movie was maybe not scary but one thing is sure.It is a really fun and entertaining movie.Great acting by the main characters and great visuals are what makes the movie this good.Even the kids were not that bad.
  11. May 23, 2015
    5
    Sticking almost religiously to the original, this version of ‘Poltergeist’ cuts down the lead-in and updates the visual effects to give you the most bang-for-your buck in terms of frights and therein lies the first problem, there’s just not enough build-up and time spent on the family dynamic before the weirdness starts, one of the strengths of the original, the result of which is thatSticking almost religiously to the original, this version of ‘Poltergeist’ cuts down the lead-in and updates the visual effects to give you the most bang-for-your buck in terms of frights and therein lies the first problem, there’s just not enough build-up and time spent on the family dynamic before the weirdness starts, one of the strengths of the original, the result of which is that you’re not that emotionally invested in what eventually happens to them.

    Problem number 2 is more serious and goes to the heart of the film, ‘Poltergeist’ is not the worst remake of a classic horror film, in fact it may be the best, but like all the others it’s underwhelming and completely redundant.

    So what’s the purpose?, to get butts in cinema seats of course and we can’t blame 20th Century Fox for that, but we can’t forgive the premium charged for perhaps the most pointless 3D ever which further entrenches our position that, for the most part, 3D remains a gimmick that doesn’t enhance the cinematic experience.

    So what we’re left with is a film that in isolation is a decent suspenseful horror that’s somewhat family friendly and well crafted, but nothing exists in isolation so ‘Poltergeist’ is just another example of how horror remakes don’t work, whether you stay faithful to the original or re-invent the scary wheel.

    The Bottom Line…
    Slick, suspenseful and scary, ‘Poltergeist’ might be worth a cinema trip for those who haven’t seen the original, for those who have there’s really nothing here for you and for everyone, we strongly suggest watching the 1982 original.
    Expand
  12. Feb 18, 2016
    6
    Most horror movie remakes are downright awful. They usually fail to capture any of the magic of the original or bring any worthwhile new ideas to the table. That isn't so much the case here. It's got a few cool new ideas. but ultimately it's definitely not as good as the original. However rather than being awful what we have is more of a boring affair.

    It's most exciting moments are
    Most horror movie remakes are downright awful. They usually fail to capture any of the magic of the original or bring any worthwhile new ideas to the table. That isn't so much the case here. It's got a few cool new ideas. but ultimately it's definitely not as good as the original. However rather than being awful what we have is more of a boring affair.

    It's most exciting moments are when it is recreating scenes from the original with it's own twists. These scenes bring back fond memories of the original, but don't really make much of an impression on their own, with the exception of the clown scene.

    Part of what made the original Poltergeist so fantastic was the characters. They were likable, real, and made us care about them. There are some talented actors playing these new interpretations of them, and they do have some real world problems and interactions. The problem is that they feel just like the average modern horror movie protagonists. By that I mean they feel like faceless character types with no depth created for the sole purpose of screaming at scary stuff.

    Considering this is a horror movie, one of the most important aspects I need to touch on when reviewing it is whether or not it is scary. It's not. Creepy specters show their ugly faces and people get grabbed, but there's never a sense of fear or urgency from the film. This might be partly due to the fact that many of us have seen the original. This remake doesn't deviate too far from it so those of us who have seen it already know what's going to happen.

    That being said, I doubt those experiencing Poltergeist for the first time this way are likely to be frightened. It's pretty tame and by the numbers. At least it doesn't rely on jump scares, so there's that.

    Honestly I just recommend watching the original. This remake isn't bad and has a talented cast. Some of the original's humor finds it's way here as well. None of that changes the fact that this is still a pretty boring horror movie that's devoid of any frights. It's not as bad as most horror movie remakes, and honestly it isn't really that bad at all. However none of that changes the fact that there are plenty of more entertaining options out there, as well as the infinitely superior original. If you've already exhausted your other options though, this isn't that bad.
    Expand
  13. Jun 6, 2015
    5
    *******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
  14. May 24, 2015
    8
    It does a good job at remaking the original that scared everyone back in the day, and still 2015...Poltergeist has impressed me. Fleshed out characters, better visuals, storytelling and genuine scares even if your seen the original. Pointless 3D and some disjointed scenes will be the major let downs. Poltergeist is back "there coming".
  15. May 23, 2015
    6
    Poltergeist is well - shot but not well - realized as a remake. It is not particularly bad, it is entertaining. However, one of the most enGROSSing sequences is cutout . . . you only had ONE JOB HOLLYWOOD!
  16. Jun 5, 2015
    5
    ok so i had my doubt's about even seeing this movie from the start but on a slow boring day decided what the hell i will see it and it was definetiley the worst choice in movies i have made so far this year not that scary plane boring in some parts yea the little kid was a doll baby but that's not what i payed 12 bucks for should have went with my first gut choice and skipped it allok so i had my doubt's about even seeing this movie from the start but on a slow boring day decided what the hell i will see it and it was definetiley the worst choice in movies i have made so far this year not that scary plane boring in some parts yea the little kid was a doll baby but that's not what i payed 12 bucks for should have went with my first gut choice and skipped it all together not the worst i have ever seen but definetiley the worst this year' yes i saw mall cop 2 its a oscar winner compaired to this **** ' so i say skip it Expand
  17. May 24, 2015
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This actually impressed me quite a bit. Going in, I thought that I was getting an almost shot-for-shot remake with a few modern touches (like a flat screen TV), but what I got was a modern re-imagining of a classic that only kept the basic plot. There were some really cool effects, like the world of the undead. Watching the movie, I didn't find any technical errors, but there were probably plenty looking back. The issue to me was that what I thought would be the scariest sequences actually made me laugh, but they were still a good time. So if you are a fan of the original or the horror genre, this is a must. Expand
  18. May 23, 2015
    7
    I recommend this film not for Horror fans simply because it's not particularly frightening but follows the tried and true jump scare formula which works well and thankfully they don't overuse it.

