#289 Eddie Carr was originally supposed to be the "hero" in TLW, which explains why the Eddie action figure comes with the so-called "hero hat". (From: 'Salvester2') Prev - Next
"Poltergeist (2015)" On 4/28/2015 at 1:35:12 AM, Velociraptor87 started the thread: This came in completely off the radar, which has me worried... But... We'll see?
Msg #4: On 4/28/2015 at 1:49:18 AM, Ostromite replied, saying: I'm actually all right with them remaking this movie because the original isn't scary at all. It's got some really memorable moments and classic images, but it's less than the sum of its parts. That said, this looks pretty run-of-the-mill: jump scares, creepy clowns, flashlights, little girls, etc. Replies: 5
Msg #5: On 4/28/2015 at 2:39:55 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #4, saying: Agreed, it looks very by the numbers. Hoping the performances save it, because the cast is good. Replies: 8
Msg #6: On 4/28/2015 at 4:38:39 AM, Snake Mark replied, saying: Weird to see literally nobody give a crap about this. Trailer has been out for some time and the lack of interest, not just on here, is hilarious. Replies: 7
Msg #7: On 4/28/2015 at 6:35:45 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #6, saying: They've only recently started pumping out the TV ads, afaik. They've played regularly on adult swim tonight though
Msg #8: On 4/28/2015 at 11:51:36 AM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #5, saying: I'll be seeing this solely for the talent involved. Looks like an ok thriller, and while I am firmly against reboots, I agree with Ostro that the original has not aged well and is not the slightest bit scary anymore.
Msg #9: On 4/28/2015 at 3:09:41 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: The original is fucking fantastic. I don't know what drugs you and Ostro are on, but the film still scares me and tingles the back of my neck like no other.
This? Looks like crap. Replies: 10
Msg #10: On 4/28/2015 at 5:16:36 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #9, saying: Perhaps you need to rewatch the original film without the nostalgia blinders on. I'm not saying it isn't a great movie - it is - but it is no more a horror movie anymore than ET or Labyrinth. There are a couple creepy parts...the clown, the guy peeling his face off, the corpses coming out of the pool and house floor (and even then, that's only because of the urban legend that they were real skeletons used to save cost)...but towards the end, the CGI and ghost models are dated to the point of being comical. I find Poltergeist II to be far creepier than the first, mainly due to the excellent performance by the actor that played the priest. Honestly, the only thing truly creepy about the original film are the strange circumstances that followed, such as the early deaths of several cast members.
This is of course, just my opinion. However, when I was still trying to convince myself it was a horror movie and I'd show it to people who'd never seen it before, parts that were supposed to be scary (the giant demon head emerging from the closet or the tree scene, for example) were met with laughter rather than fear or discomfort.
And I'm also not saying the reboot is going to be any good. I'm just saying it has some good talent attached which, as I said in my previous post, is the only reason I'm seeing it in the first place.
Msg #11: On 4/28/2015 at 6:30:37 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: The movie works because the acting is amazing. Craig T. Nelson, Jo Beth Williams sell the shit out of the movie. They look absolutely terrified. The camera works is impeccable, and the film really rides the tension and suspense.
That right there is what it's all about. There aren't even ghosts in this scene and the back of my hair is standing on end. Also, Goldsmith's score. There isn't enough praise I can give this movie.
However, when I was still trying to convince myself it was a horror movie and I'd show it to people who'd never seen it before, parts that were supposed to be scary (the giant demon head emerging from the closet or the tree scene, for example) were met with laughter rather than fear or discomfort.
Convince yourself? It's either scary to you or it isn't. You don't think it's scary now because you're afraid to look like a goof for thinking it?
Replies: 12, 34
Msg #12: On 4/28/2015 at 6:42:02 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #11, saying: You can explain how and why the movie works on however many levels you can think of, but I just watched it last Halloween and it felt like a kid's movie. I'm honestly having trouble picturing a grown man getting tense while watching it. It's like a haunted house ride at Disney Land.
