You must create a Free Account
in order to STREAM or DOWNLOAD this video
Poltergeist

Poltergeist

They're Here. And They Know What Scares You.May. 20, 2015 USA93 Min.PG-13
Your rating: 0
8.6 1,373 votes

Video trailer

Director

Gil Kenan
Director

Cast

Sam Rockwell isEric Bowen
Eric Bowen
Saxon Sharbino isKendra Bowen
Kendra Bowen
Kyle Catlett isGriffin Bowen
Griffin Bowen
Kennedi Clements isMadison Bowen
Madison Bowen
Jared Harris isCarrigan Burke
Carrigan Burke
Jane Adams isDr. Claire Powell
Dr. Claire Powell
Karen Ivany isMrs. Stoller
Mrs. Stoller

Synopsis

Legendary 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.

Poltergeist
Poltergeist
Poltergeist
Poltergeist
Poltergeist
Poltergeist
Poltergeist
Poltergeist
Poltergeist
Poltergeist
Original titlePoltergeist
IMDb Rating5.0 46,075 votes
TMDb Rating5 789 votes

(344) comments

  • ahmed mohamedMay 20, 2015Reply

    ”It Knows What Scares You” .. not the scariest but still decent

    First of all i’m a huge fan of horror films, so when i heard about a
    remake to the Poltergeist i was so excited and couldn’t wait to see the
    trailer which actually surprised me. And I’ve went to the movies
    expecting to watch the old movie but with a few changes.

    The thing is , they changed A LOT! So if you have the same expectation
    well it’s not what you think it is. The pace of the movie was really
    fast in a good way but the only problem was the build up and that it
    lacked the feelings between the family.

    The Scare factor: It basically relies on jump scares but i have to
    admit they were perfectly done and well timed . There were some clowns
    in a box which were sort of creepy. and also some edge-of- your seat
    moments. It’s similar to ”Insidious” and James Wan effects. So yes when
    it says from the producer of ”Evil Dead” you know what to expect, But
    it won’t prevent you from sleeping.

    The acting was fine, CGI was okay and there were wonderful visuals. The
    3D was mainly used for the jump out of your seat moments in a gimmicky
    way (Throwing stuff at the audience).

    In the end, I had fun watching Poltergeist and it delivers a few
    thrills,Sam Raimi did a great job producing this film,for Gil Kenan
    (Director of Monster House) i think it’s a huge step forward. But don’t
    go in with very high expectations or you will be disappointed. Although
    you should watch it if you’re a true horror fan and you’re looking for
    some good scares.

  • slayerjmk95May 20, 2015Reply

    A Creepy But Just-Decent Remake

    If you’ve never seen the original 1982 Poltergeist, then this movie may
    be absolutely freaky for newcomers, but for those who have seen the ’82
    classic, this remake is both fantastic and awful at the same time.
    Produced by Sam Raimi and Robert G. Tapert, who gave us The Evil Dead
    films, this reboot and remake is a lot of the same with a couple new
    twists. When the Bowen family moves into a new home, they discover that
    their house is atop a burial ground, and is a sort-of conductor for
    spirits, and in this case, a poltergeist. From here, they’re tormented
    by evil spirits, and it turns into a devilish battle that Eric (Sam
    Rockwell), the father, must fight to save his family.

    The film is largely saved by Rockwell’s touching and incredible
    performance, but there was so much that went wrong. Many of the scares
    were overplayed or just wanted to be jump-scares, and moments that
    replicated the original (the infamous bathroom scene) were extremely
    tame and unimaginative. The visual effects for the most part were
    believable, and Marc Streitenfeld’s score was incredibly haunting and
    truly brilliant, especially when living up to the masterpiece that
    Jerry Goldsmith created. Gil Kenan’s direction is solid, but the script
    blows through the material so fast that his vision just doesn’t stick.

    Poltergeist is certainly an admirable effort, but it needed to embrace
    the original’s roots, scare tactics and slow build instead of sticking
    with recent horror movie ”tropes” like jump-scares and minimal
    story-telling. If the film were fifteen-twenty minutes longer and had a
    script rewrite, it could have lived up to the original. But it didn’t.
    See this for $5 if you want a theater experience, but don’t expect
    something mind-blowing. Certainly worth a watch, though.

  • zobodopashkosaMay 21, 2015Reply

    A Perfect 3 D and PG 13 Horror Movie.

    This perfect 3 D film is based on the classic Tobe Hooper tale about a
    family whose suburban home is invaded by angry ghosts.

    I eagerly awaited for this excellent movie release and I am glad and
    satisfied it is a pleasing and a decent horror film.

    When the terrifying attack of spirits aggravate and move inside a
    suburban house in a quiet wealthy neighborhood a lot of suspense and
    unpleasant,but breath taking surprises appear for youngest daughter and
    the family must save her from her destiny.

    This film deserves to be a number 1 horror movie,everything about it is
    a masterpiece.

    See it and be your own judge about it!.

  • GoneWithTheTwinsMay 21, 2015Reply

    Although impactful in 1982, the story of an angry poltergeist is now a pretty typical haunted house scenario.

    The opening shot, involving an iPad and a video game, immediately
    suggests that the now classic 1982 version is getting an update – at
    least in technology. And with the subsequent appearances of cell
    phones, GPS trackers, and a drone, it’s evident that advanced
    technology plays a part in retrofitting this archetypal haunted house
    flick. But, outside of a few modernized visuals (including flashier
    computer graphics), there’s really nothing new or fresh or even
    frightening about this tragically familiar ghost movie.

    Amy Bowen (Rosemarie DeWitt), a writer, and her husband Eric (Sam
    Rockwell), a John Deere corporate offices employee, relocate to a
    pleasant little suburban home to start a new chapter in their life.
    Their three children – teenaged Kendra (Saxon Sharbino), middle child
    Griffin (Kyle Catlett), and tiny young Maddy (Kennedi Clements) –
    aren’t enthusiastic about the move, but they’re resigned to its
    inevitability. After some brief pleasantries with the real estate
    agent, Maddy kicks things off by eerily talking to something – or
    someone – in her tightly shut closet.

    Griffin is the most uncertain about his new environment, especially
    since he’s relegated to the attic, where an enormous tree’s branches
    dangle ominously over a skylight. It doesn’t help that he’s afraid of
    just about everything (”Some kids are just nervous”), from the creeks
    of the old house settling to a mild rainstorm. But his fears become all
    too relevant when enraged ghosts begin creating electric shocks,
    flickering lights, and static interference on the television set… as
    well as controlling the movements of creepy clown dolls that were
    stashed away in an upstairs nook.

    ”There’s nothing to be afraid of.” Although impactful in 1982, the
    story of an angry poltergeist is now a pretty typical haunted house
    scenario. The slow build to greater acts of paranormal disorder, the
    nerve-jangling music, the loud noises, and the leisurely walks down
    empty hallways by isolated individuals have all become standard
    elements of such projects. And the jump scares, always arriving in the
    most predictable manner (just after a second or two of total calm),
    further cheapen the potential for genuinely skin-crawling notions.
    Here, the dialogue – while comparatively generic and expected as a
    horror movie trope – is noticeably sillier, as writer David
    Lindsay-Abaire and director Gil Kenan attempt to pay homage to the
    somewhat family-friendly tone of Steven Spielberg and Tobe Hooper’s
    original (one of those older PG films that would have been PG-13 if the
    rating existed). It’s particularly troubling that believable, or at
    least sincere, exchanges couldn’t be crafted, especially since
    innovation in the storyline never seems like a concern.

    Setting the perspective from that of children makes the happenings
    slightly more frightening (or so Spielberg believed from his numerous
    attempts at the gimmick), coupled with the adults’ natural reluctance
    to listen to youngsters’ wild ramblings about extrasensory occurrences.
    But since this remake feels designed for juvenile audiences, chiefly
    with its avoidance of bloodshed, its frequent humor (provided even by
    the Department of Paranormal Research members, who should be taking
    this material more seriously than anyone else), and its sporadic sense
    of adventure, there’s very little scariness (or true thrills) to be
    found. When Carrigan Burke (Jared Harris), the reality TV star of
    ”Haunted House Cleaners,” arrives like Father Merrin (from ”The
    Exorcist”) for a showdown with an accustomed enemy, he instead has more
    in common with John Goodman’s plucky exterminator from ”Arachnophobia,”
    who was entirely comic relief.

    – The Massie Twins

  • Alec WestMay 21, 2015Reply

    a yawner

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • dbbliceMay 21, 2015Reply

    Entertaining remake, but not the same

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • SomewhereSomehowMay 21, 2015Reply

    Not bad; Could of been so much better though.

    A very interesting pop up in the line of horror films in 2015,
    ”Poltergeist” decides to remake one of the most memorable 1980’s horror
    flick, taking old, to modern.

    The idea of the classic ”Poltergeist” being remade, to me, seems like a
    pretty solid, and successful idea. The execution of this remake feels
    solid, for what it was as a remake, of course. The movie was what it
    was, giving twists, and new turns, cutting off from the original, and
    replacing it with new, modern ideas. With that being said, this may
    anger some viewers of the film as this remake takes some unique, neat
    plot ideas of the original out. Either way, the execution of this film
    was solid. It successfully delivered a flat out premise, along with a
    successfully creepy, and unsettling storyline, and environment; a win.
    Following the execution, the new plot of which needs to be told. The
    plot of the film dose, indeed switch up from the old one, but not
    MAJORLY, to the point where it’ll seriously anger some; but just
    enough, of which keeps the original fans at a ”Meh – like” level, in
    this case, huge fans of the original will be entertained, but not
    shocked at the edge of they’re seat; terrified, or surprised out of
    they’re mind. The switch ups were decent, they carried through the
    entire film, and stuck out, tying together with some well scares, and
    well, creepy, and scary – like atmosphere. Enjoyable for what it was,
    it was what it was.

    The acting in this movie carried out well. The characters played out
    well for what they stood for in the rolls they were in, for example the
    mother, and the little girl when scared. Point being, each character
    did a decent, solid job for what they were, they did good, and they
    pulled off believable acts. And for the characters, they are what they
    are. Decent, even along side the remake, the characters still stood
    out, sure, but in this case, the execution was, once again . . Solid,
    and decent, at the same time entertaining, and once again, believable.

    Finally, the CGI / visual effects of this film. I felt as if there was
    overly TOO much CGI, but for the visual / execution in this film, it
    was quite well. Some decisions involving such CGI actually leads to
    some well crafted, creepy, and unsettling atmosphere, which is quite
    well for the aspect of a horror movie. Some of the CGI effects also
    lead to be more cool, then scary. The visual effects, and CGI, overall
    succeed. They turn out to be; at points cool, as well as creepy, and
    unsettling. All crafted by well CGI, and thoughtful visual effects.

    In conclusion. This remake wasn’t bad at all. It’s a solid,
    entertaining remake. But one things for sure, this was switched, and
    rattled up from the original, dropping some unique aspects from the
    original. Either way, this 2015 remake wins, succeeding on multiple
    levels, from visual effects, to execution, all the way to characters.
    Finally, it wasn’t the scariest film ever, not as much as the original,
    but it succeeds in giving the audience a feeling on unsettlement. I’d
    recommend audiences check this out, it’s solid. And it is what it is.

  • Lloyd BayerMay 21, 2015Reply

    Even after thirty years of technological advancements in cinema, this remake isn’t half as scary as the original.

    Ever been told that too much television can be bad for you? Such was
    the writing on the wall for kids of the 80s. Co-written and produced by
    Steven Spielberg, Poltergeist in 1982 drove that message right into the
    living room with a terrifying new twist to the horrors of home
    invasion. Now more than three decades on, the titular remake attempts a
    similar feat, albeit with the advantage of cinematic progression in as
    many years. Does it work?

    The answer to that question depends on your threshold for fear. Simply
    put, if you get a kick out of jump scares, there are plenty of
    hair-raising moments (excuse the pun). But if you are the type of
    horror fan who has seen it all, then this 2015 remake isn’t for you,
    and neither does it offer anything to get your heartrate thumping. To
    be fair, new director Gil Kenan seems to have had his heart in the
    right place and with horror legend Sam Raimi as producer, Poltergeist,
    the remake, has all the tick marks of contemporary horror. The problem
    I see, are also those very tick marks, which as it turns out, appears
    to be a long checklist of clichés from previous horror films; A stock
    opening scene of a lovely family buying a new home in the suburbs –
    check. The realtor makes an impression on the parents, but not the kids
    – check. The house is below the market value and the realtor doesn’t
    say why – check. Kids are the first to sense something odd about the
    house but their parents think little of it – check. Then all hell
    literally breaks loose, which is exactly what happens when the Bowens
    (led by Sam Rockwell) and their three kids move into their new suburban
    home. And before I say ‘check’ again, their youngest and cutest kid,
    Madison, is abducted by the titular entity, leaving the family to rely
    on paranormal psychologists to bring her back. Check.

    Of the various pitfalls in this remake, the most obvious is how similar
    this film is to the 1982 original, including but not limited to the way
    electrical appliances are used as a gateway between the living and the
    dead. So my biggest qualm is – why remake a classic after thirty years
    if it doesn’t offer anything new? Also bear in mind the aforementioned
    checklist when comparing this film to The Conjuring and Insidious, both
    films with an almost ditto plot line. But unlike those films,
    Poltergeist leaves more to be desired in its execution. Yes, it is well
    shot with cool special effects comprising of modern CGI and old
    fashioned light, shadow and puppeteering. Delivery from actors are
    acceptable, especially Rockwell (who can do no wrong in my books) and
    there are several junctures in the film that are actually amusing. So
    what went wrong? No heebie-jeebies, no build-up and absolutely no
    atmosphere of dread; this, over and above the paint-by-numbers
    predictability.

    All said, Poltergeist is neither a bad film, nor is it poorly crafted.
    It’s just unfortunate that the mechanism applied to induce fright is
    severely underpowered. Perhaps the intensity of scares is limited only
    by its PG-13 classification. Perhaps the intention was homage to the
    original. We may never know. What’s certain is for a big budget horror
    film, this remake is a mere average in the annals of horror cinema and
    nowhere near the highly effective and soon-to-be-classic, It Follows.

  • SheilaCarterLivesMay 21, 2015Reply

    Not overly fantastic, but far from awful. Just decent.

    As a member of the current youth that plagues cinemas and laps up more
    crap from Hollywood than should legally be allowed, I can honestly say
    as a fan of the original that upon hearing the news that Poltergeist
    was getting a remake, it did little more than exude a beyond agitated
    eye roll of frustration. And the trailers did not raise my hopes in the
    slightest. But, very surprisingly, I easily put aside my differences
    and frustrations towards the remake, and purchased a ticket to go and
    see it.

    There were no hopes for this film. There really weren’t. Cheap scares
    and a thinly structured narrative that’s pretty much a by-the-numbers
    recreation of a film over thirty years old was what I was expecting,
    and it was what I got. In my eyes, it couldn’t be any better than
    Poltergeist, but it couldn’t be any worse than Poltergeist III. But I
    have to say, I was very surprised at how much I enjoyed watching this.

    Look, let’s be honest, not only have we seen this film done before in
    the form of the original, but pretty much every horror film within the
    last five years. The Conjuring, Insidious, Sinister, Paranormal
    Activity – frankly, I’m at a loss at exactly what the hell there is
    left to cover. Poltergeist is pretty much a by the numbers film in that
    aspect: family home haunted by malevolent forces, cheap scares,
    standard acting. This was the biggest problem I had with the film: it
    just did not feel like it was trying hard enough. It was rushed and
    poorly paced, and often felt like it was living too much in the shadow
    of its predecessor.

    Now, onto a more positive look at the film. Despite my grievances,
    there were things in the film I did like. For one, I did like dynamics
    of the new family. I felt all the actors within the family all bounced
    off one another nicely, and there were some pretty touching moments
    that made me care about them. Two, there were moments where I did feel
    a sense of dread and horror. Granted, as stated above, the film is
    predominantly cheap scares and bad CGI, but for the moments that did
    scare me, a tough job to do with horror films, I was able to forgive
    them for the flaws. Three, Jared Harris. If it wasn’t for his presence
    in the film, I probably wouldn’t have liked it as much.

    Poltergeist will never best its predecessor. We all know that. However,
    I think it knows that. While the film may not have been mind blowing or
    groundbreaking, it’s just decent entertainment. Just acknowledge that
    it has problems, and go with it. Try not to be so hard on it. It was
    going to be done sooner or later, and I think this is as good as we’re
    ever going to get.

  • baker_jay-25936May 21, 2015Reply

    Waste of time

    This movie doesn’t do the original justice by any means. The movie in
    general was rather predictable and not scary in the slightest bit. The
    clown scene probably would’ve made me jump had it not been exposed so
    often on the teaser trailers for this movie. They attempted to change
    the original character names and plot for reasons I don’t understand
    because the original plot was a little more creepy. The acting was
    rather bland with the exception of the father who was rather humorous
    at times.

    I watched the premiere for this movie with my easily startled girl
    friend. I approximated that there was only about 3 scenes throughout
    the entire movie that made her jump and that’s saying something.

  • NonSequiturLMay 21, 2015Reply

    Pointlessgeist

    The late Heather O’Rourke once gleefully and excitedly told audiences
    ”they’re here!” It’s more than appropriate that when this rehash of
    Poltergeist tasks a new young girl with repeating that classic line,
    she is unable to muster nearly as much liveliness in her delivery. Her
    blank stare and monotone voice mirrors my enthusiasm for yet another
    instance of a film studio reaching into its back catalog and violently
    digging up a franchise… much like the horrific exhumation of those
    poor bastards buried under the Freeling household.

    There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea of a remake, as long
    as the filmmaker has something fresh to say and do with the
    intellectual property in question. Unfortunately, Gil Kenan’s
    Poltergeist brings nothing new to the table. To be fair, Steven
    Spielberg and Tobe Hooper are a hard act to follow. This remake is very
    safe, without much discernible style beneath its slick, modern surface.
    This is a typical PG-13 horror film – disposable and forgettable.

    At the very least, you’d think the advances in special effects would
    afford a more thrilling, spectacular haunting, but the result is the
    opposite. If you watch this film and the original back to back like I
    did, you’ll miss the beauty of the old school optical creature effects
    that make the 1982 version so special. In fact, this is a far tamer and
    subtler film, which is surprising considering remakes usually try their
    best to outdo the material they’re derived from. There are a few fun
    gags here and there (particularly in 3d considering it was filmed
    natively in the format) but there’s nothing that we haven’t seen
    before, and done better in recent films like Insidious and The
    Conjuring.

    The performances are serviceable enough with Sam Rockwell being his
    usual likable self, and Jared Harris playing a strange replacement for
    Zelda Rubenstein’s character, but the family at the center of the story
    never really gels together and only serves to make you appreciate the
    ensemble in the original film. It also brings home just how much of a
    talent Heather O’Rourke was, and how important her on screen
    personality was to making Poltergeist work.

    Also missing is Jerry Goldsmith’s beautiful and creepy score. The music
    here is forgettable in comparison.

    The original film had something to say about the culture and politics
    of greed in the 1980’s, where profit, progress and building a new
    housing development on the cheap was more of a priority than respecting
    the dead and their sacrifices that modern society was built upon. While
    this message is still just as relevant in 2015 as it was back then,
    it’s a little lost in the remake due to the omission and reshuffling of
    certain characters. There seems to be more of a focus on the modern
    obsession with social media and digital devices, with the little girl
    being literally lost to her family inside a television screen.
    Obviously, this also happened in the original, but has taken on new
    meaning nowadays and is probably the most interesting aspect of the
    film. The new relevance of this story element is the best justification
    I can think of for the film being remade, but it’s really not enough.

    It saddens me to see Sam Raimi’s name on this thing. I actually liked
    the Evil Dead remake from a couple of years ago. While not quite
    reaching the creative height of Raimi’s own Evil Dead films, it was
    brutal and off-the-wall enough to satisfy fans. In comparison, the
    nicest thing I can say about Poltergeist 2015 is that it’s better than
    Poltergeist III. Anyone who’s seen that film can tell you it’s not much
    of a compliment, since Poltergeist III is a gigantic pile of brown,
    sloppy… uh… ectoplasm. We can only hope the Poltergeist curse will
    strike this film and turn it into a ghost at the box office, deterring
    future pointless horror remakes.

  • cluke-38097May 21, 2015Reply

    Waste of Money

    Dear Hollywood,

    Stop with the disappointing remakes to make a quick buck. Be original
    and use your own imagination. Geesh! Enough is enough. This film was
    disappointing and continues to support the idea that Hollywood is
    scrounging for business. What happened to the good ole days with
    original ideas and never before seen scenes on the big screen? This
    movie was predictable, unoriginal and definitely PG-13 worthy….maybe
    even PG. My advice: rent the original.

    I fell asleep for about 15 minutes of the movie. Maybe I missed the 3
    out of 5 stars for that period of time. The acting was mediocre and the
    skull faced ghosts were rip offs from The Mummy. The Mummy graphics
    were actually better. Please do us all a favor….recapture your
    imagination and do some real writing and directing for your next horror
    flick.

    Sincerely, Mr. Might-never-pay-for-a movie-again

  • metalrage666May 21, 2015Reply

    A dismal failure

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • wellingtoncharlesMay 22, 2015Reply

    Not Worth Theater Money

    When I go to the movies for a film like this, I expect to be scared.
    And while this film had a few suspenseful moments, I didn’t jump out of
    my seat once. Unlike the original that built up to being scary, this is
    so fast paced that you don’t get to enjoy any buildup of fear. The
    actress who donned the role of Heather O’Rourke’s scary little girl was
    too adorable for the role. And this fact, along with the house being
    warm and inviting the whole time, never changed. I think they spent too
    much of the budget on special effects, and not enough on the changing
    atmosphere of the storyline. If you’re going to see it, I’d wait for
    Redbox.

  • Dhanu KemathasMay 22, 2015Reply

    Don’t F*ck with the Original!

    I love the original Poltergeist which was released in 1982. This one is
    just the same, but the scares in different order. Nothing fresh,
    nothing new. Just some appreciating creepy CGI-effects.

    One thing that is definitely missing in this movie is the score by
    Jerry Goldsmith which kept the original movie to be thrilling. The
    score in this one doesn’t give that much life to the screen.

    Otherwise the cast live up to their characters, which is a great thing,
    but somehow it’s not as great as the original.

    If you ask me how good this version is compared to the original one,
    I’d say far from being solid. Not a movie to remember!

    4/10

  • arun_latviaMay 22, 2015Reply

    Poltergeist – Complete dump except 2 scares in 90 minutes

    This is the first Horror movie that I watched in theater and I have to
    say this was way worse than what I used to see it on my TV. Its not the
    sound effects with the theater but with the movie itself. Totally
    Awful. I haven’t seen the original movie so I can’t compare it with the
    original. This remake or whatever play this is, isn’t worth your time
    and money. I spent 2$ for this movie and I regret that I wasted my 2$.
    I am unsure how much they charge you in U.S but wait for Blu ray and
    watch it. My point is, it isn’t even worth a Bluray disc. There were 2
    scares though that I didn’t expect it. My English might not be
    meaningful but don’t watch this one. I don’t know what else to say to
    cover this 10 line review.

  • HellmantMay 22, 2015Reply

    ‘INSIDIOUS’ is a much better homage to Spielberg and Hooper’s classic!

    ‘POLTERGEIST’: Three Stars (Out of Five)

    Remake to the 1982 horror classic (which was written and produced by
    Steven Spielberg, and directed by Tobe Hooper); about a family
    terrorized by a poltergeist, in the new house they recently moved into.
    It was directed by Gil Kenan and written by David Lindsay- Abaire. The
    film stars Sam Rockwell, Rosemarie DeWitt and Jared Harris. It has a
    few good scares, and some pretty cool visuals, but it’s nowhere near as
    good as the original.

    The Bowens move into a new suburban house, after the father, Eric
    (Rockwell), recently lost his job. Eric and his wife, Amy (DeWitt),
    learn, at a dinner party, that their new home was built over the ground
    of a recently relocated cemetery. Their youngest daughter, Madison
    (Kennedi Clements), starts noticing a supernatural presence right away,
    and she’s later pulled into a ‘netherworld’ with them. The family
    enlist the help of paranormal investigators, including a famous TV
    personality (Harris), to help get her back.

    The original ‘POLTERGEIST’ is one of my all-time favorite horror films,
    it’s also one of my favorite Spielberg movies as well. The new writer
    and director don’t seem nearly qualified enough, to do a just remake to
    it (Sam Raimi did produce it though). The cast is great (I love
    Rockwell and DeWitt) and it has some great scary scenes (with some
    awesome 3D visuals); but as a whole, it’s pretty disappointing.
    ‘INSIDIOUS’ is a much better homage, to Spielberg and Hooper’s classic!

    Watch our movie review show ‘MOVIE TALK’ at:
    https://youtu.be/ItzCr1Etfyo

  • steve beard ([email protected])May 22, 2015Reply

    CGI Heavy Remake

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Andrew GoldMay 22, 2015Reply

    A shoddy, by-the-numbers remake that favors quick scares over lasting dread.

    Let’s get this out of the way: Remakes never surpass the originals
    (aside from very rare cases like John Carpenter’s The Thing). The
    premise is the same – a family moves into a house that’s haunted with a
    poltergeist, their daughter gets trapped into the ”spirit” realm and
    they hire an expert to help the family get her out. It’s essentially a
    retelling of the original story with a few tweaks and a ton of CGI. So
    is Poltergeist one of the rare instances where the remake is as good or
    better than the original? F*ck no. But that doesn’t mean it has no
    entertainment value as a standalone horror flick.

    Poltergeist is a popcorn movie more than anything. Everything about it,
    from the poor writing to the lukewarm thrills, only provide
    surface-level enjoyment. It never gets under your skin like a good
    horror film should. It’s not scary or disturbing, and it definitely
    won’t stick with you once the credits start to roll. The problem is
    that Poltergeist is extremely formulaic and predictable. They set up
    these creepy scenarios and build up suspense by making it really quiet
    for a few moments, and then a few seconds later… BAM, loud noise and
    creepy face jumps at you. I love me a good jump scare but the scares
    are cheap and you can see them coming from a mile away. It’s a shame
    because there are moments where you can tell the director is trying to
    build tension and unease, but these easy scares ruin any momentum the
    atmosphere had going for it.

    Acting wise, Sam Rockwell is the obvious highlight. He’s a very
    talented, likable actor and elevates any scene he’s in just by his
    presence. He could have easily done this role in his sleep or on
    auto-pilot but Rockwell commits to the part and is by far the most
    watchable and relatable character in the movie. The family dynamic
    feels real solely because of him. Jared Harris gives a great
    performance as well considering the limited screen time he was given.

    Which brings me to the characters themselves, and this is where the
    movie fails. Hard. The only characters that feel ”real” are the father,
    the son, and the younger daughter (who isn’t used nearly as much as she
    was in the original). Everyone else is just… there. The mother and
    older daughter add literally nothing to the story, the paranormal team
    members are completely forgettable and are only there for exposition,
    hell even Jared Harris’ character is a huge wasted opportunity. It’s
    the fault of the writers really. I mean there is some truly
    *cringeworthy* dialogue that’s so unbelievable that it looks as if the
    actors are just reading off cue cards. And then they throw in a really
    really dumb love subplot between Jared Harris and the lead investigator
    which was a waste of time and excruciatingly awkward to watch.

    This movie does polish some classic scenes from the original. The
    living tree, the clowns (yes, multiple), the subterranean graveyard,
    etc. It all looks sleek, smooth, and modern. But again, the novelty
    factor is gone so you pretty much know how everything is going to play
    out. There’s one iconic scene that they butchered though, anyone who’s
    seen the movie knows exactly what I’m talking about. It just felt
    half-assed and shoehorned in simply because it was such a powerful
    scene in the original and the filmmakers probably felt obligated to
    throw it in. The difference is that the original version was haunting
    and unexpected while this version lasts for like a split second and
    leaves you feeling absolutely nothing.

    Again, there’s no point in comparing this to its original because it
    pales in comparison in every way. It’s one of the better recent horror
    remakes sure but that isn’t saying much. However, as a standalone
    B-horror midnight popcorn creepfest, Poltergeist can provide a modicum
    of entertainment.

    5.5/10

  • Shantanu PednekarMay 22, 2015Reply

    Fantasy+Horror= Still something you can watch

    In recent times there has been a surge of dark horror movies and to be
    a true horror movie fan, that is how we like to see our movies- Dark.
    This movie is not as dark as a lot of movies in the genre and in recent
    times. But it still serves the purpose of a moviegoer, to keep the
    entertained and deliver scares and is also not at all dumb. The plot is
    true to the original, the Bowen family who move into a new suburban
    home which is haunted by dark entities which enter because of the
    little girl. (I won’t give away everything if you do decide to watch
    the movie) The movie uses heavy use of lights and scare tactics which
    are usually used in such movies, so there is nothing entirely new, but
    it is executed in such a way that it still makes you gulp. The premise
    and the atmosphere is scary in a few scenes but once the plot
    progresses, it turns interesting, which helps the movie and it uses
    ever opportunity in the movie to scare. however, creating more for the
    viewer would have worked better. All in all, this movie has good
    acting, good direction and good special effects, which make the horror
    feel real. So if you want to watch a horror movie, after a tiring day
    and not go over the top, then this decent movie is for you. It does
    it’s job of entertainment and breaks into the horror genre.

  • tavmMay 22, 2015Reply

    This version of Poltergeist was pretty effective in its way not unlike the original for what it’s worth

    Before I review this remake, let me make a few remarks about the
    original: I was a young teen in ’82 when Steven Spielberg had two hit
    movies out that summer, E.T. and the original Poltergeist. I saw it at
    a mall theater with my brother and his friend. The screen was not very
    big so that may partly explain why I remember not being too scared by
    what was happening on screen. Still, it looked quite effective and was
    funny as hell part of the time. I saw it three more times on TV and
    liked it a little more with each showing while recognizing where the
    real effectiveness was-during scenes where the family were really
    concerned about little Carol Anne’s safety. Anyway, the remake changes
    much of the structure such as the family just moving in as opposed to
    the one in the previous movie having already settled in, the teen
    daughter having more of a participation in the proceedings this time
    around, and a much different ending. There seem to be a bit more scares
    with the way things come more quicker at you (perhaps also due to both
    the 3D images and a much larger screen this time around) and things are
    explained sooner rather than later as in the original. In summary, this
    version of Poltergeist was effective in its own way as the original was
    in its way then.

  • marcelimeryMay 22, 2015Reply

    An experience that left us confused; was this horror or bad comedy?

    When I first saw the Poltergeist poster on the streets of New York
    City, I felt that it was going to be a frightening yet exciting
    experience. So, we waited anxiously until the moment came, May the
    22nd, the Poltergeist premiere. It was that fine day that we gathered
    our nearest and dearest friends and family and purchased what we
    thought were golden tickets of horror.

    We arrived to the cinema to find a filled room… So, we thought to
    ourselves YES. This movie will exceed our greatest expectations. I knew
    as I sat in my cinema chair that this movie would be amazing.

    After five minutes, it became apparent that this movie lacked any kind
    of worthwhile introduction in the horror or acting aspects.

    I turned my head to my right and whispered to my mom ”Wow mom, this is
    going to be bad.” Some noises came from the row behind me and someone
    said ”is this a joke?”; turns out… it was. After one hour of the
    movie, we were seriously unsure if this was a comedy or horror film. We
    wondered…”should we leave or stay?”.. I looked to my left ”let’s at
    least finish the movie; we already paid” said my brother.

    Well, I wish I had left because walking on the street would have been
    more productive and worthwhile, even though I had paid.

    This is my first review in IMDb, and TRUST ME, I wouldn’t be writing
    this if I didn’t want to save you from getting ripped off financially
    and intellectually.

    Worst of all, there wasn’t one moment I even flinched in this movie.

    In conclusion, this film was a complete disaster. I wanted to give this
    movie a zero, but since that is not possible, I am forced to give this
    movie a one. I sit here disgusted with myself for praising this movie
    with a rate much higher than it deserves.

  • SushiStoner103May 22, 2015Reply

    Spoofs The Original

    This remake of the infamous masterpiece Poltergeist (1982) is a tedious
    snooze fest for the majority of the runtime. From the producers of the
    grudge (2004) my expectations were high, boy was I in for a
    disappointment. It consists of terrible CGI and was pointlessly shot in
    3D as a gimmick. If you’ve seen the trailer you’ve witnessed the
    highlights, and the highlights are the alterations of the originals
    highlights, but executed rather poorly. The lighting was epileptic and
    the cinematography was amateur, along with its fruitless screenplay. I
    wasn’t invested in the majority of the characters as the film provided
    very limited emotional development. Sam Rockwell’s performance was
    nothing more than satisfactory, as it felt he was desperate for a pay
    check. I don’t think the unrealistic and lazy dialogue helped either.
    His oldest daughter was forgettable along with his wife even though
    decently acted by Rosemarie DeWitt her screen time was restricted.

    The film did not deliver any suspense due to its weak atmosphere. And
    if there was tension building up, it was quickly deflated with piercing
    music jolts supporting a cheap jump scare. The shallow narrative was
    rushed but still remained tiresome thanks to Gil Kenan’s attempts.
    However there was one or two effective scenes I recall being genuinely
    scared, this was carried through the somewhat intense final act, the
    technically advanced adaptation of ”the other side” was quite
    interesting. Along with Jared Harris’ casting, although prolific in
    character, that’s what he does best after all. Some creative updates
    were thrown in but for the most Poltergeist (2015) lacks intelligent
    scares, interesting characters and imagination. I strongly advise you
    to watch the original if you have not yet. Overall an insult to the
    original but mediocre in terms of remakes.

    5.0/10 45% – Mouldy Milk

  • james hamiltonMay 22, 2015Reply

    leave classics alone

    Before going to watch the remake version of Poltergeist I decided to
    watch the originals which to this day remain all time greats.

    With the remake version of the movie I must admit that I was
    disappointed not with the special effects but with the plot of the
    whole movie. It was like they tried to merge all three films into one
    with a spot of the Amityville movies thrown in for good measure.

    Some of the movie was predictable (if you’ve watched the originals) you
    could easily guess what was going to happen next.