    What I enjoyed most about this flick was the dialogue. There was a very natural flow between the parents and the children. It all felt very genuine not at all cliche in the sense of "What was
    I recommend this film not for Horror fans simply because it's not particularly frightening but follows the tried and true jump scare formula which works well and thankfully they don't overuse it.

    What I enjoyed most about this flick was the dialogue. There was a very natural flow between the parents and the children. It all felt very genuine not at all cliche in the sense of "What was that, you're crazy, save my family! we have to defeat the demon!" The only time the film gets weird in the delivery was once the focus shifted outside of the family but not to worry it only lasts a few minutes and doesn't kill the experience.

    Adorable children, appalling teenager and parents reacting accordingly with a supernatural offender(s) bringing them all together.

    As far as comparing the original to this version I won't even bother. It's a modern take on an old story with a tweak here and there.
    Expand
  19. May 24, 2015
    5
    It's one of the better recent horror remakes but that isn't saying much. However, as a standalone B-horror midnight popcorn creepfest, Poltergeist can provide more than a modicum of entertainment.
  20. May 24, 2015
    5
    I went into this movie not having seen the original, so I'm not sure how this movie compares to it. But here's my opinion:

    The entire cast is pretty bland. The actors did a decent job (especially the kids) but because of the lack of character development, which was desperately needed, I had no emotional attachment to the any of the characters. The plot was also a bit lacking; very
    I went into this movie not having seen the original, so I'm not sure how this movie compares to it. But here's my opinion:

    The entire cast is pretty bland. The actors did a decent job (especially the kids) but because of the lack of character development, which was desperately needed, I had no emotional attachment to the any of the characters. The plot was also a bit lacking; very little was explained and the ending was SOOOO lame that the movie left a bitter taste in my mouth.

    So if the character development and plot are lacking then the movie should certainly make up for it through its special effects and scariness right? Well the former is actually the highlight of the movie but the latter is actually my least favorite thing about the movie. I'll go ahead and say it. This movie is not scary in any sense. Their are a handful of jump-scares, but they barely even made me flinch. I was practically BEGGING the movie to scare me around half way through, and I ended up being disappointed. The trailer is scarier than the movie. The poster that you've probably seen in movie theaters with the clown doll on it is scarier than the movie. The dark parking lot that I had to walk through to get back to my car after watching the movie was - you guessed it - scarier than the movie.

    Is this movie bad? No. It kept my interest through its entirety because of its special effects and cool set pieces. But I expect a horror movie to keep me on the edge of my seat for the whole movie. I was never on the edge of my seat in this movie.

    Bottom line:
    If you want to go to this movie for the scares (like I did) - STAY AWAY.
    If a haunted house movie with cool special effects sounds appealing to you - See it.
    If you're on the fence, I would definitely say pass.

    If you're considering watching this in 3D, DON'T. I have tried for years to convince myself that 3D could actually add depth to movies (no pun intended), but this movie reinforces my belief that 3D is just a gimmick to milk more money out of movie-goers like myself.
    Expand
  21. May 30, 2015
    0
    Honestly would have been better as a comedy and it was so meh that it was more scary when the ads started blablablablabla I'm filling space. Yoloyoloyolo hipsters bad child actors I like Pepsi yum yum budget 99cents I'm going to vomit now
  22. Jun 7, 2015
    3
    The 2015 Reboot of Poltergeist is a great example of why some movies are better to be left alone. Especially when it’s a great one, such as the 1982 original horror classic, Poltergeist directed by Tobe Hooper (Texas Chainsaw Massacre) and produced by the iconic Steven Spielberg (Jurassic Park, Jaws, Indian Jones).

    The original film had great characters, great filmmaking, and most
    The 2015 Reboot of Poltergeist is a great example of why some movies are better to be left alone. Especially when it’s a great one, such as the 1982 original horror classic, Poltergeist directed by Tobe Hooper (Texas Chainsaw Massacre) and produced by the iconic Steven Spielberg (Jurassic Park, Jaws, Indian Jones).

    The original film had great characters, great filmmaking, and most importantly great scares. Pretty much all the things the things that this reboot did not have.

    Now, the first part of this film is the introduction of the Bowen family. Once they set the stage for the family, we quickly learned how the father, played by actor Sam Rockwell (The Way Way Back, Moon, Iron Man 2) was laid off from his old job, forcing the family to move to a new house. As the film develops we learned how both parents are unemployed and struggling financially. We have the mom played by actress Rosemarie Dewitt (Your Sister’s Sister, Promised Land) who is a frustrated writer and then we have her three kids. The oldest is Kendra Bowen played by Saxon Sharbino (Touch, Julia X) who plays the cliché rebellious daughter, the second character Griffin Bowen, is played by Kyle Catlett (The Following) who is the middle child that no one believes, and is always scared, and then we have the youngest, Madison Bowen played by Kennedi Clements (Jingle all the Way 2) who talks to her imaginary friend and eventually gets abducted by the evil ghosts. The acting in this film was one of the worst things of the entire film. I would even go as far as to say that Saxon Sharbino was one of the most annoying characters of the entire year. Every line that came out of her mouth, made me want to leave the theater. Then, we have Kennedi Clements who plays the little girl who gets abducted. She came across as annoying and unpleasant. This was definitely one character that was better in the original. Heather O’Rourke played the original character and she was also one of the best parts of the original film that gave the audience a charming performance.