Msg #13: On 4/28/2015 at 6:48:26 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Well how do you feel the actors are playing it? Replies: 14
Msg #14: On 4/28/2015 at 6:53:46 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #13, saying: I'm not sure what your point is. Actors would still be acting scared in a family-friendly horror movie the same way they would in one for adults, and they'd be acting scared in a shitty horror movie that wasn't scary the same way they would in a good one that was terrifying. Aside from that, Craig T. Nelson has quite a few moments of dry comedy (showing the ghost-hunter guys the room with all the flying objects comes to mind), and the movie deliberately plays to childhood fears of shadows and monsters in the closet.
Msg #15: On 4/28/2015 at 7:02:16 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: My point is that the actors get me to the level of the film. And you can say all actors will act scared, etc in any film that is about horror or scary things happening, but the truth of the matter is... most actors can't actually sell fear anyway because actors genuinely have to go there to make it work. Poltergeist happens to be the one of a few films that I feel the actors totally commit to it and because of that, it makes even a sketchy idea of a tree grabbing a child out of a room and trying to swallow him believable. You gotta care about the characters if you don't want bad things to happen to them. The film has a heart. Replies: 17, 22
Msg #16: On 4/29/2015 at 12:55:30 AM, Narrator replied, saying: The best actor in the world can't make an audience tense when the scene is shot and edited in a way that isn't. Replies: 23
Msg #17: On 4/29/2015 at 1:01:52 AM, PaulSF replied to Msg #15, saying: Looks pretty bad. Everything feels like a ripoff mix tape of Evil Dead, The Grudge, and of course, Poltergeist beat for fucking beat. Some of the newer trailers make that even more clear.
I like the original a whole lot, but I would have been fine with this remake had it gone the route of 2013's Evil Dead and introduced a totally different story around the familiar concept and events with no "here's our version of the same exact scene!" (save one in ED). This looks borderline Gus Van Sant's Psycho if not for the overall inferior direction and said Raimi produced repeating. If it's worse than Poltergeist II: The Other Side or Poltergeist III, then these damn fools straight up fucked up. Replies: 18
Msg #18: On 4/29/2015 at 3:22:56 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #17, saying: Conversely, if it's as awesome as Lara Flynn Boyle & a phoned-in Tom Skeritt, I'm game Replies: 19
Msg #19: On 4/29/2015 at 3:53:19 AM, PaulSF replied to Msg #18, saying: It's better than the second, I'll give it that. Replies: 20
Msg #20: On 4/29/2015 at 5:41:47 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #19, saying: That's the funny thing, both sequels have weird pluses/minuses imo. I couldn't stand Carol Anne's therapist in 3. And I get he's supposed to be an unsympathetic character but it just gets grating... "I have witnessed demonic activity in this apartment complex, but there is nO WAY Carol Anne's story is credible or real! No way! Nope!"
Msg #21: On 4/29/2015 at 5:44:53 AM, Velociraptor87 replied, saying: Which reminds me - the daughter that goes missing in this remake -isn't- Carol Anne. This is a different family. Is this inconsequential or will this be referenced? cuz I also notice Zelda Rubinstein is no longer Zelda Rubinstein, but an Irish priest instead.
Msg #22: On 4/29/2015 at 5:49:27 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #15, saying: I don't think anyone is denying the original Poltergeist is an enjoyable and noteworthy film. It exudes all the best qualities of a Spielberg film(even though it was tobe hooper...). I would even argue that certain scenes are still effective to this day, namely the slab of steak on the counter or the face melt in the bathroom. It just reads as a lot closer to 'Gremlins' in tone than it does, like, 'Insidious'. Which is funny, because 'Insidious' to me almost feels like a grimmer/spookier spiritual successor to the Poltergeist series.
Msg #23: On 4/29/2015 at 5:14:05 PM, Carnotaur3 replied to Msg #16, saying: Good thing the rest of the film still works.