    With the story being confusing, good special effects and some upcoming
    stars. poltergeist is one of those movies that you’ll either like or
    hate like depending on how big of a horror fan you are.

  • rgkarimMay 22, 2015Reply

    It’s heeeeeeeeeere

    It’s Memorial Day weekend gang and you know what that means. Right, a
    horror movie…or maybe you weren’t thinking that at all. Well while most
    of the public is out celebrating by grilling and toasting those they
    remember, this reviewer is hitting the theater for more reviews. This
    review we take a stroll down remake lane as we hit Poltergeist, the
    first scare movie of the summer. Can the remake live up to the classic?
    Let’s find out.

    From the trailers, Poltergeist promises some terrifying moments in the
    dark that hold promise for making you fear what bumps in the night.
    This movie will not disappoint, as it provides a setting that indeed
    can bring some tingles to your spine. At first the setting of the house
    offers little threat, a few incidents happening in the day time might
    make you jump, but for the most part offer a safe relief from the
    terrors at hand. Once night hits and the power conveniently goes out,
    that is where the audience begins to jump. Poltergeist plays off one’s
    fear of the dark, using the shadows to build anticipation, suspense,
    and terror at what our invisible ”friends” have in store. It’s creepy,
    the camera work and sound editing making you feel abandoned in the
    house aside from kids who aren’t necessarily equipped to bust ghosts.
    Aside from the dark, the design team has crafted some haunting dolls
    that are perhaps the scariest part with their soulless eyes and smiles.
    The creeps aren’t the only ploy they have in their bag though.
    Poltergeist also has plenty jump at you moments, where things suddenly
    jump out at you after the predictable build up. .

    The story of this movie is also not too bad, essentially being the same
    movie with up to date graphics and a slight ”romantic” twist. Is there
    anything new? One is some new scare ploy, primarily the clowns that
    were not in the 80’s version, that kind of work. Second is the
    integrating modern technology as a media for the ghosts to use such as
    iphones and ipads that are generation is accustomed too. Third is the
    increase in special effects that help bring the horror to life, though
    sometimes the effects are cheesy and overflashy. Unfortunately these
    things aren’t the most realistic looking and the 3-D perspective is
    really unnecessary and added very little to the tale.

    So let’s talk negatives of this Poltergeist. For one thing there isn’t
    a lot of originality to this film. It’s always great in theory to
    retell a classic tale, but some unique twists are often required to
    make the film worthwhile. This installment didn’t have much of that,
    and while the graphics were more impressive, it really didn’t add the
    edge I was hoping to see. The modern technology was cool, and the
    clowns were scary, but HBO could do the same thing and saved us the
    trouble of stale popcorn. In addition the scares weren’t as terrifying
    as I had hoped. Yes I like creepy, but the cheesiness of some of the
    scares offset that factor and actually made it more a loud, light show
    than actual terror. In terms of acting, it wasn’t half bad, but wasn’t
    connected to the characters in this film. The mom and dad were okay in
    this film, a little too depressed and inconsistent for my tastes, and
    the oldest daughter was just annoying to me. Looking at the paranormal
    team, they were okay as well, but I held no loyalty to most of them,
    and found them rather unnecessary for most of the movie. Even the
    ghosts lost the edge they held in the first rendition, becoming nothing
    more than a collection of CGI sprites, instead of being lead by the
    entity known as the Beast. The exception to the lackluster characters
    might be the two youngest kids, the boy in particular being the person
    I took the most interest in. He kept the group together and kept the
    plot going for most of the movie as he tried to uncover the terror
    within. Without the tie to the family in this film, I wasn’t quite at
    the edge of my seat as I had hoped to be.

    Poltergeist is certainly a decent remake that sticks to the original
    plot and scare tactics that you remember. Despite the superficial scare
    factor of this movie, I can’t really recommend a trip to theater for
    this one. After all with little originality, some overdone special
    effects, and a lack of suspense there isn’t much to lure you into the
    theater on this one.

    Overall my scores are:

    Horror: 7.0 Movie Overall: 6.0

  • Steve KnightMay 22, 2015Reply

    Absolutely terrible and unnecessary remake

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Steve PulaskiMay 22, 2015Reply

    Minimized elegance, maximizes modern revisions

    The sheer elegance and the amalgamation of two very different styles of
    the horror genre were precisely what made the original ”Poltergeist” so
    effective and memorable. It wasn’t a choppy, vague exploration of the
    supernatural, offering a simple story and digestible explanations to
    the reoccurring paranormal activity without becoming too bogged down by
    exposition. In addition, we saw the blending of Tobe Hooper’s campy,
    low-budget style with Steven Spielberg’s Hollywood professionalism to
    great effect, as the project soon went from a questionably frightening
    horror film to a film that many could take seriously and believe.

    Fast-forward three decades later where films about the supernatural and
    reoccurring paranormal activity are a dime a dozen, with new films and
    attempts at franchises bombarding theaters every year, and it’s no
    doubt that the original ”Poltergeist” has diminished in impact and
    effectiveness in the public’s eye, as well as the genre’s overall
    reputation. With that being said, the ”Poltergeist” remake isn’t so
    much contemptible as it is unnecessary, despite doing a handful of
    things well in its attempt to not mimic the effect of the original
    film, but mimic the cash-flow it took in upon its release.

    The story is more-or-less the same as it was in 1982: a couple (Sam
    Rockwell and Rosemarie DeWitt) move into a new suburban home with their
    three children (Saxon Sharbino, Kyle Catlett, and Kennedi Clements)
    only to find increasingly odd supernatural occurrences plaguing their
    house. The poltergeists, different from traditional ghosts in the way
    that they interact with humans in a more violent, persistent manner,
    wind up taking the couple’s youngest child, who can communicate with
    the spirits due to her innocence, and withholding her from the family.
    Desperate, confused, and low on options, the couple wind up hiring a
    crew of reality TV paranormal investigators to try and extricate the
    house from the demons to get their daughter back.

    To accentuate the positives here, the film is remarkably light-hearted,
    throwing in a surprisingly large amount of cheeky humor, almost acting
    quietly meta in its surprise that this project is actually happening.
    Never does the film take itself too seriously but never does it become
    a laugh riot, distracting from more frightening sequences. On top of
    that, the film definitely wants to try and remain loyal to the events
    of the first film, going the extra mile to carefully try and update,
    replicate, and even expand upon the situations from the original film.
    It’s a bold tactic that doesn’t diverge into a complete bastardization
    of source material, as seen in the loathsome ”Texas Chainsaw 3D.”

    However, the film is robbed of a single likable character. The couple
    here are far more mean-spirited and smarmy than in the original,
    treading dangerously close to the line of downright poor, condescending
    parents to their children. This is especially upsetting, given the
    ground Rockwell (”The Green Mile,” ”Seven Psychopaths,”) and DeWitt
    (”Margaret,” ”Your Sister’s Sister”) have covered before. Even the
    reality TV show characters are nothing but vague, uninteresting
    caricatures cloaked in contrived, ridiculous stereotypes.

    Then there’s the fact that this film winds up being much more frantic
    and manic than the original film. Where the first film took a liberal
    two hours to cover its paranormal activity with a slowburn pace, the
    new ”Poltergeist” races through plotpoints like it has a checklist and
    a stopwatch tethered to its script. There’s little time for
    development, and the very first sign of the supernatural occurs within
    the first five minutes of the film.

    Yes, ”Poltergeist” is not as deplorable as you might be expecting, but
    no, it’s still not worth your time in the grand scheme of things.
    There’s an interesting dichotomy occurring right now at your local
    theater; you could either go see a remake of a classic 1980’s film and
    funnel money into Hollywood’s uncreative idea fund, where remakes,
    ripoffs, and sequels are just waiting to be made, or you could support
    original, high-budget science-fiction/fantasy with the release of
    Disney’s ”Tomorrowland.” Call my act at the local theater this weekend
    a wash, for I saw both, but you, dear reader, have a lofty decision to
    make at this moment in time.

  • rhaseleyMay 22, 2015Reply

    Not too bad, but could have been much better. ((SPOILER!))

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • The_Film_CricketMay 22, 2015Reply

    They knew the notes, but sadly not the music . . .

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Gagan Deep SinghMay 22, 2015Reply

    Unexpectedly turns out to be not-so-good

    When I first saw the trailer of Poltergeist, my first reaction was,
    ‘This movie is going to be so good!’. And then once I saw it today, it
    turned out to be kind of disappointing. I am a horror-thriller fan. So
    when I went to see this movie, I expected it to be more than just a
    series of mini-scary moments sewn together. The direction is good,
    unfortunately, it could not make up for a not-so-good storyline. For
    all those who are scared of horror movies, this can be one of those you
    can start with if you’d like some mild-horror movies. But or all those
    who are constantly looking for the thrill and who expect a horror movie
    to scare creeps out of you and give you goosebumps, probably not the
    movie to go for. Some movies make it for you in terms of a few really
    scary scenes, and some movies have just fabulous finish to complement
    the complete story, but unfortunately this movie missed both of them.
    So in summary, go for it if you have time to kill, definitely does not
    deserve priority to go to cinema to watch this movie.

  • sxullpunchMay 22, 2015Reply

    Poltergeist 2015 a mediocre remake.

    First of all if you have seen the original version of Poltergeist do
    not go to the theater to see this. Hold out till its on Netflix or in a
    bargain bin at Walmart. So many epic scenes were completely skipped
    with not much new content added.

    This movie lacked the little things that get you interested in the
    characters. So much of the detail & build up is just missing from this
    movie, it’s really a shame. This remake ended up feeling rushed and
    more like a cash grab than a true remake.

    The acting was mediocre at best. Sam Rockwell was a poor substitute for
    Craig T Nelson as the father.The girl that played Carol Anne seemed to
    have a kind of forced cuteness. Even the researchers which played the
    supporting characters were bland.

    If you haven’t seen the original movie then this one may be more
    enjoyable. If you are going to spend the money on a Poltergeist movie
    Id recommend just buying a copy of the original.

  • Davis PMay 23, 2015Reply

    Decent remake

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Michael_ElliottMay 23, 2015Reply

    Insidious Wannabe

    Poltergeist (2015)

    * 1/2 (out of 4)

    A husband (Sam Rockwell) and wife (Rosemarie DeWitt) move their three
    children into a new home where it soon becomes clear that there’s
    something else there with them. The youngest child (Kennedi Clements)
    eventually gets pulled into another world so a famed ghost hunter
    (Jared Harris) is called in.

    Those who hate remakes can take a deep breathe because this film has
    very little in common with the Tobe Hooper original. Whereas that film
    tried to be a serious, adult movie with horror elements, this one here
    is pretty much a remake of INSIDIOUS with a few classic moments from
    the original POLTERGEIST thrown in. Plus, whereas the original tried to
    be smart, this one here is pretty much one stupid jump scare after
    another and if you’ve ever seen a horror movie before then you’re not
    going to fall for this fake scares.

    POLTERGEIST is a pretty disappointing movie because the filmmakers had
    a lot of good elements to work with but nothing original or refreshing
    are done with them. In fact, even though I’m not a major fan of the
    original movie I’d say this remake is even worse than the two sequels.
    So, what went so wrong? The majority of the blame can be placed at the
    screenplay and the direction. The story itself just isn’t all that
    fresh and brings no new ideas to the table. In fact, this thing is
    pretty dated in regards to the current crop of haunted movies like the
    before mentioned INSIDIOUS. Throughout the entire running time of this
    thing I kept wondering if the screenwriter and director had seen the
    previous movie and why they weren’t trying to do anything original.

    Even worse are the jump scares, which are all pretty predictable. We
    get countless lights flashing on and off, several wannabe scary voices
    and of course several things go flying towards the screen. As far as
    the 3D goes, it looks really, really cheap without any of the effects
    working all that well. In fact, there were several times that I forgot
    the movie was even in 3D.

    I’m one who likes remakes because more times than not they’re actually
    more original or at least try something different. In fact, I’ve always
    said that sequels ”remake” the original movie more than the actual
    remakes. Sadly, there are examples were the films are just downright
    lazy and that’s the case here. This one here should certainly be
    skipped.

  • anthonygutierrezMay 23, 2015Reply

    Better FX than original, everything else worse

    You wouldn’t think any filmmaker would even consider remaking such an
    iconic film unless they had some great ideas for what they’d do
    differently – and yet that clearly was not the case here. There’s some
    pretty well-done CGI to be enjoyed but very little else.

    The tricks the original film used to make us jump have been done a
    million times since then and couldn’t possibly work again without a
    twist, yet these filmmakers seem content to attempt all the same beats.

    Really wonder why the studio made the decision to go with this
    screenwriter and director. Nothing on their resume seems to suggest
    that they’d be able to handle this. Seems more like yet another reason
    to believe the studio just wanted a reboot, produced on the cheap, and
    wasn’t all that concerned with who was behind the camera.

    Several times I thought back not to the original Poltergeist but rather
    to the Paranormal Activity films. Those movies were doing pretty much
    the same thing, a contained haunted house story that depends on
    building suspense – but they did it much better. If you want to see a
    new take on the original Poltergeist, I think you’d be better served
    just watching the first Paranormal Activity.

    This just didn’t seem like the work of filmmakers who loved the
    original and wanted to pay tribute to it with their own take – more
    like a studio who thought a reboot would sell tickets and didn’t care
    about much else beyond getting a film in theaters with the right name.

  • bluecrystalsky16May 23, 2015Reply

    Not Scary

    I was anticipating a scary movie that rivaled the original, but I was
    extremely disappointed. I didn’t know whether it was meant to be a
    comedy, a low-budget horror movie or both. It failed by all accounts.
    Quality was greatly lacking in every aspect of this movie. The acting
    was absolutely terrible, the old and badly redone storyline was lame,
    and with the exception of a few scenes that were supposed to make
    viewers jump, it wasn’t scary. I’m glad that I didn’t spring for the
    extra $8 (for two tickets) to see it in 3-D. I was happy when it was
    over! I wish that I had checked ratings first. If you want to be
    scared, this won’t do it. However, I did find myself chuckling a few
    times at the ridiculousness of supposedly frightening scenes. The
    two-out-of-ten rating that I gave this movie was generous. I would
    recommend seeing something else.

  • vengeance20May 23, 2015Reply

    Better than the original!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • dakkini1May 23, 2015Reply

    The Destruction of a Fantastic Classic – A Flop

    I believe the original Poltergeist is one of the best movies to come
    out of the 70’s-80’s. Original story, great casting, chemistry found in
    the actors. You find unexpected frills and chills, it’s unpredictable
    and it makes you feel, happy, sad, outraged and scared. I was very
    excited when I saw the trailer for the 2015 version, I thought that
    with all the technology available to movie makers now a days it would
    make a jump that would be visually stunning. But it did not. It’s like
    they threw the original script up in the air, it got shuffled, they
    picked it up and then made a movie out of those shuffled,
    discombobulated pages, couple that with poor acting and casting and you
    have a FLOP. What a shame. I look forward to the time when someone
    picks up this story and injects it with some true originality and
    talent. Until then, keep your money in your pocket.

  • Dylan SparkesMay 23, 2015Reply

    Good entertainment with plenty of jump scares, however a too low budget and cut cornered remake!

    Poltergeist… A classic of the horror genre and a film which any
    person in their right mind would stay clear of! But the original
    poltergeist film was released over 20 years ago so does that mean it is
    time for a remake?

    Poltergeist 2015, the new remake had a lot of high expectations! Most
    fans were expecting some what of an identical remake to the original!

    To start, me and my friends are all 15. We headed off today to go and
    watch it. After eating at Nandos we went in, the trailers passed, the
    tension rose! The film started to quite a fast start, throwing in a
    jump scare almost immediately! They did well to build tension and
    atmosphere and as the film progressed during the first 30 minutes I
    found myself jumping all over the place, edgy on my chair and my hand
    covering my face! It had a lot of elements of modern horror such as
    insidious and sinister!

    The second half of the film was however not as intense and more mellow
    than the first! There was very few jump scares and the CGI was poor to
    say the least! In fact the film ended very abruptly and I was a bit
    weary when contemplating my conclusion thoughts!

    Overall I think the film deserves a 6.5/10 and is potentially worth the
    watch if you are in need of some fast paced entertainment! However do
    NOT go in with high expectations as you will be shocked! I think the
    overall summery would say that the film was decent enough, there was a
    lot of flaws and corner cuts but due to a low budget compared to the
    required budget, they persevered with the budget set and made use of
    it! There was a lot of ”buts” and ”why’s” but honestly that is what you
    expect from a film remake with a scale plan of such size compared to
    the budget and unnecessary CGI moments which left you wondering what
    was the point in that!

    Thank you! Follow me on Twitter: @DDVOfficialYT
    https://twitter.com/DDVOfficialYT

  • Not as bad as people say!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • jdalive-51565May 23, 2015Reply

    Love the remake, love the original

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • wlculleyMay 23, 2015Reply

    What More can you ask for?

    I showed up to this movie ready to not like it after multiple remake
    disappoints… In addition I recently watched the original and thought
    to myself… This movie would be awesome to remake if the
    writer/director team does it right!?!… Well I got my wish, the movie
    was truly impressive. My entire office drove 30 minutes to the theatre
    and everyone felt it was worth the trip! The team sticks close to the
    original storyline… keeping true to the fans of the original and the
    actors do a great job bringing the characters to life. The CG was spot
    on and the movie reels you in…. The only reason I didn’t give a 10
    was because the ending seemed sort of abrupt.. would have like to see
    the journey of Zelda’s replacement… would have been brilliant!

  • kurtis-laneMay 24, 2015Reply

    Not nearly as good as the Original

    I thought there was a lot missing to the story. It seemed to jump right
    into the middle of the original story. I liked the one from 1982 a lot
    better. I wouldn’t waste money on seeing this at the theater. This is a
    red box rental night at best. In the original 1982 version the story
    was more fleshed out and you found yourself more interested in the
    family and what was going on to them. The story had a gradual build
    that led to a false climax and then the final conclusion. The problem
    with this one is that it all felted rushed and a lot of the story
    seemed to be lacking. The characters did not seem believable like in
    the original.

  • Christopher SmithMay 24, 2015Reply

    A surprisingly solid remake

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • CleveMan66May 24, 2015Reply

    2015’s ”Poltergeist” is a remake with nothing new to offer.

    The main reason movies are remade is the same reason that most movies
    of any kind are made – for the money. There’s nothing wrong with that,
    as long the filmmakers give moviegoers the entertaining experience that
    they paid for. It’s also nice when there are remake motivations besides
    money, like, for example, updating the story for a new generation,
    using advances in technology to make the movie more enjoyable, or even
    reinterpreting the story and injecting new ideas. If no motivations
    besides the profit motive are present, it’ll show on the screen and,
    ultimately, at the box office. And, whether the filmmakers like it or
    not, the remake will inevitably be compared to the original, for better
    or worse. The comparison will likely be positive if the writer and/or
    director have something new to say. If not, you get ”Poltergeist”
    (PG-13, 1:33).

    Before I get to my criticisms, here’s a spoiler-free summary of the
    ”Poltergeist” story, version 2015: The Bowen Family is downsizing into
    a new/old home. The father, Eric (Sam Rockwell), is laid off and the
    mother, Amy (Rosemarie DeWitt), has left her job in order to write a
    book. Kendra is a teenage girl who complains about almost everything –
    except when she’s on her cell phone or Skyping on her tablet. Griffin
    (Kyle Catlett) is a nervous young boy who is afraid of everything and
    Madison (Kennedi Clements) is a little girl who isn’t afraid of
    anything, even voices coming from her bedroom closet or human hands
    pressing up against hers – from inside the living room TV set. When
    Griffin tries to tell his parents about objects in the house moving
    around on their own and Maddie is seen talking to ”imaginary friends”,
    well, they’re just typical kids, right? Maybe not.

    Amy keeps telling Griffin that there’s greatness inside him and Maddie
    is so innocent and pure, that she’s the kind of person who just might
    be able to lead tormented souls from their current purgatory into the
    light. When the elder Bowens realize that there is indeed something
    kind of weird about their house and see that their kids are in danger,
    they ask for help from the paranormal research department at the local
    college. Dr. Brooke Powell (Jane Adams) and her assistants, Boyd
    (Nicholas Braun) and Sophie (Susan Heyward) set up all their fancy
    monitoring equipment at the house, but soon understand that they’re in
    over their heads. Powell calls in TV’s most famous paranormal
    researcher, Carrigan Burke (Jared Harris), but what’s going on in the
    Bowen family home might even be too much for Burke to handle.

    The remake of ”Poltergeist” isn’t a terrible movie, but it doesn’t do
    the horror genre or the original version any favors either. To the
    movie’s credit, it gets to the creepy happenings quicker than most
    horror movies do, but all the scares are decidedly low-tech. Besides
    that, the modern devices in the family’s home (e.g. cell phones)
    allowed for moments that could have been both fresh and frightening,
    but those opportunities were either underutilized or missed completely.
    The script follows the plot of the original pretty closely, but the
    changes it made range from inconsequential to self-destructive.
    Changing the family from financially stable to financially struggling
    did nothing for character development or for the film’s plot. Then the
    script robbed the first film’s most famous line of its impact. Same
    with the big reveal at the end of the original. That’s fine if the
    filmmakers replaced those elements with something more powerful. They
    didn’t. Even the characters have been watered down. The oldest daughter
    is just a selfish and annoying teenager whose character serves no real
    purpose in the story and the head ghost buster is a bland replacement
    for the very compelling actress who fulfilled that role in the first
    film. Other characters behave inconsistently within the story and do
    things that don’t make sense.

    The problems with this movie go beyond an unfavorable comparison with
    its cinematic ancestor. The new version just isn’t that interesting.
    Someone who hasn’t seen the original may find 2015’s ”Poltergeist” to
    be a half-way decent horror flick, but probably wouldn’t be overly
    enthused. Someone who has seen the original is most likely to be
    outright disappointed. It’s almost as if writer David Lindsay-Abaire
    and director Gil Kenan were embarrassed that they were remaking a
    horror classic, so they made some superficial changes and took out some
    of that version’s most critical elements, but rather than putting
    something more captivating into their remake, they were content with
    simply robbing the story of most of its excitement. The 1982 original
    spawned two sequels and a TV show. This remake doesn’t look like it has
    a ghost of a chance of repeating those accomplishments – unless it
    somehow makes more money than it deserves. ”C”

  • DylanMay 24, 2015Reply

    Good Movie, But Only If Not Compared to Original

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • johnburton1977May 24, 2015Reply

    Review from a fan of the original

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • jaz_rainnrainbowsMay 24, 2015Reply

    Its not here….

    Had pretty high hopes for this remake as the trailer seemed amazing!

    The movie pretty much had jump scares thrown at you left, right and
    center, a lot of which was petty predictable. I felt the filmmakers
    could have done so much more after all they have had 33 years to remake
    it! I personally felt it was a bit too rushed.

    Maybe it’s just me but I’m yet to find a movie that scares me as much
    as watching Nightmare on elm street when I was a child! Haha

    All in all if you are looking to pass the time by all means watch this
    but don’t expect too much of a fright!

    BOO!!!!

  • buckersmailMay 24, 2015Reply

    Good but don’t trust the tin

    Please let me begin by stating that I love the original movie; it is
    easily among my most favourite ever movies. For this reason, I decided
    to view this remake as it’s own movie, trying not to compare it to the
    original. Being a fan of paranormal movies, and seeing the trailer for
    this movie, I had hoped that I was in store for a scarefest. By the
    time that the credits were rolling, I had realised that what I had seen
    was something quite different to what was advertised.

    The trailer shows that this is a very scary movie whereas, however
    desensitised I may be to the majority of scary movies, I feel that it
    is a lot less scary than it could have been. Please do not get me
    wrong, a good portion of the movie was scary, tension-building or/and
    interesting but then far too much of the movie was comical. For me, the
    movie felt almost like a ramped-up Ghostbusters.

    This doesn’t mean to say that the movie was not entertaining, I was
    very entertained and I felt that the movie was good, just not
    necessarily what was advertised.

    I thought Sam Rockwell was largely mis- cast as the father of the
    family and felt that his role needed a much more commanding
    performance. It would have been interesting to see somebody like
    Christian Bale in that role. Rosemarie DeWitt did well as the mother of
    the family. Kennedi Clements performance was excellent and beyond her
    years as Madison and Kyle Catlett possibly shone as the star of the
    cast with his showing in the part of Griffin. Saxon Sharbino was just
    annoying and unnecessary as the elder daughter.

    I loved the effects that were used as nothing looked too unbelievable.

    Overall, this is a solid movie with a good script but expect to chuckle
    more than jump.

  • AlanjackdMay 24, 2015Reply

    Oh dear Oh Dear Oh dear

    Well,they had 33 years to remake this and they completely rushed it.At
    a paltry 93 minutes nothing fitted.Everybody seemed to just be going
    through the motions and couldn’t wait for the director to shout
    ”CUT”!The thing about modern horror movies is that theyr’e not,,yes ,,a
    few shocks but it’s the equivalent of someone following you around all
    day shouting ”Boo”!Gets a bit tedious at time.I got the impression that
    the actors were trying to tell us word for word the plot but we need to
    try and work things out for ourselves. There’s far too much dialogue
    here compared to the magnificent ”Babadook” which let us make our own
    way with little dialogue and quiet’ brooding scenes.Okay if you want to
    take your girlfriend to make her hold onto you all night but as scary
    as a bad case of vomiting.Please Please Please ,,no Number 2!See you
    again in 2048 to see if they can do better. I have not mentioned the
    original as it’s irrelevant,,that wasn’t all that much better.

  • gotohowardMay 24, 2015Reply

    PolterDisaster

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Darrell SimpsonMay 24, 2015Reply

    Who else is sick to death of BAD remakes

    The original Poltergeist is a classic.

    Compared, this ”film” bears little to no resemblance to it and
    everything that made it great, despite trying to.

    There is a charm about the original. The music is great and is as
    important to the film as the story. It’s also acted well and is
    believable and you want to invest your time into the characters.

    This ”film” feels hollow… everything from the skimmed over story and
    the bland flat characters. I left the cinema baffled as to who in the
    hell decided that this was a good idea and actually decided that once
    it was shot and edited together that it was a good idea to release it.

    It’s a horror it should have at least left me feeling scared or freaked
    out instead it left me feeling embarrassed that someone had even tried
    to remake Poltergeist let alone do it so very very badly.

    I can honestly say that when you leave the cinema after watching a
    horror film and the scariest part about it was a f**king squirrel you
    know that they should have stopped before they started.

    I for one am sick to death of unoriginal, unimaginative, money grabbing
    remakes. By remaking poltergeist they were setting themselves up to
    fail. Why not take inspiration from Poltergeist and do something new.

    Do not waste your money. Wait for the DVD for 99p on Amazon, if even
    that. Failing that get the original it’s cheaper on Amazon at the
    minute than the price of a cinema ticket it might be slightly dated but
    it’s a million miles better than this rubbish.

  • lorilynn3700May 24, 2015Reply

    Cheap ”Scares” and No Feeling

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • tibby_loverMay 24, 2015Reply

    an opinion

    so this is my first review. just saw the new poltergeist movie
    yesterday. i am a huge fan of the original so i was kind of excited for
    this one. this new film did ‘some’ of the same things as the original
    except the emotion between parents and their children. it lacked heart.
    it was far too humorous for me as well. it was entertaining but nothing
    i would watch again. i just couldn’t believe the acting, it was too
    phony for me. i find myself not liking remakes, but for some reason i
    always end up seeing them. after this film however….i might just have
    to change that. one thing i will say is that i liked the son in this
    film a lot more than the other. he (for me) made the film and he was
    the only character i found myself rooting for.

  • hockeygirl-06722May 24, 2015Reply

    Loved this movie!!!

    I wasn’t expecting to get scared at all during this movie but scared I
    got! They had some really good jump scares! I know most scary movie
    enthusiasts don’t like jump scares and say they are cheap but I love
    them because that’s why I go to scary movies… To get scared! I also
    love how they used elements from the original but also threw in some
    new stuff that made it scarier than the original. I don’t know why this
    movie got bad reviews because I loved it!!! It gave me all i am looking
    for in scary movies: jump scares, suspense, good acting, and having you
    on the edge of your seat. This is one of the better scary movies that I
    have seen in a while. I highly recommend going to see this movie! it is
    worth the money!

  • Theo RobertsonMay 25, 2015Reply

    Let’s See A Bit More Imagination

    Just when you thought Hollywood had remade every single horror movie
    you’ve ever seen they shock you – by remaking a horror film you’d
    almost forgotten about . To be fair to the Studios they do occasionally
    remake a film that if not superior to the original at least can claim
    to be totally different to its source . Remember THE FLY and THE THING
    from the 1980s ? So a film remade over 30 years after the original
    movie should in theory be different from the original . Unfortunately
    with this remake of the fondly remembered POLTERGIEST originality isn’t
    in abundance

    Eureka , I’ve got it ! Do you know the difference between a good remake
    and a bad remake ? With a good remake you’ve got something that shares
    the basic premise of something else but goes in a totally different
    direction . I’m thinking of the 1978 version of INVASION OF THE BODY
    SNATCHERS which considering the subject matter gave me many sleepless
    nights . With a bad remake you’ve got something that constantly apes
    the original with very little embellishment and this would include …
    well basically every single horror remake of the last few years

    With POLTERGIEST 2015 you can see the producers wanting to go their own
    way very slightly but thinking this might be a bad idea for some reason
    . This version isn’t so much a shot for shot remake , but more of
    restructuring of the original . Most of what you remember from the Tobe
    Hooper/ Steven Spielberg 1982 movie takes place here , just not in the
    same running order as you remember . To be fair we do get a show
    stopping turn from Jared Harris as a Catholic priest with an impressive
    Irish accent but apart from that there’s little beyond the rudimentary
    . It should also be remembered that the 1982 film was made before CGI
    was invented , in other words the special effects back then might not
    hold up all that well when viewed today but at least you could
    appreciate all the hard work the special effects crew put in to the
    production . Here however most of the effects will have been done with
    CGI , and slightly obvious CGI . I guess Hollywood has lost a lot of
    imagination over the decades ?

  • crdnlsyn13May 25, 2015Reply

    Ah…remember when?

    Remember when audiences were satiated with the foreplay of story
    telling? Audiences today want all the action right up front, with no
    substance what so ever, or at least that’s what the studios would have
    you believe.

    This remake is awful in every sense of the word. No drama, no tension,
    no emotion, no story telling. This throws everything worthy from the
    original movie into the trash, and goes right for the ‘jump scare’…
    Bad acting, bad soundtrack, and really bad CGI make this movie a
    complete waste of good popcorn.

    I’m sure the teens of the new MTV generation will love it, and THIS
    will be the version that every one will refer to for eons to come,
    which is too bad, because the original will always be the better
    version by far.

    Avoid this movie like the plague.

  • Andy HarrisMay 25, 2015Reply

    A poor remake of a classic

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • demonstrikerterminatorMay 25, 2015Reply

    Barely a Remake, Just Another Money Grabber

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Robert PorterMay 25, 2015Reply

    A Ghostly vestige of the original..

    Take everything that was good about the original classic, crap all over
    it, sell it to kids, & you have another pointless remake. Poltergeist
    is no exception.

    The writing is dire, the editing frenetic, the music is worthless, the
    3D like effects are insulting to authentic film makers, there is NO
    tension, the actors barely invest in what they have to work with & it
    is a waste of your time.

    The CGI is laughable, but I assure you.. you won’t be laughing if you
    pay to see this turd.

    The people that made this are dead inside, have no understanding of
    film making, & they did this for money.

    AVOID.

  • phenyxxfireMay 25, 2015Reply

    Don’t Bother

    Nope. Not even close. The characters are pale colorless versions of the
    originals lacking any depth or spark and screaming, bratty children are
    not entertaining on either side of the screen. The story line is
    watered down and lacks the nuances that made the original a great
    movie. The suspense was nonexistent; the few scares there were relied
    on cheesy shock scenes rather than good film making. The few plot
    points that weren’t watered down or eliminated entirely were
    exaggerated to ludicrous levels. The music was utterly forgettable and
    the obvious attempts to update the setting for 21st century viewers
    were trite and cliché. If you want to see this movie the way it was
    meant to be seen, rent the original. This one doesn’t hold a candle to
    it. Don’t waste your time or money.

  • senechsMay 25, 2015Reply

    Just Bad

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • mckinlay-35456May 26, 2015Reply

    decent remake

    Saw this movie last night and really enjoyed it. yes its not as good as
    the 1985 version which is the defo classic, but its decently done and
    definitely worth a watch at least . What we have to remember is that
    most remakes don’t ever do justice to the original movie we’ve seen
    before. Me and my son went to the 2D version of this movie and decided
    to go to see the 3D version later this week after this movie. I thought
    the actors did their best with the script they were given, especially
    the young ones after all they are what they are children they were
    great. I will admit i missed the scene with the chairs in the kitchen
    and a couple of character changes but its definitely a remake take it
    or leave it i say.

  • Viswanath DhanisettyMay 26, 2015Reply

    Model bad horror

    Quickie Review:

    A family looking for a new beginning moves into a suburban home. Evil
    forces take control of the house, threatening the lives of the
    inhabitants. When the youngest daughter is abducted by evil spirits,
    the family must come together to find a way to rescue her. The
    Poltergeist is the least scary movie in recent times. This remake
    offers nothing new and repeats the clichés originally set by the 1980s
    Poltergeist. The acting overall is decent, and Sam Rockwell did liven
    up the movie with his charm. Yet performances alone could not save this
    disaster of a horror film, bursting at the seams with mediocre CGI.
    Skip this one.

    Full Review:

    As a horror fan, I am ever hopeful to find a good scare once in a while
    to get my heart pumping. I guess I like being kept awake at night
    fearing things that don’t exist. Well The Poltergeist, got me to do the
    exact opposite, go to bed like little baby and enjoy a long
    hibernation.

    Before I get all ranty, I should mention the good aspect of the movie,
    the performances. The parents played by Sam Rockwell and Rosemarie
    DeWitt had believable chemistry with each other and the children. Sam
    Rockwell is awesome as always, bringing in his own personality to the
    character. That helped with bringing some levity into the movie so we
    aren’t drowning in over-dramatic tension. Even the child actors were
    decent. Sure one of them was the clichéd child talking to ghosts, but
    there was also another kid who reacted to anomalies like a real human
    pre-teen would react: scared out of his freaking mind! So at least the
    characters were mostly relatable.