    Aside from the characters, let’s talk about the movie as a whole. This is a film that should’ve never gotten a reboot and what they did here just did not work. Director Gil Kenan (City of Ember, Monster House) tried to make the same film that Steven Spielberg and Tobe Hooper made in 1982, but instead he made a movie that was unable to scare or connect with the audience. The script for this film had countless problems and moments of me rolling my eyes due to how stupid it made everyone sound. Then, we have multiple iconic scenes that were so well done and that scared audiences in the original that this time around, simply lacked emotion, horror, and consisted of too much CGI.

    In conclusion this brand new take on Poltergeist simply did not do anything for me. This was a movie that had me checking my watch over and over and wanting the film to be over. In my eyes the original Poltergeist is the only Poltergeist. This is simply a forgettable flick and with that said, this is one of the worst movies so far, of the year.

    Final Score: 3.1/10
    Expand
  23. May 28, 2015
    6
    The basics are the same as the original: a happy family moves into a new house where the youngest is held captive by angry spirits. This time, the uncanny occurrences are ramped up, aided by computer generated effects and heavy-handed music. The family's plight is compelling (thanks to warm performances from Sam Rockwell, Rosemarie DeWitt and the kids) and there are lots of creepyThe basics are the same as the original: a happy family moves into a new house where the youngest is held captive by angry spirits. This time, the uncanny occurrences are ramped up, aided by computer generated effects and heavy-handed music. The family's plight is compelling (thanks to warm performances from Sam Rockwell, Rosemarie DeWitt and the kids) and there are lots of creepy surprises. There are even a few minor scares, even though the ending is more a noisy spectacle than a fright. It's not genuinely scary, but sometimes slightly suspenseful and mildly entertaining. Expand
  24. Jul 16, 2015
    4
    The most pressing question that you ask yourself while watching Poltergeist is simply "why?". It seems redundant to remake a film in such a pedestrian manner when the original was just so...well, original! The cast do their best but they are fighting a losing battle, and the effects seem decidedly low rent
  25. Aug 3, 2015
    4
    The original is one of my favorite film of all time, and I was looking forward to this reboot for quite a while...can they bring something new to the table? The answer is no. It's a remake that makes Poltergeist a pedestrian film. Every changes that they made were for the worst, and sure there were jump scares, but there aren't any in the scale of the original. It's hard to eclipse filmThe original is one of my favorite film of all time, and I was looking forward to this reboot for quite a while...can they bring something new to the table? The answer is no. It's a remake that makes Poltergeist a pedestrian film. Every changes that they made were for the worst, and sure there were jump scares, but there aren't any in the scale of the original. It's hard to eclipse film makers at the height of their powers, namely Spielberg and Hooper, even more than 3 decades ago...a pointless remake in the end. Expand
  26. Dec 3, 2015
    0
    A completely needless and unworthy remake. What's the point in touching an untouchable classic when we all know any remake/reboot isn't even going to come close to touching it. Bad CGI, Not a single scare (even a pathetic jump scare) through out the whole film, Poorly acted and painfully predictable. Don't even bother with it.
  27. Jun 19, 2015
    2
    What is going on?!!! Sam Raimi & Rob Tapert knows everyone loves Evil Dead, the classics with Bruce Campbell not the ultra-crud remake, so why do they produce dross like this knowing full well it is not what we want. Don't bother with this movie, that is the only way to send the message...and remember, YOU are making history!

    All poltergeists are belong to us!
  28. Jun 23, 2015
    5
    Poltergeist is not a very scary film and yet at times it is filmed well in making a scene tense. But when you have cheap thrills, mediocre effects and below average acting, the result isn't very good.
  29. May 30, 2015
    4
    Weak, predictable and emotionless and moreover not even scare, this 1982 remake of the classic was far below what I really expected, poor Spielberg tried to repeat the formula of success and failed miserably.
  30. Jan 25, 2016
    6
    I honestly don't get all the gripe this movie got. Don't get me wrong, I still think the original was better (for its time) but I also feel the modern take was almost as good and that its only real problem is that it is a remake. If the original didn't exist, this movie would have been received better.

    Not saying its perfect either. For a horror movie, it isn't really scary. A few jump
    I honestly don't get all the gripe this movie got. Don't get me wrong, I still think the original was better (for its time) but I also feel the modern take was almost as good and that its only real problem is that it is a remake. If the original didn't exist, this movie would have been received better.

    Not saying its perfect either. For a horror movie, it isn't really scary. A few jump scares here and there, but that'sit.

    Overall:
    Poltergeist is entertaining and fun to watch, but does have bit of a slow build up. Great characters though.
    Expand
  31. Aug 8, 2015
    5
    Would have been a better film if it was an original.

    Unnecessary to compare this with the original and I tried, but impossible to avoid it since it's an official remake. Everything, from the house to frame by frame, all the scenes looked the same, except the cast and it's set in the present world with the daily life's modern gadgets. If you had not seen the 80s film, then there's a
    Would have been a better film if it was an original.

    Unnecessary to compare this with the original and I tried, but impossible to avoid it since it's an official remake. Everything, from the house to frame by frame, all the scenes looked the same, except the cast and it's set in the present world with the daily life's modern gadgets. If you had not seen the 80s film, then there's a little chance you might like it. Though it was not a serious horror movie, or a scary movie to consider, still quite enjoyable like a dark comedy in parts. But I recommend the old one.

