Poltergeist: Why some films from the 80's just don't work

[Sandor 459]

Recently rented some old and new horror/thriller films... Of all the films I watched only one failed to entertain me: Poltergeist.

The beginning was ok, but from the scene of the tree until the end; it just didn't grab me. At all...

One of my major complaints was the special effects. I'm sorry, but the tree going up in the tornado or all the flying stuff in the bedroom... it's just TOO fake. It pulled me out of the story.

And seeing coffins rise up with skeletons in it... Geez, it was like being on a some kind of theme park "scary"-ride.

The movie is dated. I even liked The Amityville Horror remake better. Ouch! That's not a good sign.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

Poltergeist is a great film, one of Spielbergs scariest.

And Jerry's score is amazing.

Special effects date, get over it!

[Sandor 459]

I always thought Poltergeist was a "great" film too. Until I watched it again...

It is just TOO much "eye-candy". Special effects upon special effects. There's nothing scary about it by the way. I was never pulled in; always watching it from a distance.

I found that the scariest movies don't rely on special effects at all. Don't Look Now for example. That film is much older than Poltergeist, but can compete with all the Rings, Skeleton Keys, etc. out there nowadays.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

Aren't films like The Ring, Dark Water, Skeleton Key etc...etc...crap anyways?

It's all the same stuff, just copying each other or Jap horror films.

The best horror film is still Halloween, or perhaps Alien.

[Sandor 459]

The best horror film is still Halloween

Halloween??? Films like The Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby, the original Dawn Of The Dead or Don't Look Now are really a thousand times better. Halloween WAS influential; no doubt there. But so were The New Kids On The Block. Doesn't mean they're brilliant.

And Alien? GREAT, GREAT film, but I wouldn't consider it a horror film.

[AzOutcast 122]

If Alien isn't a horror film, I don't know what is . . .

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

Oh please those are just the respectable horror films that the critics put on their favorite lists.

Exorcist is a tense and unpleasant viewing experience, but it's hardly terrifying, same for Rosemary's Baby.

The Omen is scarier that both films combined.

Halloween IS a masterpiece because it does what a good horrorfilm should do, to scare it's audience, nothing more, nothing less.

And you are wrong about Alien, it's set up is classic Horror film, just set into outer space.

[Sandor 459]

The original Dawn of the Dead is not a respectable horror film at all. Neither is Don't Look Now perse.

What is terrifying and what is not is ALL in the eye of the beholder. I didn't find Halloween to be scary AT ALL. Others did. There is no way to measure those things.

I found Hellraiser unsettling, my friends thought it was cheap. It's so subjective.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

The first Hellraiser was pretty good, the rest is crap (second one has a damn fine score though).

The only zombie film I've ever seen is Shaun Of The Dead. (Hilarious, but probably not what you call a horror masterpiece.)

[Sandor 459]

Hellraiser II had it moments, but I agree; overall it was crap. Hehe, we finally agree on something in this thread! I was beginning to worry.

[AC1 3,565]

Too bad Hellraiser doesn't withstand multiple viewing. Upon a second watch I couldn't help but wondering what it was that I liked so much about it.

[Greg1138 2]

The only zombie film I've ever seen is Shaun Of The Dead. (Hilarious, but probably not what you call a horror masterpiece.)

Not a masterpiece - but as you say - hilarious.

I totally disagree about Poltergeist not standing up to the test of time......it is still one of the most gripping of it's kind.....

And Yes - Alien is most certainly a horror movie......

[pixie_twinkle 44]

Aren't films like The Ring, Dark Water, Skeleton Key etc...etc...crap anyways?

It's all the same stuff, just copying each other or Jap horror films.

The best horror film is still Halloween, or perhaps Alien.

Or Jaws...

The Japanese originals are usually very good. The first time I saw Nakata's original Dark Water it really gripped me. I refuse to see the remake just because it's too soon for such a recent film to be remade IMO. Why can't people just deal with subtitles and go see the original instead of waiting for it to be remade in English with a needlessly joke-filled or action-packed script that ultimately castrates the horror factor completely?

By the way, anyone who saw Shaun of the Dead shoud give Dog Soldiers a try. It's a little more offbeat and less obvious in its humour, but still very funny and slightly chilling in places. Plus Dr Who's son (Sean Pertwee) is in it!

[Ollie 859]

I'll recommend Dog Soldiers as well, as for Roald's comments on Poltergeist.... banghead

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

That's a bitch of a Werewolf film, right?

[Sandor 459]

Then I'll recommend The Descent too. I found it gripping as hell.