    If you want the definition of a bad horror movie, actually even worse,
    a bad horror remake then look no further. Remakes should be made to
    capture the spirit (pun intended) of the original while trying to do
    something new. This movie is exactly the same as the original.
    Moreover, the original is a classic because it did something new for
    that time. It did it so well that other horror movies started to copy
    the 80s Poltergeist. So when you film a remake without making any
    significant changes, not only is it bland because it is a copy of the
    original, it’s boring because it’s rehashes all the horror clichés that
    have propagated since the 80s. So much so that I knew exactly when and
    where the next scare was coming from. The only thing new about the
    movie is the use of computer generated ghouls, and they couldn’t even
    get that right. The quality of the CGI was poor to begin with, but
    there is such over-reliance on them that it progressively gets worse.
    Eventually they are all an amalgamation of random mediocre video game
    creatures that you don’t care about because nothing feels real. So the
    one new thing they tried drained all the horror out of the movie.

    Fans of the original classic will hate this movie, horror fans will
    hate this movie, so I don’t who they are trying to target this movie
    towards. Sure the performance of the actors were good, but the overflow
    of horror clichés and crappy CGI is too much to bear. Worst of all, it
    was not scary.

  • Matthew Luke BradyMay 26, 2015Reply

    It’s here and we don’t need it

    It’s here… and it sucks

    The story is about a contemporary re-imagination 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 cliché 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 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).

  • IIDovesMay 26, 2015Reply

    They should have used the money to make a Xena movie

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • divittowritesMay 26, 2015Reply

    Flat lined remake will make you yearn for the original

    Made the mistake of taking the family to see this pitiful remake. The
    whole production felt like they were going through the motions.

    I usually don’t take the bait on remakes, but I gave it a shot. At
    least the popcorn was expensive and soda flat. The wife and kids
    thanked me for two hours wasted.

    The director had no idea how to build any type of suspense. The tree
    scene? How do you manage to make that scene boring? The original film
    was handled by pros. You could feel the anxiety and fear coming from
    the boy as he counts off the thunderclaps.

    The clown? Another wasted effort. The original clown scene was one of
    the scariest ever. This one, not so much.

    There was no emotion from anyone! Was mom on Prozac?

    Flatlined and dreadful. Please no more remakes!

  • gbi09403May 26, 2015Reply

    Decent for a horror fan, for everyone else- eh…

    First off, yes, the original was a classic. The first Poltergeist was
    one of the reasons I am a horror movie fanatic. This remake/update is
    not a classic, and will likely be dismissed as another failed new
    vision of an older masterpiece. So don’t expect any miracles here.
    However, if you are like me and would rather watch a horror movie over
    just about everything else, then watch this one, because there are a
    few high notes.

    Sam Rockwell is the movie. He gives a great performance, creating a
    very believable, struggling father in a film with a way too fast script
    and pace. The other actors are not bad, but they definitely don’t
    capture your attention – or even emotion- like Rockwell does. You can
    have a rather high expectation of his performance… It will be met.

    There were a couple of modern updates that were very entertaining and
    lived up to potential. Those brief moments brought a little suspense
    into the film and made me wonder if the filmmakers had just chosen to
    loosely follow the original then maybe this one would have more merit.

    The pace of the film is too fast. Scares are packed in and quite
    predictable. I’m not certain the use of CGI really ruins anything, it
    seems to beat the whole ”jerky crawling around on all fours” phantoms
    of the post-modern Japanese horror films. But the suspense seems to be
    lacking. I’m sure we would have a different film from 1982 if CGI were
    available. Spielberg and Hooper would go nuts with that stuff, but we
    all know they wouldn’t skip out on making us sweat to see it.

    At the end of the film, I came to the realization that this is where we
    are with horror movies this day and age. I guess there are only so many
    ideas out there and instead of being accused of ripping off a classic,
    they just remake it. But, it’s still a horror movie, and true horror
    fans will dutifully watch them all.

  • ImpartialGeekMay 26, 2015Reply

    Moved too fast

    One thing I liked about the original, directed by Spielberg, was the
    way he makes you connect to all the characters in a short amount of
    time. You find yourself very involved in the story…

    This version did not do that. I felt it was very rushed from the
    beginning, and it continually fell flat. It was not the actors, because
    they did great with what they were given…which was a rushed story
    that had no character introduction…

    The original actually scared me for SEVERAL years after the movie. I
    would have to run and jump into my bed in fear of a clown being under
    there…I also used to get scared when a storm was coming and I counted
    the distance between the lightening and thunder…

    However, this movie was not scary at all. I walked away with a
    disappointed feeling of MEH when I wanted to leave checking under my
    bed again.

  • n-blouinMay 27, 2015Reply

    Poltergeist Review

    Although I haven’t seen the original Poltergeist, to my understanding
    it was a landmark horror movie, a movie that was revolutionary at the
    time. Unfortunately, the 2015 remake is anything but that. 2015
    Poltergeist uses a collection of generic and cliché scares and feels
    content relying on lazy, overdone techniques, such as jump scares. The
    movie has almost no tension at all and the pacing is fairly awful. In
    terms of writing and acting, the actors are functional at best and the
    dialogue is often very boring. For those who have seen the original and
    are fans of it, there might be some nostalgic value to be found here,
    but otherwise I’d recommend skipping this one.

  • SeakDubMay 27, 2015Reply

    ”Poltergeist” Terrible remake.

    Ever go into a movie with low standards from hearing people say how bad
    the movie is just to have it go even farther, farther to the point you
    didn’t even know existed? Well Poltergeist is for you! It put me to
    sleep, didn’t even scare, and they call it horror. I usually tell
    people to wait for it on DVD, don’t even bother your time with this
    movie. A horrible, god awful remake that shouldn’t even been called
    Poltergeist. I can go into such detail on why not to see it, but I
    rather not live through that again. The theater surprised me when I
    noticed it was in 3D, 17 dollars to see it. Man oh man, I wish I didn’t
    make that choice. Hopefully I made a point, I don’t mean to be so harsh
    on a movie, but I couldn’t help myself. A true awful remake, and we are
    in the ages of sequels and remakes, and when they can’t get that right,
    you know we are doomed!!(Lets make a movie, call it a classic remake
    and take their money!) Have to also point out quickly, that for the
    effects in this 2015 movie, are blah, boring, and you think why didn’t
    they add more. For the original Poltergeist(1982), for that time with
    the effects, was amazing, today cheesy, but amazing. I cried. Leaving
    the theater would have been an option for me if it wasn’t for paying so
    much, and its also why I gave it a two star. I normally only give
    movies 1 star if I can’t finish it. If you want horror, find another
    movie.

  • Steve NicolMay 27, 2015Reply

    Absolute Shame

    This movie is a debacle. When I saw the original many years ago I was
    just a 12 year old kid, and I was mesmerized by the entire movie. The
    setting was absolutely perfect from the subdivision to the actual
    house. Just everything about it was right, the casting was incredible
    Craig T. Neslson knocked it out of the park. I have watched the
    original every few years, and I find the movie still holds up as an
    80’s horror masterpiece. The famous line ”their here” gives me chills
    even. I just really don’t know why Hollywood has to try to improve upon
    such an iconic movie. I mean are they really out of ideas already??

    So the new version is just crap I mean it really is…the house is
    wrong the casting is wrong the script is wrong…its just a wonderment
    how some studio exec thought this could actually be a good idea. It
    really is just an identical reboot of the original and it fails
    miserably…with the tech advances I would have thought that would be
    the strong suit is all the amazing things they could implement with the
    modern CGI, but the original puts this to absolute shame…in the
    original you actually feel some compassion for the dead, in this one
    they are just the dead and they don’t play on the possibilities
    inherint.

    Bottom line is it just really kinda sucked.

  • Rajiv WolfMay 27, 2015Reply

    Had high expectation which shattered….

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • matthew scotMay 27, 2015Reply

    Not Fantastic , Not bad

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Sarah KennyMay 27, 2015Reply

    ‘That was actually good!’

    Admittedly, it wasn’t awesome. I expected a lot more from a remake of
    such a great film to begin with. I thought, what with all the
    technological advancement since then, it’d be better. But it was just
    that: A remake. Everything was pretty much the same and any attempt to
    diverge from the original storyline could easily be overlooked. Special
    effects were, as always, fantastic, and the fact that I saw the whole
    thing in 3D didn’t hurt either. It’s good, it’s entertaining, it’s – in
    the first half, at least – frightening. This film is definitely worth a
    watch, especially if you’re a fan of the original – but no, it wasn’t
    the amazing spectacle I was hoping for.

  • Tracy Webster (apoetneedspain)May 27, 2015Reply

    Awful. Just awful.

    I went into the new Poltergeist movie not expecting great things – the
    original is a classic for many reasons – but there wasn’t anything else
    worth watching other than Mad Max: Fury Road, and I haven’t seen the
    other Mad Max movies yet, so Poltergeist it was. I’m a horror movie fan
    at heart, so I figured… why not? It can’t be that bad, can it?

    Yes, it can. It really can.

    The characters are all dreadful: the parents do nothing but bitch and
    complain about their children. The children are brats (except for the
    youngest, the completely adorable Kennedi Clements playing the part
    made famous by Heather O’Rourke, god rest her.) who spend the movie
    doing nothing much at all. Honestly. It’s been less than 24 hours, and
    I really can’t recall anything of any importance that the eldest child
    did – when I tried to, I got the memory mixed up with the trailer for
    the next chapter of Insidious that was shown prior to the movie…

    The entire film is shockingly bad. The plot is a weakly updated version
    of the ’80s classic. The way that it’s been brought into the 21st
    century has left it entirely devoid of any tension whatsoever, and any
    scares that I got were from coulrophobia (fear of clowns) that I
    already had, and the few stupid jump scares they gave us. And while I
    myself didn’t find them scary, the girl in the row in front of me
    certainly did: she was buried against her boyfriend for most of the
    movie.

    All in all, the movie can be described in one word: awful. Save your
    money for when an actually decent horror movie comes out. You’ll be
    able to buy yourself a nice house by then, I think.

  • jayzendenMay 27, 2015Reply

    Poltergeist minus fun.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • scottshak_111May 28, 2015Reply

    Worst horror flick of the decade!

    While there are exceptional directors like David Robert Mitchell (It
    Follows), The Conjuring (James Wan) and Jennifer Kent (The Babadook)
    offering us out-of-the world horror movies in a platter of terror
    blended with high quality direction, there stands Gil Kenan crapping
    all over its concept, doing the exact opposite.

    If Poltergeist was supposed to be a reboot, then Gil missed the target
    by a light year. If not, he still failed to make a good movie by
    another light year. What is sad is the fact that its direction simply
    takes everything with it into the netherworld. Its stupidity swallows
    great actors like Sam Rockwell, Jared Harris and Rosemarie DeWitt, and
    makes them look mediocre.

    There are so many instances in the movie that would compel you to go,
    ”Really?” and ”Is this for real?” and sometimes ”Where is everybody?”
    The horror isn’t given enough time to sieve in and it keeps trudging on
    your head like a pointless parade with no direction or meaning.

    If I try really hard to look on the bright side, I could only remember
    the cute little Kennedi Clements who manages to melt you with her sweet
    voice and cute acts. She is downright adorable. Amongst other things,
    you could say the graphics and visuals looked rad particularly when the
    cast witnesses the creepy diabolical world that homes in their closet.
    Apart from that I think everything was sheer pathetic.

    One of the wisest decisions of your life would be to skip this one!

  • Edgar Allan PoohMay 28, 2015Reply

    POLTERGEIST tells the tale of two child abusers . . .

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • michaelsharples96 ([email protected])May 28, 2015Reply

    A completely copy cat remake, but adds absolutely nothing new.

    ‘Poltergeist’ is a remake of the 1982 possession/horror movie directed
    by Tobe Hooper (Texas Chainsaw Massacre). It stars Sam Rockwell (Seven
    Psychopaths), Rosemarie DeWitt (Cinderella Man), Jarred Harris
    (Lincoln) and Jane Adams (Eternal Sunshine) and is directed by Gil
    Kenan (City of Ember).

    The problem with most remakes these days, especially those of the
    horror genre, is that they try to stick as close to the original source
    material as they possibly can. The 1996 Psycho remake starring Vince
    Vaughn is a great example of this. A movie that is a shot for shot,
    word for word remake of a classic adds absolutely nothing new to the
    viewing experience. You’re essentially just watching the same movie but
    not as well shot and terrible performances around the board. It adds no
    originality whatsoever, and the worst thing about it is that it makes
    it really boring.

    Poltergeist is kind of the same thing. It isn’t a shot for shot, word
    for word remake, but it is essentially the same movie. The director did
    absolutely nothing to make it any different from the original. The same
    types of scenes happen to the children while the parents are out of the
    house. The story unfolds exactly as it does in the original. I mean
    sure he slightly tweaks a few things visually with the advances SFX of
    modern cinema. Plus adding a few new scenes and leaving some of the
    older ones out, but that’s about it. Everything else story wise is
    exactly the same thing. Similar to the ‘Carrie’ remake. If you’ve seen
    that you probably understand what i’m talking about.

    The Evil dead as another example, is a remake that acknowledges the
    original but adds its own flavor to it. The style of that movie was
    vastly different to the original. It’s story is similar as you expect,
    but nothing happens in this movie the way it does in the 1981 original.
    The director understood the movie but made it a different way. Which
    is, n my opinion, a more respectable way. You’re probably thinking,
    ”It’s good that it sticks to the original, that way it doesn’t ruin
    it”. No. That’s exactly what DOES ruin it. You literally might as well
    stay at home and watch the original. You’d save yourself a fair amount
    of money, and you’d basically be watching the new one anyway.

    Another thing about copying the movie to an exact, is that what this
    movie is, is basically just makes the whole film one giant horror movie
    cliché. It’s almost just a parody of itself in that it doesn’t realize
    that to succeed it must be different. Surprisingly enough, while
    littered with clichés, there aren’t THAT many jump scares which is
    always nice to see in a modern horror movie. Pretty much every jump
    scare from this film is what you see in the trailer. Which is always a
    thumbs up.

    It’s nice to see that Sam Rockwell was at least great in the movie, his
    acting ability is always a driving force for his lesser quality movies.
    There was also some jokes threw in there from time to time, none of
    which were funny like. Always a reflection of terrible writing, which
    is disappointing as David Lindsay-Abaire has shown himself in the past
    to be a pretty competent writer.

    Overall. If I was you I would just stay home and watch the original.
    It’s scarier, less boring and stale and adds more chills to ones
    viewing experience.

  • Sam ShrMay 28, 2015Reply

    Actually a fun horror movie

    MY girlfriend and I usually don’t do horror movie over the theater but
    this one time we did and to be surprised we really enjoyed the movie.
    There were laughs and some out of nowhere BOOOooo. But honestly, we had
    a good time watching this scary flick. Nothing gory and unpredicted
    ending, which was nice. Overall, it was a fun time so deserves my 7. I
    would recommend for a couple date night which doesn’t include any gory
    scene. I think it was an entertaining movie. I think there could have
    been better lines but well I don’t expect a great script for horror
    movies. A good enough remake and would like to see more of similar
    movies in future.

  • emcrum98May 28, 2015Reply

    It wasn’t too bad, guys!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • kennethmoran-62013May 28, 2015Reply

    A movie of two halves

    Hey there, I loved the original movie and I was hoping on at least for
    the same atmosphere in this one. To give some credit to the movie
    makers, the first half of the movie is very good, then something
    unfortunate happens. It all falls apart, no real character development
    or very little so much that you do not care what happens to any of the
    characters in the movie except for the little girl who is the only
    beacon of light during the movie. If I had left half way through this
    movie, I would have gone away pretty happy but by the end I mostly
    laughed at the poor dialogue, acting and general atmosphere. The
    Simpsons did a better job in their Halloween specials. Don’t waste your
    money seeing this in a cinema, you will just leave disappointed. I wish
    so much that this movie was very, very different.

  • secretzfanMay 29, 2015Reply

    Was this horror or comedy

    As of late I have found I am beginning to understand what true horror
    is. It inspires, invokes and makes us feel fear naturally. Not through
    the use of cliché jump scares. So of course this film gives us the
    worst of horror. This film is a hot mess of clichés, and idiotic
    parents. Even the female little girl was bland and had no real
    character of her own. If this was a Netflix horror I would give this
    pass, but since it is a theatrical horror it should be judged like
    that. You can tell this film didn’t even try I have never watched the
    original film, but I know Steven Spielberg did way better than this.
    And yes maybe it wasn’t going to be as good, but it at least could have
    tried. This was just lazy. It was lazy acting, lazy performance, and a
    lazy story muddled together by a bunch of bad cgi effects.

    Don’t SEE THIS FILM!!! SAVE YOUR MONEY!!!!!!!

  • mm-39May 29, 2015Reply

    Good remake.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Neil WelchMay 29, 2015Reply

    A pointless and unnecessary remake which adds nothing

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • cblakeJoeyMay 29, 2015Reply

    Just Stupid

    I am so sorry I took the time to see this film, despite the warnings.
    Not only was this an unnecessary remake, but a bad version at that. The
    characters in this film were written to be a lot more depressing and
    far more stupid. Not to mention not relatable. Sam Rockwell and
    Rosemarie DeWitt had zero chemistry. A lot of what made the original
    film exciting and fun was completely lost in this version. The tree
    wasn’t that scary and neither was the clown. The kids were horribly
    annoying and the parents were two depressing, unemployed saps. If I
    didn’t know better, I would’ve assumed Tyler Perry wrote the script. I
    thought the decision to have the annoying son take on some of the mom’s
    responsibilities from the original film was the final straw for me.
    This was a poor man’s version of Poltergeist and I would tell anyone
    not to waist your money on it. This movie SUCKED!

  • Scott MarshallMay 30, 2015Reply

    Everything thats wrong with remakes was in this.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • davidgeeMay 30, 2015Reply

    Sinister and insidious

    As remakes go, this is quite a good one – fresher and more inventive
    than the recyclings of THE OMEN and PSYCHO. The basic story is the same
    but with a few topical updates. The family are now relocating because
    of the recession (Dad’s unemployed). Young son has security issues
    following a kidnap scare (lost in mall, but not abducted). Teenage
    daughter lives on Facebook. But it’s still the apple-pie-cute youngest
    daughter who communicates with the spirits behind the TV screen and in
    the closet.

    As in 1982, there are no grandstanding parts for big-name stars, which
    helps make the family and their predicament believable. Sam Rockwell
    underplays Dad, Jared Harris slightly overplays the ghostbuster,
    Kennedi Clements is suitably apple-cheeked in the role of Madison.

    We’re told quite early that the development is built on an old
    graveyard, but the disturbed spirits are much more aggressive than they
    were in 1982. This being a 3D movie the special effects are all hurled
    at the camera and the audience. And there’s a lot more of them. This is
    both scarier and nastier than the Tobe Hooper version, although the
    rescue scene and the ‘aftermath’ seem a bit rushed this time. As we
    have come to expect from 21st-century haunted-house movies, the new
    Poltergeist is both Sinister and Insidious.

  • dobly58May 30, 2015Reply

    Atrocious!! SPOILERS..if you can call it that!

    Having been born in 1975, my childhood was aglow with the abundance of
    creativity that was the 80’s. Ever since I could remember, the local
    video store was an Aladdin’s Cave of artwork plastered on every wall
    with movie posters and titles stacked neatly along the shelves. Every
    Thursday my mother would take me there after school and treat me to a
    movie night. I recall clearly the first time I opened the case and saw
    the label POLTERGEIST on the tape. I was eight years old. ”What’s a
    Poltergeist?” I asked. From that night Poltergeist has remained one of
    my favorites. I think I’ve owned it in one form or another from
    adolescence.

    Fast forward to last night. Not expecting much, I sat in the cinema as
    the credits rolled on the remake, the first gimmicky credit sequence
    with the title sprawled in CGI over a grassy field. Not impressed. What
    happened to the all-American suburbia, the sense of belonging, what
    happened to the glorious musical queues from Jerry Goldsmith’s score,
    it wasn’t there. This I knew was going to be very by the numbers. A
    quick bums on seats revival of a film that got it right first time.

    Before I get into how poor the acting and the script were, let me
    assure anyone that is still itching to see this, don’t waste your
    hard-earned money. You’re better than this! A film that is remade
    purely to raise a few bucks for the studio and does little to update
    the story serves only one purpose and that is to evoke comparisons.
    We’re currently frozen in a stale era of cheaply produced everything
    where no-one is putting a fingerprint of the evolution of both music
    and movies. The music industry to me is dead. My beloved CD collection
    hails back to a time where artist were worshiped like idols, could play
    any instrument, and held their mystique. Movies now are no different,
    with the exception of ever popular franchises like Bond and Star Wars.
    Very few of the truly great directors remain. Where would we be without
    Ridley Scott, David Fincher, James Cameron and the likes? The new
    Terminator movie looks interesting but would Arnie believe thirty years
    ago that he’d still be a Terminator? Most likely he’d scoff at the
    idea. Yet here we are, still trying to squeeze the paste from the tube
    as if the last creative juices have dried up.

    As for our film, it seems the screenwriter has just highlighted some of
    the key elements form the first film, particularly the dialogue,
    regurgitated it and the director has spent the production saying,
    ”yeah, that’ll do!” Anyone who dares to take on a remake of a Spielberg
    movie, beware, you’ll fail.

    When Maddie disappears, how on earth did the parents, who let’s not
    forget had no concept of the ghosts in their house at this point deduce
    that their solution was in the hands of ghost hunters? The actress who
    played the mother barely shed a tear the whole film. Jobeth Williams
    anyone??? The ghost hunter chap arrives and spews the same lines as
    Zelda Rubenstein for a few minutes and TEN minutes later the girl is
    saved. His final line in the film capped it for me. As he’s being
    pulled into the ghost world, he turns to his ex and shouts ”I have a
    job to do!” I laughed uncontrollably. Sam Rockwell clearly isn’t
    interested and this is a real low for a guy who is a superb actor. I
    felt embarrassed for him actually.

    Oh I could go on but if you have any standards at all and are not
    easily impressed by the churn of rehashes, remakes and Melissa McCarthy
    movies, you’ll understand what I’m talking about!

  • kuronoxMay 30, 2015Reply

    Not terribly scary, but a fun experience. Dare I say: As good as the original?

    I should start off by saying that I’m not a die-hard fan of the
    original Poltergeist – I mean, I did enjoy the original, but I don’t
    hold it in a beacon of light like some of the reviewers/critics seem to
    be doing. Believe it or not, the only thing I miss from the original is
    Tangina (the psychic medium).

    I mean, yeah, this version looks like a very typical modern horror
    movie – the style the cinematography is very similar to the likes of
    Insidious or Dark Skies, but I don’t know how that is avoidable without
    going experimental? However, I think this version does as good of a job
    with the storytelling as the original… if not better. I found the
    only annoying part of the remake to be the mom character and the forced
    plot lines that surrounded her made no sense.

    Having said that, this movie was not scary for me at all (but neither
    was the original), but… I really did enjoy watching it. I found both
    the original and remake to be fairly comical, but the remake is comical
    to a point where it still can be taken seriously. However, I find that
    the original is comical to a point where it is kinda ridiculous (in a
    good way).

    I read a review on here saying how they love the original, but
    criticized the CGI in the remake… I mean, are you kidding me? I get
    that a lot of the audience/reviewers have a deep rooted nostalgia for
    the original, but come on. I also get that the original is a classic
    and I get that it was revolutionary in the horror genre. But for the
    modern viewers, the remake is good too. You can’t expect a remake to
    also be revolutionary, can you?

    Sidenote: I found the vast amount of Star Wars memorabilia in the
    original movie really off-putting – yeah okay, we get it, Spielberg
    wrote it and produced it.

    I should say that, I get where all the negative reviews are coming
    from. If someone remade ”The Shining” I would be raging my balls off.
    But ”The Shining” doesn’t have crappy 80s CGI and Jack Nicholson gave a
    performance of a lifetime. Also, who would dare to reach Kubrik’s
    enigmatic legacy? ”Poltergeist (1982)” had a lot of room for
    improvement from the storytelling to, the biggest one, the CGI.

  • weecraigy-63825May 30, 2015Reply

    Great Movie, Well worth the watch.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • sanghaejangMay 31, 2015Reply

    Don’t listen to critics. It’s an amazing film. (From a big horror fan)

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • amesmondeMay 31, 2015Reply

    Haunted by the original.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Freddie RiveraMay 31, 2015Reply

    Terrible

    I thought that this movie was going to be a superior remake, but I was
    so disappointed. They wanted this new generation to go see this movie,
    so of course they would capitalize on it, just like they produce
    remakes of other classics, and a lot of the time they don’t do the
    original justice. The 1982 version had an eerie supernatural feeling to
    it, which this one totally lacked. Zelda Rubinstein who played the
    Medium on the 1982 version is a classic all on its own. I am sure a lot
    youth of today all have seen the original, who would miss it? I enjoy a
    good supernatural movie, but when it comes to a remake of a classic,
    they better get it right. Poltergeist 2 was also a classic. If they
    plan on doing a remake of that, I hope the get it right.

  • IheartCali5882May 31, 2015Reply

    Nothing we haven’t seen before, but it’s decent.

    I understand that the original is considered a classic, but I’m also of
    the mind that even the original is not without it’s faults. I’m saying
    this because I think that what may have been lacking in the original is
    handled better with the remake. Conversely what this version lacks, the
    original provided.

    For starters, the original had absolutely no preamble. The first scenes
    of Carol Ann going to the flickering TV literally occurred within
    minutes of the film’s opening. It always seemed rushed to me that there
    was no introduction of sorts. This film does better at providing a
    build up, if somewhat a small one. It doesn’t just thrust you into the
    paranormal situation straight out of the gate.

    The thing is with remakes, people are already prepared to naysay,
    partly because the majority of naysayers are old enough to remember the
    original and will nearly always choose the ”good ole days”. We all do
    it, with movies, with music, what have you. Just as with newer
    generation music, those who can remember music from even 10-15 years
    ago will find that new music usually just plain sucks. It’s the same
    for horror remakes unfortunately. With a film like Poltergeist, which
    is a staple of the paranormal subgenre, there is almost no winning.
    I’ve asked myself what could the writers/director have done differently
    that would appease those going into it having put the original on a
    pedestal. And frankly I can’t think of too much that could have been
    changed that would somehow make these type of people happy.

    To start: The parents in this remake are more likable in my humble
    opinion. The father in particular has a great deal more personality
    than Craig T. Nelson had. I prefer them as a couple to Nelson and
    JoBeth Williams. The children here leaving something to be desired
    however. While they get the job done, the children of the original were
    far superior actors.

    I will grant the original had more atmosphere and understated tension
    than did this one. There was a general feeling of unease that held
    through the film even while nothing of consequence was occurring. The
    remake lacked this, and I believe this may be the major hang up of the
    film. There were many BOO! moments that were sometimes effective.
    However there was no ever coiling tension. It was more of a case of
    peaks and pits. The energy was released as soon as the BOO! moment
    occurred. Wash, rinse, repeat.

    On the other hand the remake benefits from advancements in special fx
    and technology. The writers obviously had more liberties with which to
    exploit the appearance of the supernatural presence. (Think cell
    phones, ipads, etc.) The tree, the spirits, etc naturally were far
    better looking in this remake than they were for the original, but
    clearly that’s to be expected. My major beef with the original was that
    the final act turned too far away from horror into unscary sci-fi;
    particularly toward the end. That really puts me off from being a die
    hard ”original” defender.

    I guess what I’m saying is this: I will be one of the few who can see
    the merits of both films. From what I’ve read thus far, most either
    really enjoyed it or can’t get over the fact that it’s not the original
    (which it could never be anyway so that’s a fight this film will never
    win). This remake has some qualities I think serve the story better
    than the original even, while at the same time I don’t think it
    surpassed the original in the most important aspects. Still, it was a
    FUN film. I came to be entertained, and I was entertained for 91
    minutes. Maybe my expectations were too low? Perhaps, however my
    ultimate decision rests on whether or not a film entertained me.

    If you’re going into it with a very high opinion of the original, I
    doubt that you will get much enjoyment from it. If you’re the type to
    nitpick at small things, I doubt that you will get much enjoyment from
    it. If you just like to sit back and have a little excitement for a
    couple hours, you could do FAR worse than this film. It’s decent enough
    that I don’t regret shelling out the $$ to see it in theaters. Just
    don’t expect anything groundbreaking. But then again you probably
    didn’t because after all……..it’s the dreaded remake! My rating:
    6/10

  • canadian-bearMay 31, 2015Reply

    Great flick – highly enjoyed

    I can’t believe all the negative reviews I’ve seen of this movie. I
    always wonder if they’re written by people who even actually like the
    horror genre, much less have a passion for it.

    This movie is a remake. Do not expect a remake to be better than the
    original. That is pretty much impossible. It’s lost the element of
    surprise.

    How many horrors have we watched that are ”B” or lower? Asylum Films
    anyone? We watch them because we love the genre. We look for redeeming
    qualities in any horror, no matter how bad. Humour, or effects, or
    acting. Sometimes it’s just laughing at how fake the effects are and
    how bad the acting is. But we retain the passion for the horror genre
    and we appreciate any contributors.

    I do not like remakes that are exact copies of the original. This movie
    brought some differences, although the essence of the original was
    there.

    I appreciated this movie because it is a horror and one that had a
    significant budget. I thought some of the effects were great!

    If I had a complaint about this movie, it is that I wish it was a
    little bit longer, and put a little more complexity into the plot.

    If you love horror, I recommend this movie. If you love horror, you’re
    not going to be disappointed. Just don’t expect that a remake is going
    to be anymore than a pleasant trip into yesteryear to see an old
    friend.

  • sherifmgMay 31, 2015Reply

    Don’t even wait for DVD , Wait for TV …. by chance !!

    Gee what a waste of money and time , I was so excited for this remake
    as i’m a fan of the classic which is one of my favorite movies of all
    time .

    I don’t usually take time to write negative reviews , but in this case
    I had to . It is actually considered positive thinking if you go watch
    something else .. I would have actually enjoyed watching the Lion King
    for 37th time more than I did with that movie ! Very weak acting , weak
    story line , poor effects ( not even scary), nor funny , it falls
    somewhere in between worlds , child like predictive dialog , all in all
    looks like an amateur project ! Some Hollywood remakes are excellent ,
    some are fine .. but this was a joke people !! I WANT MY MONEY BACK ..
    yeah right !

  • tooclosetothetvJune 1, 2015Reply

    Stinker of the Year

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • fballscottb1June 1, 2015Reply

    Absolutely HORRIBLE

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • RforFilmJune 1, 2015Reply

    Poltergeist plays it’s remake so safe, there’s barely a point in making this. Just watch the 1982 classic

    What’s great about the movies is that every genre can be cross
    generational. With every Matrix movie for the adults, there is a Lego
    Movie that kids and families can enjoy together. There’s plenty of
    options; for fantasy, there’s Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, for
    westerns, there’s True Grit and An American Tail: Fievel Goes West and
    even for the romance, there’s Love Story and Little Manhattan. There’s
    no reason for the kids to get left out of a fantastic story without
    feeling like you simply talking down on them. The one genre that seems
    to have more trouble is the horror genre.

    What funny is that with horror, movies like Monster House and The
    Witches are not just good, but are even scarier then most horror movies
    reserved for adults. These prove that you can work in the little ones
    into the horror genre without giving them something too grotesque or
    over the line. The best example is the 1982 classic, Poltergeist.
    Produced by Steven Spielberg, it centered around a family buying a
    house that was intruded by an evil entity that could communicate with a
    girl through the TV. It was scary, entertaining, and was a constant
    repeat at the slumber parties I attended in elementary school. So why
    remake Poltergeist?

    Eric (played by Sam Rockwell) and Amy Bowen (played by Rosemarie
    DeWitt) move to find more opportunities after their laid off from their
    jobs. They manage to find an older home within their price range and
    immediately move in with their three children, teenager Kendra, middle
    boy Griffin, and their youngest daughter, Madison. The two younger ones
    sense another force in the home when they discover that their hair
    sticks up when they touch a closet doorknob. Madison gets an invisible
    friend that communicates with her through the families LED television.

    Eric later discovers that tract of homes was built on an old graveyard.
    Like most horror movies, the adults don’t sense anything wrong and play
    off their kid’s fears as having a wild imagination. During a ghost
    experience when Kendra’s phone acts up and Griffins clown toy attacks
    him, Madison is taken away via closet to the spirit world. The parents
    decide to get in contact with officials at a local university to study
    the phenomenon. The crew is spooked, but do everything they can to get
    Madison back, even calling in Carrigan Burke, a ghost specialist who
    has his own reality show.

    The purpose of a remake is to take the problems of the previous film
    and fix them to make the product even better. And there’s the immediate
    problem with Poltergeist; the original film was fantastic enough that
    there is nothing to improve on. This 2015 update seems to know this and
    sticks close, playing the same story and the same spooks. Taking the
    original out of the picture, Poltergeist doesn’t even manage to stick
    out enough to take itself away from some of the other recent ghost
    movies like The Conjuring and Insidious.

    The best thing I can say about this is that the acting’s good. Sam
    Rockwell is always fun to watch and he seems to be having fun with this
    ghost story. Even some of the scares got a jolt out of me (the new ones
    at least), but when you see past scares like the clown and trees, your
    only saying, ”we know it’s coming. Just happen already!”.

    While it is a close remake, the film does try to change it up (letting
    some other family members go through the paranormal events and a
    different ending), but the changes fail to justify the need to make
    something that can acquired on Netflix.

    I’ll give this four ghost detection kits out of ten. The biggest crime
    this movie pulls is going for a PG-13 rating. The previous PG rating
    allowed kids to feel like they were getting a genuine scary movie
    without going against their parents. The PG-13 pretty much tells
    families that the kids should probably stay home. Maybe you should
    avoid this ghost and stay home as well.

  • Sophie KittyyJune 1, 2015Reply

    What Went Wrong?