    Really? Sam Rockwell? He did not fit in the role, just okay though. And the kids, did not impress me as like the original movie. The only upgrade in this new version was the technology, CRT monitors to LED kind of stuffs. I expected a major, at least a bit alteration in the story or the screenplay that sets in a different circumstances and the location. That could have been a lot better. Disappoints for those who loved the first version. However, that movie deserved to be remade, and I did not think it would end like this. Hoping for a better sequel, but I'm already feeling that would end in the hands of the second string cast and crew which could be a cheap horror-thrill.

    5/10
    Expand
  32. Oct 10, 2015
    5
    I'm not against remakes, but when you make the exact same movie again without anything new then why waste the time and money. I give you Poltergeist. C
  33. Sep 30, 2015
    4
    Oh what a difference 30 years makes. The Poltergeist remake is almost 25 minutes shorter than the original, as though todays audiences didn't have the attention spans to get some character development before the jump scares and special effects kick in. Sam Rockwell and Rosemarie DeWitt are excellent actors, but they're given slivers of character to work with in sacrifice of the next plotOh what a difference 30 years makes. The Poltergeist remake is almost 25 minutes shorter than the original, as though todays audiences didn't have the attention spans to get some character development before the jump scares and special effects kick in. Sam Rockwell and Rosemarie DeWitt are excellent actors, but they're given slivers of character to work with in sacrifice of the next plot point that has to be rushed to. LIke the recent remakes of Carrie or Robocop, they're not bad movies, just absolutely unnecessary. Expand
  34. Oct 25, 2015
    5
    Some interesting effects but other than that it really fails to live up to the original. Fans of the first one should watch this as well though, for the amusement alone.
  35. Jul 2, 2015
    9
    This new poltergeist is effective... decent remake of the 80's version, is not as good as the original but still is frightening, creepy and certainly atmospheric. Better than i expected... very good performances specially Sam Rockwell as Erick and Jared Harris as Carrigan. The film have some bugs like the Terrible effects "VFX" , but still very well .. very entertaining. Out of the aspectsThis new poltergeist is effective... decent remake of the 80's version, is not as good as the original but still is frightening, creepy and certainly atmospheric. Better than i expected... very good performances specially Sam Rockwell as Erick and Jared Harris as Carrigan. The film have some bugs like the Terrible effects "VFX" , but still very well .. very entertaining. Out of the aspects we already knew in the 80's version shows us a new vision of one new state .. what is here what is not here. Very creepy and especially the clown attack scene..... really enjoy it. Expand
  36. Jun 12, 2015
    6
    I a being very generous with a rating of six out of ten for several good reasons, my review is broken into good aspects and bad aspects.

    Good: 1. This remake is pretty darn close to the original film from 1982. Many modern remakes these days significantly deviate from the original. Poltergeist is different. they kept the story the same, the family the same, the names the characters the
    I a being very generous with a rating of six out of ten for several good reasons, my review is broken into good aspects and bad aspects.

    Good:
    1. This remake is pretty darn close to the original film from 1982. Many modern remakes these days significantly deviate from the original. Poltergeist is different. they kept the story the same, the family the same, the names the characters the same, and even some references from the original film. I give them credit for not changing it too much.
    2. practical effects: although there defiantly some CGI effects throughout the movie, a lot of the effects were performed old school, by means of practical effects (effects not created through the use of computers or software of any kind).

    Bad:
    1. Acting: Usually acting does not bother me as much if the story is captivating. But in this case I believe they tried too hard to stump the original. The acting was subpar, with the only good acting performed by the father who is played by Sam Rockwell. The rest are pretty mediocre.

    2. Remaking a classic: I know I said earlier that I give them credit for trying to remake this movie, but I would have given them even more credit if they came up with a new original idea. I would have rather them have made a new sequel.

    3. Modernization: I maybe would have given these title a 7/10 if they did not modernize everything. If they kept in in the same time period as the original one from 1982. that would have made the film a bit more interesting at least.