And before this thread implies that I discard all films from the 80's I would like to state that dated special effects have never - or ever will - clouded my judgement in any way on films like The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, E.T., Back To The Future, Gremlins, Aliens, The Terminator or The Abyss.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

I could understand it, Roald if you had said, "After Carol Ann is rescued, the movie falls apart". Even Spielberg had second thoughts about that. I think the problem I have with your post is you titled it in such a way as to make it look like you were going to analyze why you don't think an 80's film works today. But in your typical Roald fashion, all we got was "I didn't like the effects". You never even mention Goldsmiths contribution. Really, this was a post meant for the "Last Film Watched" thread, since you never bother to follow up with what your problems with 80's films are.

[Sandor 459]

Really, this was a post meant for the "Last Film Watched" thread, since you never bother to follow up with what your problems with 80's films are.

I have no problem with 80's films. Just with CERTAIN 80's films. Like Poltergeist.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

The idea behind this thread is blasphemy. I say we take Roald out and feed him to the beast.

[nightscape94 965]

The best horror film is still Halloween.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Tim

[Justin 2]

I personally found the film to be quite engaging and scary. Anyway, if dated effects pull you out of films I'll be interested in 10-20 years time when you finally see the prequels and many other modern film for what they truly are.

Justin - Who doesn't thinkt the effects in Narnia and others films are dated, they just suck.

[King Mark 2,924]

some of the digital effects they added in the ANH Special Edition look more dated than the ones they replaced.

I'd have to watch Poltergeist again,I got it on DVD for 6.99$,still wrapped.

K.M.

[TheRuleOfThirds 0]

I think Poltergeist has some of the most tightly-scored sequences ever. "The Clown" is subtle, but still in-your-face. "Night Visitor" is awesome just because it sounds so twisted. The special effects from that scene rock. It proves that without Poltergeist, there'd be no Ghostbusters. (Well...technically Raiders was the first to do that trick with superimposing Edlund's ghost-puppets with actual footage) Plus, "Rebirth" is a good scene too.

[ymenard 35]

It also has the most unique brass section sound I've ever heard on CD.

[Sandor 459]

It's very interesting to see that when people get "irritated" by my opinion on Poltergeist they either:

A. Point out that Poltergeist has a great score. I agree.

B. Bring in the Prequels. That's so cheap and really favors me in the end. Aren't there really any better arguments than saying: "You don't like Poltergeist?? But you do like the prequels!"

C. Imply that I don't like any films from the 80's anymore.

D. Or think that I believe ALL films are dated in 10 to 20 years which is simply NOT true. If you guys would actually READ what I have to say you would know that.

I haven't totally put my thoughts together on Poltergeist. I know one thing: it left me cold and come the "scary tree" scene I realized that I wasn't immersed in the film at all.

I see Poltergeist is a technical marvel and that the directorial strokes Spielberg "forced" on the canvas range from excellent to genius even.

But the film created a huge gap between itself and me. It was like WATCHING a rollercoaster-ride from a mile distance instead of being ON it. It wasn't just the "fake" effects. I mean the Taun-Tauns don't exactly look Jurassic Park either, but I enjoy the The Empire Strikes Back the same way I enjoyed it when I was 5 years old.

There is more to Poltergeist that I found bad. I couldn't root for any of the characters, the acting is adequate, but nothing stellar to me.

But my major complaint is probably: Steven Spielberg set out to make a REALLY SCARY FILM. The whole film forces that conception on you every minute. The funny thing is Spielberg: special effects AREN'T scary! Especially when they're so fake.

You know what's scary? The dwarf from Don't Look Now. No special effect, just masterful vision.

People on this board have been on a crusade cursing films nowadays that have too many special effects. Well, if one film has TOO many visual effects it's Poltergeist.

Ooh again a light, ooh another big vagina in a closet, ooh let's do some spirit lights, ... What about some more lights?

It left me totally cold. Spielberg has, to me, a limited view on what's scary when he's too focussed on making something scary. Skeletons in coffins. That's his trick.

Jaws was much more straightforward and had a lot more sincerity. Seeing the body in Gardner's boat; THAT was scary. No flashy visual effect, just a dummy minus one eye and John Williams making your heart stop.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

Roald, your topic title mentions 80's films (plural).

[Sandor 459]

SOME films. Not ALL films.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

really you're post title should have read why ONE film doesn't work, which most of us believe it does.

[AzOutcast 122]

. . . so I guess Tobe Hooper has been let off the hook?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

The only way to bash Poltergeist is go actually set out and find faults for the sake of it. The film is still as good as it's ever been, warts and all. Hell, even Poltergeist II - The Other Side is good despite its obvious cheesiness.