    Before I start, I’m one of those who totally loved the original
    Poltereist. I saw it when I was 6-7 years old, and it both scared me to
    pieces and stuck with me ever since. However, I don’t think it’s my
    attachment to the original that made me feel as though this bland
    remake was… Lackluster. The 80’s film simply had more heart. More
    care went into the performances. The buildup and anticipation of Carol
    Ann’s disappearance was prominent. And of course, that little score
    (still gets stuck in my head. Creepy)! But while sitting through the
    2015 version, I just felt nothing; not scared, not intrigued, not
    really into it, and hardly rooting for the characters I rooted for
    during the original. I mean, it wasn’t an AWFUL movie. It just lacked
    feeling, and was very anticlimactic. But unnecessarily remaking
    something so classic and barely putting any love into it? Not worth the
    time. I can name several aspects of the original that left me scared:
    The tree. The clown. The chairs. The burial ground. The realness of the
    actor’s ”fear” portrayed on screen. With this new Poltergeist,
    everything just seemed to fall short. Not memorable or life-changing.

  • morgane0108June 1, 2015Reply

    Don’t Remake a Classic

    Let me start by saying that the original Poltergeist is a classic- it
    is one of the best horror movies of all time.This remake does the
    original no justice.The only upgrade is that there are better
    ”effects”, but the effects themselves take away from the magic that the
    original film possessed.The acting is poor, the plot is a watered down
    version of the original, and the remake lacks a lot of what made the
    original so memorable.

    The original had a slow progression of suspense into complete dread,
    and it caused the viewer to be attached to the story. The family in the
    original was perfectly set up and worth of being adored. The remake
    possessed none of this- it is not even scary. The scariest part of the
    movie involved a squirrel- there is nothing whatsoever memorable about
    this movie and it does nothing but take away from how incredible the
    80’s version is. Save your money and just watch the first version-
    trust me, this film is a joke, especially in comparison to the
    Poltergeist we all love.

  • Kenyae KofiJune 2, 2015Reply

    Terrible Remake

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • James N. O'SullivanJune 2, 2015Reply

    Can’t Hold A Candle To The Original, Still Makes For A Good Time

    I’d just like to strain this – anyone going into this movie expecting a
    horror film will be disappointed. It is NOT a horror movie. It might be
    scary to kids under 12, but to those of us who are older, it comes off
    as an edgy adventure movie.

    Now, onto the inevitable comparison – this remake, as is so often the
    case, can’t hold a candle to the original. But that doesn’t make it
    non-enjoyable. It’s a fun, jump-scare-ridden afternoon at the matinée –
    which is all I’d advise to pay for this film (certainly not worth the
    up charge for the 3D).

    What stands out in this movie are the performances. The entire well-
    rounded cast gives a bravo-inducing performance. They are all so
    well-fit to their characters.

    So, yeah, go see this if you want a good action chilly adventure movie
    with an edge. The performances save it from shrinking into horror
    remake obscurity.

  • Nicole of ArchonCinemaReviews.comJune 3, 2015Reply

    Unnecessary remake that might be considered ‘fine’ if it weren’t for the original

    Poltergeist isn’t half bad but it is as unnecessary as a cassette
    player in a 2015 Lamborghini.

    When it comes to the Poltergeist remake, we were hopeful and optimistic
    but unfortunately the final product for the 2015 film simply fails to
    deliver unless you have never seen the original 1982 film.

    The plot of the 2015 Poltergeist is virtually identical to the classic
    supernatural horror, with the exception of minute variances. A family,
    newly moved into a housing development affected by the foreclosure
    epidemic, experience odd disturbances which swiftly take on a
    malevolent tone. When the youngest daughter seemingly disappears,
    mother and father must unite with paranormal experts to save her and
    themselves.

    While horror fans won’t be able to shake the eerie similarities between
    the two Poltergeist films, super fans of the original will find this
    year’s version to be a sub-par replica, a near copy/paste of the 80s
    classic.

    When you look back at the talent involved with the 1982 film, you
    realize that creative juggernauts of their genres came together for a
    magical creation. Spielberg brought the carefully cultivated
    imagination in the form of a fresh and innovative story. Tobe Hooper
    brought the unshakeable terror through strong-minded vision through
    direction. The cast was brimming with underrated but well known actors
    and undiscovered young talents.

    Though the 2015 Poltergeist has talent in the form of Rosemarie DeWitt
    and Sam Rockwell, who both carry more than their own weight as the
    heads of the family experiencing the haunting, Sam Raimi’s production
    falls horrendously short. Raimi has only himself to blame by
    green-lighting the tremendously successful and horrifying Evil Dead
    remake. And it is in the differences between the 2015 Poltergeist from
    the 2013 Evil Dead where the illuminating explanation resides.

    In short, Poltergeist adds nothing to the narrative of its predecessor
    nor does it act as a catalyst in showcasing a newcomers aptitude for
    the cinematic craft. Both director Gil Kenan and screenwriter David
    Lindsay-Abaire are odd choices for the horror film, both with a heavy
    family-friendly filmography.

    Neither have an affinity for horror, exemplified by their inability to
    satisfy horror genre fans. The scares are rudimentary at best, and at
    worst, showcased in their entirety in all marketing trailers for the
    film. And what they do accomplish in adding, is a subtractive addition,
    in showcasing what was originally unseen and off screen terror of the
    original.

    Please check out our website for full reviews of all the recent
    releases.

  • bradman1118June 3, 2015Reply

    Just another pointless remake…

    This film is easily comparable to the movie ”Quarantine” in the regard
    that it is a remake that brings nothing new or original to the table.
    The whole point of a remake is to take a different approach to the same
    idea. The idea of remaking something is not a horrible one; there are
    plenty of great remakes out there that either improve upon the original
    or differ enough to stand on their own. The key to a good remake is
    diversity. Poltergeist follows the same clichéd template of
    storytelling that the original film did. The whole film felt
    tremendously uninspired. The majority of the scares in the movie were
    jump-scares; there was no build-up and no sense of dread and suspense.
    The jump-scares were predictable and the addition of so called ”scare
    music” made it even worse. There was nothing unexpected or frightening
    about the scares. I won’t say that the movie was terrible; there were
    definitely some elements I likes about it and the visual effects
    weren’t bad, but I can never see myself watching it again nor do I
    recommend it due to the lack of originality, lack of dramatic tension,
    and overall predictability.

  • (blufrog49)June 4, 2015Reply

    Decent Re-Make

    If I hadn’t seen the original, I might have given this a 7.
    Nevertheless, it is better than most re-makes, and I wonder how many
    that view this film have seen the original anyway.

    All, in all, it is entertaining and has some decent shock moments. It
    stays fairly true to the first, but now with things we’d expect, like
    iPhones and drones, etc. However, we never really care much about any
    of the characters except possibly the 2 youngest children, but only
    because they are young innocents, not due to any real character
    development.

    Within the first 30 seconds of the movie, there is profanity muttered
    by the teenager and shouted by the pre-schooler. Why? After that I
    expected the dialogue to be filled with foul language, but surprisingly
    it didn’t. Was that initial usage to be ”cool?” I think the hoax and
    reality TV angles could have gotten more play, as that’s what everyone
    seems to be interested in these days.

  • ericrnolanJune 4, 2015Reply

    ”Poltergeist” (2015) is an unnecessary and generally lackluster remake

    ”Poltergeist” (2015) is an unnecessary and generally lackluster remake
    of the 1982 classic; I’d give it a 5 out of 10.

    I wouldn’t recommend seeing this movie out of curiosity about how
    modern special effects might update the story. They’re good, but not
    great. The 80’s practical effects of the original worked far better.

    I also wouldn’t recommend seeing this movie because you’re a Sam
    Rockwell fan. The guy is amazing, but the script here doesn’t let him
    shine. He’s miscast as a vaguely ineffectual and somewhat unlikable
    Dad.

    I just can’t recommend paying the ticket price for this movie at all,
    if you’ve got the original lying around on DVD — the first film
    offered far more charm and spooky fun.

  • sgholbrookJune 5, 2015Reply

    ”When the realism dropped, so did my interest”

    To clarify, before I start ! I HAVE NOT seen the original…. The
    characters in this film (mostly the father and son), I felt, have very
    strong characters which I found handy when trying to really get into
    this film. This was successful upon the first 30 minutes of the film
    while things were shocking and kinda realistic. Then we get to the REST
    of the film. Things take a turn and the realism level drops, kind of
    meaning the build up character was unnecessary and it kinda made me
    lose interest, but not enough to be bored. Obviously this is a remake,
    so I guess the original follows a similar outline of events, but this
    change in the story really didn’t appeal to me and although I enjoyed
    the film, I think it was a lot better while it was realistic. ONCE
    AGAIN, the trailer shows probably the biggest bit in the film, so try
    and stay away from that ! Left a massive event to be ruined, as I was
    waiting for it. And now I think of it, there is actually a couple of
    unexplained things in the film such as a scene based at a sink which
    doesn’t actually relate at all to the story or anything, they are just
    simply put in there to try and make it more eery. I think nowadays I
    enjoy more a horror film that makes me jump, and sadly this didn’t….

  • jtungsten16June 5, 2015Reply

    Love, Love, Love Poltergeist 2015

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • atinderJune 6, 2015Reply

    Bland remake

    This movie was no were near as great as the poltergeist from the 80

    I found that movie didn’t feel have any real build up like the first
    But the things do happen

    I felt they rushed all the best parts of the original one , with few
    new twigs in one scene.

    I felt limed that was way to early in the movie and they should have
    spread around.

    By the the end of the movie, I was really bored and I was not scared at
    all

    There were two things that liked from this movie as the boy had bigger
    part and car scene near the end , which I thought was decent scenice

    And that why I glingo give it 3 out of10

  • fmeans55June 6, 2015Reply

    I like remakes, but not this one

    Seriously? Some people rated it 10 stars? I guess there are ”plants”
    for all movies to get the ratings up.

    I really enjoy attempted remakes, especially if they were good movies
    that could be enhanced with more modern technology, CGI and what not.
    But the plot and the acting have to be there. During much of the movie
    the actors seemed to be phoning in their lines. Sam Rockwell (the dad
    of the family), for me, is a hard sell for a caring dad role. His
    personality exudes pompousness. I will admit Rockwell did have some
    moments in the movie he almost sold as the character, but doesn’t that
    defeat the purpose of an actor in a movie? If I’m thinking this in a
    movie that ,”Wow, the actor almost has me sold.” I have lost the
    concept of being in the movie and now am looking at it technically. (A
    side note: Sam Rockwell was fantastic in The Green Mile) The other
    actors similarly go through the motions to play their characters except
    for Jared Harris. Harris is the only actor during the whole movie that
    subtly stayed completely involved in his character the whole movie.

    Honestly, the movie was much better at comedic moments than it was at
    creating suspense or horror. I would even say Poltergeist is worth
    watching for the comedy than anything else. There are some truly funny
    moments.

    Not a good remake.

  • subxerogravityJune 6, 2015Reply

    Nicely done remake that updates the franchise for the new ghost movies coming out

    At first I was a little worried when the movie came on and I saw they
    were going the same exact family from the original. It did not look to
    different from the source material, but I must admit it was freighting.

    They used all the ghost tricks that have been exploited ever since
    Paranormal Activity to scare the crap right out of me. Than the movie
    takes the turn that makes it look like Insidious and other ghost movies
    that have been flooding the screen.

    But the big difference is that like the first the movie is scary yet
    humorous and suitable for the whole family.

    It’s differently worth checking out, especially if you like the recent
    trend of Ghost movies coming out.

  • Jason JasonJune 6, 2015Reply

    are there no classic movies that are safe?

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • venusboys3June 7, 2015Reply

    Better than the original…

    I should say right off that I was never a fan of the original
    Poltergeist. It’s got an inconsistent mood and pacing that annoyed me
    even as a kid. The potential was there but Spielberg just couldn’t keep
    his schmaltzy paws off of it. The effects are way too cute and
    charming, the music too ‘epic’. This new one doesn’t make it all
    better. If anything I think it adheres far to closely to the original
    for its own good. What it DOES improve on is that it gets right to the
    point and takes a stance that doesn’t waver. This haunting is never
    cute or fun or any of the other false notes the original plucked at…
    the core story is about a child in danger from supernatural forces and
    what is done to save her. As expected there are plenty of nods to the
    original. Similar events come in different order. I MUCH preferred the
    ‘scary clown’ and ‘scary tree’ sequences this time around. All in all
    this version felt more focused… more consistent. It’s still not very
    scary, it’s a spooky movie for kids, but it does create some atmosphere
    and stray to far from its intended purpose.

  • michelle139June 7, 2015Reply

    Where was the Story?

    Okay I saw the original when it came out let me tell you this is
    nothing like it! The movie can’t even come close to it. The scares were
    decent but the effects were lame! And there was no story line only
    passing conversations and where was the build up to the poltergeist?
    Where were the chairs sliding across the floor? And the I have never
    been so insulted with the person who was doing Tangina’s part she
    nailed that movie she was the reason the movie was so creepy. Don’t
    waste your money one this movie it’s not worth it to sit in a movie
    theater with people bringing their little kids to watch this. Hollywood
    you can do better STOP REMAKING GOOD MOVIES

  • palavitsinisJune 8, 2015Reply

    It was scary and the story was there. Rental-material.

    Well, it has been quite some time since I watched a horror movie that
    really frightened me. This movie is not the kind that will make you go
    crazy of fear but it’s really cool.

    I really liked the storyline and the acting of the actors involved. I
    loved the little girl and I was really amazed by Sam Rockwell and did
    enjoy the fact that there were funny scenes within a thriller movie.

    Jared Harris was also brilliant and I really really liked his
    character. It was a fun Sunday afternoon in the movies with a movie
    that will hardly make you jump out of your seat, but it won’t also keep
    you uninterested like others of the specific genre.

    One thing I did not like was that towards the end the director kind of
    took it too far at some point, making you think that ”ok, this is too
    much” which is something that should not happen in this kind of movies
    when you’re struggling to remain into the storyline, without thinking
    that in real life, these things would not be possible..

    Overall, don’t spend money to go at the movies for this, if you have
    other options. Waiting out for a DVD rental is the best option.

  • Ian JohnsonJune 8, 2015Reply

    This film had it moments, but was unjustified in its reason to be made.

    Poltergeist is a remake of the 1982 horror classic. A family moves into
    a newly developed neighborhood and begins to witness paranormal
    activity in their home. This family has three children, so I was a
    little nervous as to how the two youngest ones would perform on screen.
    In the end the acting is only okay… Sam Rockwell gave my favorite
    performance, but the little girl was just inconsistent. The little boy
    had some really good scenes and development, though. There are a couple
    of really scary moments that tensed me up, but in general I saw most of
    the scares coming. There are some well shot moments that brought the
    tension up, but most scares were predictable to the point of boredom.
    There is also an over-reliance on C.G.I. which always brings the scare
    factor down. Some of the C.G.I is actually quite poor for a film that
    was released in 2015. There are even moments of forced humor near the
    end that deflate almost all the tension that the film was building up.
    For all remakes I have a small list of reasons that I find are
    necessary to justify the existence of the films themselves: the film
    must be a second attempt at a poorly made film, the film must take the
    original concept and point it in a new direction, or the film must
    introduce an old idea to a new audience. Let’s find out how this film
    handles these. The original was not poorly made, so number one is
    invalid. While the original had its problems, it did so much right that
    most of the flaws can be overlooked. To this day I still remember
    almost every paranormal scene in the original. This new film also fails
    at taking the film in a new direction. Almost EVERY SINGLE aspect of
    the original appears in this one. While there are a few changes that I
    do think made the plot slightly better and somewhat more believable,
    there are just as many changes that I feel bring it down. One of these
    problems with the plot involves how quickly many of the plot points are
    covered and massive jumps on reasoning are made and never confirmed to
    progress the plot. It feels like a cliff notes plot of the original so
    that more time can be spent on the paranormal. This gives me the
    feeling that writers felt like the audience already knows the plot, so
    flying through the plot points would prevent the audience from ignoring
    the it; if that is the case, the film fails number three as well.
    Therefore I decree (because I have that kind of power) that this film
    had no reason to be remade other than to make money. Remaking movies is
    always a gamble, but remaking what is considered by many to be a
    classic is practically suicide. Every moment that was recreated from
    the original was not nearly as good or memorable. That is why the
    original is a classic. If you have not seen the original, watch it
    instead.

  • FlashCallahanJune 10, 2015Reply

    Raimi is slowly tarnishing a wonderful career…..

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • jetfire-67792June 10, 2015Reply

    Remake of a Classic falls flat and completely disappoints!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • ladychengJune 10, 2015Reply

    Ughhhh

    So much potential for greatness…so much disappointment 🙁 The writing
    was lazy and the special effects were sub-par…With names like Raimi
    and Rockwell attached I went into the theater with the highest of
    hopes. I wasn’t expecting anything close to the original Tobe
    Hooper/Steven Spielberg masterpiece but at the very least a few chills.
    What I got was pure, unadulterated BOREDOM. If it were not for Sam
    Rockwell being in the picture I would have walked out. The acting was
    embarrassing and the dialogue so ridiculous I found myself laughing out
    loud. The coffins under the Freelings front lawn must be rollings over.
    Cross over children, All are welcome. All welcome. Go into the
    Light….but don’t go see this flop.

  • Raul FaustJune 11, 2015Reply

    Tearin’ up my mind

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • RichardSRussell-1June 13, 2015Reply

    New and Startling Then, Old and Humdrum Now

    Poltergeist (fantasy: supernatural, 3rd string, remake, 1:33, PG-13,
    3-D)

    They changed the family name from Freeling to Bowen, and they threw in
    cell phones, wide-screen TV, and a commercial drone, but otherwise this
    is the same movie that, written by Steven Spielberg and directed by
    Tobe Hooper, scored a surprise hit in 1982.

    A young family beset with financial difficulties downsizes into a
    newish home in a newish suburban development, unaware that it was built
    atop an abandoned cemetery. Despite the fact that neither the realtor
    nor the previous tenants nor any of the nabors has ever had a whiff of
    difficulty, these poor saps start experiencing weird phenomena within
    10 minutes of moving in, and it only gets worse over the next couple of
    days.

    When their cute little girl gets sucked into an adjacent dimension
    peopled by restless spirits seeking some kind of release, they’re only
    able to talk to her thru their TV set. It was this fusion of bland
    suburbia and pristine, modern technology on the one hand with ancient
    dread, darkness, dirt, and death on the other that gave the original
    its unbalancing impact and led to 2 successful sequels.

    But what was novel then is pretty ho-hum 3 decades later, so even tho
    the film is well acted, it’s hard to take it seriously. People go thru
    the motions, but there really isn’t any suspense. And, despite the
    presence of actors you may have heard of before (Sam Rockwell,
    Rosemarie Dewitt, and Jared Harris), it’s basically a low-budget,
    one-setting, paint-by-numbers effort with prosaic special effects.

    Now let me tell you a true sad story. You may remember the sweet little
    blond girl from the original 3 Poltergeist films, Heather Michele
    O’Rourke, the one who uttered the memorable line ”They’re baa-aack”. I
    wondered what ever became of her and looked up her bio on IMDb.com. The
    stark prose at the end of it packed more of an emotional punch than
    this remake did, and I suggest you check it out.

  • giantsfan456June 14, 2015Reply

    Decent remake to the original

    Let me start out by saying that I am a huge fan of the 1982 original
    and its sequels (though most are a fan of the original and can leave
    the sequels alone),and originally I would’ve preferred a third sequel
    to a remake or reboot,but I agree that the Carol Anne story-line died
    with Heather O’Rourke.In fact,if this had been a third sequel,instead
    of a remake,putting a new family like the Bowens in this would’ve been
    what I would’ve done.Now,getting to my take on the remake (hey it
    rhymes): Like most remakes the plot for this remains virtually intact
    from the 1982 original in that youngest child (Madison to 1982’s Carol
    Anne),gets kidnapped by evil spirits and family has to go to ”the Other
    Side”,to bring her back but spirits aren’t happy nor willing to let
    their victim go that easily.Now,while some lines of dialogue are
    clearly lifted from the original,not all are and some are rearranged to
    fit the reimagined scenes (you’ll see what I mean those who have yet to
    see this).I do like how the writers and producers did this to add some
    freshness to this and make this somewhat different than the original.
    Some characters are used more in this than the original (Griffin to
    1982’s Robbie and Kendra to 1982’s Dana),while others not so much (Amy
    to 1982’s Diane and Eric to 1982’s Steven),and some not at all (where’s
    E-buzz and Tweety)? Now,for my criticisms I agree that many of the
    scenes seemed rushed and others that were good (no make that great), in
    the original seemed to be rushed,forced or cut-back from the 1982
    original,none more so that the tree scene (the tree just willingly lets
    Griffin down onto the ground after leaving him dangling in it’s
    branches for awhile compared to the tree trying to eat Robbie in the
    original and the clown-doll merely attacking Griffin versus strangling
    Robbie and dragging him under the bed in the 1982 original).I do
    however like the ending in that at least the family here is more
    logical than the freaky Freelings of the 1982 original,escaping (or
    trying to),immediately after getting Madison (and Griffin,versus just
    Carol Anne in the 1982 original),back from ”the Other Side”.Also about
    ”the Other Side”,I like that they let us see the remake’s version of
    ”the Other Side”,but like some of the other scenes in this,the scene
    seems rushed or forced.I personally would’ve like to have seen more of
    it (there seems to be more that we could’ve seen,according to some
    stills of deleted scenes I’ve seen circulating around the Internet).
    Overall,I did enjoy this movie as far as remakes go and as a
    stand-alone horror movie or even as a Poltergeist IV (assuming there’s
    not one coming out.How well the remake does at the box-office will
    depend on whether we get sequels to this or a possible third sequel to
    the original trilogy),but I agree with most people nothing beats the
    1982 original but do admit,Madison is a good substitute for Carol
    Anne.She is just as cute and the young actress playing her really makes
    you care to see her family get her back safe-and-sound like Heather
    O’Rourke did for the original’s Carol Anne.I would’ve actually rated
    this 6.5 out of 10 stars but IMDb doesn’t have half-stars.

  • reinhardtw-794-126700June 15, 2015Reply

    OK Movie but feels rushed.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • ara_starJune 15, 2015Reply

    Skip Skip Skip

    Worst movie.. nonsense movie.. nothing scary at all.. expect a lot but
    not even a scene to scare or thrill you.. no story better to say non
    sense story..why do people make such movies if they don’t have any
    perfect story with them.. i’m not saying like i’m a writer or director
    but just a common movie watcher who expects a better horror movie which
    keeps you at the edge of the seats.. but don’t expect a scene like that
    at all in this movie.stupid silly movie which wastes your precious
    money.In movie Kid goes inside the haunted room to find his sister…
    this is to be a scariest part of whole movie.. but nothing you get.. no
    horror nothing.. only good thing about movie cute girl Saxon Sharbino
    makes you to sit in the seat .Watch this movie for this girl.. she is
    cute.. thats it.My rating is as follows:

    Horror: 0/10 Acting: 2/10 Value of money: 0/10

    Im not satisfied at all at all..

  • Python HyenaJune 16, 2015Reply

    Turn the TV Off!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • OllieSuave-007June 20, 2015Reply

    How do movies like this get made?

    This is a remake of the 1982 horror classic Poltergeist, where a family
    of five moves into a suburban home, only to find themselves haunted by
    paranormal forces. The ghosts kidnapped the younger daughter, Madison,
    and took her to the other side, leaving the family scrambling
    desperately to find ways to get her back.

    As a remake, this movie doesn’t hold a flicker of light to the
    original. Other than the mildly creepy clown scenes, much of the ghost
    elements were un-scary – they were just ”thrown in” and appeared almost
    all at once, not leaving any room for build-up suspense or tension.

    The acting was absolutely atrocious: Sam Rockwell (Eric Bowen) appeared
    so emotionless he looked like he doesn’t have a clue what’s going on;
    Saxon Sharbino portrayed like the typical spoiled and disrespectful
    teenage-girl whom you wish you could just smack around for her annoying
    behavior; and Kennedi Clements as the ghost-kidnapped Madison is not
    way near as good as the late Heather O’Rourke as Carol Anne (what’s up
    with her copying her sister’s swear words every time she says it?).
    Also, those ghost-catchers couldn’t act to save their lives – Jane
    Adams looked like a deer in the headlights all the time; Nicholas Braun
    tried too hard to be funny (failed) in his supposedly electronics-geek,
    nerd-type role; and Jared Harris, in Zelda Rubinstein’s Tangina role in
    the original, acted abnormal himself and didn’t have that
    ”ghostbusting” instinct. Only Kyle Catlett as the brother had displayed
    any sort of connection with his character.

    The plot itself was boring, executed poorly with no intrigue, suspense
    and drama and consumed by the cast who had no emotion connection and no
    chemistry. There was no display of concern, fear or anxiety over the
    ghost situation. Above all, it’s one of the worst remakes I have ever
    seen.

    Grade F

  • pslvirutecJune 21, 2015Reply

    I thought it was going to be good

    When it started out I was like, ”Oh I loved this movie when I was a
    kid.” Well they ruined what could of been a great remake. Let me start
    with the terrible acting. Through the whole movie you would think they
    had 30 seconds to read the script and then made the rest up. The movie
    moves way to quick, and if you look away for a second, like in the
    opening scene with the movie title, you may miss something. Not that it
    would really matter. The movie just feels like anxiety, sounds crazy
    right? I had to check my glass and make sure I wasn’t drinking liquor
    because it was moving faster than my brain could allow me to process
    what was actually going on. OK enough on that. Lets remake the remake
    and make it 30 minutes longer, change the actors because the mom
    totally sucks, the dad is constantly trying to be a comedian, and the 3
    kids, well I guess 2 because the oldest isn’t considered a kid even
    though she is like 14, but yeah. Get real actors, give them the script
    for more than 3 minutes and lets try this again. I actually had to quit
    watching the movie 3/4 of the way through and make an account on IMDb
    just to vent my frustrations out on you, the poor sap that is going to
    tragically sit through this piece of junk movie. And about 3/4 of the
    way through you are going to say, wow WTF is going on here. Why is this
    movie trying to jump to the end and hit the eject button. Unless the
    tree already hit it for you. Spoiler*** Big giant tree is alive!! So
    here is my closing statement. The movie blows. Could of been great with
    the right actors, cut the comedy: HELLO it’s a thriller movie!!! And
    make it a full 2 hours and build up to the suspense. Nobody cares about
    an out of work John Deer Salesman or his, ”Can’t write a book wife.”
    And don’t start a haunted house before they sign the deed to the house.
    cmon people. And put some thought into making a really great movie
    remake great again. FYI If you are planting flowers in a newly built
    houses border, you are not going to find people bones 3 inches under
    the dirt. WTF. really. And wasn’t the original movie house built on an
    old Indian burial ground? But in the movie at a dinner part some guy
    says, ”at least your house wasn’t built on an old Indian burial
    ground.” WOW. Sorry I am so TO’d but I was really hoping for more. What
    a let down this was to poor old me. I guess I will go jump inside of my
    TV. Later Gator.

  • Adam AminJune 21, 2015Reply

    A good movie but not perfect

    I watched the original Poltergeist movie for the first time in the
    early 90’s. I was only around 10 years old but found it pretty damn
    scary. As I grew up and watched it several more times it became less so
    and, having just watched it again last year, looked dated.

    So obviously I was happy that a remake had been announced but I was
    cautious because Hollywood has a knack for screwing it up. After
    eventually watching it earlier this year, I’m not sure what to think.
    People inevitably are going to compare it with the original. Others are
    going to try and forget about the original and watch it as a modern day
    movie which is what I did. I can honestly say that it did have its
    moments but I just couldn’t help feeling as if it could’ve delivered
    more somehow. That’s not to say that I’m disappointed or anything
    because it was a decent movie to watch. Would recommend watching it
    although people who liked the original may walk away a little
    disappointed. Definitely better than a lot of movies in this genre that
    get higher ratings for some strange reason when they’re rubbish.

  • britishgooseJune 21, 2015Reply

    Some remakes are just a bad idea!!

    When I heard this was coming out, like most people i was genuinely
    excited and couldn’t wait for it. Sadly it didn’t follow the other
    film, now whether it was supposed to be a new story or the original
    story tweaked. Don’t know. There were many tbings from the original as
    the tree that comes alive, but it seemee to just have been copying the
    same crappy camcorder films out there. Admittedly some of the cgi
    quality was good but the film I was extremely disappointed in.Also they
    tried making the film jumoy like they do a lot of time with the low
    budget films. I personally wouldn’t buy this film….wait for the TV
    showing I think if your going to remake a film you should do it
    properly,

  • george.schmidt ([email protected])June 21, 2015Reply

    Yet another unnecessary remake to a classic film of the past with varying degrees of success.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • chrisreddinJune 22, 2015Reply

    Worst remake ever,watch the Original instead.

    Spoilers ahead.

    Sam Raimi strikes again ruining another classic horror this time not
    his own.

    The most terrifying thing about this movie was Jared Harris trying to
    put a Irish accent on,it was like he was auditioning for Darby o’Gill
    and the little people. The 2nd most terrifying thing about this movie
    was Rosemarie DeWitt’s hairy pits in the bedroom scene but this could
    have been down to a lack of money from no one having a job in the
    family. I mean they looked like they were really struggling,they only
    had 40+inch hd TV in every one of the rooms in the house except the
    son’s room (because they really don’t like him very much),they just
    bought a pretty big house,have a pretty big car,tablets and of course
    where would a struggling family be without there iPhones.They possibly
    could only afford all this by living on chicken nuggets and not buying
    clothes hence the empty closets.

    This movie was so bad on so many levels,from Cgi to the story to the
    acting.You could see Sam Rockwell’s pain in making this movie,felt like
    he didn’t want to be in it and who could blame him the characters had
    no chemistry,they were cold and didn’t feel like they cared for one
    another and didn’t seem all that devastated when Madison gets
    taken,when in the original the first five minutes you can feel how
    close the family are. I haven’t seen this in 3D and glad I didn’t as I
    feel they missed some great opportunities to redo scenes from the
    original when they show the paranormal investigators the daughters room
    for the first time and all the toys are floating and spinning in the
    air,in this one we get a baseball rolling down the hall and comics been
    built like a house of cards wow. I was shocked to see it cost 66
    million to make this for it looked like it was made from a smaller
    budget then Paranormal Activity. The Cgi effects looked like something
    from playstation 1 which ruined one of the most memorable scenes from
    the original,The tree scene looked so cheap and didn’t have the intense
    build up to it,also if you have seen the original you will remember the
    famous clown scene that was terrifying,well guess what they messed that
    up too.

    I knew it could never be as good as the original and did not see the
    point in remaking it for the original still looks amazing today. But
    saying that I did not think it would be this bad,it is not just the
    worst remake ever made but possibly one of the worst movies ever made.

  • Harcovitza IonutzJune 22, 2015Reply

    The worst and most boring movie ever made

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • johngraham1964June 22, 2015Reply

    Not bad…… not great

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • stephendaxterJune 22, 2015Reply

    A borefest with some familiar scenes thrown in there

    In the age of remakes and reboots comes the completely unnecessary and
    absolutely terrible remake of the much loved horror classic
    Poltergeist. If you go into this movie wanting to be terrified and on
    the edge of your seat as the tension builds for an hour and a half just
    like you loved in the original then knock those hopes right down
    because this film had none of that. I remember watching the original
    Poltergeist only around 5 years ago and it was the stuff of nightmares,
    the special effects may not hold up but the way it is shot and the
    music and directing just all worked together to create a very intense
    and freaky film. This movie just craps all over the original, there was
    literally no tension being built up at all to the final sequence, so
    you just sit there being bored out of your mind as nothing remotely
    scary happens, and anything that had the potential to scare me was in
    the trailer so i knew it was coming. For the first almost 30 minutes
    you have 25 minutes of shitty character backstories and only a few
    shots of mysterious sounds and moving objects. And just as the borefest
    starts to deplete and the horror we want begins, they completely stop
    to introduce a new group of characters and the movie slows right
    ………. down ……..to………. absolutely …………. nothing
    ………….happening, until the last act. So when there were no
    scares it was boring, and when there were scares they weren’t even that
    scary.

    The plot follows a similar path as the original but there are so many
    unexplained events and plot holes all over the place, mainly when the
    new characters are introduced and it really takes you out of it. The
    performances though, (only from the family) are all pretty good, the
    young girl especially was very convincing and freaky. The young boy
    annoyed me all throughout the film but i think that was more how they
    wrote the character than the actors performance. The homages to the
    original, some subtle and some necessarily obvious i quite liked, you
    could tell that nailing those scenes was a focus because they were
    handled very well compared to the rest of the movie. And the final act
    in the last 10 minutes i also liked because it was just as fast paced
    and chaotic as the original, and that made it pretty interesting to
    watch. So in the end this movie was just plain awful, no tension,
    barely any scares that were not already in the trailer, and almost a
    complete borefest. If it wasn’t for the good acting, homages to the
    original and an entertaining finale this would be a complete F U to the
    original. – 4.1

    BUT, you may be able to appreciate this film more if you have not seen
    the original, or are not expecting something of that quality.

  • Vivekmaru45June 22, 2015Reply

    Hollywood Has Drained The Cup Of Imagination And Creativity Dry.

    In 1982, an American supernatural-horror film created a storm at the
    Box Office. The film was Poltergeist and it was produced by Steven
    Spielberg(E.T., Duel, Jaws) and directed by Tobe Hooper. A great
    controversy ensued after the movie was released, as to who was the real
    director of the film. A lot of people thought that Spielberg had
    directed the film rather than Tobe Hooper, because of a rumor that
    Hooper was absent during filming sessions. Spielberg also had a clause
    in his contract to prevent him directing any other film while he made
    E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.

    Poltergeist was followed by two sequels, Poltergeist II: The Other
    Side(1986) directed by Brian Gibson, and Poltergeist III(1988) by Gary
    Sherman. Poltergeist 2 was a commercial success, but the last film of
    the trilogy, Poltergeist 3 was a failure. I have seen Poltergeist 3,
    and believe me, it is a very good film starring veteran actors Tom
    Skerrit and Nancy Allen.