    Overall this remake of the 1982 horror classic is subpar, 6/10 being a very very generous rating on my part. In general if you like these kind of movies go ahead and watch it, I have no guarantee you will like it though.
    Expand
  37. Jan 10, 2016
    4
    Poltergeist settles to be a by-the-numbers horror flick when it could have been so much more; the above average first two acts are followed by blown out action in the end which isn't scary or the slightest bit creepy.
  38. Aug 1, 2015
    3
    The cast is good, the girl is a cute, the boy is ok, daddy and mom are perfect and everybody is wasted on this movie. This movie is a big lesson for all movie makers: don't remake classics again!
  39. Jun 4, 2015
    7
    If there's one thing this film remade is the story, we do not have a background of the characters like why did they move there or why they lost their jobs the script has zero explanation. This remake uses way to much cgi, it did empress me and it's unique but what made the original fun is it's cheesy old-fashioned 80's special effects I think if this remake could make it similar. DirectorIf there's one thing this film remade is the story, we do not have a background of the characters like why did they move there or why they lost their jobs the script has zero explanation. This remake uses way to much cgi, it did empress me and it's unique but what made the original fun is it's cheesy old-fashioned 80's special effects I think if this remake could make it similar. Director Gil Kenan's direction is just slick if his visuals were close to Hooper's vision could made it work. Since Sam Raimi produced the film, I thought this movie was going to be gruesome but the movie is bland and if this was "bloodier" then it might of been fun to watch.The acting was good, the cgi was impressive but watch the original series. Positives: the film is scary and it's entertaining, the film was watch able it tries to be a cheesy B+ movie like in the original, but if you have good screenwriters and a proper director this might have been good. Let's talk about the closet what makes that scene good is it is mysterious and does show that under world in this modern remake it does show the world in a good way. The actress Kennedi Clements was good, but she was not good like Heather O'rourke. The characters names are changed? Really. The film was scary it made me laugh it made me entertained through out it was exciting. Grade C+ Expand
  40. May 31, 2015
    3
    Just a bunch of predictable jump-scares i wasnt expecting much but even so i still was disappointed
    The only way for this movie to get a 510 is in a scale where 1010 is salting your wounds
  41. Jun 28, 2015
    3
    I'm scared. Just a bit. Then, I realized watching marathon of walkthrough video games on Youtube is scarier than this one single remake movie. I adore the creepiness of this movie but it's not scary. I think the screenplay was trying to be like Insidious, that makes me feel common thing this day. Well, I appreciate they're not doing any sanatic. I enjoyed the movie to the end.
  42. Jun 24, 2015
    3
    Poltergeist is a remake of the 1982 film of the same name. I didn't have high hopes for this film from the beginning because Steven Spielberg is not involved after having a significant impact on the first film. I don't think anyone was asking for this movie because even the original film has grown old and doesn't seem as relevant as other horror films that are considered "classic". ThePoltergeist is a remake of the 1982 film of the same name. I didn't have high hopes for this film from the beginning because Steven Spielberg is not involved after having a significant impact on the first film. I don't think anyone was asking for this movie because even the original film has grown old and doesn't seem as relevant as other horror films that are considered "classic". The 2015 version relies too much on the original and does not try to create its own legacy. Many scenes in the film are almost exactly the same. There are several cheap jump scares but none that make the film memorable. Sam Rockwell's performance was way to good for the film and this remake is not doing the original any favors. Expand
  43. May 26, 2015
    4
    Dont see this movie, watch the original. Its farcical, the effects are laughable, unless of course you like cheap looking 3D zombie effects and children being rag dolled all over the place. Filled with jump scares, this move was as far from the horror Genre you can get without getting into Rod Stewards dressing room. One particular scene with the shadows was creepy, and may have saved theDont see this movie, watch the original. Its farcical, the effects are laughable, unless of course you like cheap looking 3D zombie effects and children being rag dolled all over the place. Filled with jump scares, this move was as far from the horror Genre you can get without getting into Rod Stewards dressing room. One particular scene with the shadows was creepy, and may have saved the film from a negative review from me, but overall, it was a major disappointment, dont waste your money. Expand
  44. WJS
    Mar 5, 2016
    5
    I'm not sure why they found it necessary to remake this classic award winning horror film. I mean, I will admit this remake has its spooky, creepy and scary moments and the kids are quite good (I especially liked Kyle Catlett in the role of Griffin). Unfortunately, about two thirds of the way through, this film just veers off into the world of modern horror films and becomes nothing moreI'm not sure why they found it necessary to remake this classic award winning horror film. I mean, I will admit this remake has its spooky, creepy and scary moments and the kids are quite good (I especially liked Kyle Catlett in the role of Griffin). Unfortunately, about two thirds of the way through, this film just veers off into the world of modern horror films and becomes nothing more than a mimic of the "Insidious" franchise, just to name a few. Expand
  45. Jun 20, 2015
    4
    "Poltergeist" 10 Scale Rating: 4.5 (Mediocre) ...

    The Good: At times, the film is a nice ode to the original, repeating some of the scenes from the horror classic without copying them directly. I thought that Sam Rockwell would be somewhat out of place, but he did a solid job. Jared Harris, as usual, turns in a good performance as television occultist Carrigan Burke, who is brought in
    "Poltergeist" 10 Scale Rating: 4.5 (Mediocre) ...

    The Good: At times, the film is a nice ode to the original, repeating some of the scenes from the horror classic without copying them directly. I thought that Sam Rockwell would be somewhat out of place, but he did a solid job. Jared Harris, as usual, turns in a good performance as television occultist Carrigan Burke, who is brought in to try and save the family's daughter. When they show what the "other side" looks like, it is very well done. While there are only a few of these scenes (mostly towards the end), they are hands down the best parts of the movie.

    The Bad: Sadly, for a horror and suspense film, it's not even remotely scary or suspenseful. Films like this are usually chock full of "jumpy" scenes, but this one was devoid of even that. It also goes from a somewhat slow build up to full throttle out of the blue which was a little jarring. Unfortunately, this movie is no better than the rest of the lazy horror films that have been released in the last 5-10 years.
    Expand
  46. Jun 3, 2015
    5
    I never liked the original so the remake is a disappointing as it. If comedy is barely present in the new movie, horror is bigger, thanks to special effects and scary moments with a more real touch. Details of the supernatural world are amazing and Madison is a quite charming character so it kinda helps you getting involved with the story. The major problems of Poltergeist are in theI never liked the original so the remake is a disappointing as it. If comedy is barely present in the new movie, horror is bigger, thanks to special effects and scary moments with a more real touch. Details of the supernatural world are amazing and Madison is a quite charming character so it kinda helps you getting involved with the story. The major problems of Poltergeist are in the script, which is told on screen in a rush and it's annoying to watch how things happen so fast, with such a poor development of characters. If you are a horror fan, you can have a few scary moments here but nothing unforgetable. If you watched the original of 1982, you might be surprised with the speed of events but you might be more scared too. It's your choice. Expand
  47. May 27, 2015
    6
    The film is like more of the same.Watched the classic and comparing it to the remake is really really the same but it has some changes making it predictable for people who watched the classic.The jump scares scared me once but the more the jump scares the more the movie isn't scary.The movie isn't bad but it is just not as good as the original.For those people who didn't watched theThe film is like more of the same.Watched the classic and comparing it to the remake is really really the same but it has some changes making it predictable for people who watched the classic.The jump scares scared me once but the more the jump scares the more the movie isn't scary.The movie isn't bad but it is just not as good as the original.For those people who didn't watched the classic Poltergeist the may love the film but the those people who have watched it may feel like it is the same movie but not good as the classic. Expand
  48. May 26, 2015
    4
    It's here... and it sucks

    The story is about a contemporary reimagination of a suburban family dealing with a series of unexplained phenomena revolving around their youngest daughter. When the restless spirits get more and more violent, they call on outside help, not knowing just how dangerous things are going to get. I still have no idea why they did a remake on Poltergeist and why
    It's here... and it sucks

    The story is about a contemporary reimagination of a suburban family dealing with a series of unexplained phenomena revolving around their youngest daughter. When the restless spirits get more and more violent, they call on outside help, not knowing just how dangerous things are going to get.