Msg #27: On 4/29/2015 at 8:01:58 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #25, saying: Is there something wrong with a horror movie whose goal is scaring you? o.o And I think in the cases of Insidious and The Conjuring, it could be argued they were just as invested in telling a good story. The Lamberts come across as a very believable and relatable family, and their family backstory is the driving force of the narrative. The scares are organically part of the story.
Msg #28: On 4/29/2015 at 8:12:03 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Yes there is something wrong with it. It's not ABOUT anything but stimulating you. Replies: 29, 32
Msg #29: On 4/29/2015 at 8:14:31 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #28, saying: I guess I don't see what you mean. As far as horror films go, I'd even say Insidious and The Conjuring are the most story-driven in recent years.
Msg #30: On 4/29/2015 at 8:33:01 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Maybe the most. I'm not saying Wan isn't talented. I'm simply saying he has nothing to say. Replies: 31
Msg #31: On 4/29/2015 at 8:50:26 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #30, saying: Horror movies aren't typically known as a medium for thought-provoking ideas. If I'm invested in the characters and genuinely spooked, awesome.
Msg #32: On 4/29/2015 at 9:18:19 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #28, saying: How is Insidious any less story-driven than Poltergeist? Hell, they practically have the same plot. Replies: 35
Msg #33: On 4/29/2015 at 10:57:29 PM, PaulSF replied, saying: The Conjuring and Insidious don't tell a story but Poltergeist does? The hell am I reading? The reason they succeeded in scaring me was precisely because they were telling a story and giving me characters I cared about.
If I'm invested in the characters and genuinely spooked, awesome.
Honestly, at this point, you just sound like an old fart whining about how back in your day, horror movies were so much better than today. I hear the same thing from my grandparents about how there's nothing good on television anymore like there was back in their day. Things may look and sound different now than they used to, and yes there is a lot of garbage horror movies out there, but your argument that they are all just about scares now without any story or plot or whatever you want to call it is complete bullshit. As Paul said, like them or not, Insidious and Conjuring are two of the best, most story driven horror movies of recent years. Yes, they do try to scare the audience since they are, you know, HORROR movies, but your argument that they have no story is just completely untrue. That's like somebody saying Game of Thrones is nothing but sex and violence.
But whatever. I love classic horror films as much as anybody, but I'm not blinded by nostalgia so much that I can't enjoy good modern ones too. Will this new Poltergeist be a good one? Who knows? I'd even probably put my money on probably not, but I'm willing to give it a shot. Replies: 38
Msg #38: On 4/30/2015 at 5:16:21 PM, Carnotaur3 replied to Msg #37, saying: Before you get snippy and offended (or more snippy and offended), I wasn't calling you out. I just think It's important to make a distinction between story and plot. Especially since I disagree with you on what it means to be "story-driven".
I barely enjoy any movies these days because they only stimulate the senses and not the mind, raptor. Hollywood is pumping out complete garbage. With barely or thinly written characters, these movies don't have a story to hang on. They're completely plot-driven and are more concerned with shocking you in your seats than actually having substance.
Poltergeist is a great film. It's not just a horror movie. In the same way Jaws isn't just a horror movie. Are you going to next argue with me that Jaws isn't a great film because of the crummy special effects and the too tight nostalgia glasses? It comes across like a straw man's argument that leaves no room for me to even be heard because you've made up your mind about what I'm even discussing with you.
There's lots of drama dealing with not just childhood fears but also adult fears of abduction. The story doesn't pick up with a cliche "the family just moved into a haunted house!" No, they've been there for years. And it paints a portrait of the suburban, American Dream way of life as the facade it is, crumbling with the corpses of those who who couldn't move on from their material world (the gold rings and jewelry represent what the dead can't take with them).
There's more - much more when you consider the film beyond surface level.
Will the new movie do the same? Will it have something new to say? Probably not.