    However all of this is in the past now, onto the present. This remake
    of the original brings it up-to-date with modern C.G.I.(Computer
    Generated Imagery) that they didn’t have back in 1982. The story is the
    same but has some minor changes. The cast is decent, with Sam
    Rockwell(Moon, The Green Mile) being the more prominent and established
    actor. The special-effects are what make this film work. Since those
    who have already seen the original film will find the film predictable,
    and the only bonus will be the never before seen effects present here.

    Verdict: This film can be considered a light add-on to the original
    three films. I don’t consider this film a real serious piece of
    film-making.

    More Recommendations: The Legend of Hell House(1973), The Amityville
    Horror(1979), Burnt Offerings(1976), The Changeling(1980), The Shining
    (1980), Haunted(1995), Stir of Echoes(1999), What Lies Beneath(2000),
    Dark Water(2005), The Haunting in Connecticut(2009).

    Thanks for reading this review. May you live long and prosper.

  • jtindahouseJune 22, 2015Reply

    How could anyone possibly be scared by this?

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • xxZENITHxxJune 22, 2015Reply

    Sam Rockwell CAN NOT ACT

    This was a poor remake of a classic horror movie. If you are looking
    for a good scare – this is not the movie, it is so poorly made that it
    can only be categorized as a Comedy Horror.

    The core reason why this movie didn’t work for me was Sam Rockwell.

    In my opinion Sam Rockwell has only one acting style, and frankly it
    gets annoying,there is no doubt, what you see on screen is what he is
    like in real life – because it’s the same for every single movie he
    makes. His ”I don’t give a crap” blasé attitude and facial expression
    simply does not work for a horror movie.

    His usual blasé body language and stupid facial expression as if
    everything is a joke spoils the movie and is the polar opposite of the
    tense atmosphere needed of a horror movie – this leaves the audience
    confused if they should be laughing or scared.

    The special effects were not frightening and really not believable at
    all, almost laughable. I had high hopes for this movie as I loved the
    original but was really let down.

  • luke5119June 23, 2015Reply

    A Passable Reboot

    For a reboot, this one isn’t as bad as others I’ve seen. I definitely
    feel that this film lacked a lot of the story substance that the first
    film relied more heavily on because of it’s restrictions involving
    visual effects. Where this film relies more heavily on stunning CGI for
    the latter half of the film to keep the viewers attention. Sam Rockwell
    delivers a pretty solid performance as the father, he brings subtle
    comedy to his character as well as some deep emotion at select points
    in the film. Out of of everyone I think he delivered the best
    performance alongside the new ”Carol Anne” aka ”Madison” played by
    Kennedi Clements. Who delivers a very good performance for someone of
    her age, however I still feel Heather O’Rourke was even more convincing
    in the original. I’m still not sure why they changed the last name of
    the family, there was really no need to change the character’s names.
    All in all, not a terrible film. A good watch around Halloween, not one
    I’d see more than once though.

  • simon-186-303310June 23, 2015Reply

    Load of rubbish

    Oh my god, what a complete waste of my time watching this movie, some
    vaguely similar bits from the original but it jumped too quickly into
    different scenes, storyline bog standard and not even complete, almost
    as if they ripped some typical scenes from the original and spliced
    them together with different actors, they should rename this
    poltergeist mashup, I have seen many many movies and this rates quite
    low on my scale, maybe I was thinking that it would be a good remake,
    my mistake like most of the other remakes they have done, anyway if you
    have never seen the original, go see it, the story explains this one a
    whole lot better, have a nice day, byeeeee

  • flitz35-633-627650June 24, 2015Reply

    A hidden horror gem!!!

    I’d there was a remake of Jaws it would automatically be shunned by
    most shallow movie watchers that’s why happened to many other remakes
    that actually happened like The omen, Psycho and now Poltergeist. If
    this movie was renamed it would of not been unfairly compared and the
    reviews would of been better.

    Sam Rockwell was as entertaining as ever and even in a horror he has a
    way of putting a light on things. Not to get all that detailed
    Poltergeist has many scary moments and was well acted and written. I
    have no regrets spending a few bucks in seeing it at the movie theater.
    I prefer enjoying a movie for what it is instead of picking on every
    scene while comparing a totally different movie with the same
    name..come on people

  • tim-arnold777June 24, 2015Reply

    One can hope a remake will be better

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • prospectus_capricorniumJune 24, 2015Reply

    Brings Back the Nostalgic Creeps, but Uncreatively Copies the Original

    POLTERGEIST, the 2015 remake of the 1982 supernatural horror classic
    with the same title , haunts with the same hair-rising creeps that made
    the original Tom Hooper/Steven Spielberg film, a cultural phenomenon
    but it’s utterly devoid of any inventiveness, nor of a
    sensibly-constructed narrative, to make itself a stand out among the
    string of horror movies that recently inundated the big screen.

    This haunted house-horror updates the set-up of its original source
    material. By ”update”, I mean it has literally filled the house with
    new gadgets (most strikingly recognizable, the flatscreen TV), and also
    takes CGI-generated effects to its service to deliver its dreadful
    scares. Now following the Bowen family, who have chosen to settle in a
    suburban home to mend their family’s fiscal inadequacies, this remake
    seems to duplicate the proceedings of the classic from which it is
    based. Such attempt works with spine-creeping effects, but only for
    ephemeral period. It won’t take too long before perplexing illogical
    events start to dangle from the central narrative, and they won’t
    establish any connection from each other. It also doesn’t help that
    most of the characters don’t posses emotional depths. There’s this
    baffling creepy feeling about the Bowen parents’ laconic natures, and
    to their children’s inexplicable behaviors, but the nonsensical turns
    and shifts deprive the stream of ominous events with logic and sense,
    rendering the entire proceeding vapid and forgettable.The ever imminent
    horror tactics work, but eventually pales in the wake of an inevitably
    distracting narrative incoherence.

    For all its frightening thrills and chills alone, POLTERGEIST, is
    undoubtedly a cinematic success, able to creep audience out and make
    them stick at the edge-of-their-seats. The effort to update the setting
    to contemporary feel, somewhat feels needlessly exaggerated, but
    nonetheless helps in magnifying the amount of scares to claustrophibic
    levels. This is where the movie it at its best. But at its worst is the
    feeling of its unnecessariness, a film bearing the same old overly
    familiar creeps of its predecessor but losing them swiftly as the end
    credits begin rolling.

  • mdimarino-12145June 24, 2015Reply

    Waste of a remake

    I saw the original when I was a kid and the movie hit the right marks
    for thrills and chills in the ghost genre. Why make a remake if there
    is no attempt to scare the audience with a new twist or at least some
    new scenes that will add the scare factor. The possessed clown scene in
    the original made every young kid look under his bed before going to
    sleep, but the reboot doesn’t even come close to using the same ”what
    is behind my shoulder” scare tactic like the original to freak the
    audience out. Come on, you couldn’t make the down scene better! Shame –
    Shame!

    The selection of actors were fine but no new ground broken here. I can
    honestly say I would rather watch the original to get me scared as the
    new version doesn’t even come close. It’s hard to believe with all the
    new cgi these days such a movie couldn’t be redone without some new
    shine to it, don’t waste your money and just watch the original on
    Netflix, you are better off.

    Just my 2 bits

  • James ParrishJune 24, 2015Reply

    Soulless Supernatural Slop *No Spoilers Intended*

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • John HolmesJune 24, 2015Reply

    Don’t waste your time with this crap, stick to the original

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • jamgood-842-448084June 24, 2015Reply

    Just a terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE film.

    I never expected much from it being a remake/reboot but I never
    expected it to be so bad. The script, the acting, the whole bag of
    mashings was just terrible from the get go.

    There is no comparison to the original which, to this day, is still a
    creepy film to watch even though I’ve seen it 100’s of times in my
    life. This new one has none of the mystery, drama or suspense of the
    original. They move in and it all immediately kicks off and no one
    really batters an eyelid to any of it. They do some of the stuff from
    the original film and then it ends. Seriously, that’s the film in a
    nutshell.

    I personally think Sam Rockwell is a fantastic actor but he needs to
    seriously question what the hell he thought he was doing here. His
    acting is atrocious. Kyle Catlett was the only person in the entire
    film to put a bit of effort in to it and he could’ve passed for
    Pinocchio. I can’t believe for one minute that, when editing this film,
    the director didn’t think to himself, hang on a minute, this film is
    trash. If he didn’t, he needs words with himself as well.

    It was just a terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE film. On par with Stallone’s
    Get Carter remake. Awful. I hope to god they don’t make a sequel. Let
    this festering turd of a movie disappear into oblivion and let the
    original live on.

    1/10 – I’d give it a zero but that’s not an option.

  • tmdarbyJune 25, 2015Reply

    Very Disappointing

    I really wanted to like this movie. I thought if there was a movie that
    could be improved by special effects it would be this. I’m not normally
    too picky, but this movie was so disappointing I had trouble sleeping.
    The special effects actually made the move less scary and more comical.
    It followed the story of the original so completely that nothing at all
    surprised me. Not to mention every single jump moment was in the
    trailer. The actress playing the little girl was very good, and the
    rest of the cast was average. If you want to be scared watch the
    original, much better. Unless you are just watching for the special
    effects with no context at all. This movie probably deserves 5 out of
    10, but I’m giving it a 3 because it was so disappointing.

  • rbn_lrk-1June 25, 2015Reply

    They’re back!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • limorzamirJune 25, 2015Reply

    Such an insult to the original….sad

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Dr_SaganJune 25, 2015Reply

    National Lampoon’s Poltergeist.

    OK…this should be called National Lampoon’s Poltergeist or
    Poltergeist: The satirical version.

    So, this family moves to a new house somewhere in suburban and there
    are some sinister spirits who want their youngest daughter because she
    is pure and innocent.

    There are many problems in this 2015’s version but all converge to
    something that is more like tongue-in-cheek kind of thing. First of all
    the main actor, Sam Rockwell, doesn’t take his character too seriously.
    I think it was a bad casting decision, not because I don’t like him or
    anything, but because he portrays the father who just lost his youngest
    daughter with a smirk in his face and sarcastic comments. All the
    actors have a similar attitude and I wonder if that it was made on
    purpose.

    Anyway, you get the usual terror clichés about clowns, toys, closets,
    etc. and the usual ways to ”frighten” you. But even that are like they
    was made for laughs and not for actual scares.

    Overall: Most of the remakes of a classic are destined to be doomed. So
    why bother with this one?

  • zsuzsannafazekasJune 25, 2015Reply

    Not a bad movie if you don’t expect too much…

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • MuxjeJune 25, 2015Reply

    Pointless remake fails to stand on its own

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • fastforwardfeelingJune 25, 2015Reply

    Nothing to see here!

    Poltergeist, the original, is one of my favourite films of all time but
    now is not the time to wax lyrical about that great piece of cinema
    creativity. So onto the remake, I hoped I would be pleasantly surprised
    but sadly no pleasant surprised followed, more twitches of annoyance
    tailed by the urge to hit the ”off” switch and drop kick the person who
    OK’d this remake.

    The remake essentially comes without any soul, which may be apt
    considering the storyline but is a major issue and consequently results
    in a failure to draw in the viewer. I like Sam Rockwell but his
    performance in this film is best forgotten. The script is weak which
    clearly didn’t help the actors and the pacing adds to a whole feeling
    of – rush it out and make some quick returns before anyone realises the
    car crash unfolding.

    There is nothing to gain by watching this remake only 93 minutes lost.

    Put bluntly – Poltergeist (2015) is a comedy compared to the original
    and not a very funny comedy at that.

  • Dorjee WangyelJune 26, 2015Reply

    Um what?

    A remake of the 1982 film (which I haven’t seen), I was excited at the
    central theme of the movie ”Poltergeist” and was expecting some really
    nice violent ghostly action. But what did I get? Some jumbled mess of
    electronic ghosts capturing kids trying to find the ”light”.

    Not saying I didn’t enjoy the movie, because I did as I was laughing
    from start till the end. But the plot made zero sense to me. Whoever
    thought of these electronic poltergeist activity should be given the
    award for most creative thinking, and I don’t mean creative in a good
    way. Like seriously? Communicating from the other side through the
    television?

    If the original Poltergeist had a similar plot like this, then I’m
    truly glad that I didn’t waste my time on a farce like that. The 4/10
    rating is for the laugh this movie gave me, kept me entertained at
    least.

  • ArgemalucoJune 26, 2015Reply

    Poltergeist (2015)

    I will say it from the beginning: regarding remakes of classic films,
    Poltergeist didn’t end up being as bad as I expected. This doesn’t mean
    it’s very good, or necessary, or much less that it surpasses the
    original film; I just found it a mediocre but moderately entertaining
    horror film with a correct style for the new generations which would
    find difficult taking a 1982 movie seriously, with all the cultural
    relics implied by that… not to mention special effects which wouldn’t
    look as impressive nowadays as they were for those of us who watched it
    33 years ago. The screenplay of Poltergeist (2015) adds elements which
    modernize the story and omits details to simplify it (this time, there
    isn’t a dog in the family, there isn’t a subtle critic against the
    proliferation of suburbs and we don’t have the ”product placement”
    which wasn’t only innovative in 1982, but also genuinely contributed to
    the nature of the house and its inhabitants). Some of the additions
    moderately work, while other ones feel forced… simple whims to prove
    it isn’t an exact copy, and that screenwriter David Lindsay- Abaire
    attempted to ”improve” it (without achieving it, of course). Among the
    positive changes, I would mention the electric disturbances which
    announce the presence of spirits (or the ”poltergeist”), evoking the
    graphic style of the original film and also thematically complementing
    the affair of the ghost TV (”They’re here”). The negative changes would
    require a long list, so I will just mention the ”medium” (played by
    Jared Harris) who comes to clean the house; and we know he’s qualified
    to do it because he has a reality show in which he investigates haunted
    sites. Harris is a good actor, but the character and the creative
    decision are horrible. Speaking of which, Poltergeist (2015) includes
    some excellent actors who considerably elevate the dramatic
    credibility: Sam Rockwell perfectly transmits the frustration of a
    family man in a bad economical situation; Rosemarie DeWitt brings
    conviction and has a good chemistry with Rockwell; and Jane Adams is
    completely credible as a paranormal investigator who takes her work
    seriously while having some doubts about its scientific validity. The
    youngsters Kennedi Clements, Saxon Sharbino and Kyle Catlett also make
    a good work in their roles, and the special effects don’t darken the
    narrative… even though I think they show more than they should during
    the ending, ruining the mystery and spirituality behind the paranormal
    events suffered by the Bowen family. In conclusion, Poltergeist (2015)
    isn’t a very good film, but it was better than I expected, and because
    of that, I can give it a slight recommendation exclusively to the ones
    who have never seen the original movie. Needless to say, it would be
    better if they watched it, but I don’t want to ask for miracles. We
    already have enough with the fact that Poltergeist (2015) didn’t end up
    being a disaster; in the niche of remakes, that can be considered a
    victory. A mediocre compliment, but a compliment after all.

  • Zbigniew_KrycsiwikiJune 26, 2015Reply

    I threw what was left of my popcorn at the screen

    And I would have thrown my drink cup too, but I wanted to get a refill
    on my way out.

    Poor on all counts, in all regards, this has more poltergeist haunting
    a yuppie family in Suburbia. They’re supposedly broke, so how do they
    afford a new home, with a couple of flatscreen televisions? Their HDtv
    is displaying static late one night (I thought that hasn’t happened
    since the 1980s?) and a ghost gives their young daughter a high five,
    yanks her through the screen, and they spend the rest of the film
    trying to get her back.

    Mind-bogglingly stupid attempt at horror/ psychological thriller comes
    off as laughable more than anything, particularly when tree limbs come
    to life, smash through a skylight, reach in and grab their son and
    start flinging him about like a doll in the night sky, and the father
    seemed disinterested, and the mother appeared as though she didn’t know
    what movie she was in. The clearly disinterested actors couldn’t even
    be bothered to look concerned by any of this, or put forth any effort
    at all, just looking nonchalant, disinterest, and bored. Almost as
    bored as the audience was, in between bouts of laughably bad effects.

    Filmed in the Autumn of 2013, but not released until early summer 2015,
    and it’s easy to see why.

  • Mek TorresJune 26, 2015Reply

    Competent But Needless

    In a time where Paranormal Activity or Insidious are the biggest hits
    of horror, Hollywood may think it’s wise to relive the classic film,
    Poltergeist, and take it to the modern age. And the result is solid,
    but ridiculously unnecessary. If the film thinks it has something to
    improve, then its claimed improvement is rather an overkill. The added
    computer effects don’t make for a compelling scare and the showcase of
    modern technology is just the typical distraction to remind us that
    this takes place in the present. It’s not horrible by any means, the
    direction is stunning and the acting makes it quite entertaining. We
    just don’t need an update of something that is already great.

    The film opens to the typical family-moves-in-a-new-home cliché, though
    the storyline does add some new character arc, specifically the son who
    is now given much of the attention in the plot which has this situation
    helping him conquer his phobia that his mother was worried about at the
    beginning. The little girl’s characterization has been minimized and
    now defined nothing more than a plot device. Most of the film is just
    presenting us a number of horror set pieces, at the same time pays
    homage to the original; mostly nothing more and nothing less. The
    pacing is at least given the momentum that keeps the plot move
    consistently.

    While these horror scenes are decently put together, only few of them
    can be considered as actually scary. CGI, whether it’s good or bad,
    isn’t always an impacting use for horror, especially today where
    moviegoers would prefer anything that looks creaky. Director Gil Kennan
    could embrace the whimsy horror of the original since that is one of
    his trademarks, but there is one point in the film where it totally
    looks like a video game, which is a huge contrary to what they’re
    supposed to be aiming for. The director’s style works better in
    transition effects and staging. If a scene rarely involves CGI, it
    looks quite impressive. The acting is pretty good, with Sam Rockwell
    and Rosemarie DeWitt doing what they do best. Jane Adams and Jared
    Harris get a fun turn as the paranormal experts of the film.

    Poltergeist, just like most remakes of classic films, is pretty
    needless. While the direction is more fascinatingly surreal than scary,
    it still captures the visual spirit of the original. The acting is
    mostly compelling once you get into the characters. The real problem
    is, there is hardly any reason for this movie to exist. And people
    could also argue that this doesn’t have the same entertainment quality
    or the value of viewing as the original. In spite of having a solid
    craft and great actors involved, this version just doesn’t have the
    chance.

  • (drunkenazteca)June 26, 2015Reply

    Worst remake ever!!

    About all the scares were shown in the trailer, and there are some jump
    scares, but the cgi was awful. The pacing was lacking, and it wasn’t
    scary at all.

    It really is a disgrace to the poltergeist name, the originals are SO
    much creepier and scarier.

    This is basically a rip off of paranormal activity. The little girl
    makes this whole movie worthwhile, her acting is awesome, but it cannot
    really help this movie at all.

    Expect to leave with a sour taste… the ending is so silly… This was
    basically a quick cash grab. Don’t expect a sequel…

  • cocacolapopsJune 27, 2015Reply

    Why do we expect more from a remake of a classic?!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • bebe13580June 27, 2015Reply

    Sorry, just not my cup of tea. That’s all.

    I have never written a review on IMDb before, but I felt obligated to
    do so just after watching this movie.

    Before we head straight into the actual review, I’d like to tell you a
    couple things. I’ve never seen the original poltergeist movies so this
    review won’t be based on comparisons. Instead, I’ll just be giving you
    some simple feedback and honest opinions solely based on the remake .

    I felt that some of the characters were a bit underdeveloped. I wanted
    to see more depth and character throughout some of their performances.
    Take the parents for instance, most of the time they either seemed;
    bored or disinterested, like they weren’t fully engaged into the story
    line and their own characters as well. I think I enjoyed the little
    girl’s performance better.

    I’d like to talk about the other people that lived in their
    area/neighbors. Where were they when all the bizarre paranormal stuff
    was going on. How could they not be aware. It was as if the Bowen
    family were the only ones living in that neighborhood, of ”200 Acres”.

    I just simply wanted to know what the neighbors reactions would be if
    they’d seen or heard the poltergeist. It sure made it’s presence pretty
    obvious.

    Also, if there used to be a cemetery of 200 acres, then how come the
    poltergeist only attacked that house.

    I’m not a big fan of the ending. All in all, that just wasn’t what I
    was expecting. It was just too vague. They definitely could have done
    much better with it.

    Although, I wasn’t feeling much of the horror,I know that there’s
    people out there who may think differently. I just wasn’t that scared.

    If you’re convinced that I’m being irrational, then think about just
    why this movie has a 5.1/10 rating.

    Some people like it, while some others don’t. You might, and I’m not
    trying to persuade you not to watch it. I was just one of those people
    that weren’t too impressed or wowed by the movie.

  • getbobtJune 28, 2015Reply

    Why remake a movie 10 into a 5 point something

    I didn’t mind it and I didn’t struggle to get through it, but I was
    hoping for so much more.

    The original in my opinion was a 10 and few films made are as good as
    this timeless 80’s classic.

    The original is not Fellini, but you talk about entertainment. I have
    watched it a dozen times. Now that being said, the remake is a bland
    copy and more of a kids movie than a real thriller.

    I did like Sam Rockwell. I like him in almost anything. He is an actor.
    But the script should have broken new ground, giving us something
    unseen, but no, it played it safe and was not even as exciting or as
    risqué as the first.

    If you want bland and your not a person that uses anything more than
    salt and pepper and like your salsa from a jar, you may find this
    satisfying. But if you are a person that has a spice rack and likes
    their salsa fresh cut with a little kick, you will be so disappointed.

    Watch the original for a real treat and send a message to Hollywood:
    Remake films that could have been better, not ones that got it right
    the first time.

  • sled1025-1June 28, 2015Reply

    Bad without even comparing it to the original…

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • brandonrcstudiosJune 28, 2015Reply

    They know what (doesn’t) scare you…

    After seeing the original movie and as a huge fan of the horror genre,
    this movie hugely disappoints me (and should disappoint everyone):

    -No innovation and as a remake, a poorly one.

    -Not even a scary moment, no tension, and very fantastic happening
    things.

    -The cast is out of point, their reaction given the situation is poorly
    credible.

    So shortly, this is a movie you shouldn’t see; Boring, not funny and
    super-fantastic, not even close to being scary. The 3 stars I gave it
    are because of Saxon Sharbino (bae), the well-done effects and the fact
    that it’s a 4D adapted movie (almost no horror movies are 4D).

    Don’t see it with huge expectations.

  • Gustavo Schroeder AJune 29, 2015Reply

    Hollywood…stop…please?

    I hate to say this but we live in an era of movies that lack
    originality and Hollywood, in an attempt to make (even) more money, is
    remaking basically every movie we have ever come to love. Now
    Poltergeist gets the remake treatment…and surprise surprise, it’s
    terrible.

    The original Poltergeist ”directed” by Tobe Hooper and ”produced” by
    Steven Spielberg is, simply put, one of the greatest horror movies ever
    made. It was original, smart and very well directed and inspired pretty
    much every copy cat haunted house movie after 1982. And although some
    were pretty good (Insidious), none really reached the heights of
    Poltergeist. And now we get this piece of crap. The Poltergeist remake
    is plot-wise the exact same movie the 1982 version was, but dumber,
    filled with stupid jump-scares and not one tiny bit of originality. The
    only thing that ”saves” this movie from being total and complete
    garbage is Sam Rockwell, who is a great actor and the little girl who
    is very charismatic.

    The filmmakers clearly do not understand how to make good horror and do
    not know how to create tension. Because that is pretty much what this
    movie lacks, tension. Throughout the movie it’s really just random
    annoying jump- scares that are always predictable and not earned in any
    way, they’re just there. What many horror films during the 1980’s got
    right were the awesome use of practical effects and the original
    Poltergeist really used those practical effects to the fullest
    (skeletons in the pool). This abomination uses only CGI and at certain
    points in the movie, it kinda feels like a video game, instead of a
    movie. This movie is cliché after cliché after cliché. You have the
    unoriginal idea of remaking a classic: the basic horror premise of the
    dysfunctional family: the troubled father, the little boy who’s afraid
    of everything, the hot teenage daughter who bitches about
    everything…it’s all been done so many times in the past and we’re all
    just pretty much sick of the lack of originality. Then you have the
    stupid jump scares and the overuse of CGI, neither of which work in a
    horror movie.

    I hate Poltergeist, I hate everything that it stands for and this movie
    represents everything wrong with movie studios these days that clearly
    only want to make more money.

  • MogensJune 29, 2015Reply

    Weak and boring remake of a great movie

    I can’t help but wonder why they decided to make a remake of the
    original Poltergeist. If the idea was to make a better or more scary
    movie, they failed badly. If they wanted better special effects, they
    failed badly. If they wanted to show us better acting and more
    interesting characters, they failed badly. In total, this movie is a
    weak and washed out copy with absolutely nothing done better than it
    was in the original.

    A few things in the storyline were changed compared to the original,
    but it certainly didn’t add anything to the overall story. Besides,
    some of the most memorable moments in the original, was barely touched
    in the copy and it left me very disappointed. Those moments could have
    been done so much better (or at the very least, lasted a few seconds
    longer)

    If I had seen this movie as an original, I would say that it was an OK
    movie, but not very scary or interesting. Seen as a remake, it simply
    fell flat. If you have never seen the original Poltergeist, go see that
    instead. It has all the character involvement, scariness and shock
    effects that the copy lacks.

  • jadagirlJune 30, 2015Reply

    Poltergeist 2015….meh

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • romneyranjoJune 30, 2015Reply

    A family moves to a cheap house, only to realize that the house is haunted.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Alexa Bouhelier-RuelleJune 30, 2015Reply

    2015 Poltergeist

    A family suburban home is haunted by evil forces must come together to
    rescue their daughter after the apparitions take her captive.

    This film is a remake of the original Poltergeist which was directed by
    Tobe Hooper – but between you and me Steven Spielberg most likely
    directed it. This new film might be the scariest thing 13 and unders
    have yet seen, just as the original was, for our parents back in 1982.
    Who might as well find it an enjoyable trip down memory lane. I believe
    the reason to remake a movie is whether the idea was really cool and
    the movie may not be that good. This is the opportunity for a horror
    movie to eliminate the horror cliché of previous decade, such as this
    little girl who for I don’t know what reason is not afraid of ghosts
    and demons. Because when you are 4 years old and your closet is filled
    with demons talking to you, you don’t stay there waving at them. Ghosts
    and demons are not cool at all. I would be done and running to my
    parents peeing my pants if something similar happened to me; and I
    think that’s how it should be.

    Sam Rockwell provides welcomed bits of comic relief and pairs nicely
    with Rosemarie DeWitt as the parents. The children are especially well
    cast as well as Jared Harris. Yes, they’ve been given trendier names
    (Dana, Carol Anne and Robbie in 1982) because this is clearly 2015
    Poltergeist after all: pivotal TV becomes a big ol’flat screen, iphone,
    GPS devices and a drone camera come into play. Characters are all
    functional. Moreover, the best part of this movie definitely is Sam
    Rockwell. I’ve started to appreciate this guy very recently as before I
    couldn’t pin-point exactly why I didn’t like him; but he really is a
    fantastic actor. I believe Poltergeist was an original and unique thing
    when it came out in 1982 but now every horror movie pulled something
    out of it and all those bits and pieces have been seen many many many
    times.

    Finally, there’s not much to complain about here. Except that, as with
    a lot of revisited classics, the story is definitely not as
    revolutionary as you remember it. For veterans it will be more like
    scary but pleasant nostalgia. Plus, at a certain point in the film I
    accepted the fact that it doesn’t recapture the fright of the original.
    It over relies on cgi, there’s so much of it and it’s not that good. It
    doesn’t look real which doesn’t make it scary. Realism. This is what
    made Insidious and The Conjuring so frightening to me. The movie was
    entertaining but nothing really creeped me out. Even the clowns scene
    didn’t scare me – and god knows that I hate clowns – because I saw the
    jump scares of it in the trailer. The end is really abrupt. I was
    disappointed because I obviously watched the original and most of the
    clever sequences and effective scares are all basically from a movie
    that already exists and is directed better so what is the purpose of
    this movie? Most likely the answer is: TO MAKE MONEY. Do we really
    needed this remake?

    Overall, do yourself a favour and check the original first. All I can
    give you is the best reason ever: Steven-freaking-Spielberg.

  • Robert W. ([email protected])July 2, 2015Reply

    I wanted an Evil Dead calibre remake, I got ho-hum

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Rod CriticJuly 3, 2015Reply

    I Should rate this as a PG Movie

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • helvin3July 5, 2015Reply

    Remade for a modern audience. Not bad, but the original’s better.

    When I first found out they were remaking Poltergeist I was horrified.
    This was the horror I grew up loving and basically compared any and all
    other horrors to. However, when I watched the trailer I was left
    thinking: ”Okay – good trailer. Clown doll literally freaked me out.
    Maybe this is worth a try.” Worth a try. That’s what I’ll say for this
    film. In no way do I think it is better than the original, however, I
    wasn’t totally offended by it. To me, it was the same story just set in
    2015, and completely made for a 2015 audience, if that makes sense? So
    incredibly tech-heavy, whether it was the products used in the film
    itself, or the CGI used to create the film. I was still entertained
    throughout, and creeped out by some things, so in its way it did its
    job. But, for now and forever I will always tell someone to watch the
    original over the remake. There is no contest in my eyes which one is
    the better Poltergeist film.

  • zzztigrJuly 7, 2015Reply

    Wow, worst remake I have ever seen

    Just completely awful, everyone involved with this should be ashamed of
    themselves. There should be a class action suit to return the money
    this movie made. The only reason to see this movie would be to compare
    what good film makers do with a script compared to what bad film makers
    do with a script. I have to fill 10 lines to warn you off of this
    movie, so I would say that everyone who paid to see this should file a
    class action lawsuit for the producers to return their money. It was
    obvious that they saw horror remakes were pulling in some good cash so
    they went out and tried to find a horror movie to remake and decided on
    this one. There was one problem, unlike the other horror remakes, the
    original of this film had good production values, a great cast, and
    great director. PASS UP THIS FILM

  • lois-lane33July 9, 2015Reply

    Barely an average remake.

    I wonder why they started to remake films that also came from the
    modern era-like Total Recall, Robocop and this one-Poltergeist. The
    originals are still around so wouldn’t that mean its a case of
    ‘intellectual property infringement’ or something like that ? I would
    have thought so. Anyway-this remake is predictably predictable in all
    kinds of predictable ways. It is even less effective as a horror movie
    than the original film: as this one omits certain scenes in favor of a
    more ‘politically correct version of events’ i.e. the couple in this
    version of Poltergeist don’t smoke a J in their bedroom together-even
    in a time when such stuff has become actually legal is states like
    Colorado. They had Robocop remembering his wife dancing to Frank
    Sinatra which is unlike the original Peter Weller Robocop character. It
    looks like someone has seized upon the opportunity to try and rewrite
    the history of modern cinema-maybe they should be called ‘cinematic
    revisionists’ or some such thing. I don’t think their efforts are
    particularly welcome.The remakes contribute not to modern cinema but
    rather these films exist as a fine collection of fifth wheels.

  • tbahri-380-572824July 9, 2015Reply

    Good old story, terrible acting

    The story was fine, little alteration of the original movie due to
    different modern life style.

    However, the acting was something different. Sam Rockwell did one of
    the worst acting I ever saw in my life. I saw pure amateurs do a much
    better job. Watching him was a real pain.

    I know one thing for sure, I will never watch a movie with that guy in
    its cast

    The young Kyle Catlett was the best actor in this movie, on doubt.
    Saxon Sharbino was almost as bad as Sam Rockwell. Absolutely no feeling
    during acting.

  • Alexandru DinuJuly 10, 2015Reply

    Even though it is a work of fiction, Poltergeist tries too much to impress

    To begin with, I should say that I haven’t seen the first 1982 movie,
    so I am strictly writing about this one. The plot is based on a huge
    number of clichés (which are a ”standard” in the horror movies
    industry) and they don’t even try to reinterpret them as they did in
    some other movies. The storyline is kind of predictable and very
    ”straight”, you can pretty much guess what the actors would do next and
    it feels like there is no suspense at all. Despite the fact that the
    effects are well done, the movie doesn’t really place you in the true
    world of horror or terror, but it’s rather your generic horror movie;
    also, even though it is a work of fiction, I felt that the director was
    trying to much to blend the paranormal with the everyday lives of
    ordinary people (maybe except the little girl’s ”ability” to talk to
    the dead). In conclusion, Poltergeist (2015) is just ”yet another
    horror movie”, which will try to impress you, but it has to try harder
    for that to happen.

  • Damian Regan (polycode)July 12, 2015Reply

    Disappointing

    I often enjoy watching remakes, especially when it’s been over 30 years
    since the original. I try to appreciate them as new films in their own
    right. Unfortunately, whether looked at as a remake or as a new film
    entirely, this one fails tragically.

    There was simply no suspense at all, the lack of any build-up in
    tension leaving the ”scary” scenes as anything but. The characters were
    also shallow and the acting lacked any conviction – the real horror
    that parents in this situation would feel simply wasn’t conveyed at
    all. Much of the dialogue also felt forced. The special effects were
    so-so, with some wins and some fails but definitely not enough to prop
    up the rest.

    Overall rather a big disappointment. I don’t think Gil Kenan is cut out
    for horror.

  • Tim PetroneJuly 16, 2015Reply

    A Terrifying Tale

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • krstnmagnusJuly 17, 2015Reply

    Don’t waste your time.

    Just like every other crappy ”horror” film you see today.

    I feel I’m being generous giving this 2 stars.

    I had high hopes for this remake and was deeply disappointed. The story
    is jammed with meaningless fillers that don’t contribute to the film’s
    overall plot. The characters were written poorly and there is no
    character building that effectively contributes to the story. Special
    effects are over used and left nothing to the viewers imagination;
    sadly leaving no suspense for the audience. The plot felt rushed, alas
    there is not much to consider while watching. I expected a creative
    alternative to this ghostly classic, and it’s as if it’s been smothered
    by the tacky and effortless modern day entertainment formula.

    If you’re a fan of the original, save yourself the heartache.