    I still have no idea why they did a remake on Poltergeist and why Hollywood keeps making remakes in the first place. These just no point and it anyone's me that these people think they can top the original but always fail because you can't top the original unless your John Carpenter and you made The Thing then yeah good job you somehow top the original. But I also curious of how this was going to turn, I mean Hollywood must have learned from they mistakes by now by not adding any stupid CG monsters or loud jump scares. After seeing the movie I'm still not impressed.

    The only good thing in this movie was Sam Rockwell, Rosemarie DeWitt and Jared Harris. Those three were the only good actors in the movie and at least they tried to give a some what of a good performance, they tried they best and I can give them that. But I still have no idea why they here in the first place, maybe it's money or they got force to do it, I don't know maybe it's just the money and if that's the case these three acted they ass off to get that paycheck.

    The movie itself has some creative scares or creepy moments I like to call it. When I mean some I really do mean some of the scares in the movie, which is kind of surprising that must remakes normally just suck all the way. Gil Kenan directed this movie and he's also the same guy who did Monster House and that movie itself had it's creepy moments and it also involves a possessed house and I think some of the creativity that Gil Kenan had went into this movie.

    I've seen many horror remakes that are much much worse then this. At least this one tried a little hard from most remakes, because a lot of horror remakes today are just so freaking lazy and they don't put any effort at all in they movies and it just comes off as crapping on the original.

    Now for the problems and these a lot to bring up: There is way way too much CGI in the movie I mean Hollywood horror movie cliche bad. These a scene in this movie where a CG squirrel jumps out the wardrobe (like a jump scare) and the way it ran around and how it looked just made me put my hands smack down on my face with pure disappointment of what I just saw. And that's not all, these other scenes where it involves CG with the demon ghost and other object's trying to kill them. People in Hollywood if you see this review (Somehow) stop making scary things into CGI crap, it's not scary it just make you look cheap. Go back to old school practical effect's with make-up and hairstyle in horror movies, at least it's actually there and it doesn't look like a crappy looking computer bug.

    Every advertisement for this movie has been for the f**king clown. It doesn't really scare me anymore because everywhere I go I see a billboard advertisement and you know what's on there? this movie with the clown facing us, I mean everywhere I go I see the damn thing and it's not even creepy anymore, it's just annoying how it's everywhere and how they showing the clown too much. I mean is that the way the film makers behind this movie think that the clown is going to make me run out of my way to see this movie, thank god we got online piracy because I'm paying to this a horror remake and that clown isn't going to fool me, I watched it for free so HA. Yeah you can saw it worked as I have seen the movie and reviewing it as I speak, but let's not forget I sawed it online for FREE and didn't pay to see it, that's why it's number 4 on this week box office.

    The child actors in the movie are not very good. I know it may seem a bit mean for me saying that the kids in the movie are piss poor actors but again let's not forget here that we have seen great performance from child actors in past horror movies so that proves that some children can act in horror movies, but here it seems like the producer's wanted they kids in the movie to make money and get to they children famous = more money. The little girl in the movie of course plays with the ghost demons and here's the thing in these kind of movies, what's up with these kids not once getting a bit freaked out over this I mean kids will cry or get scared over anything that's not human. The two movies that I think of that did it realistically was in The Babadook and The Conjuring were the kids got pure scared of this thing and not once played with it.

    The movie overall doesn't do anything new with it's character's, it's story or anything really. I bet this remake will be forgotten at the end of the year, unless they do a squeal (which I hope doesn't happening).
    Expand
  49. May 30, 2016
    1
    After a string of lackluster "reboots" of beloved favorite films (Robocop, Nightmare on Elm Street, Carrie, and the rest), I was dubious about this one from the beginning. The original is a contemporary classic that was groundbreaking for its time, and as long as you can ignore Beatrice Straight's gargantuan early '80s eyeglasses, it holds up well even today and never feels overly dated.After a string of lackluster "reboots" of beloved favorite films (Robocop, Nightmare on Elm Street, Carrie, and the rest), I was dubious about this one from the beginning. The original is a contemporary classic that was groundbreaking for its time, and as long as you can ignore Beatrice Straight's gargantuan early '80s eyeglasses, it holds up well even today and never feels overly dated.

    So I had little hope or much anticipation for this prospect. The trailer increased my curiosity level, though, and I allowed myself some excitement at the modernization possibilities, at the very least. Poltergeist with smart-phones, 24-hour TV and (hopefully) well-utilized CGI might possibly have potential, I thought. I was intrigued enough to postpone passing judgment prematurely. As Mickey and Mallory said, "Well, let's give that key lime pie a day in court."

    That said, I was unprepared for just how bad this movie is, on so many levels. Poltergeist (2015) is dull, listless, unimaginative, devoid of style, charmless, pedestrian, slapdash and everything that's truly terrible about run-of-the-mill. From a creative standpoint, decisions were made which inexplicably ignored and/or subverted precise factors which made Poltergeist (1982) such a success. Detailed, authentic characters from the first movie -- a family that inspired audiences to root for and care about them -- are replaced here by a bland bunch of nondescript losers who barely merit attention.