Roald would make sense if he was bashing Poltergeist III.

[nightscape94 965]

Oddly, you're the first person to mention Hooper's name. Great flick and a great director, who went on to completely destroy his career somehow. Is there a reason why he can't make a film as great as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre these days?

Tim

[AzOutcast 122]

Oddly, you're the first person to mention Hooper's name.  Great flick and a great director, who went on to completely destroy his career somehow.  Is there a reason why he can't make a film as great as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre these days?

Tim

Well, that's not actually too odd. I assume everyoone here knows already but there's debate on how much Hooper actually directed. If I'm not mistaken, Spielberg was bound by contract to do E.T. before anything else so he hooked up with Hooper . . . therefore giving Hooper the directing credit and just taking the "roll" as producer and whatnot. If we were being accurate, I imagine Hooper deserved a co-directing credit. But hey, who knows how much he actually contributed to the film.

And I agree about his career. The Toolbox Murders . . . ugh.

[nightscape94 965]

Well, him and Spielberg must have gotten along all right, because Hooper when on to direct an episode of Amazing Stories for him, and the more recent Taken.

But other then that, TCM brought promises of a great director that he just couldn't live up to with future films.

Tim

[AzOutcast 122]

I couldn't agree more. Never got around to seeing Taken though, how was that?

[Sergeant 1,093]

Poor

[Guest macrea]

Poltergeist is now 23 years old and you're condemning it for no reason other than that. A year after the film was released, Psycho II came out, and the first Psycho was 23 years old then. I was in high school at the time and Psycho felt like an "old" movie. But just because it was from 1960 didn't mean it wasn't a great movie. Sure there were things that made you realize it was of an era, but you view it in context and accept it for what it is. A classic, brilliantly made film.

Your contention that filmmaking between the 80's and now is too similar and therefore the flaws stand out, is unfounded. If you want to know what Poltergeist would have been like if it were made at the turn of the millennium, by the same producer and with the same composer, no less, see the remake of The Haunting... a complete piece of garbage with no substance, resonance, or logic whatsoever, in other words your typical bloated CG FX movie. But do you like it just because it was done in 1999? If so, you're welcome to it. Poltergeist is a benchmark of the haunted house genre, a product of its era, yes, but there is an integrity to it and the kind of characterization and thematic content (particularly spirituality) that Spielberg himself would not even have the fortitude to include nowadays.

19 years before Poltergeist came the original Haunting, directed by Robert Wise, another benchmark of the genre that has not one ghostly effect in it. All you get is loud noise, terrified faces, and, in one scene, a bulging door (done with a stage effect). It's brilliant, and maybe you think so too, or maybe you dismiss it because it was made in the 60's. You're entitled to an opinion: you don't like Poltergeist. Fine, but if all you can come up with is that it was made in the 80's and has 80's-style FX (what else would it have), you don't have a leg to stand on and it's better to say nothing.

[AC1 3,565]

Where is Steven from Spielbergbergfilms? He would champion this film like a lion protecting her cubs.

[Sandor 459]

I'll just copy and paste myself, because it seems people didn't read this post:

It's very interesting to see that when people get "irritated" by my opinion on Poltergeist they either:

A. Point out that Poltergeist has a great score. I agree.

B. Bring in the Prequels. That's so cheap and really favors me in the end. Aren't there really any better arguments than saying: "You don't like Poltergeist?? But you do like the prequels!"

C. Imply that I don't like any films from the 80's anymore.

D. Or think that I believe ALL films are dated in 10 to 20 years which is simply NOT true. If you guys would actually READ what I have to say you would know that.

I haven't totally put my thoughts together on Poltergeist. I know one thing: it left me cold and come the "scary tree" scene I realized that I wasn't immersed in the film at all.

I see Poltergeist is a technical marvel and that the directorial strokes Spielberg "forced" on the canvas range from excellent to genius even.

But the film created a huge gap between itself and me. It was like WATCHING a rollercoaster-ride from a mile distance instead of being ON it. It wasn't just the "fake" effects. I mean the Taun-Tauns don't exactly look Jurassic Park either, but I enjoy the The Empire Strikes Back the same way I enjoyed it when I was 5 years old.

There is more to Poltergeist that I found bad. I couldn't root for any of the characters, the acting is adequate, but nothing stellar to me.

But my major complaint is probably: Steven Spielberg set out to make a REALLY SCARY FILM. The whole film forces that conception on you every minute. The funny thing is Spielberg: special effects AREN'T scary! Especially when they're so fake.