  • kerry verduJuly 18, 2015Reply

    Absolutely awful

    A further reason why Classic films should never be remade. It’s not
    even a scratch on the originals. It was terrible, horrific and a
    complete waste of film makers money. The acting was unbelievably
    unbelievable. It felt rushed, and more like a university drama project
    than an actual high budget film. Poor effects didn’t help either.
    Kennedi Clements is the best in it by far, and shouldn’t become
    stereotyped for this poor film. The iconic scenes just aren’t there but
    not even replaced by something bigger. Terrible acting, terrible
    scripting, no feelings portrayed of the situation that is happening to
    them. I cannot express the disappointment I have, However I do not
    agree with remakes. It is just 100% utter rubbish. Disgraceful. Waste
    of a Saturday evening.

  • hoxjenniferJuly 18, 2015Reply

    Absolutely horrible

    This is probably one of the worst films I’ve seen. Every single
    character in this movie is irritatingly dumb and/or annoying. We barely
    even get to know these dumb, annoying characters (not that we would
    want to) in the beginning of the film before things start getting out
    of whack in the house.

    I understand that Poltergeist (2015) is supposed to be a remake of the
    original from the 80’s. I get that Hollywood feels the need to remake
    everything to vamp up the special effects and ”update” it. But
    sometimes classics should not be touched. Sometimes they are best
    enjoyed in their original format.

    If you want a predictable, not-scary movie with some flashy CGI, stunts
    and characters that make you want to roll your eyes at their pure
    stupidity, this might be worth it for you. But otherwise, watch
    Insidious, The Exorcist or something that’s actually scary.

  • andrewshieh0712July 18, 2015Reply

    Unoriginal but definitely an above-average horror remake

    Poltergeist is a horror remake of the 1982 original. I’ve heard a lot
    about the original and was quite surprised that many people hated the
    remake. This new remake got a 5.0 on IMDb which is comparably much
    worse than many horror flicks. However, after watching the new
    Poltergeist, I have to say that it definitely doesn’t suck like other
    remakes and even though it has many places that could’ve been better,
    the 2015 Poltergeist is a slightly above-average horror flick
    (definitely worth more than a 5.0).

    One thing that I heard the most from the audience is that Poltergeist
    has nothing special. It didn’t add many new ideas rather than turning
    it into a cash-grabber. In some ways I agree, but since this remake has
    already exists, I think that it still stands pretty well on its own.
    I’m gonna be honest that I didn’t finish watching the original. What I
    remember is that there are many lines and scenes in the remake that are
    nearly 100 % same as the original, but still, if we set aside with the
    original, Poltergeist is actually pretty decent.

    I do like many ideas that are used in the remake, such as the shadow
    part which I found it refreshing, and also how the movie is presented.
    Poltergeist isn’t like many failed-to-be-stylish horror flicks which
    tried too much on maintaining the atmosphere then ending up suck very
    bad, just like Annabelle. Though you can still find many reused
    concepts from other horror movies and yes, many jump scares,
    Poltergeist still has some pretty scary scenes, especially in the first
    half of the movie, which I thought that the director paved the
    direction real well.

    However, something that I felt really annoyed with this remake is the
    overuse of its CGI. This Poltergeist has some many CGI that it made it
    so unrealistic and unconvincing. Some of the CGI scenes look so unreal
    that it looks like a view from a video game. Horror movies should make
    the viewers get scared by its realism, however, Poltergeist failed. At
    first, I was pretty satisfied for the first half, then the second half
    ruined it with tons and tons of CGI. CGI shouldn’t even exist in the
    horror genre, because it’s really unnecessary. Except for Silent Hill
    which has a lot of CGI, but at least it’s used in the right place. But
    Poltergeist can stand on its own without CGI.

    When I was watching the movie, I have mixed feelings. The movie is just
    unpredictable, and it’s not in a good way. I really like how the
    director handles the part where Poltergeist could have ended but
    didn’t, but then the real ending is just so abrupt and I thought it
    could have been better since the movie already wanted itself to have
    more. (It’s really hard to describe without spoiling it out.)

    I found that the acting was decent and thought that the family is quite
    convincing and not overly clichéd. However, I didn’t really like the
    little girl. Even though she’s like 5 or 6, has reactions toward ghosts
    are just stupid. I like the boy the most because he, at least, feels
    real which he actually behave like most people would behave.

    So overall, I feel that the Poltergeist remake isn’t as bad as many
    people thought, to me it could have a 6.1 on IMDb instead of a 5.0. It
    has what a horror movie should have, except for the CGI and I like the
    while tension throughout the movie. The movie could be better but I
    think the Poltergeist is still better than most horror movie remakes in
    history. I can still enjoy at least 60% of the movie if I’m going to
    re-watch it.

  • cheeseman-82883July 19, 2015Reply

    If you enjoy wasting your time on fun family adventures. Watch this pathetic excuse for a ‘classic horror’

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Shadik NewkirkJuly 21, 2015Reply

    Shaking my head

    Kyle Catlett, Did not convince me at all. It was just dry and shallow.
    He never really looked scared. It was moving too fast as well. I don’t
    know what else to say about this film but it has me now wanting to
    watch the original cause i felt so cheated. This just didn’t work for
    me. I guess even the new technology (Iphones etc) didn’t help any. Just
    didn’t pull me in. I never jumped Kyle could’ve been the difference
    maker. Some movies should be left alone. This is one of them. Whatever.
    I don’t have any more to say. Um….don’t make a part 2. Just leave it
    alone. This was like the old school movie Labyrinth or Jumanji.
    Should’ve been on goosebumps. I think goosebumps is better. Don’t let
    these other reviews lie to you. I think even the shade or the lighting
    of the movie was too bright too. Just not dark enough.

  • James WoodJuly 21, 2015Reply

    Frustrating

    Poltergeist gets an awful lot right, but without one key ingredient it
    ends up being a flat and tame horror. The acting is superb, Sam
    Rockwell and Rosemary DeWitt genuinely convince with realistic and
    grounded performances that drive the film, even the young actors do a
    good job. The film is also beautifully shot, even in darker scenes
    their are shot compositions that interest. I didn’t see this film in 3D
    but you can it would’ve definitely worked, as the 3D moments are built
    into the story and aren’t thrown in, this has been thought out really
    well.

    The real issue with this horror is that there is absolutely zero
    atmosphere. A horror without an atmosphere is like being served at a
    restaurant and finding out your meal isn’t up to scratch, in other
    words disappointing. Poltergeist had potential but it’s left with only
    jump scares that aren’t effective because of that lack of atmosphere.
    This is a crying shame, I was enjoying the first act of the film as it
    drew me in up until the darkness crept it. Damn I’m disappointed.

  • ernestobaileyJuly 26, 2015Reply

    worst movie ever

    This was the most god awful remake and movie I have ever seen. A movie
    about sharks and a tornado was a far better movie than this. At least
    you knew you were watching a bad movie as opposed to this one, which
    was painted as a supposed masterpiece. The acting was terrible! No one
    would ever believe that this family was plagued by anything other than
    low IQs and bad parenting skills. And worst of all, they butchered the
    scene with the melting face. It’s as if Hollywood wanted to swindle
    people out of their hard earned money with painted garbage. If I was
    Craig T. Nelson I would build a time machine, go back in time and
    prevent everyone associated with this movie from ever being procreated.
    This movie should be outlawed in every country and shown only as a
    possible torture method. Please save yourself the pain and never ever
    watch this abomination

  • Makarios55July 29, 2015Reply

    Why, oh why did they try?

    What is the point of doing remakes? OK, basically there can be two
    reasons. One, you think you can actually do it better. That’s rare, but
    i grant that there are remakes out there that are as good or even
    better than the original. Two, you are trying to make more money. The
    usual reason. In case of Poltergeist, it is one of the classics of
    horror movies. Some say it wasn’t that scary, or that it became
    outdated today. But still it is a movie most people have seen at least
    ones, maybe no big masterpiece in the wake of The Godfather or, if you
    don’t want to leave the realm of horror, The Exorcist. If you
    absolutely have to and have nothing better to do as a director or
    producer, it would have been OK with doing a version for modern
    audiences. This one just fails to deliver. In it’s own right, it is an
    OK ghost movie. Nothing that special, OK acting but nothing to write
    home about. Just one more haunted house. But being a remake, you can’t
    stop yourself comparing it to the movie from 1982. And the old one was
    just much better. It had a magic to it, that is completely missing in
    the new one. The 1982-scenes with the little girl sliding on the
    kitchen floor and the more harmless hauntings in the beginning weren’t
    scary or anything. But it gave the whole movie a warmness that changes
    to just more generic scares in the new one. And those scares don’t even
    work especially well.

    The best part may have been the casting, it worked well. Kennedi
    Clements as Madison could have been the most fitting they could get.
    Only problem is the character Jared Harris. Zelda Rubinstein played her
    character in Poltergeist (1982) in such a unique manner that you
    couldn’t really hope to do it the same way with anyone else. So the
    movie doesn’t try at all and makes it a TV-show ghost hunter. A good
    decision in itself, but this just takes away some more from the
    story-telling, otherworldly charm of the original.

    All in all, it’s a movie you can watch if you find nothing else. One
    more generic haunted house, seen it all before dozens of times. It is
    watchable at least. But as soon as you think back to the old movie it
    can’t compete with it in any meaningful way.

  • Troy PutlandJuly 30, 2015Reply

    Seen it, heard it all before.

    Remakes are a farce. We’re given a second, sometimes a third helping of
    the same film. Lucky us! Look at Spider-Man as an example. Three times
    in 15 years is disrespectful to the franchise. At least 33 years have
    passed since the original Poltergeist. MGM studios have ushered this
    film to a new generation of viewers, who perhaps aren’t familiar with
    the 1982 classic. Unfortunately, 2015’s new look isn’t one to be
    excited, or even frightened about. Haunted houses are dull and an
    overused prop within the horror world. The Bowen family could leave the
    house at once if it weren’t for their daughter’s disappearance. Evil
    apparitions take her to a parallel universe. Sam Rockwell and Rosemarie
    DeWitt seek the help of an expert (Jared Harris) to get her back. This
    composition has been rinsed and repeated many times before. The
    production levels are high, the dark lit interior, the creepy toys and
    the sound effects are astonishing, but struggle to conceive the one,
    desired reaction all horrors are built for. Sam Rockwell’s a light in
    the darkness, providing a down-to-earth personality in a movie full of
    mundaneness.

  • juggernaut_xAugust 1, 2015Reply

    Decent movie? Maybe… Decent remake? Hell no…

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • neumarAugust 1, 2015Reply

    Not as good as the original, and also not a good poltergeist movie

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • spiritualcounsellingukAugust 2, 2015Reply

    Above average remake, but still not as good as the original.

    The original Poltergeist was a scary ride. I remember staying up late
    when I was not supposed to and being very freaked out by the original
    movie. I think that while this remake has improved on some areas, it
    lacked what the original had. While Kennedi Clements is a good actor,
    she just did not have the acting ability of Heather O’Rourke.
    Immediately I thought that they should have kept the character the
    platinum blonde, it makes the character more wholesome which in turn
    makes us the viewer feel more for her. I did like some of the
    characters in this new one, the clown scene and the scenes where the
    girl is inside the closet are great. But because of the overuse of CGI
    it really does take something away. Immediately though I was drawn into
    this movie. Perhaps this would have been a better sequel or prequel
    rather than a straight remake. Of course though the way they went with
    it in parts was very original and kudos for this, but it should have
    stuck to the original more. Another example being the psychic medium
    character played by Zelda Rubinstein in the original, in the remake
    they opt for someone less interesting and it really stands out. Maybe I
    am just nit picking *shrugs* but I saw the original and sequels a lot
    when I was a kid so they are important movies to me. Funnily enough I
    thought the changes with Kennedi in this one was actually a bit
    dis-respectful to the late Heather O’Rourke, the young girl was not
    meant to know this but the director should have thought about this. All
    in all a good movie, but not as good as the original. I will be
    interested to see if they make a remake of number 2 and 3. 6 out of 10
    stars.

    Greg – Spiritual Counselling UK

  • loomis78-815-989034August 5, 2015Reply

    This is why Remakes blow.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Djenina AmonAugust 8, 2015Reply

    I caught a brain tumor after watching this!

    After watching this movie, I didn’t feel alright. I knew something was
    wrong but I didn’t pay attention to it! then my health aggravated the
    next day. So, I went to see a doctor. His first reaction was: ”oh boy!”

    I was like what’s going on doc. He said you need an MRI asap. I did an
    MRI on my brain and the doctor came up with the results. He looked at
    them and said: ”Oh sh*t!” I knew something was up. He said: you have a
    brain tumor! congratulations! I was like: what? when? why? He said: For
    how how long have you had those headaches? I said: it was just
    yesterday! He said: was there any activity you were doing? I said: not
    really, I went to see a movie! He told me: Don’t tell me you went to
    see the new Poltergeist????? I said: Yes but how did you know ???? He
    said: OMG! didn’t you know that that movie carries a high risk of
    catching a brain tumor due to how awful it is! I said: No ! what the
    hell? He said: well now you know it the hard way! I was like: yeah!
    what a shame!

    AWFUL VERY AWFUL is the word to describe this! I was very disappointed
    to see this movie. It took a lot of time out of my life to the point of
    depression. Those paid fake suck up reviewers !!! even though I tried
    to report them like thousands of times, they are still out there!

    Well the movie is just AWFUL, no story, the script is written by a 5
    years old kid, the acting is so bad that you wish those people were
    never born, cheesy events and I can keep going on like this for
    hundreds of pages.

    If you are a die hard fan and I mean a DIE HARD fan of the original
    Poltergeist, a fan who would kill for this movie, a fan who waited
    desperately to see a modern remake of the original as far as the
    graphics and the visual effects are concerned, then may be you would
    THINK about seeing this!! what a shame!!

    Please, join me in reporting those fake reviewers to the admins! it is
    very easy to spot them. They have a common pattern in their writing.
    They usually exaggerate their movie rating and most importantly, they
    are tremendous ass kissers.

  • Reno RanganAugust 8, 2015Reply

    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

  • wrightiswrightAugust 9, 2015Reply

    Terrifyingly Mediocre

    A strange thing happened to some of the stars and others behind the
    scenes of the original trilogy of Poltergeist films.

    Like Tutankhamun’s alleged curse, quite a few of them ended up dying
    young in bizarre circumstances.

    Ooo, spooky.

    The individuals featured in this present day remake of the first movie,
    along with those working behind the camera, can breathe a sigh of
    relief though.

    Because the truth is, it’s too dull to offend anyone, least of all
    vengeful spirits.

    After buying a house built on an ancient burial ground (an
    untrustworthy estate agent? REALLY?) a white-bread American family
    notices some strange goings on soon after relocating, involving hair
    standing on end and objects being mysteriously moved.

    It all culminates in a night of terror, when the parents are away…
    And at the end of it, their daughter is stuck in the television set.
    Yes, really.

    Who you gonna call? Not the Ghostbusters (and DEFINITELY not the new,
    all-female version) but a bunch of paranormal obsessed nerds, and a
    hammy Irish Derek Acorah-like spirit hunter.

    And, Unbelievably… This one ISN’T a phony. Gosh.

    So, what we get is lots and lots of talk about the supernatural, while
    the cast run around in the dark shouting out each other’s names, as the
    ghouls wreck havoc.

    You’ll see evil clown toys, tree monsters and oozing black slime. Not
    to mention a parallel universe, which seems entirely made up of lost
    souls.

    But is it scary? Nah, not really.

    It’s all adequately done, and you may find a few shivers running down
    your spine, but don’t bother having paramedics on stand-by to restart
    your heart.

    You won’t even need a good, stiff drink afterwards.

    No, you’ll just sigh, eject the DVD, and add it to your ‘Forgettable
    Horror Movie’ heap in the corner.

    Mine’s getting pretty big. Wanna trade? 5/10

  • Nat ManAugust 13, 2015Reply

    There is no chance of beating the original from ’82

    They tried…and tried really well… explaining the now-common
    electricity lines and automated homes.

    I don’t think we can bridge the gap of technology back then and now by
    suggesting causes that are by 2015 way too non consequential.

    The acting were great from every single one of them…according to the
    script. They did a brilliant job with how to deal with a situation in
    the early 2000s.

    If this movie was released in 2005 instead of 2015, I would appreciate
    the **** out of it.

    Back in 82, when the original was out, it was stuff we never thought
    about…and now 30 years later, these are stuff we don’t give a damn
    about still…coz its been there.

    Its definitely not a non-entertainer…Can watch/listen to most of it
    and it is still entertaining compared to the tonnes of B grade flicks
    out there…which I have watched 🙁

    If I saw this 10 years ago, I’d have given it an 8 or 9 stars for sure

    EDIT: Saw the second half. Rockwell’s acting is terrible at some
    places. First half of movie was good. Second half was…MEH

  • whitebricksAugust 20, 2015Reply

    What a hunk of CRAP!!!

    I loved the original, I’ve must of seen it at least 40 times! I was
    excited to see a remake UNTIL i saw the trailer then I knew it would be
    another dud, but I still had to see it.

    The acting is HORRIBLE!! Sam Rockwell’s performance, if you want to
    call it as such discredits anything this producer tried to portray, the
    directing is awful the story has been ruined.

    I can’t understand how a directory who is investing a large amount of
    money and effort into a film allows this junk to be release.

    The original was realistic, this was utter nonsense. The important
    segments of the original were overlooked. The kid looks like he came
    out of a hair salon after we was attacked by a tree. The script was
    rushed.

  • dukeakasmudgeAugust 31, 2015Reply

    Poltergeist

    I was never a fan of the original but I LOVED parts 2 & 3.I really
    enjoyed this version even though I wasn’t expecting to.The way it
    started off I didn’t think I’d like it at all.I found the family
    EXTREMELY annoying.What little girl calls her father a dumbass & gets
    away with it? The father gets laid off, the mother is a writer but they
    go house hunting & buy a HUGE house.I don’t know about you but that
    doesn’t seem too smart to me.There’s a few other things I could go on
    about but I guess I’m reading way too much into it & it’s only a
    movie.Anyways…… I enjoyed this movie way more than the original
    (Maybe I should watch the original again?) I hope there will be a part
    2 because if they do bring back the reverend I’d like to see what he’ll
    look like.I can’t imagine he’ll be as scary as the original.I’ve seen
    that this movie has gotten a ton of bad reviews but I don’t understand
    why.Maybe everybody was expecting a version similar to the original? I
    liked that this movie was in some ways similar to the original but also
    stood on it’s own.I’m looking forward to a sequel (If there is 1) &
    seeing what will happen next

  • trashgangSeptember 2, 2015Reply

    shot by shot remake

    I can understand that the studio wanted to do a remake of Poltergeist
    (1982). It became famous due a few reasons, was it Spielberg or Hooper
    who directed this flick, the sad news was the fact that the film was
    cursed as they said back then, Carol Anne Freeling, the young focal
    point of the series, was played by Heather O’Rourke. Only six years old
    when the first Poltergeist film was released, O’Rourke captivated
    audiences with her stark blond hair, doll-like appearance, and big,
    inquisitive eyes. Sadly, however, she was misdiagnosed with Crohn’s
    Disease in 1987. The following year, O’Rourke fell ill again, and her
    symptoms were casually attributed to the flu. A day later, she
    collapsed and suffered a cardiac arrest. After being airlifted to a
    children’s hospital in San Diego, O’Rourke died during an operation to
    correct a bowel obstruction, and it was later believed that she had
    been suffering from a congenital intestinal abnormality. She will be,
    and has been, missed by fans around the world.

    Even as it didn’t make it into the classics of the horror buffs it was
    still worth seeing, no gore or whatsoever but it worked out fine for
    the family and it spawned a few sequels.

    This remake of course is literally remade shot by shot. Some will love
    it others will ask what’s the point of doing so. For example the remake
    of Evil Dead didn’t do that and look, it’s loved by gorehounds. Still,
    you will recognise the trees haunting the house, the rope being thrown
    in the hole, the famous sentence, ”they’re here”, the house falling in
    pieces. You know what I mean. It was fun to see it done today with CGI
    ghosts but a classic it never will become. Ideal to watch with your
    teenagers at home, nothing more, nothing less.

    The extended cut doesn’t add anything towards the scary parts or
    characterization. The 3D does give it an extra touch towards the horror
    and the scary moments.

    Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

  • whitt65September 3, 2015Reply

    Absolute Re-Hashed Hollywood Filth

    Poor Sam Rockwell, what happened to his career? The first thing I
    noticed while watching this atrocity was that Sam looked completely out
    of place, like he didn’t want to be there. The ”special effects”
    weren’t all that special, just standard, and I should say, with todays
    computer graphics, they were pretty crap. I will not go into a lengthy
    discussion on the differences between the original and this attempt at
    a ”Reboot” as they like to say in Hollywood. I will just say that I was
    sadly disappointed that they took a great movie that I loved in my
    younger days, and completely ruined it. But that’s the way it goes in
    Hollywood these days. No original ideas, no original themes. They just
    re-use what has come before and hope they can make a quick buck from
    it.

  • White ZombieSeptember 5, 2015Reply

    Entertaining to watch, not what I expected

    I remember watching the original Poltergeist movies when I was younger
    and after watching them I could not sleep at night. Idk what was with
    them but they were truly scary. This movie was also pretty scary but I
    can go to sleep at night without any nightmares or bad dreams (which I
    am happy with). It isn’t that it was a bad movie it definitely wasn’t
    and if you haven’t seen it I would recommend it… but it isn’t
    something I am going to keep thinking about.

    If you want to watch this so that you just cannot sleep for the next
    few days then this movie is not for you. If you want to watch it though
    to see very cool special effects, get scared when watching it (the
    first half), and to be engaged in an ”original” horror movie idea then
    this is for you! Original of course being it is different than most
    horror movies other than its original counterpart. Mostly the movie is
    entertaining moreso than scary.

    The scenes in the movie were very well directed, acted, and edited. I
    really liked how the special effects were done. The movie didn’t look
    all CGI but it did have good scenes well edited. It also had a good
    pace to it and I was left with wanting more.

    In conclusion, Poltergeist (2015) is a very good horror movie for ‘our
    time’. It has good acting, good effects, and a good ”original” story.
    If you like horror movies this is for you BUT it isn’t something you
    are going to have a hard time forgetting. If you haven’t seen it watch
    it! If you have seen it watch it again as it is very entertaining
    unlike most horror movies nowadays.

  • Nym MeliaeSeptember 6, 2015Reply

    Poor remake of a classic

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • randymcbeastSeptember 6, 2015Reply

    An insult to the original

    I just don’t get it. Did they even watch the original? They couldn’t
    have because they completely missed what made it one of the best films
    of it’s time. It reminded me of the 1979 Mustang which was so far off
    from the originals, but this was ten times worse.

    Sam Rockwell is one of my favorite actors, and it was enjoyable
    watching him at least, and the other actors did a fine job. This was
    all about the screenplay, direction and production. Horrible, horrible
    job. These people should not do another film, ever.

    I really need to watch the original again just to erase this filth from
    my mind. Ugh!

  • Daniel JP USeptember 8, 2015Reply

    A pathetic excuse of a remake

    I can not fathom the lengths at which this movie goes to cringe the
    living crap out of me. The acting is beyond terrible, even compared to
    most slashers. The characters don’t listen to each other and conflict
    is created out of thin air. Worst part of the movie is definitely the
    child actors, the oldest of which comes off so annoying, I would rather
    listen to a lawn-mover being pressed on gravel, than one more scene
    with her. The middle child is just stupid, no more on that. The third,
    and youngest, Madison, is decent in her role, even though a living
    Cliché of a horror flick, she gets her part done without the audience
    hating her. Emphasis on ”without hating her”, meaning not good but not
    absolute garbage. This movie is nothing more than a horrendous failure
    of a remake on a classic horror movie that should have been left alone.
    The reason I give this movie four stars out of ten instead of two, is
    because the main clown doll present in a couple of scenes actually
    frightened me, which was it’s purpose in the movie, MOST LIKELY.

  • The CouchpotatoesSeptember 9, 2015Reply

    Why remakes if it isn’t to make them better?

    I remembered watching the original one when I was young. It was a good
    horror movie for that time. Why they have to make a remake of certain
    movies now is something I don’t get. Don’t you have enough imagination
    to make a similar story attractive? Because let’s be honest, this movie
    is an exact copy of the first one, except that this one is boring and
    not scary at all. Sam Rockwell is bugging me through the whole movie.
    Most of the lines looked forced and aren’t played good. I wished I
    would have watched the original again instead of this useless remake.
    Is this a lesson to be learned? I don’t know. What I know for sure is
    that the originals are almost always better. Don’t waste your time on
    this one, just watch the original instead.

  • tomasstangerSeptember 11, 2015Reply

    Another pointless remake

    I’m actually writing this as I’m watching it, it’s jut not engaging in
    any way.

    Not good so far, no chemistry at all between the characters, unlike the
    original which I thought was great, the sort of people who you could
    imagine living next door. Also just not scary and not convincing in any
    way, just like everything else remade these days a huge disappointment.

    It really does sadden me that Hollywood, the greatest film making
    industry in the world seems to be of devoid of ideas that they have to
    resort to relying on remakes. I genuinely can’t think of a decent
    remake from recent times.

    Now there’s always the argument that comes around that they’re bringing
    films to a newer audience, but I genuinely find that insulting. If
    people really want to watch a film that much (because they like the
    genre or sound of it) then they’ll seek it out instead of being spooned
    this half arsed pointless crap we’ve got to endure these days.

    Hopefully the film industry will get its mojo back one day and we can
    all have a great film to talk about for years to come again. Can’t see
    it happening though.

  • prs21975September 11, 2015Reply

    Highly Underrated – Very Good Modern Take On The Original…

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Zayne EmgeSeptember 11, 2015Reply

    Wait… What?

    Words cannot describe this horrendous pile of garbage I found myself
    sitting in when watching this movie.

    From the terrible casting of poorly performing actors belting out their
    lines with no motivation for the obviously terrible script they were
    given, I can’t help but think they only did this for their paychecks.

    This movie would have done better as a trailer, or even a short film.
    Its exciting and a good idea, but when it came to putting this movie
    into action, it didn’t go so well

    I’m not usually such a cynical man, but this was… Just wow.

    If you want to waste some time in your life, or have no taste in
    movies. I’d suggest this, a better way to pass your time would be to
    nibble off your foot slowly with your incisors. You might get more
    emotion out of that.

  • neya_aleeraSeptember 12, 2015Reply

    Can someone let the gays out?

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • scarey91457September 12, 2015Reply

    Lousy remake

    MILD SPOILER ALERT: Wow, NOT even one actual scare moment in this lousy
    remake of a classic. The acting sucked, and they never address those
    responsible for leaving the bodies under the house with no headstones.
    It was a waste of time. I WAS amazed at how much the little girl looks
    like the original Heather (may she RIP). Jane Adams once again proves
    she is nothing more than a low end character actress. A few good
    effects in the ”other side” with the trapped souls and bodies. I don’t
    know about anyone else, but I at least like to have a few good jumps
    when it comes to watching movies that are SUPPOSED to be good horror
    movies. I didn’t even get one good jump out of this forgettable piece
    of waste. I feel sorry for those that wasted good hard earned money at
    the theaters. This one, is ONLY if you have absolutely nothing else to
    do.

  • BA_HarrisonSeptember 12, 2015Reply

    This house is bland.

    There are those who think that the original Poltergeist wasn’t really
    scary enough, Steven Spielberg’s family-friendly style taking
    precedence over Tobe Hooper’s more visceral approach. Well, this 2015
    remake waters down the horror even further…

    I imagine the conversation between MGM execs went something like this…

    1st Exec: You know what… we really should remake Poltergeist. After
    all, that’s the movie that all those Paranormal Activity films are
    ripping off, and they’re still raking in the cash.

    2nd Exec: Yeah, imagine what we could do with today’s CGI and 3D
    technology. That scary tree scene could be totes amaze-balls.

    3rd Exec: Oooh, and that clown. Remember that? This time we could throw
    in lots of clowns. The more the scarier, right?

    1st Exec: And that bit where the guy rips off his face and drops bloody
    chunks of flesh into the sink… that could be awesome.

    3rd Exec: Are you out of your mind. If we did that, we wouldn’t get a
    PG-13 rating.

    1st Exec: Oh, so I suppose the part where the girl falls in the
    swimming pool full of mouldy corpses would be out as well.

    2nd Exec: I’m afraid so, but hey, we could have someone throw up a few
    worms if it’ll make you feel happy.

    Yup, this is yet another calculated cash-in on a classic chiller
    carefully crafted to appeal to the widest possible audience, with none
    of that nasty gore to offend the squeamish. Instead, we get extremely
    predictable jump scares and lots of slick CGI, none of which is very
    frightening. In fact, this film is so pedestrian that it actually makes
    me yearn for Zelda Rubinstein.

  • George Samuel NishadSeptember 13, 2015Reply

    A horr-ible movie

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Bob AnSeptember 14, 2015Reply

    Hmmm…

    This movie has a rating of five as I am writing this and I totally
    agree. It does not deserve more than five. Even, four can be
    considered.

    Though I think that the story with trapped souls and old cemetery with
    Aliens elements can be quite interesting, this movie is not. It is
    quite boring at times.

    The boy Griffin is just … well, I found him annoying and totally non
    believable. I am not sure is it bad acting or the role was ‘too eye
    popping’ for him. Mothers reactions were also a second or two bit late
    in some situations, as someone forgot to tell her: Now, screeeem!

    The ghost hunters or whatever were totally ridiculous, especially the
    boy. Yeah, he almost got killed or pierced thru and he returns as if
    nothing happened? Really?

    Their house is falling apart, there is a real rumble and no people in
    the street!? They remembered to put police and fire fighters after some
    time, as well as people.

    Not to mention lame ending where they ‘happily’ escape new house that
    the girl is trying to sell.

    Very bad. But I will stick to 4 rating.

    As I remember, the original is not much better.

  • U.N. OwenSeptember 14, 2015Reply

    I liked it!

    i saw all the negative reviews – some horribly written, and, they all
    seem to have one thing in common; comparing it Rotherham original.

    I’m NOT a Spielberg fan, and I never saw the original.

    BUT… saying this, I – like many, MANY others are ALL too familiar
    with it – esp. such things as Zelda Rubenstein, ‘Carol-Ann,’ ‘They’re
    he-ere,’ etc.

    I’m also NOT a fan of remakes, reboots, I’m mostly sick of ANY garbage
    made in/by Hollywood in the past 2-or so decades. They’ve seemed to
    literally either run out of original ideas, or have become so afraid of
    original, they’ll only stick with what’s been already done.

    So, I come to THIS Poltergeist as so,some without any preconceived
    ideas, notions.

    I’m not going to get mad at this director and writer, for not
    saying/doing exactly what was done in the first.

    I come to this as someone who – while they make their filthy lucre from
    this place, but, definitely not in love with it (not even close).

    I love Sam Rockwell. I always find him taking interesting films –
    rather than always sticking to the (most-likely) hollow-souled project
    which will most likely make scads of moolah.

    I also like Jared Harris. I think he’s a quirky guy, and, he does a
    nice job here – not overblown, not hammy, but, fun… considering.

    The rest of the cast, is, honestly – to me – unknowns.

    I’ve never seen any of them before.

    What I liked about this film was it took a story so well-known, that,
    someone such as I – who never seen it – can still find this version
    refreshing.

    The story is very similar to the original – the only differences being
    the character’s names, and the sex of the ‘specialist’ (Zelda in the
    original, Jared in this version), and other than these minors changes,
    the big difference is the imagery.

    Back when the original was made, there were always articles about how
    the ‘cool’ never- seen-before SFX were done, as this was before CGI.

    Here, it’s all CGi, and I think the images of the other place, and its
    inhabitants brought to mind Hieronymous Bosch’s phantasmagorical
    imagery.

    Something which is very important to me is the younger actors.

    Most kids in films will only make one, perhaps two. Then, the magic of
    puberty hits, and what was ‘cute,’ is now oily, and pimply

    ‘Cute’ doesn’t age well, and I can’t stand films which put youngsters
    in a film simply because they’re ‘cute.’

    They can’t act, and it gets tiring VEEY fast – and becomes irritating.

    However, I was. Sry pleasantly surprised by the two youngest; the young
    girl who plays Madison (the ‘Carol-Ann’ part) is Kennedi (I HATE
    ‘cutesy’ spelling) Clements, and her older brother – what they call a
    ‘tween’ – Kyle Catlett, plays Griffin, and both of them really owned
    their scenes, I’m very pleasantly happy to say.

    Mr. Catlett- who’s age I don’t know – appeared to be very close to
    getting those first few hormones surging through his body.

    What I mean, is, they film movies not in order of the story, and on
    quite a few occasions, Kyle’s face was noticeably more mature. No, his
    voice didn’t come close to dropping, and, in some long-shots, he didn’t
    seem very tall, but, boys shoot up in spurts, and, if I’m correct about
    Kyle, I really hope the acting ability I saw on the screen will see him
    through the ‘terrible teens,,’ because this young man definitely has a
    future.

    The rest of the cast are all perfunctory in a good way.

    The usual feeling I get from remakes – the feeling of ‘we’ve only made
    this for money,’ wasn’t that noticeable.

    Again – I saw his from a new perspective – someone familiar with the
    first, but, who’d never seem it, and it really seemed care was put into
    making this a good film.

    At one point, something happens (don’t worry – no spoilers), and it
    really seemed for a moment,they were setting the stage for a
    ‘Poltergeist 2,’ but, I’m happy to say I was wrong about that.

    Listen; there’s way too. Any terrible films these days – not just
    remakes, but, remakes are usually much worse than the rest. If you’ve
    not seen the original Poltergeist, I hope you find this version as fun
    as I did, and, if you are someone who’s seen the original, I’m sorry
    you didn’t like this, but, perhaps, if you try to not compare the two –
    and just take this one for a creepy film, I’d hope you like it, as
    well.

  • avirarivaSeptember 14, 2015Reply

    This little girl is sweeter than sugar.

    Poltergeist is an impressive horror movie and is a good remake of the
    original movie.

    It does not deserve the hate.This movie is imperfect,but does not have
    errors.You will find good acting and great direction.

    The cinematography was lovely and the movie was entertaining from
    beginning till the end.

    Remember that Poltergiest (2015) was a successful movie all over the
    world.

    Some hate reviews don’t necessarily mean that this movie is bad.

    I recommend seeing this lovely family movie.

    Kennedi Clements is sweeter than sugar and is so talented too.

    I am quite sure you’re gonna love this amazing movie.