    Similarly, the spirit and sensibility of the original film has no echo here; tonally, this narrative is by-the-numbers, managing to somehow feel both too rushed and yawn-inducing simultaneously. Moreover, the evocative richness of the '82 version -- the house, the neighborhood, the entire milieu -- is now just a standard fare. The house is flat and featureless; the suburb itself feels neither sinister nor supernatural. In fact, nothing much in this movie feels like anything at all.

    It's hard to fathom why such crucial elements have been handled so clumsily and, more to the point, why this "reboot" was realized with complete disregard for the very elements which made 1982's Poltergeist so enduringly iconic.
    Expand
  50. Nov 23, 2015
    1
    Two good things about this film : Sam Rockwell and Sam Rockwell. For the rest, this a shame to the original one. The movie is basically a short mess of laughably bad CGI.
  51. May 30, 2015
    2
    Went into the theater not trying to compare it to the 1982 Poltergeist which ended up not being difficult because it was horrible. As a horror movie I would hope to feel uneasy or jump a few times, the parts that were supposed to be scary were so poorly acted the thrill was lost. A smear of comedy was about the only thing that made the 1h and 33min movie bearable. Boring. Dull. Acting wasWent into the theater not trying to compare it to the 1982 Poltergeist which ended up not being difficult because it was horrible. As a horror movie I would hope to feel uneasy or jump a few times, the parts that were supposed to be scary were so poorly acted the thrill was lost. A smear of comedy was about the only thing that made the 1h and 33min movie bearable. Boring. Dull. Acting was crap. Meh. Expand
  52. May 28, 2015
    2
    If you haven't seen the original Poltergeist movie please, watch it. This remake is a horrible "copy" of the original which, is byfar one of the best ghost/fictional poltergeist movies ever made, besides the original movie called, Enity which is based on a true story. If you have seen the original Poltergeist movie, I will guarantee that this remake will not be worth your time to watch.If you haven't seen the original Poltergeist movie please, watch it. This remake is a horrible "copy" of the original which, is byfar one of the best ghost/fictional poltergeist movies ever made, besides the original movie called, Enity which is based on a true story. If you have seen the original Poltergeist movie, I will guarantee that this remake will not be worth your time to watch. Personally, I recommend EVERYONE to watch the original. I almost spent double the price to watch this in 3D and, I'm glad that I didnt. Expand
  53. Jun 4, 2015
    3
    Though there were a few points where I cringed in suspense, I was more scared by the previews than the film itself. The parts meant to be "scary", weren't directed well. I understand it's hard to make a decent horror film, and a movie is only as good as it's worst actor. Overall, this was a decent movie. I probably wouldn't watch it again, but if you're scared easily and don't want to haveThough there were a few points where I cringed in suspense, I was more scared by the previews than the film itself. The parts meant to be "scary", weren't directed well. I understand it's hard to make a decent horror film, and a movie is only as good as it's worst actor. Overall, this was a decent movie. I probably wouldn't watch it again, but if you're scared easily and don't want to have a heart attack, this movies for you. 3/10 Expand
  54. Jul 20, 2015
    2
    This is probably the most ridiculous horror film I have ever seen. It's filled with nonsense cliches and lacks structure and logic. All the intended jumpscares were predictable and there was no gloomy atmosphere at all. The acting is quite poor, too. If there's at least some little thing to give a quiet applause for, it's the decent creativity with the cameras. I kinda felt bad forThis is probably the most ridiculous horror film I have ever seen. It's filled with nonsense cliches and lacks structure and logic. All the intended jumpscares were predictable and there was no gloomy atmosphere at all. The acting is quite poor, too. If there's at least some little thing to give a quiet applause for, it's the decent creativity with the cameras. I kinda felt bad for laughing for the whole time, but it really works better as parody than horror. Expand
  55. Jun 12, 2015
    1
    Horrific remake and an even worse film. The main problem with Poltergeist (1982) is... everything. The special effects come out of my video game console, the acting seems mostly cardboard throughout the entire thing and the dialogue is just... awful. It's not remotely believable. They keynotes and highlights of the original are quickly rushed into the audience's spotlight and are givenHorrific remake and an even worse film. The main problem with Poltergeist (1982) is... everything. The special effects come out of my video game console, the acting seems mostly cardboard throughout the entire thing and the dialogue is just... awful. It's not remotely believable. They keynotes and highlights of the original are quickly rushed into the audience's spotlight and are given nowhere near as much significance as the original. The composition on the film's score is just atrocious - I feel someone dub-step Youtuber could have done a much better job. Avoid this film. Expand
  56. Jul 3, 2015
    1
    This remake is exactly what I thought it would be. And that is bad. This is bad as a stand alone movie and a remake.
    This movie has no character development, no plot development, no suspense, no atmosphere, no tension, and there is no stakes as to what is happening to these cardboard characters.
    The modernization of this film only makes it harder to watch. When they used a god forsaken
    This remake is exactly what I thought it would be. And that is bad. This is bad as a stand alone movie and a remake.
    This movie has no character development, no plot development, no suspense, no atmosphere, no tension, and there is no stakes as to what is happening to these cardboard characters.
    The modernization of this film only makes it harder to watch. When they used a god forsaken drone as one of the central plot-points, I contemplated walking out of the theatre. This movie has no reason to be shown in 3D, and when the 3D is actually utilized, it's obnoxious.