Msg #39: On 4/30/2015 at 8:13:06 PM, RezForPrez replied, saying: I'd fall closer on the side of C3 here. I feel generally meh about most horror films these days, even the technically impressive Conjuring seemed very by the numbers- just well shot, great production design, competent acting.. basically the best possible film that could be made using that plot, but nothing earth shattering and nothing I ever care to revisit except, perhaps, on a technical level. Horror films these days bore me. Then you have something like, say, The Babadook, which while also competently shot and acted goes too far in the other direction and simply becomes a giant metaphor that slaps you over the fact with it's "subtext" so many times that it ceases to be subtext. Replies: 40
Msg #40: On 4/30/2015 at 8:49:25 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #39, saying: I haven't seen "It Follows", but it has gotten -glowing- reviews for a horror movie. If you guys have seen it, is that an example of something being more engaging & story driven?
Chase, all of us are film geeks but I don't know how many of us have a background in art analysis like you do. However, I finally see what you mean. Poltergeist was saying things, even nonexplicitly. In that regard, I really don't think modern horror compares - but I also think thats symptomatic of Hollywood at large, not specific to a genre. But it -is- a big problem. We deserve blockbusters that make us question our beliefs. Replies: 41, 44
Msg #41: On 5/1/2015 at 2:39:58 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #40, saying: It follows was retarded. The protagonists were basically straw people. The scary monster could be so easily taken care of by simple things any child could manage to think up, yet these college age kids can't seem to think of laying the most basic trap. It had its scary parts, but it was pretty dumb otherwise.
Spoiler:
the thing follows the person it's linked to by walking slowly to wherever they are. If you drive away, it has to walk on foot to you at a normal pace. The only person that can actually see it is the person that is being followed, (and people who have been followed in the past but passed it on) but if you, say, pour paint on it, you can see the figure. It has some weird electrical thing, where it steals the electricity of the victims I think.) Not one of the idiots thought of getting some goddamn cement, digging a whole, waiting for the thing to show up, surround the area with sheets, or something that would cover the creature and make it visible to everyone, lure it over the hole, covered with some leaves or something, and having it fall in, pouring concrete over it. Or really, even trapping it in a cage and running some experiments to see if it could get out, what it was vulnerable to if anything. The movie ended up not being very scary because the monster was so easily dealt with, and the only thing driving the movie forward and creating any kind of tension was the stupidity of the characters. Replies: 42
Msg #42: On 5/1/2015 at 5:36:28 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #41, saying: From what I've read, it's a supernatural entity. Kinda hard to kill something like that with practical means. What exactly was "developmentally disabled" about it, btw? Like I said, everything I've heard from other people & read in reviews, it sounds like a great movie. Replies: 43
Msg #43: On 5/1/2015 at 7:26:01 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #42, saying: (Spoiler alert) They shoot it in the head and kill it (or at least they think they do. It's sort of hinted that it may still be alive , as the last shot has someone following close behind, but it's ambiguous)
The point is they do try to kill it, but the single method they try is, you could say, developmentally challenged. Replies: 45
Msg #44: On 5/1/2015 at 1:33:24 PM, Carnotaur3 replied to Msg #40, saying: It is absolutely symptomatic of all 90% of Hollywood fare. Granted, there have been some surprises in the past few years but truly this is the age of "not giving a shit".
William Friedkin (director of The Exorcist, The French Connection) talked about some of this recently. It's gotten to the point where Hollywood execs think that they can just make money by following a formula and Friedkin said it pretty bluntly, nobody back then knew if any movie would make the bank. And they didn't care. They just made fucking art. I'm trying to find the video on youtube, let you know when I do.
Msg #45: On 5/1/2015 at 1:34:02 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #43, saying: So, standard horror movie logic? :3
Msg #46: On 5/1/2015 at 3:37:13 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Found it!
Msg #47: On 5/1/2015 at 4:10:36 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: This one is pretty interesting all the way through, but skip over to 20 minute mark and Friedkin talks about how he didn't consider The Exorcist as a horror film when he was making it.
Msg #53: On 5/3/2015 at 3:40:54 AM, Velociraptor87 replied, saying: I truly forgot how magical the 1982 film is - It's always been one of my favorites, but it genuinely always surprises me with its performances, its script, and even the special effects.
Such a scary, sad scene. "I'm sorry!"