  • xristoff93September 14, 2015Reply

    Failed horror attempt

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • ApproximatelyHandsomeSeptember 14, 2015Reply

    Poltergeist

    Having loved the original since I was very young (it was the first
    scary movie I ever saw, and boy did it scare me), I was really excited
    for this remake (with the added bonus of a solid cast, particularly Sam
    Rockwell and Rosemary DeWitt). Ultimately though, this is a sore
    disappointment. The script varies from formulaic to flat-out stupid,
    never developing the characters much beyond their actions or giving us
    a reason to care about them. The scare scenes are surprisingly boring
    and unimaginative, and with characters we don’t particularly like there
    are no stakes at hand so ultimately the movie is dramatically inert. I
    don’t like comparing remakes to originals because I try to take a
    remake on its own merits but this film often relies on the audience’s
    familiarity with the original in order to achieve its purposes, and the
    updated touches it brings to the table are clever in concept but the
    movie makes nothing of them. Rockwell and DeWitt make a convincing
    couple but they’re powerless over the trite screenplay.

  • mahdi777September 14, 2015Reply

    Worse: Directing or the Acting?

    I have no idea which was worse, the directing of this movie or the
    acting. You would think the little boy would be a bit more terrified
    after being hosted in the air by the tree, and the parents don’t seem
    to give zero damns their little girl has ”just” gone missing, not to
    mention, there seems to be little to no urgency to find her, guess what
    happens when you remake a movie, and already know the plot.

    And the acting, I mean the acting, if we could call it that, was a
    plain dud. The actors and actresses had NO personality what so ever,
    and that wig or Paul McCarthy Beetles mullet cut, wth was that? Like
    seriously. Only one slightly entertaining was the dad, and his humor
    missed the bull’s eye more times than it hit. Being a big fan of the
    first, this one was a MAJOR disappointment, but so much potential,
    kudos to the writer, but NEVER hire this stale ass director again, and
    the producer, next time get a better cast smh

  • dukedoom72September 15, 2015Reply

    Lost potential! A total waste!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • RotaryCannonSeptember 15, 2015Reply

    Almost no horror whatsoever.

    I have to admit I didn’t have high expectations for this film as it
    only scored a 5.0 when I watched it today but I know horror films
    generally don’t score very high on IMDb anyway so I thought I would
    give it a go.

    My main criticism of the film is that it has so few (hardly any at all)
    scary moments and there is a complete absence of any build up of dread
    or apprehension as the film develops. It is very rare to see a really
    good horror film but if you are a big fan of the genre like me then you
    will probably have seen many bad horror films but often even bad, low
    budget horror films will have some redeeming features and creep you out
    to a certain extent.

    Despite the large budget and the presence of Sam Rockwell (who I am a
    massive fan of) and although Kennedi Clements (the little girl) does
    carry the role well, this film fails on pretty much every level. The
    original film was good and manages to ramp up the tension well as the
    story develops, although I doubt it would be quite as watchable now, it
    compares well to other films of that era and there was plenty of
    memorable scary scenes. I had hoped the remake would come at the story
    from a different angle and be more original, unfortunately I was wrong.
    Apart from a few minor deviations this film follows the same storyline
    and even uses the same scare tactics as the original but in this film
    they just fall flat, at least when the original came out the special
    effects looked good and it was above par in that respect to other films
    of the time (1982), somehow even with CGI this film doesn’t manage to
    achieve the scares that the original did.

    If you have seen the original and are tempted to watch this in the hope
    it compares with that you will be very disappointed, if you haven’t
    seen the original watch that instead.

  • capone666September 16, 2015Reply

    The Vidiot Reviews….

    Poltergeist

    If the spirits of the dead reside inside of televisions then they’d
    better start paying half the cable bill.

    However, the flat-screen phantoms in this horror movie are more
    interested in watching you.

    Shortly after the Bowens (Sam Rockwell, Rosemarie DeWitt) and their
    children move into their new home they each begin experiencing
    paranormal activity.

    When the ghosts coax their youngest child (Kennedi Clements) into an
    adjacent dimension, the Bowens seek the assistance of a paranormal
    research team and a television ghost-hunter (Jared Harris) to get her
    back.

    An abridged remake of the influential original, this non-frightening
    facsimile fits all the classic scenes into its limited run-time, but
    never develops the characters enough to have anyone care about their
    terror.

    In fact, aping its predecessor is a detriment to this mockery, reducing
    it to nothing but a boilerplate haunted house movie.

    Moreover, ghosts don’t even believe those ghost-hunting shows are real.

    Red Light

    vidiotreviews.blogspot.ca

  • BoloxxxiSeptember 16, 2015Reply

    We must accept that it is the fate of all classics and faves to eventually get stabbed in the ass with a remake-dagger.

    So, another movie classic has been remade to less than rave revues
    (Surprise!). One reviewer here called this remake ”filth” which had me
    chuckling since as a movie-reference, the term is usually applied to
    unsavory violence, and/or sex, and/or language. None of which were in
    this movie. But I totally understand. Messing with someone’s movie
    classic (or song) is almost like messing with their religion. They will
    go off-the-wall on your ass. I’ve had some of my own personal favorites
    re-tooled or re-told, whatever, and I was just as miffed as the
    reviewer I mentioned. And would myself not be aversed to using terms or
    language that did not logically apply. Here’s one: ”Shaft”, remade with
    Samuel L. Jackson. (I forget the idiot who did it). You would not have
    wanted to be anywhere near me when that happened. Samuel L. Jackson is
    a fine actor, and a busy one, since he appears in every other movie.
    But Shaft?!!! No f!!cking way!!!

    Do I need to tell you what this movie is about?

    On the off chance you haven’t seen the original Poltergeist then use
    the basic or generic model of most ghost horror movies ”Family moves
    into a new home and sh!t happens”. The interesting thing here is that
    this movie would have been received a little better without any
    association as a remake or ”update” to the original Poltergeist. Thus,
    given a different title and some of the more obvious content
    similarities removed (like the little girl and the TV, for example) it
    could have -standing on it’s own- done a little better (maybe 5.8, or
    so). So it’s being punished somewhat by fans of the original thru
    association and comparison. They wanted it to be as good or better.
    Can’t argue with that.

    In it’s day Poltergeist introduced us to movie imagination and magic
    that we had not seen before; giving us a powerfully visual and
    frightening experience of certain aspects or areas of paranormal
    experience in the same way the original Exorcist did. Fans feel that
    this remake should have done the same thing instead of contenting
    itself with coasting along on the coat tails (name recognition) of it’s
    parent. The producers should have accepted the challenge of doing as
    well if not better and blow us away a second time. Ah well, no point in
    crying over spilled milk or wasted opportunity.

    So how’d this happen?

    Well, I’m not sure how reliable my sources are, but one day, while
    golfing, fishing, or playing tennis, someone felt nostalgic. I dunno,
    maybe they were telling each other ghost stories on the course, on the
    lake, across the net, whatever, and someone said ”Remember
    Poltergeist?” and the other responded, ”Yeah, it scared the pants off
    me!” Then looking at each other thoughtfully, one said ”Why not do an
    update?” And the other responded, ”You mean a ”remake”?” And the person
    with the brainstorm says, ”An ”update” showing off modern technology.
    You know, laptops, flat-screen-TVs, smart phones, black BFFs,
    drones…you know?” This got the other thinking, ”You know, it could
    work. But aren’t drones controversial?” And the brainstormer says,
    ”You’re right. Sh!t! I really wanted one of those things to fly over
    the house at the end of the movie and nuke it. The audience would go
    wild!” They later decided they would work out a compromise. Love,
    Boloxxxi.

  • twsealSeptember 16, 2015Reply

    Stupid cliff notes wanna be version of the original

    This movie felt like a cliff notes version of the original. The plot
    was horrible, it was rushed and too many holes in the story line. Not
    well thought out… Really? The dad is out of work and the mother
    doesn’t work, credit cards are maxed out and they buy a new house?
    Seriously? On what planet? I couldn’t even finish the movie. I don’t
    normally even write reviews but this was so bad I had to warn others.
    Especially if you were a fan of the original. If you liked this one you
    had to be born after the year 2000 and just don’t know any better. One
    last note… First time reviewing on IMDb…. Not the best web
    interface. Writing this to get the required 10 lines. Since I must
    write more, I thought I would mention that too. I know, it is stupid.

  • Cinema_LoveSeptember 18, 2015Reply

    Worst than Carrie remake ! Watch the 1982 classic instead.

    In our great era of remakes. I could not wish for a better remake than
    Poltergeist… i was wrong. They messed up everything that was good
    with the 1982 classic version that will never disappoint and still make
    you scared a little bit more than this 2015 version.

    I’m not a remake hater. In fact, i have a few films I like better than
    the originals… to quote: The Ring, The Hills Have Eyes, The Thing 82,
    War of the Worlds, Insomnia, Scarface… don’t enter in the ”you hate
    remake” before telling me i’m wrong and read this.

    Sam Rockwell is an awesome A list actor, his performances in Moon,
    Seven Psychopaths, Conviction are among the best i have ever seen from
    an actor. but not in this film ! feel like a B actor to me in this
    role, he deserved better… Tom Skerritt was the man to play the dad…
    that remake is horrible for one reason… no chemistry between actor…
    it could have work, but even the child’s did not seem to care at all…
    oh a scary scene, go to the next one and try to be scarier… this is
    like a cheap Goosebumps episode. should not be seen at all of talk
    about in a near future. it is really a disappointing remake.

  • mathijsschaapSeptember 19, 2015Reply

    Way better than expected!

    Who can forget little Carroll-Ann and her famous line ‘They’re here’?
    Quite recently I decided to watch the 1982 flick by Tobe Hooper again,
    as it terrified me in my younger years. Watching it again, I was very
    disappointed. Craig T. Nelson and all the other actors did a good job,
    but the effects surely didn’t survive the test of time and it seemed
    production designers tried way too hard and created a boy’s bedroom way
    over the top, for example.

    I read all the bad reviews about this remake, but today I thought ‘Why
    not?’ and decided to give it a chance. And yes, it has some bad
    moments, and I still think ‘The Conjuring’ still is the most terrifying
    supernatural horror-movie, but this one comes close to a good second
    place. I loved the balance between CGI and practical/live-action
    effects, every actor did their best job and the suspense was built up
    quite good.

    The story is updated real well and it never tries to copy the 1982-
    version. It’s just the basic story in a modern day jacket. Normally I’m
    not a fan of horror-remakes, but considering I couldn’t bear watching
    the 1982-version anymore, this is a nice way to honor what effect it
    had in the ’80’s.

    I enjoyed it very much, way more than ‘The Possession’, ‘Insidious’ and
    other recent haunted-themed flicks that I don’t even remember names or
    titles from.

    Heavily underrated and deserves way more good reviews.

  • Claudio CarvalhoSeptember 19, 2015Reply

    A Typical Example of How Poor of Good and Creative Writers Hollywood Is

    The unemployed Eric Bowen (Sam Rockwell) moves with his wife Amy
    (Rosemarie DeWitt) and their children Kendra (Saxon Sharbino), Griffin
    (Kyle Catlett) and Madison (Kennedi Clements) to a house in the suburb.
    Soon strange events happen in the house and when Eric and Amy go to a
    dinner party, they learn that the house was built on an old cemetery
    but the bodies were moved to another cemetery. Meanwhile Kendra,
    Griffin and Madison are haunted by ghosts and the little girl vanishes.
    Eric and Amy do not go to the police since there is no feasible
    explanation for what has happened, but Amy goes to the Paranormal
    Research Department of the university. The team goes to the house and
    their leader Dr. Brooke Powell (Jane Adams) summons the specialist
    Carrigan Burke (Jared Harris). Will they be capable to rescue Madison?

    The 1982 ”Poltergeist” is a classic in the horror genre and among the
    best of this genre. This remake is a typical example of how poor of
    good and creative writers Hollywood is; therefore the need of reusing
    successful story lines for the younger generations. The weak screenplay
    uses drone; the success of ”Insidious” and the astral projection; a
    character, Carrigan Burke, who looks like an exorcist; an obnoxious
    character, the unemployed Eric Bowen. There are explosions, storm and a
    series of weird events and no neighbor goes to the street. The good
    point is the eight-year-old Kennedi Clements. My vote is five.

    Title (Brazil): ”Poltergeist: O Fenômeno” (”Poltergeist: The
    Phenomenon”)

  • 851222September 20, 2015Reply

    Lower then average horror flick, and poor remake

    Greetings from Lithuania.

    ”Poltergeist” (2015) is a poor remake of a good original movie, but it
    is not the worst flick on it’s own. That said, ”Poltergeist” (2015) is
    kinda nicely acted, although i didn’t buy Sam Rockwell’s performance –
    he was miscast or maybe he new this is going to be poor movie so acted
    just for fun, but it is clear that this wasn’t his favorite job to say
    the least. Kinds did OK job, especially one who played Griffin, and
    Rosemarie DeWitt’s performance was probably the best in this movie.

    As a horror movie, ”Poltergeist” (2015) features tons of clichés, and
    there aren’t true scary moments, you can see ”jump scare” scenes from a
    mile. What i enjoyed about this movie was not the horror elements, but
    simply family scenes especially during first hour of this movie, but
    when so called ”horror” starts, movie started to drag and by the end i
    was watching left time like each 5 min.

    Overall, ”Poltergeist” (2015) isn’t good, but it isn’t particularly
    bad. If you loved the original, it is nice for seeing it once just for
    nostalgia, but if you are looking for a decent horror movie, this isn’t
    the one.

  • MikesIDhasbeentakenSeptember 20, 2015Reply

    no need for this movie to ever be made

    complete waste of time,

    I like horror films, but can’t stand when companies take a classic and
    pump millions into remaking it and put no thought whatsoever into it,
    completely missing the point of why the original was so successful, and
    make money out of it even though 99% of people that watch it don’t like
    it!

    it’s because horror fans like horror, and will watch it just because,
    but even so, this film is such a nothing and complete waste of
    everyones time, I’d ask those who do want to watch it because it’s
    meant to be a ‘scary’ ‘horror’ film, to just not bother. you’ve
    probably already watched the original, and you might as well just watch
    that again

    horror remakes have never been good, but this has gone out of its way
    to be awful.

  • DreamBlissSeptember 21, 2015Reply

    Very good, very scary and truly paranormal. This movie does not rely on blood n’ gore!

    I simply do not understand those who have given this a negative review.
    It is beyond my ability to comprehend. They are probably the same
    people contributing to the unearned 8.0+ rating of the series,
    ”American Horror Story” and ”Game of Thrones.” There seems to be a
    trend here…

    Take a look at the ratings for Grave Encounters, 100 Feet, The Haunting
    and Dead Silence. All in the 4-6 rating range. All truly paranormal
    stories with some really amazing and innovative scenes. I can still
    picture them in my mind all these years later! The only thing that
    makes sense as to why they were all rated so low is that here must be
    some kind of bias against this type of film, and for things that are
    bloody, dark, hopeless, morbid and macabre.

    If you are looking for a good ghost story, horror that does not involve
    nudity or sex, rivers of blood and mountains of body parts; horror that
    sucks away all hope, leaving you disgusted by the end, then this is the
    film for you. If you want all that other crap, get the latest episode
    of AHS or whatever Rob Zombie has recently made.

    I have been watching the horror genre since the 70’s. Every Nightmare
    on Elm Street. Every Friday the 13th (including the remake.) Every
    Candyman, as many Hellraisers as I could stand, every Phantasm, and
    every single haunted house film I could lay my hands on, from the
    original Poltergeist movies to The Changling and Burnt Offerings. Throw
    both Shinings in there and Rose Red.

    The last good scary movie or mini-series I have enjoyed, until this
    one, was the first Woman In Black remake (not the sequel.) Oh yes, I
    did watch the original Woman In Black as well. I am an expert. After 3
    decades, that is not surprising.

    The trend lately, exemplified in AHS, is towards the bloody, dark and
    macabre. True haunted house movies of any quality, featuring ghosts
    (not demons, monsters or possessed people) are extremely rare. In fact
    the person behind this movie also did Monster House, which was another
    excellent haunted house movie, just more for children. The only thing
    rarer than a true haunted house movie are science fiction movies that
    are not about survival in some form. Where are the movie versions of
    Rama? But I digress…

    This movie is one you can watch with your kids. They won’t be able to
    sleep that night, unless you have allowed them to watch Game of Thrones
    and American Horror Story. If they have been watching these nothing
    will shock them. The same is true of most adults. If you are into
    decapitation, evisceration and things that are seriously depressing,
    hopeless and screwed up, you probably won’t like this movie. It’s just
    not dark and gross enough for your tastes.

    Poltergeist is unique, yet it retains the spirit of the original. A
    family fights against a paranormal force. They stand together and
    overcome it. The special effects are simple but high quality. I do not
    understand one reviewer’s comments about them. In fact there are some
    scenes in this movie that are like nothing I have seen before, in 30
    years of watching these kinds of movies. I was surprised and seriously
    freaked out, neither of which happens much anymore when I watch a
    movie. The people behind this did some good work. There is only one
    scene that doesn’t fit this kind of film which involves a drill.
    Otherwise it is all about the ghosts and paranormal. Acting is also
    good.

    I am glad they made this, and I hope they do more, improving on what
    they got right (which is just about everything), keeping the focus
    right where it is, on the paranormal and supernatural. If you like a
    good ghost story, ignore the reviews as well as the overall rating and
    try this movie. You will not be disappointed.

  • kwhitehead-34671September 21, 2015Reply

    Enjoyable – fun, far out and of its own merit

    Really enjoyable movie that brings on the action. You cant go in
    expecting to compare to the original because its a different day and
    time. Perhaps some of the haunting creepiness of the original has long
    since passed (but how can they compare – i remember seeing the original
    as a child and being scared silly by a couple of key scenes!!) This
    version has more emphasis on the characters, family and winning the
    battle so to speak.

    Importantly i liked the family, its well cast and well
    produced/directed with not too much nonsense filler which is the
    biggest turn off in many movies these days.

    Fun overall 🙂

  • politehereSeptember 21, 2015Reply

    As a kid, I would’ve rated this 10/10, but as an adult, I’m going to give it a 3/10.

    The opening scenes were promising and I started to think this movie was
    going to be amazing, but when I found out that the main actors were
    five year old kids, the movie started to sound more and more like a
    Harry Potter movie. There’s this particular scene in which the little
    boy is trying to tell his father that strange things have been
    happening and no one is listening to him. That scene was funny and
    reminded me of Harry Potter’s first movie, so were many other scenes.
    The father in particular was hilarious, but wait, isn’t this supposed
    to be a horror movie and not a comedy? Oh well. The crazy tree and the
    dead reminded me of the Whomping willow and the Dementors.

    The way they react to strange events is also hilarious.Normally, you’d
    expect to get this reaction from the parents in the face of bizarre and
    paranormal phenomena: Utter disbelief, but no, they take it in so well,
    and impulsively decide to go to the department of paranormal research
    instead of calling the police! And what happens in that department? The
    mother is like: ”Oh, my daughter was stuck behind the TV screen. I know
    it sounds crazy.” And the investigator is like ”No, it’s not. It’s
    perfectly normal!!!” Since when do people or the police go for a
    supernatural explanation for someone who has gone missing ”before” they
    consider the possibility that the parents are making up a story to
    cover up a possible murder or an actual case of kidnapping?!

    Who needs a ton of special effects and lots of lights flashing and
    going on and off and lots of laughs and hilarious performances to enjoy
    a movie? Easy, little kids. Who needs an atmospheric movie with special
    effects kept to a minimum, and serious performances to be scared?
    Adults. That being said, there is nothing wrong with this movie. It’s
    just that it seems to have been directed primarily for children. In
    fact, this movie should have been categorized as ”Family, Fantasy”
    rather than ”Horror”. In short, if Harry Potter movies scare you, this
    will scare you too.

  • basilbenazSeptember 27, 2015Reply

    The Beautiful Lesbian Girls Are Right About The Little Girl & The Movie.

    1)Poltergeist is a fantastic remake of the 1982 original movie .

    2)It Has Good Horror and Excellent Elements Of Suspense.

    3)Great 3D Visual Effects.

    4)All the actors in this movie acted well.

    5)The Cute Little Girl Kennedi Clements is not just a pretty face,but a
    lovely actress too.

    6)Modest PG-13 Horror Movie without Offensive Words Or Explicit Sex.

    7)The Editing Of The Film Was Amazing.

    8)This Film Achieved International Success (It Was Number 1 And A Top
    10 Movie In Various Countries).

    9) I completely agree with the pretty Lesbian Girls Who Posted Positive
    Comments Here.

    10) Go and Buy Or Rent This DVD If You Wanna Enjoy Seeing A Masterpiece
    Movie.

  • TdSmth5September 27, 2015Reply

    A mild failure

    An unemployed couple with 3 kids moves into a new house for some
    reason. It’s got a creepy tree in the front yard. The little girl
    starts talking to someone in the closet and on/in the TV. The little
    boy has his magazines magically turned into a tower and suddenly fly in
    his face. The parents aren’t interested. One night they go to dinner
    with some friends. The teen daughter babysits. At night the boy is
    dragged out by the tree, the little girl vanishes in the closet, and
    the teen is nearly grabbed by some black slime seeping out of the
    ground.

    Finally the parents decide to seek help from some paranormal outfit. At
    this point they’ve learned that the house and the entire neighborhood
    were build on cemetery grounds, but no worries, all the graves were
    moved elsewhere. Wild stuff happens to the team as as well so they seek
    help from the foremost paranormal expert, some accented guy who has a
    TV show. On the ceiling of the living room a portal appears to the
    other world. They throw a rope through the closet and it ends up
    through the ceiling so they figure they can get to the girl. They fly a
    drone and see the girl among embodied tortured souls. So the boy
    decides to drag his sister out. He succeeds but by now the entire house
    is being torn to pieces by the deceased and the family and researchers
    will have to find a way to escape.

    With Poltergeist Sam Raimi again manages to find some foreign nobody to
    direct an important remake. But again, it shows that it doesn’t matter
    all that much who’s hired, anyone can direct a movie that works. It
    does show though that Americans who graduate filmschool are screwed,
    Hollywood isn’t going to give them a chance. And Poltergeist works well
    enough for the first half or so, where it’s somewhat creepy. But the
    irrational human behavior and the lack of any character to connect to
    gets to you eventually and you just stop caring. The incompetent
    casting directors managed to assemble a truly awful cast of C-listers,
    as unattractive as unremarkable, and doomed this movie. With that
    budget surely they could have found someone to inject some much needed
    personality into this movie.

    The souls don’t pose that much a danger to the living and there are no
    serious scares here nor a sense of dread. For a movie that has little
    going for it, it takes itself way to seriously. There’s no charm,
    humor, or gore as there was in the original. Poltergeist barely gets
    the job done but nothing else.

  • Tony Heck ([email protected])September 28, 2015Reply

    Not that bad of a movie but another example as to why not every movie needs a remake. Especially if you can’t make it better.

    ”They’re here.” Eric (Rockwell) and Amy (DeWitt) have just moved their
    family into a new neighborhood and a great new house. Soon after moving
    in strange things begin to happen to their youngest daughter. One
    night, while the parents are away the house comes alive, and when they
    get back they are horrified to find that their little girl is missing.
    The real terror occurs when they find out where she went to. When
    people ask me what the scariest movie I have ever seen is I always
    answer the same way, the original Poltergeist. I was about 10 when I
    saw it, and to this day I still get chills when I think of it. With
    that mind set, I was nervous to watch this movie. I finally got up the
    nerve and half way through I realized something, I was wrong to be
    worried. The movie wasn’t that bad and they stayed pretty true to the
    original, but it was lacking the real horror aspect to it. The original
    just had some aspect to it that worked, this one was missing something
    to make it truly scary. Overall, not that bad of a movie but another
    example as to why not every movie needs a remake. Especially if you
    can’t make it better than the original. I give this a B-.

  • dcarsonhagySeptember 30, 2015Reply

    Fails to Deliver on ANY Level

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • shadowsden07September 30, 2015Reply

    Honored the original, but stands well on it’s own.

    I really enjoyed this movie. As a lover of the original Poltergeist
    movies, I felt that they really honored the original. I could see it’s
    influence in this. But unlike many remakes it wasn’t a line by line. It
    was adapted well to fit 2015 culture and storytelling standards and
    regardless of a few bad lines, had crisp direction and very believable
    acting.

    The effects were good, most of the time. Scary level was moderate. Not
    a whole lot of adult situations, so possibly safe for children over a
    certain age. And had some surprisingly funny bits thrown in. I enjoyed
    each of the actors and their characters… except for the older girl
    the first half of the movie… too spoiled.

    Overall, very enjoyable. If you love the originals, and aren’t biased
    when it comes to remakes, you might like this adaption.

  • Simon ClarkOctober 1, 2015Reply

    best laid to rest

    If we are talking about the resurrected, both those the movie pertains
    too and remake itself, it is a poor effort and should have been put to
    rest properly. I was really wanting to enjoy this movie as the original
    was great however halfway through it was still struggling to spike my
    interest. Apart from Kennedi Clements the acting from the main
    protagonists including Sam Rockwell felt a little forced which made it
    hard to relate and feel for the characters. The movie lacked polish and
    seemed rushed. As far as being a Horror it lacked any punch and
    wouldn’t even frighten a three year old. In this case the original is
    the stand out of the two, it had way more depth substance and was far
    more enjoyable then the remake.

  • thedefectiveguyOctober 1, 2015Reply

    Do not reboot Classics!

    Despite many friends telling me not to watch it, I went ahead and did
    anyway. So sad to see the likes of Sam Rockwell & Jared Harris in a
    terrible rendition of a cult classic. There were a few moments worth
    the watch, but the movie started losing appeal when the poltergeist
    manifestation started to take hold. Some scenes looked like it was
    filmed ad hoc, and the ”lighter, funny conversations” forced in between
    the horror scenes seemed to dilute the whole plot and urgency of saving
    their daughter, Madison. The acting and script made it look more like a
    ”sleep over” with a few attempts of scaring the audience in between,
    before we lose interest and start taking our phones out to Google ”Why
    am I doing this to myself?”. I always watch a movie right through no
    matter how terrible it is, but this was one a the few I just could not.

  • jsddawsonOctober 2, 2015Reply

    Don’t go in thinking it is the original

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • xbrollyxOctober 2, 2015Reply

    Disappointing

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Blogger66October 2, 2015Reply

    Great Reminder!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Bones TOctober 2, 2015Reply

    Polter Crap

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • bishbryantOctober 3, 2015Reply

    Horrible

    Do we need to seriously remake every good scary movie? The original
    Poltergeist was truly scary and haunting. This movie basically took
    parts from the original movie and toned it down to basically a
    contemporary style. Its like if you take Texas Chainsaw Massacre and do
    a remake with Nicholas Sparks as the writer. Do you catch the drift? I
    am a huge horror movie fan, and when me and my family watched it, by
    the end everyone was either sleeping or watching TV elsewhere. That’s
    how bad it was. it was boring and just horrible. You really don’t care
    what happens to the family to be honest.The movie was actually pretty
    interesting at the start, but whenever things got ”scary” it took a
    turn for the WORST. No memorable moments or silver linings. Just a
    really repulsive movie.

  • chrome99October 4, 2015Reply

    Not even close

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Wizard-8October 4, 2015Reply

    A really lazy remake

    As I indicated in my summary line, this 2015 remake of the 1982 horror
    movie ”Poltergeist” is very unimaginative. Instead of taking the basic
    idea of the original movie and going its own (new) way with its own
    (new) ideas, this remake for the most part is content to simply follow
    what happened in the original movie. If you have seen the original
    movie, this remake has absolutely no surprises and becomes pointless to
    watch. To those who haven’t seen the original (and you should – it’s
    good), this remake still won’t succeed in entertaining. It’s very
    slow-moving, taking forever for it to start putting in the creep
    factor. And when it does, there is a ”soft” feeling to the horror – it
    has a ”been there done that” kind of tone. There’s no grit – everything
    looks too polished. I think another reason why the movie fails to scare
    is due to the characters. The actors try, but their roles have been so
    blandly written and lack real personality that I didn’t care what
    happened to the family. In conclusion, this remake doesn’t bring in
    anything new, and with the original (and much superior) movie freely
    available, there’s no reason to watch this remake.

  • eva1365October 6, 2015Reply

    Why would you even try?

    My first question is, why would someone be arrogant enough to try to
    remake a Spielberg classic? You couldn’t possibly come close to the
    original! I had told myself not to see it, I’d be disappointed. But I’m
    seriously disappointed in just HOW disappointed I am. If they were
    going to rework it and do a ”scarier” version, where were the scare?
    Honestly, it didn’t have the humor and charm of the original, it didn’t
    have any real scares, and the family (which totally made the 1982
    classic) just wasn’t as likable. These parents seemed little more than
    upset that their daughter was missing…we saw none of the raw emotion
    that JoBeth Williams gave us. And without Tangina…..well, there is no
    substitute. I would say nice try, but why did they even try???

  • shaunephillips28October 6, 2015Reply

    Stock remake

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • LAURA ZOctober 8, 2015Reply

    I had high hopes for this remake…

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • jacobjohntaylor1October 10, 2015Reply

    One the best remake of all time

    This a very scary movie. It is better then the 1982 version. It is also
    better the Poltergeists III. Poltergeists II the other side is scarier.
    But still this a very scary movie. One of the scariest movies made in
    the last fifteen years. If you like really scary movies then you need
    to see this movie. This movie has a great story line. It also has great
    acting. It also has great special effects. A family find out that there
    house is haunted. See this movie. See all the Poltergeists movies. They
    are some of the scariest movies ever made. If you do not get scared of
    this movie then no movie will scary you. Sam Rockwell is a great actor.
    Rosemarie D.e.W.i.t.t is a great actress.

  • HorrorliefhebberOctober 16, 2015Reply

    Poltergeist -2015-

    -Poltergeist is a 2015 American supernatural adventure horror film
    directed by Gil Kenan, written by David Lindsay-Abaire and produced by
    Sam Raimi. A reboot of the 1982 film of the same name, the film stars
    Sam Rockwell, Rosemarie DeWitt, Jared Harris, and Jane Adams. It was
    released on May 22, 2015, by 20th Century Fox and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
    The film grossed over $95 million worldwide.

    –Critical reception:

    -On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a rating of 31%, based on 102
    reviews, with an average rating of 4.8/10. The site’s consensus reads:
    ”Paying competent homage without adding anything of real value to the
    original Poltergeist, this remake proves just as ephemeral (but half as
    haunting) as its titular spirit.” On Metacritic, the film has a score
    of 47 out of 100, based on 27 critics, indicating ”mixed or average
    reviews”. -Writing for Variety, Andrew Barker called it ”generally
    entertaining yet fundamentally unnecessary” and concluded: ”Even when
    one is inclined to admire the cleverness with which the remake revisits
    and reincorporates Poltergeist ‘s themes, it’s hard to pinpoint a
    single moment where it improves on them, and the aura of inessentiality
    hangs thick over the proceedings”. Neil Genzlinger gave the film a
    positive review in The New York Times, writing: ”The new Poltergeist
    might well be the scariest movie 13-or-unders have yet seen, just as
    the original was for their parents back in 1982. Those parents might
    find it an enjoyable trip down memory lane, even if they do now
    recognize it as largely a well-served collection of horror-movie
    tropes”. Tirdad Derakhshani wrote in The Philadelphia Inquirer: ”It’s
    not exactly a scary film, but it does provide an enjoyable ride. It’s
    good fun. But it left me befuddled”, adding: ”Why would anyone want to
    remake Poltergeist in the first place?”. Writing in The Daily
    Telegraph, Mike McCahill called the film ”an efficient scare-machine”.
    Bilge Ebiri wrote in New York magazine: ”This new Poltergeist isn’t
    anything special… But it’s not a travesty, and that feels like cause
    for brief celebration”.

    -In CinemaScore polls conducted during the opening weekend, cinema
    audiences gave Poltergeist an average grade of ”C+” on an A+ to F
    scale.

  • pedrostephanoOctober 17, 2015Reply

    Love it when a remake pays its dues to the original

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Mike BoydOctober 20, 2015Reply

    LOL at the ”Classic Gem” Review!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • TxMikeOctober 21, 2015Reply

    ‘In my last house the closet ate me.’

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • utgard14October 21, 2015Reply

    Another pointless remake

    Hey guys don’t look now but someone remade a classic and — are you
    sitting down for this part — it isn’t as good as the original. You’re
    no doubt shocked reading this. I know I was shocked to discover it
    myself. Poltergeist 2015 is pretty much your typical remake of a horror
    classic from decades past. TCM, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm St.,
    etc. — they all hit familiar beats and give everything a modern look
    with music video cinematography and glossy effects. But they fail to
    match the atmosphere or scares of the originals, let alone surpassing
    them in any way. There’s nothing in this remake that is better than the
    original Poltergeist. Not one minor insignificant thing is an
    improvement. Which begs the question, of course, why even remake it to
    begin with? The answer to that is the same as always: dolla dolla
    bills, y’all.

    The characters are a mixed bag, with the husband and wife both
    unlikable jerks who shouldn’t have kids. The teenage daughter is good
    for a laugh or two but, for the most part, is annoying teenage cliché
    character #14. The two little kids are the most likable members of the
    family. They, along with Jared Harris’ ghost hunter, are the only
    enjoyable characters in this. The familiarity of the material hurts the
    film. Not just because it’s a remake of a classic but for reminding one
    of many more recent Poltergeist-inspired movies, such as the Insidious
    series. So even if you find some young people who haven’t seen the
    first Poltergeist, they are likely to still think this is derivative of
    the recent stuff they are familiar with. It’s a watchable, albeit
    pedestrian, effort that has few good characters, no successful scares,
    and nothing added that improves upon the original in any way. In the
    end it’s just another slick-looking but shallow remake of a far better
    film with lots of CGI cartoonery to compensate for the lack of
    ambiance.

  • shaelynaOctober 21, 2015Reply

    awesome remake!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • RevRonsterOctober 23, 2015Reply

    Great cast but not a classic like its original…

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Chris GarlandOctober 24, 2015Reply

    Don’t believe all these 10 star reviews…..