    It's a shame, because the movie has a competent cast. But even with that, Saxon Sharbino, Rosemarie Dewitt and Jane Adams are the only cast members who have any of the charisma that the original film's cast had.

    To put it in short, Poltergeist is a watered down, rushed and incompetent retelling of a much better film. The only updates to the story the film has are useless, and don't change enough from the original to be surprising to older audiences. The cast is fine, but the writing, the directing and the execution don't hold a candle to the original film. Even as a standalone story, the movie is a poorly directed and written ghost story, that will leave no impact on the viewer due to it's lack of character development, lack of suspenseful scenes, and lack of anything of substance. This remake blends into the crowd of current jumpscare heavy ghost films and will assuredly be forgotten very soon. Which is probably for the best.
    Expand
  57. Apr 15, 2016
    3
    The remake to the classic horror film continues recent trends of remakes in that is hard to match or even come close to the originals. With poor performances and scenes the "the horror film" is a disastrous attempt to replicate the raw of the classic film.
  58. Sep 13, 2015
    2
    Couldn't watch it until the end, may be a good movie, but I doubt it...
    The actors are unsympathetic and annoying as hell, especially the kid with the voice of a ring-tone, and being afraid of everything.
    I was hyped when I saw Sam Rockwell starring, but even he couldn't manage to make something out of this "movie".
  59. Sep 15, 2015
    9
    I find the original version scarier, but the latest Poltergeist is worth the watch.

    Watch it here for free http://www.watchfree.to/watch-17a3ef-Poltergeist-movie-online-free-putlocker.html
  60. Nov 8, 2015
    5
    Ok movie on it's own. Terrible remake. All of the characters (even the secondary ones) are blah or have no development. The modernization of the movie doesn't translate for better scares. It just makes it very predictable and hokey. The plot is rushed and the story never really develops. The get in the house and almost immediately are neck deep in ghosts. I thought the best thing aboutOk movie on it's own. Terrible remake. All of the characters (even the secondary ones) are blah or have no development. The modernization of the movie doesn't translate for better scares. It just makes it very predictable and hokey. The plot is rushed and the story never really develops. The get in the house and almost immediately are neck deep in ghosts. I thought the best thing about the movie were the special effects and a very good twist creating scenes in the world of the dead.

    This movie is a like nice looking juicy steak sitting on a plate. You cut into it and take a bite and it doesn't taste like anything.
    Expand
  61. Feb 3, 2016
    2
    Whatever the original Poltergeist did outstanding, this Poltergeist comes to screw the original up to pieces and whine about more money to generate another remake popping out of our eyes.
  62. Jan 4, 2016
    4
    Bahhhh, muy floja esta película, pues al ser un remake de una película de culto de terror de los ochenta, no logra ni igualar a su predecesora, busca modernizar un poco la cinta a los tiempos actuales pero se queda ahí, y le quita un poco el encanto del cine de antaño.

    Al final los efectos especiales, la falta de tensión de la cinta y un par de bromas que no vienen al caso convierten
    Bahhhh, muy floja esta película, pues al ser un remake de una película de culto de terror de los ochenta, no logra ni igualar a su predecesora, busca modernizar un poco la cinta a los tiempos actuales pero se queda ahí, y le quita un poco el encanto del cine de antaño.

    Al final los efectos especiales, la falta de tensión de la cinta y un par de bromas que no vienen al caso convierten esta película de un triller de terror a una película de aventuras para toda la familia, así que si busca asustarse mejor, no se, vaya a ver un capítulo de la casita del terror de Los Simpson, o Bittlejuice.
    Expand
  63. Jan 23, 2016
    8
    3.6, seriously?! The original sucked. It was cheesy and the effects are awful. This is such a huge improvement and I love this film. It at least deserves a 6.5. Watch the film, love it, and people need to stop comparing it to the old film because it's got new elements and Sam Rami did a great job with it
  64. Feb 4, 2016
    8
    When this first came out last year, I refused to watch it at the cinema because of the atrocious reviews it received. Now after watching it on Netflix I realized that I should never listen to reviews. I cannot understand why it gathered the hate that it did, I loved it.

    Let's get things straight, it is not as good as the original, that one was a classic. But as a film of it's own
    When this first came out last year, I refused to watch it at the cinema because of the atrocious reviews it received. Now after watching it on Netflix I realized that I should never listen to reviews. I cannot understand why it gathered the hate that it did, I loved it.

    Let's get things straight, it is not as good as the original, that one was a classic. But as a film of it's own right I thought it was great. I liked the atmosphere the acting was good and there were a couple of times where I was made jump.

    As for the negatives, nothing in this film is anything you haven't already seen before in many other films, but this doesn't put me off because I always enjoy films set in a haunted house. Also the film relies far too much on CGI at the end of the film which comes across as too over the top although still fun to watch.

    Maybe I enjoyed this film more because I went into it expecting it be a total piece of trash, but was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed it, I just wish I didn't listen to the reviews and watched it at the cinema.

    If you watch this film and don't compare it to the original I am sure you will enjoy it. Just don't expect it to be better otherwise you will definitely be disappointed!
    Expand
Metascore
47

Mixed or average reviews - based on 27 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 27
  2. Negative: 6 out of 27
  1. Reviewed by: William Goss
    May 27, 2015
    50
    Makes largely cosmetic changes to the material without offering much in the way of distinctive frights.
  2. Reviewed by: James Berardinelli
    May 26, 2015
    50
    There's something missing and it becomes apparent early on. The movie isn't scary - not even a little bit.
  3. Reviewed by: Mark Olsen
    May 22, 2015
    60
    The new Poltergeist is a pleasant enough diversion, better as a low-simmer suspense story than a full-blown effects extravaganza.