Msg #54: On 5/3/2015 at 3:42:44 AM, Velociraptor87 replied, saying: OH MY GOD THEY USED THAT SONG??? I JUST REALIZED. like funny as fuck but i am so disappointed they put that stupid fucking song over that scene. Replies: 55
Msg #55: On 5/3/2015 at 5:01:11 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #54, saying: I was laughing pretty hard at it and thought you posted it as a joke, to be honest. Replies: 56
Msg #56: On 5/3/2015 at 5:04:10 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #55, saying: I was genuinely looking for that scene alone - sooooo sad that it's not available by itself online. Honestly, it's an effective scene in the movie. I don't think it's one of the scariest movies of all time, but the combination of adult fears via child abduction, and childhood fears of ghosts/what's in the closet, it's a creative and effective narrative for a story.
This goes there too. Goes all the way to putting me to sleep with this new chilling performance, the bright colors and total lack of atmosphere, and not at all generic music. Replies: 59
Msg #59: On 5/6/2015 at 7:30:59 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #58, saying: Did the original not have bright colors? That's an odd criticism. In fact, 30 seconds really isn't enough to go too in-depth on criticism wise.
Rosemarie DeWitt is a great actress, so I'm hoping this scene is a rare miss. Everyone is kinda flatlining though, you're right. Replies: 60
Msg #60: On 5/6/2015 at 7:42:49 PM, PaulSF replied to Msg #59, saying: It's mainly the super clean cinematography. Nearly every piece of footage lacks any sense of dread or foreboding because of it. I'm not talking about Rosemarie DeWitt, I mean whoever this plank of wood is talking. Replies: 61
Msg #61: On 5/6/2015 at 7:47:24 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #60, saying: Ohhhh. Yeah. The Martha Lesh analog, whoever that actress is... Not a good replacement.
Msg #62: On 5/6/2015 at 9:27:38 PM, Ostromite replied, saying: What the heck, you guys don't like Jane Adams? "Plank of wood"? Dude, it's a fifteen second clip of plain exposition, cut her some slack. The movie can't have dread and foreboding in every single line in every single scene. Replies: 63
Msg #63: On 5/6/2015 at 9:53:47 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #62, saying: I'm not familiar with much more of her work, tbh, but her filmography is promising. Probably the same case as Rosemarie DeWitt (and Sam Rockwell i guess), where these 20-30 seconds really do no justice. to be honest, this is -not- the best promotional clip/scene they could've gone with. Replies: 64
Msg #64: On 5/6/2015 at 10:02:05 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #63, saying: I'm really baffled that they chose to release this particular clip to promote the film.
Msg #65: On 5/7/2015 at 12:00:44 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: That clip was bad.
Msg #66: On 5/7/2015 at 12:10:34 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: This is pretty much the antithesis to Poltergeist. The staging of it. The lack of desperation on wanting their daughter back. This feels like some casual conversation at a luncheon. Replies: 67
Msg #67: On 5/7/2015 at 6:29:27 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #66, saying: While this isn't a shot for shot remake, the mood of this scene kind of reminds me of the one in the original where they're sitting around drinking tea and talking about the funny occurrences, like the lights flickering. But that was played for some laughs, and this one isn't nearly as effective.
Msg #68: On 5/7/2015 at 6:36:33 PM, Velociraptor87 replied, saying: I just realized the director of this remake, Gil Kenan, was also director of 'Monster House', which was a surprisingly awesome CG animated movie. Curious to see if any of that film's charm is imparted in this one as well - so far, it doesn't look like it, sadly, but knowing his past credit raises my hopes a little.
Here's an... interesting featurette. They're really wringing that clown scene for all its worth.
This might be the most offensively cynical and lazy horror remake there is or could possibly be. If not for Gus Van Sant's Psycho, there would be no pause for contemplation.