You know what's scary? The dwarf from Don't Look Now. No special effect, just masterful vision.

People on this board have been on a crusade cursing films nowadays that have too many special effects. Well, if one film has TOO many visual effects it's Poltergeist.

Ooh again a light, ooh another big vagina in a closet, ooh let's do some spirit lights, ... What about some more lights?

It left me totally cold. Spielberg has, to me, a limited view on what's scary when he's too focussed on making something scary. Skeletons in coffins. That's his trick.

Jaws was much more straightforward and had a lot more sincerity. Seeing the body in Gardner's boat; THAT was scary. No flashy visual effect, just a dummy minus one eye and John Williams making your heart stop.

Then, to those who seem to want to "break me" by pointing out that I used the word films in my topic title; don't see things so black and white. I DON'T mean ALL films from the 80's, but certainly also not just ONE film!

It's not just Poltergeist that doesn't work. What about Friday The 13th part II?

If you want to know what Poltergeist would have been like if it were made at the turn of the millennium, by the same producer and with the same composer, no less, see the remake of The Haunting... a complete piece of garbage with no substance, resonance, or logic whatsoever, in other words your typical bloated CG FX movie.

Well; to me Poltergeist has little substance as well. It didn't resonate with me at all. It is, in other words, your typical bluescreen, animated FX movie. In fact Poltergeist has MORE special effects than The Haunting!

But perhaps the kids who grew up with The Haunting will have to defend it 25 years from now in some kind of new cybermessageboard.

[AC1 3,565]

In the 80s, film studios found out that people don't want to think, they just want to be entertained.

[Ollie 859]

Back in 1982 I can remember many people being scared by Poltergeist.

[Justin 2]

I remember people being scared when I watched it 2 weeks ago.

Justin - Who watched it alone.

[Sandor 459]

Back in 1982 I can remember many people being scared by Poltergeist.

Yeah, of course even Bambi scares some people. But back in 1982 some really scary shit existed. Much, much scarier than Poltergeist. Polanski's Repulsion for example. Romero's Dawn Of The Dead. Raimi's Evil Dead. Not scary for EVERYONE, but generally much more effective than bluescreen effects, a million lights or coffins rising from the ground.

I remember people being scared when I watched it 2 weeks ago.

You're not serious right? A part of the PREMISE is scary, but the execution is not scary AT ALL. It becomes almost a film like The Goonies or Gremlins. The only somewhat scary scene is the guy ripping his face apart. On the other hand I felt like I was watching something from a Nightmare On Elm Street film. Ouch.

[nicholas 1]

Two 80s horror films come to mind with quite decent special affects, although they wouldn't stand up against present day computer generated ones. They are "An American Werewolf in London" (with the still shocking transformation scene) and, funnily-enough, "Fright Night", which had a similar scene. I say funnily-enough because "Fright Night" was that rare thing, a horror film which managed to be quite funny without undermining all of its scariness.

I'm afraid I know absolutely nothing about the scores of either...

[nightscape94 965]

I remember people being scared when I watched it 2 weeks ago.

You're not serious right? A part of the PREMISE is scary, but the execution is not scary AT ALL.

He obviously disagrees with you.

Tim

[Ollie 859]

It's only Roald's opinion and obviously not everyone agrees with him either.

[Jeshopk 8]

Poltergeist was shown recently at Loews Fenway theatre in Boston to a young college crowd, and people were terrified. I attended and heard screams and comments from all the college kids who had not yet seen it. Furthermore, there are people I know who can not watch it because they get too scared. It beats all the new scary movies easily. And most of the special effects are much better than anything done today. Only one special effect is bad, and that is when they open the room and all the toys are flying around. Everything else is much more realistic than what there is today. It is a classic for all time.

[TheRuleOfThirds 0]

The score to Poltergeist II's pretty freaky too. Very atonal and the chanting's a little weird too.

[nightscape94 965]

That's fine, but let's never talk of Poltergeist II again though.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

I've never seen anyone so determined to bash Poltergeist. The movie must have really offended him somehow.

It's not our fault the movie presents ghosts as evil and mean but 1982 was a more politically incorrect time and people weren't so passionate about issues such as "Ghost Rights" and "Ghost Marriage". Now ghosts want their own damn laws introduced. I'm telling you, we're being swamped by dead people and bleeding-heart apologists like Roald are just making the situation worse. TV shows like Ghost Whipserer are a way of brainwashing the people into thinking ghosts are good and living people are all ecto-thirsty maniacs. These ghosts need to be exterminated and have their yucky ectoplasm used for fertilizer.

[Justin 2]

Ghosts are evil. Fact.

Justin