SummaryLegendary filmmaker Sam Raimi and director Gil Kenan reimagine and contemporize the classic tale about a family whose suburban home is invaded by angry spirits. When the terrifying apparitions escalate their attacks and take the youngest daughter, the family must come together to rescue her.
SummaryLegendary filmmaker Sam Raimi and director Gil Kenan reimagine and contemporize the classic tale about a family whose suburban home is invaded by angry spirits. When the terrifying apparitions escalate their attacks and take the youngest daughter, the family must come together to rescue her.
While Hooper favored shock value and jump scares, Kenan and cinematographer Javier Aguirresarobe construct far more fluid sequences as the camera glides and hovers over its subjects, reserving the most impactful shots for the climactic scenes, particularly a concluding sequence that’s particularly thrilling.
All in all there’s not much to complain about here, except that — as with a lot of revisited classics — the story’s not as revolutionary as you remember it. For veterans of the 1982 Poltergeist, it’s more like scary but pleasant nostalgia.
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
Very tame, but saved from the remake scrapheap by Sam Rockwell's surprisingly touching performance and a final reel that – briefly – takes the material somewhere new.
The most retro thing about the remake is its specific, outdated utility: If anyone still patronizes video stores with hard copies, and if those stores don’t happen to have the original Poltergeist (or Insidious) in stock on a Friday night, this version might do the trick.
If you’re going to remake Poltergeist without the whole TV angle, "Insidious" already kind of did that. To be fair, this new Poltergeist isn’t anything special, either. But it’s not a travesty, and that feels like cause for brief celebration.
There are a few decent performances, a nice riff on the technology fears that drove the original movie, and a centerpiece of horror that works, but never once do you get the feeling that the people behind this remake are here because of artistic passion or creative drive.
I find the original version scarier, but the latest Poltergeist is worth the watch.
Watch it here for free ****/watch-17a3ef-Poltergeist-movie-online-free-putlocker.html
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.
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.
This movie might just be a remake, but it's not. In fact, it seems to have taken very little from its predecessors in title. The script is banal: as it has happened in thousands of films before, a family with children moves to a new house, acquiring without knowing the (not very encouraging) possibility of being frightened by an endless series of ghosts. Of course, children will be the preferred target of these ghosts, be it by the ingenuity or the effect that this can provoke in the public. Nothing new here. Equally unoriginal (we've seen something similar in "Insidious" or "The Conjuring"), the wardrobe in the girl's room is the most active place, eventually "devouring" one of the children. I will not talk more about what happens in this movie so I will not spoil. I just wanted to demonstrate that the film is a succession of cliches.
Gil Kenan's direction proved to be poor, fragile and did not seem to have been able to ask for the best of the actors and staff members. A lazy direction, which is content with the medium without pursuing excellence. The scares are scarce and predictable: objects that jump towards the display, snoring, scary noises and lights. I can say that I never felt truly frightened while watching the film. About the actors what can be said is that they seem to me to have tried to fulfill their role well, but they were not directed effectively. Sam Rockwell and Rosemarie DeWitt fulfilled their roles, while the children (especially Kennedi Clements and Kyle Catlett) seem to have fully lived up to what was asked of them. Jared Harris and Jane Adams do not seem to have been good choices, a complete casting error.
This film is a far cry from the quality of the Poltergeist of the 1980s, and I do not know if it's honest to relate these films to this movie. This seems a bit too ambitious, even though they share the same name. Despite this, I have the feeling that it would have been better with a more creative script and a more demanding and skillful director.
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.
Production Company
Fox 2000 Pictures,
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM),
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,
Ghost House Pictures,
Vertigo Entertainment,
TSG Entertainment