-no tension -no atmosphere -rushed pace -no imagination or creativity of its own other than use of iphones, flat screens, and tablets... and then does nothing with them -repeated shots from a better movie -repeated lines from a better movie -repeated scenes from a better movie -a CGI squirrel -a CGI cartoon climax that packs the entire last half hour of the original in maybe less than several minutes -characters at times making light of the situation instead of, you know, being maybe emotionally distraught (excluding Sam Rockwell) -jokey, cutsey barf-bag ending with zero trauma whatsoever -Poltergeist II & III are hugely better -fuck you/10 Replies: 70, 71, 74
Msg #70: On 5/22/2015 at 3:19:57 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #69, saying: Damn. I was so sure it was gonna be good.
Msg #71: On 5/22/2015 at 3:52:38 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #69, saying: :( If they were going to remake this, it honestly deserved a better remake. This is crushing. Replies: 72
Msg #72: On 5/22/2015 at 4:15:21 AM, PaulSF replied to Msg #71, saying: Yet is, at the moment, evenly split in critical response... much to my horror and confusion. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/poltergeist-2009/
In the end, maybe see it for yourself? Though don't be surprised when it's as bad as I'm saying it is (because it is).
Msg #73: On 5/22/2015 at 3:16:53 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Called it. The trailer was pretty apparent that they had no reason to remake the movie. Total cash grab on the brand.
Msg #74: On 5/22/2015 at 8:35:37 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #69, saying: Definitely agreeing with your sentiments towards the director & Raimi, the more I think about it. They really kinda sold me, and this is just inexcusable. Currently 31% at Rotten Tomatoes.
Msg #75: On 5/25/2015 at 5:29:25 AM, elementry replied, saying: My wife and I snuck into this after seeing Mad Max.
I could have cared less about seeing this movie going into it, but I did have one hope. One, measly little hope. I didn't care how much of the movie was a CGI-snorefest but I wanted an updated version of this thing.
And it didn't happen. What a lost opportunity to remake a cool monster. Instead, all we got was CGI, rubbery-looking 'spirit' hands. And a CGI skeleton...Sam Raimi is a hack.
Msg #76: On 5/25/2015 at 5:01:44 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Who cares about an update. You can't update perfection and that creature design is perfection.
Msg #77: On 5/25/2015 at 5:06:25 PM, elementry replied, saying: C3: They went through such pains to update or remake classic scenes from the other movies that it seemed like a missed opportunity to make some really cool monsters. There were literally no 'spirits' except for the really lame CGI people in the Otherworld. Replies: 79
Msg #78: On 5/25/2015 at 6:04:48 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Poltergeist was pretty inventive with its apparitions.
A bunch of hands behind a HD television just doesn't do it for me.
Msg #79: On 5/26/2015 at 4:42:22 AM, PaulSF replied to Msg #77, saying: That's another utterly baffling thing I left out. The idea of making a Poltergeist remake without their own version of The Beast is confounding. I would have sat there with a team discussing what it'd look like, what the mythology could be (or at least a hint of it). So many creative ways to re-visit that character. A manifestation of negative energy the land conjured? A demon? The fucking devil incarnate? Or a seriously disturbed spirit whom in death, became something worse? Eventually it became the latter for the sequels, Kane, but the first left the door open to interpretation and this could have done something similar.
Instead, Boo! Haunted House CGI skeletons, spirits, and Evil Dead ripoff hands leaping up into frame. What a joke. Apparently Insidious Chapter 3 is at least doing it right, with a villainous presence. At least someone is still making at least Poltergeist-like movies. “For me the guy in this film is the living embodiment of cancer,” Whannell said. “If cancer was a person, it would be this guy. Once you have a concept like that, it’s amazing how quickly the visuals occur to you." Played by Se7en’s Michael Reid MacKay, he was cast because that look and performance was exactly what Whannell thought of when he thought of this character. “I actually said ‘You know the guy ‘Sloth from Se7en, that he tied to the bed and kept him there for a year?’ That’s who we got, the actual guy who was tied to the bed. He’s a couple of years older now, but he’s that guy. And he just is so great in the role.””
Msg #80: On 6/10/2015 at 1:59:35 AM, RezForPrez replied, saying: Will my love of Sam Rockwell force me to one day watch this film? Let's hope not.