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • TonightTurnYourWeaponsToSnowOctober 25, 2015Reply

    Average at most.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • eddie_bagginsOctober 25, 2015Reply

    So bad its scary

    I’m sure most would agree that no one was clambering for a remake of
    Tobe Hooper (or is it Steven Spielberg’s?) beloved 1980’s horror film
    Poltergeist, a film that gave don’t sit too close to the TV a whole new
    meaning and clowns an even worse name, but as seems to be the case with
    modern day movie making studios, they don’t seem to care to much for
    what we want and hence we now have 2015’s Poltergeist.

    Directed by Gil Keenan, a man known only for the CGI film Monster House
    (his 2nd film City of Ember is virtually a forgotten entity) and a
    talent once heralded as the new Spielberg or Zemeckis, and produced by
    long serving horror master Sam Raimi, there was hope out there amongst
    the many naysayers that this modern take on the unfortunate real estate
    ventures of the Bowen family could be a surprise packet of horror
    goodies, but when the scariest thing in a ”horror” film is a demented
    squirrel or an out of place looking Sam Rockwell, you know you’re in
    for a terrible ride.

    One would suspect that the modus operandi of most horror films is to be
    scary but seemingly throwing out the rulebook here Keenan and his
    script written by David Lindsay-Abaire deliver a film so bereft of
    scares that you’d have to think maybe we are instead witnessing the
    Poltergeist reimagined as some type of comedy vehicle, as there really
    is no other logical explanation as to why this film stinks at the level
    that it does.

    It’s hard to know where to start with everything that the Poltergeist
    does wrong, but the most telling aspect of the film other than not
    delivering one single scare (other than perhaps the film’s mid end
    credits scene which is just so horribly done its scary) is the fact
    that a producer like Raimi should of known better and tried to rescue
    or even cull this film before it saw the light of day or an actor of
    the stature of Sam Rockwell even agreeing to take a pay check and run
    with his misguided appearance here. Really, everything you would’ve
    loved about the original film is missing here and no amount of violent
    trees, mud monsters or scary cupboards was ever going to make this film
    OK.

    With a bunch of unlikeable child actors, a seriously non-scary or even
    slightly creepy retelling of a story that deserves better, Poltergeist
    is a huge letdown even though most had written the film off beforehand
    suggesting that the scariest thing about this horror film is just how
    bad it ended up being, even though the bar had been set at an already
    precariously low level.

    ½ a menacing squirrel out of 5

    P.S – note to parents. If you come home and find your child quite
    literally being swung around by giant tree and go inside to find your
    daughter inside a TV with demonic spirits,please act a little bit more
    concerned than the parents found here.

  • chrissheffield-44335October 30, 2015Reply

    like watching the original but worse

    exact copy of the original but worse. just watch the original. maybe it
    was a parody we were bored throughout we wasted time watching it i will
    never get back

    great to re visit a classic though

    Tangina should have remained as a woman

    i liked come in to the light carol anne it was the one iconic line in
    the film and it was not used

    such a shame as i was really looking forward to my fav film redone

    unsmileyface

    sadface

  • quincytheodoreOctober 31, 2015Reply

    Surprisingly heavy on CGI, although it does present unusual viewing.

    Due to competitions that utilize atmosphere and thrill aspect better,
    this remake of Poltergeist would probably not be as memorable as the
    original. It also follows the premise rather rigidly, which by now is
    already outdated. However, it may just present a couple of horror
    gimmicks bizarre enough to at least entertain the new generation.

    Story is predictable, a family is haunted by an unknown entity and the
    daughter is in danger of being abducted. Usually audience would react
    unfavorably towards the stiff plot, but considering that the original
    sets up this theme for the genre, some degree of lenience is warranted.
    For the acting, this family doesn’t really stand out from the rest of
    haunting victims, although the child actors perform pretty well since
    much of the movie invests on them.

    The original’s creepy atmosphere is definitely superior. It has the
    luxury of being made in simpler time. The remake does try to produce
    the same effect, yet it feels lacking on a few notes. Movies like
    Insidious or Sinister arguably have better ambiance and set up, so it
    opts for a more literal modern touch.

    Instead of practical effects, Poltergeist uses plenty of CGI,
    especially towards the latter half. It has its pro and con, the first
    being it has more peculiar look, which might not be better than most
    horror flicks but it does stand out. The flaw is it takes much of the
    horror away. It dabbles more on shocking visual than instilling dread
    that culminate in fright, the effectiveness of such method hinges on
    one’s taste.

    In a way Poltergeist tries to modernize itself, it doesn’t reach the
    same air of its original, but the sense of uniqueness helps in
    presenting a decent eccentric spectacle.

  • adonis98-743-186503November 1, 2015Reply

    Good but it could be better…

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • billkexelNovember 1, 2015Reply

    I tried to like it…but couldn’t. Storyline was dumb

    I tried to like this version but couldn’t. The storyline, the
    characters, and the acting is so bad. First off, why did they buy a
    house in an area/state where he had lost his job? If they would’ve
    bought the house & he was laid off later I could understand. Otherwise,
    if you lost the job, why not move back to your old area? why buy a
    house that is below you & in a bad area?

    The father is no Craig t.Nelson, he’s a weenie & not even likable. They
    chose the wrong actor to play the father. In the original movie, the
    father is a strong successful character & is very likable. For a family
    where no one has a job, they lived pretty well. Stupid storyline.

    In the original movie they bought a brand new home in an upscale
    area.So the experiences to everyone in the neighborhood was new. in
    this version, it is a 20+ year old neighborhood & it makes no sense
    that there wasn’t a big problem before? No other family was terrorized?
    The acting of all the main characters is lame and not believable. The
    original was scarier & much more believable. I’m glad I got it thru
    Netflix & did not waste my my seeing it in a theatre.

    Some movies should never be remade.

  • tfmj-1November 1, 2015Reply

    Bad, so bad

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • LeonLouisRicciNovember 4, 2015Reply

    As Good as the Original’s Sequels…This Remake is Worth a Watch

    Unremarkable and Unnecessary Remake of the very Popular Original,
    Directed by Tobe Hooper. Unremarkable because it doesn’t Break any New
    Ground and Unnecessary because of that.

    It is Tepid in its Familiarity, Looking like and Feeling like just
    another PG-13 Horror that gets Released Non-Stop. The Story still
    Intrigues and the Cast Headed by Sam Rockwell does OK with the Suburban
    Family Thing.

    This is not a Bad Movie as these Types go, but it really has Nowhere to
    go, Restrained by the Family Friendly Rating. There are a few Eerie
    Scenes with Goosebumps and the overall Result is a Recommendation for
    Horror Completest and those that don’t Think the Original is Beyond
    Approach.

    That Tobe Hooper Film was Fresh when released and was a Scary and a
    Fine Film. But it is Hardly a Masterpiece of Horror. So if You’re Up
    for a Remake and don’t Expect it to be a Great, it’s Worth a Watch, and
    as Good as the Original Sequels (of course that isn’t great praise).

  • Avner Lipschitz DDSNovember 4, 2015Reply

    Didn’t See The Original, And I Still Dislike This Movie

    I figured since many of the negative reviews were comparing the remake
    to the original, I might like this. Simply put, I didn’t. The entire
    pathos of this movie felt disingenuous and scripted, much like the
    cookie cutter neighborhood featured in the film. The house itself
    screamed Lifetime TV, not ”epic” horror remake. The Script: pedestrian;
    the Direction: lacking; the Cinematography: utterly banal. It seems
    this movie is more appropriate for a middle school date on Halloween
    weekend, not for a contemporary horror fan looking for a creepy thrill.
    This was not a movie worth paying for unless you want a collectors item
    or have some obsession with the original.

  • apocalypticonNovember 4, 2015Reply

    Nope.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • andfhood-762-37472November 9, 2015Reply

    1/2 the movie the original was!

    Halloween, Nightmare on Elm St., Friday the 13th, when you are going to
    re-make a very successful and classic horror film don’t change the name
    of the main character! Carol Anne, Carol Anne, where are you? Who is
    Madison? None of the characters come close to having the performances
    portrayed in the original. The anger and frustration of Craig T.
    Nelson, the tears and sadness of JoBeth Williams, the worry you felt
    from the older sister and brother, and creepiness of Zelda Rubinstein.
    I did not feel the chemistry among this new cast and I did not feel the
    pain and agony a family would feel had their child really been
    taken/kidnap by poltergeist. However, not to say this movie did not
    have its spooky moments, but I feel it relied more on CGI and less on
    character development and its ability to bring more to the plot while
    at the same time staying on the same path of the original: For example
    Rob Zombie’s Halloween. He gave us a back story and a new version of
    Laurie while still keeping the same elements. Overall for a movie that
    had three times the budget of the original, it was WEAK!

  • jeff-grattonNovember 11, 2015Reply

    Terrible remake/re-imagination

    I watched this knowing that it most likely wouldn’t be anywhere near as
    good as the original. It definitely was not but even as a stand alone
    horror movie it was not good. There was bad acting all around and it
    really wasn’t that scary. It seemed to try and push the story along way
    too fast as well. At least the original took time to build the story
    and characters and also had a creepy atmosphere all the way through.
    This re-imagination does not have a creepy atmosphere at all and only
    has a few scary moments. I gave it 4 stars since it did contain a few
    scary moments, but those were the only decent moments of the movie
    (which most were shown in the trailers)

  • p-jonssonNovember 11, 2015Reply

    Cheap shadow of the original

    The movie blurb is written by some 20th Century Fox representative. I
    would guess that the person in question has not even watched the
    original movie. ”Legendary film makers”? What a load of bull! These
    people have not produced anything really worth watching and this movie
    certainly do not improve on that score. I mean, how dumb are these
    people from 20th Century Fox? I certainly hope the audience are not
    dumb enough to fall for this obvious lie. Judging from the, well
    deserved mediocre score on IMDb I guess they did not.

    Anyway, as for the movie. It is a bleak (cheap) shadow of the original.
    It has absolutely zero of the charm that the original movie had and,
    most importantly, none of the characters had anything of the charisma
    that the original characters had. The father is a total dumbass and an
    irresponsible at that. The mother could by just any Hollywood style
    housewife.

    When you finally think that something interesting would happen, that is
    when the ghost hunter enters the scene, it just falls flat again. He is
    just totally lacking in appeal. He is neither a bad ass nor is he
    mysterious or anything else that makes him worth watching.

    There are just so much things wrong with the story as well. How can
    this guy afford and get a one for a house when he apparently do not
    seem to have a job? He even manages to go for another house in the end
    after his original one apparently got shredded. How bloody dumb is the
    script writer? In the original it was a new neighbourhood which
    explained the ”troubles”. In this one it is not which means that the
    script writer obviously had zero understanding of the original plot
    which brings us back to the same question again. What the f…? There
    are some half decent CGI scenes in this movie but the same can be said
    for a lot of things coming out of the movie industry nowadays (well
    with the exception of SyFy productions of course).

    I would say that as a TV-movie it would have been above average. As a
    remake of a classic it totally falls flat. I am happy that I watched it
    at home and did not spend time going to a theatre watching it.

  • Michael O'KeefeNovember 13, 2015Reply

    Hang on to what you can grab. Poltergeists!!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • kosmaspNovember 13, 2015Reply

    Drama/Comedy

    The movie works better if you watch it as drama rather than a horror
    movie. I know fans of the original will go/call sacrilege (but they’d
    do that anyway … well mostly). But if you watch this as a family
    drama (and I’m certain this was intended, seeing Sam Rockwell and his
    interpretation of the role), you will get more out of it. It is fairly
    decent considering that.

    Of course that’s only true for fans of the genre (Horror), others who
    are not used to Horror might not see it exactly the same way. There are
    frightening scenes in this don’t get me wrong, but anyone with a little
    ”experience” will see them coming and will not be entertained (or
    scared for that matter) by them. The acting though? Pretty solid by
    everyone involved – again not if seen as Horror. Can you dig that? If
    so watch, if not, you’ve been warned

  • WhitetygrrNovember 19, 2015Reply

    one of the better remakes (possible spoilers but not really nothing that would ruin it😆)

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • K_ash10 ([email protected])November 19, 2015Reply

    Did Poltergeist Really Need to Be Remade?

    Now I loved the original Poltergeist film. It was original, creepy and
    in some cases unsettling. I could understand remaking this film if the
    filmmakers wanted to try something new and make something scarier. But
    that didn’t happen. This remake follows the same story, a family moves
    into a new house and they soon discover the house is being haunted by
    some spirits that want to take the family’s youngest daughter. This
    film is not a good remake. It’s the same basic story and the only thing
    that is really different is the upgrade of technology so it’s just a
    modernized version which is completely unnecessary. The original
    version still holds up today despite being made in the early 80’s. The
    scares in this film also do not work, they are all predictable and
    didn’t even remotely disturb me.

  • Matt_LaydenNovember 22, 2015Reply

    What Am I Afraid Of? Not This Remake.

    No no no, this is not the Tobe Hooper classic from the 80’s. This is
    the horror remake cash grab of the last decade genre. I’m not going to
    compare this film to the original. I feel like that would be a bit
    unfair. Instead, I’ll simply judge it on its own merits. But
    first…why did I bother to watch this film?

    Poltergeist is a shallow remake with; no scares, tension, surprises or
    people that seem to give a damn. Rockwell in my opinion looks like he
    is literally sleepwalking through the role. The amount of ”this is for
    a paycheque” written on his face is undeniable. Rosemarie Dewitt, who
    plays his wife, does seem like she cares though. She agreed to do this
    film because her husband was in The Conjuring and she witnessed first
    hand the type of fear it struck in the audience. She wanted to be apart
    of that experience….unfortunately she decided to star in Poltergeist.

    The film simply feels unnecessary. It brings absolutely nothing new to
    the table. Why am I paying to see this film? If I’m not paying, why am
    I dedicating two hours of my life to watching this? There is no answer
    because Kenan doesn’t deliver anything of note here. We have a by the
    numbers PG-13 Horror flick shot in 3D. Yes, expect to see some ”coming
    at the screen” moments, which make me cringe in embarrassment and a
    little bit of disappointment, considering Kenan also had a hand in the
    animated haunted house flick, Monster House.

    I can’t stress this enough, Poltergeist is a failed attempt at remaking
    a horror classic. Why do they take good films and remake them? I do not
    know. Take bad ones and make them good. There’s an idea!!!

  • LeviathanNovember 28, 2015Reply

    Not bad… Could of been so much better though.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • DallasDecember 1, 2015Reply

    Its OK but not really that good.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • pgronquistDecember 4, 2015Reply

    Save your money

    At the age of 10, I saw the original Poltergeist as a double feature
    with a James Bond film. Thankfully, 007 helped me forget the terror.
    This remake is pathetic. I rented it last night hoping for the same.
    There is no suspense. The story line is the same…sort of. The acting
    is fair. The effects are Hollywood. At times, I thought this could have
    been produced as a made for TV scary movie like that on the SyFy
    channel. It tries to relive the original but loses on many attempts.
    The tree, they’re here, etc. The ending has a weird twist to the
    original. This is another attempt to cash in on previous successful
    horror movies by Hollywood. Skip this version and watch the masterpiece
    from 1982.

  • leonblackwoodDecember 6, 2015Reply

    Terrible remake! 2/10

    Review: What a terrible remake! It’s definitely not in the same class
    as the original and I’m surprised that it made a profit at the box
    office. I’m usually a big fan of Sam Rockwell but his performance was
    pretty poor. Anyway, if you’ve seen the first movie, the concept is,
    more or less, the same. A family move into a new suburban home and the
    two younger kids, Madison (Kennedi Clements) and Griffin (Kyle
    Catlett), start to see some strange things happening around the house.
    There parents Eric (Sam Rockwell) and Amy (Rosemarie DeWitt), take no
    notice of there young son, because he has a history of seeing abnormal
    things. When they go out for a meal with there new friends, the
    Poltergeist starts to take over the house and it takes Maddy into its
    paranormal world. When Eric and Amy come home from there night out,
    they soon realise that some strange things have been happening in there
    house and when they realise that Maddy is missing, they hire a
    paranormal research team to investigate her disappearance. With the
    help of there elder daughter, Kendra (Saxon Sharbino), they set up some
    gadgets around the house to try and work out were Maddy has gone. The
    head of the research team Dr. Brooke Powell (Jane Adams), soon realises
    that she is going to need a specialist to go into the paranormal world,
    so she calls on her ex-husband, Carrigan (Jared Harris), to tackle the
    ghost. When he arrives, he soon gets spooked with the scale of the case
    but he uses his expert skills to get Maddy back into the normal world.
    The reason why I thought this movie was so bad was because none of the
    family looked that surprised about there house being taken over by a
    unknown powerful force. When there daughter gets taken, no one seemed
    to panic and with all of the noise going on in the house, no one was
    suspicious in there neighbourhood, especially when there car crashed
    through there garage or when the kid was shouting in the tree. The
    police were never called through the whole, noisy, episode and the
    idiot that nearly got a drill through his head, decided not to tell
    anyone, for some unknown reason. On the plus side, I did stick with the
    movie because I was wondering how they were going to get Maddy back but
    that also turned out to be very disappointing. The acting was poor from
    the whole cast, because they wasn’t screaming or showing any intensity
    through the whole film but the graphics were OK. I wasn’t that
    disappointed because a lot of my friends told me that it was rubbish,
    and now that I’ve watched it, I can understand why true Poltergeist
    fanatics were upset with this remake. If they decide to come out with a
    Poltergeist 2, which they might because this movie made a profit, they
    really need another script writer because there were to many holes in
    this storyline. Disappointing!

    Round-Up: A lot of people remember the first movie because of the
    little girl, Carol, and the weird psychic Tangina and the acting from
    the whole cast, especially the mother and father, played by Craig T.
    Nelson and JoBeth Williams, was brilliant. There’s nothing that
    memorable in this movie and I wasn’t left wanting to see a part 2.
    Anyway, a lot of people class Poltergeist as a Steven Spielberg classic
    but he actually didn’t direct the movie. Spielberg did write the
    original story but it was directed by Tobe Hooper, who brought you the
    Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise in 1974. This remake was directed by,
    London born, Gil Kenan, 39, who brought you City of Ember and the
    animation movie, Monster House. With only 2 movies to his name, I don’t
    think that he was the perfect candidate to take on this all time
    classic and I don’t think that he got the best out of Sam Rockwell and
    Rosemarie DeWitt. There wasn’t enough emotion from the characters,
    which I’ll blame on the director because they are both known for there
    great performances. I think that it was the fact that this was called
    Poltergeist, why it made a profit at the box office and not because it
    was a good film. I just hope they give the next project to another
    director, if they make one.

    Budget: $35million Worldwide Gross: $95.5million

    I recommend this movie to people who are into their horror/thrillers
    starring Sam Rockwell, Rosemarie DeWitt, Jared Harris and Jane Adams.
    2/10

  • Evo GunnDecember 12, 2015Reply

    Not scary at all.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • SnoopyStyleDecember 17, 2015Reply

    faded copy

    The Bowens move into the suburbs heavily hit by foreclosures. Eric (Sam
    Rockwell) lost his job and they have to downsize. His wife (Rosemarie
    DeWitt) and his kids try to adjust. They are utterly broke and discover
    the development was built on a former cemetery. The youngest Madison
    starts to play with an invisible presence. Griffin sees the weird
    happenings but his family is dismissive until the spirits grab Madison.
    They call on Dr. Brooke Powell (Jane Adams) and her team of students to
    help. Powell brings in psychic Carrigan Burke (Jared Harris).

    This is a remake of the classic 82 original. They have essentially
    taken the plot and the big scenes from the original. It’s a faded copy
    without adding anything great. Everything feels like it’s hitting at a
    lower level. I love Rockwell and DeWitt. Jane Adams is a step down and
    Jared Harris fails completely by comparison. It’s not his fault but
    he’s not capable of being an icon of horror like Zelda Rubinstein.
    Making them exes only reduce the potency. It’s trying to add humor
    without success. The only real improvement is Griffin’s character. I
    like his guilt and thereby explains his need to rescue his sister. I
    don’t buy that the parents not going after him but I generally like the
    Griffin switcharoo. This may stand on its own some day but is inferior
    to the original.

  • JeniaDecember 17, 2015Reply

    Disappointment

    Don’t recommend it to people who saw the original one or to people who
    are looking for a high quality horror title. To be honest i wasn’t
    looking for something big , i mean the original had decent special
    effects and storyline anyway , so i want imagining the remake will make
    something any better .Oh boy even with this thinking i got disappointed
    .The movie starts pretty good ,the jump scares and the tension are well
    made but as the movie passes it starting to look like the makers of the
    movie got tired of filming it in the middle-end.My disappointment came
    mainly because of this , suddenly everything became sloppy and boring ,
    if it wasn’t for the fast storyline of the movie i surly would have
    switching it off 15 minutes before the ending. Its clear ,this movie
    doesn’t need a remake ,the original one is 100 times better so don’t
    waste your time.

  • David ArnoldDecember 17, 2015Reply

    Not Amazing But Doesn’t Deserve All The Hate Either.

    I have to start off by saying that I honestly don’t understand the hate
    this film has received from some people as it’s nowhere near as bad as
    they are making it out to be. Whether it’s because some are ”fan boys”
    of the original and are p*ssed at the mere thought it was remade, I
    don’t know, but after viewing it for myself, a lot of the hate is
    unjust in my opinion. I’m not saying other people aren’t allowed to
    have different opinions. I’m just saying I don’t understand where all
    the hate comes from.

    That being said, this version definitely isn’t better than the original
    – far from it, and it’s not one of the best horror films of this genre,
    but it IS a decent watch and as long as you don’t watch it thinking
    ”that never happened in the original!” you should be fine. It IS a
    remake after all.

    Aside from a couple of wee things here & there (and some people being
    wrong), the basic premise here is the same as the original, which of
    course is a good thing because why tear apart something that was
    already good to begin with? Obviously, this version adds it’s own
    ingredients into the mix, and in general they are decent additions with
    a couple of good creepy moments mixed in.

    One thing that was always going to differ from the original was the
    effects, and going against what some people have said, this isn’t a
    CGI-fest. It’s far from that in actual fact. Yes, CGI is obviously
    used, but it’s nowhere near to being over-the-top and the scenes it’s
    used in it’s done well.

    The acting wasn’t bad either and I thought the cast all done a fine
    job. However, I did think that the characters seemed a bit mismatched
    for some reason, like they were all out of place, and unlike the
    original, there wasn’t that ”wholesome” family feel. That was a minor
    irritant for me though, as I did enjoy the movie overall.

    Will this one stand the test of time like the original ’82 version?
    Doubt it, but that doesn’t make it any less enjoyable.

  • TheBarleyGuyDecember 18, 2015Reply

    Hollow and Offensive to the Original

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • mhol111964-754-567942December 18, 2015Reply

    Aside from a few cool scenes, You’re better off watching the original 1982 classic instead.

    In a way, this film exceeded my expectations…I expected it to be bad,
    and it was. While it’s not as awful as I thought it would be, it’s
    still quite bad.

    Not only does it fail as a remake, but also as a stand alone horror
    movie. It features cheap scares, bad acting, forgettable characters,
    and plot points borrowed from other horror movies from this decade
    (”Insidious” (2011), ”The Conjuring” (2013) etc.).

    Also, it’s so different from the original that it’s not even a remake.
    It’s just an average PG-13 supernatural fear fest with the same title.
    Not to mention that the girl isn’t even Carol Anne from the original,
    but ”Maddy”, which was quite a stupid move on their part. The only
    parts that were like the original are the static TV, the clown, and
    another thing at the end, in which saying it would spoil it.

    Almost nothing happens, and a lot of the scares are pointless. The
    clown did absolutely nothing, and was just an obvious attempt at giving
    the film a similar feel to the original. There is a tree in one scene,
    which did something, but was of no significance to the story. It
    doesn’t really get good until about the last 30 minutes or so.

    On a positive note, it features nice looking visuals, and a few cool
    scenes. But those things alone can’t promise a good movie. It’s better
    than the ”Nightmare on Elm Street” 2010 remake, but that’s not saying
    much.

    Overall, this was a pretty mediocre horror film/remake. I can’t
    recommend this movie.

    If you’re considering watching this, that’s your business. But be
    advised that if you go into it expecting it to be as good or memorable
    as the original, you’re going to be disappointed. In other words, you
    are probably better off seeking out the 1982 classic instead.

    4/10

  • mbianchinoDecember 18, 2015Reply

    Worst Movie EVER!!!!

    This remake was just awful, really awful. No story line, no scenario
    development. Just a myopic approach that drowned in its own
    embarrassment. If one hadn’t seen the original, one would have no idea
    what the hell was going on. An unemployed family seem to be cashed up
    enough to buy a house (no matter how cheap the price). A husband who
    doesn’t want his wife to work , even though he is unemployed, sorry not
    believable. The guy who played the father, just an incredibly bad
    performance, pity the producers didn’t leave him unemployed and casted
    another. Now mix this with a dinner party that was a vignette to the
    husband and wife’s background, and the history of the house built on a
    cemetery. From then on it was basically a cut paste of clichés best
    suited to a trailer. Not scary, especially the pathetic looking clown
    puppet. If you want to see a scary clown check out Twisty the Clown
    from ”Freak Show” (American Horror Story) Stay well away from this
    remake, well away!!!! PS: the two actors from the Mad Men series should
    have stayed in Mad Men – this movie does nothing for their reputation

  • Cad BuryDecember 19, 2015Reply

    Truly AMAZING cure for insomnia..

    Seriously, I started yawning after 20 minutes.. I know remakes are
    usually bad but this is awful.The acting is more or less one
    dimensional and the story bring nothing new to the table. I was really
    excited to see this because of the original and because Sam Rockwell is
    in it. Can’t say Sam’s performance was bad, it just feels a bit empty.
    The teenage daughter’s character was over the top, that little boy was
    boring, the best one was the girl if I may add. And she wasn’t even in
    the movie that much. I got a feeling this project was forced and the
    movie was made in 2 weeks. I kept checking how long the movie is and
    how much more I hate to endure. Probably biggest let down since Carrie.

    The ending scene made me laugh though, but other than that a waste of
    time.

  • Paul Magne HaakonsenDecember 19, 2015Reply

    Seriously?…

    This 2015 remake of one of the finest moments in horror cinema – the
    original 1982 ”Poltergeist” movie – is a prime example of why Hollywood
    should stop with the whole remaking movies thing that is going on.

    Compared to the original movie, this 2015 version is a pathetic,
    shallow and fully unnecessary movie. The attempt to amp the story up to
    a 2015 date was just not working. And at no point throughout the movie
    did the audience ever get the sensation of the Bowen family ever really
    being in a dire situation, and the poltergeist events were just far
    from being impressive or scary. There was no sense of dread or despair.

    And it didn’t help that the actors and actresses were giving
    half-hearted performances, it didn’t add anything useful to the story.
    The only one who put on a noteworthy performance was child actor Kyle
    Catlett (playing Griffin Bowen).

    Effects-wise ”Poltergeist” was good. And the most impressive thing
    about the entire movie was how the visual department portrayed the
    spirit world. Now that impressed me a great deal, but it was nowhere
    near enough to make up for the train-wreck that is the 2015
    ”Poltergeist” movie.

    It was my undying love for the original movie that made me want to see
    the 2015 remake, and I knew it was going to either be an impressive
    display of ghostly effects or a real stinker. Sadly, it turned out to
    be the latter. But hey, can’t claim that it was a surprise.

    If you, like me, love the 1982 ”Poltergeist” movie, do yourself a huge
    favor and stay well clear of the 2015 version, because it is a blemish
    on the original movie. Director Gil Kenan’s attempt at reinventing an
    already established horror masterpiece was like a slap in the face with
    a dead fish and followed by a bucket of ice water. It is something
    nobody really wants and could do without.

  • Jacqueline HesterDecember 31, 2015Reply

    A Solid Homage: A Good Standalone: Not a Fantastic Remake

    I REALLY loved this movie as a standalone ghost film. The effects were
    solid, the scares really built up, and the child actors were great. The
    mom SUCKED in terms of modern parenting, and the dad felt like the
    original dad, sarcastic and dickish.

    The issue I think people have is that their heads are up their elitist
    butts. This movie was really good, scary and fun. I hated the ending,
    but that’s me. I’m glad they didn’t do a shot for shot remake, the idea
    and some recognizable themes and scenes pulled it together just enough.

    If you want some good scares, with a happy ending, this is a good
    movie. If you want some super scares with a scary ending? This isn’t
    for you.

  • Nate PerezDecember 31, 2015Reply

    Mediocre expectations, barely mediocre movie

    *No spoilers* Being a big fan of the original but also understanding
    that there is a 30 year gap between the 2 films, I was hoping for a
    well done masterpiece to rival the original. However, what was met was
    a barely mediocre movie, with it all to blame on one thing. Terrible
    characters.

    The actors themselves did a great job of portraying the characters that
    were on screen, the scares were more jump than the originals creativity
    and terror but it worked in its own way. The digital effects were
    beautiful and well done and it was a interesting twist to have the
    movie focus equally on the son and the daughter instead of just the
    youngest daughter. What ruined the entire movie is how none of the
    characters acted appropriately. In the middle of the movie, after they
    had just spent 30 minutes building up fear to invoke terror and despair
    in the biggest event in the movie, it all of a sudden became comedic?

    Barely a tear was shed, barely a smart decision made and the characters
    that had led me to be scared in the first hour now made me wish that
    they were the ones with their lives in peril. The comedy was totally
    out of place, ruined the horror it had already invoked and the swapping
    of the creepy small psychic lady in the original for a brash, old,
    irritating Scottish man is unforgivable. The fear that the digital
    effects should have brought to the movie no longer had any effect on me
    because I no longer cared after the ridiculous behaviour of the
    characters.

    Whoever designed the characters and wrote the script should be shot.
    The actors did their best, the incorporation of new technology and new
    scares into the movie was well done, although they missed a few crucial
    aspects from the original, but the stupidity and inappropriate
    behaviour and feelings of the characters just made the movie utterly
    ridiculous.

    I made an account just to write this review, I was that appalled. Don’t
    watch this, watch the original. And maybe in another 30 years they’ll
    take another stab at this and get it right.

  • MatJanuary 11, 2016Reply

    All the budget none of the heart

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Nick HemmingJanuary 14, 2016Reply

    Awful

    When I heard Sam Raimi was helping create a remake of 1982’s cult
    classic, Poletergeist, my initial thought was: ”That’ll suck.”
    Seriously, I’ll never understand why Raimi has achieved the reputation
    of being a ”good director;” every single movie he makes is awful. Evil
    Dead? Stupid. Drag Me To Hell? Awful. The Spider-Man trilogy…don’t
    even get me started. This guy, at least in my opinion, shouldn’t still
    be making movies, or even assisting with production; 2015’s Poltergeist
    is more evidence to that claim.

    The original Poltergeist was ahead of its time; a story about a family
    who’s home was haunted because it was (illegally) built upon a
    Native-American burial ground. Its eery score and frightening jumps
    were high-quality scares for an 80s film, but what makes this movie a
    classic was the inclusion of spirit-reader Tangina. It was the first
    scary movie I recall seeing that had a character who provided
    explanation to the haunting, turning random scares into reasonable
    tactics. This movie was a horror movie at heart, but a mystery story in
    theory. None of this originality is present this time around…

    Finish reading on my website: http://hemihardaway.com/movies

  • christinariverajaffeJanuary 17, 2016Reply

    Eh

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • violetskye19January 17, 2016Reply

    I loved it !

    What do you call a remake of a classic horror, that’s not quite a
    remake ? Poltergeist 2015 edition, that’s what ! And personally I would
    like to thank them for making it ‘not quite a remake’ as I was about 30
    or so mins into the film I realized I didn’t feel like I was watching a
    film I’d seen before, sure they’d kept some of the old clichés, but
    lost some as well, replacing them with modern interpretations and it
    all just jelled together really well, so I felt like I was watching a
    new movie, in and of itself, and might I say, enjoying the hell out of
    it ! If you liked the original, you’ll love this, if you were born
    after the original had its hey day, as such, you’ll still love this,
    there’s screams and creepy things, tender moments and a few laughs, and
    no sex, which will please all parents worldwide, while managing to
    disappoint teenage boys, also world wide. It’s a fun ( but creepy )
    family horror everyone can enjoy, if there is an award for best remake
    at the Oscars then this film should win hands down !

  • michael-3204January 25, 2016Reply

    Why bother?

    On the plus side, the decision to re-frame the upwardly mobile family
    of the 1982 classic into a recession-era, housing-bust gang down on
    their luck is a good idea, but the story never really delivers on that
    premise or explores its implications. The story doesn’t do much of
    anything except offer a Cliff Notes version of the original, with a few
    ”Paranormal Activity” and ”Insidious” elements thrown in for good
    measure. The pacing is so off that not even the considerable charms and
    talents of Sam Rockwell can breathe life into the Dad — the rest of
    the cast doesn’t stand a chance. The deliberate call-backs to the
    original feel like pale imitations; the changes to the original, while
    not objectionable or ill-considered in and of themselves, don’t add up
    to anything and don’t give this film its own personality. This may well
    turn out to be the most inessential remake of the decade (though the
    ”Point Break” remake could give it a run for its money).

  • Chris MannixJanuary 26, 2016Reply

    What a disgrace

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • OneEightNine MediaJanuary 29, 2016Reply

    You’ll forget it after a week.. or less

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • mikeismacJanuary 30, 2016Reply

    Rubbish remake

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • blackacidFebruary 4, 2016Reply

    No Tension, All FX and Jump Scares. Bitterly Disappointing,

    I loved the original Poltergeist and was very wary of this remake, but
    I decided to give it a chance after reading some of the reviews on
    here.

    The casting is great, Sam Rockwell is always on form, and the kids were
    cool and not annoying, which is always a big win.

    For the first half hour, this was a solid ‘remake’ in the truest sense
    of the work, staying faithful to the tone of the original whilst making
    it relevant for a modern audience.

    But it all completely fell apart with the spooky stuff, which was
    handled with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. There was very little
    build up at all, and then suddenly everything happens at once,
    completely spoiling the tone and bordering on the ridiculous.

    Take the classic tree scene for example.

    This worked so well in the first movie due to pacing and slow burning
    tension, that builds over time and unfolds later in the movie and
    allowing us to suspend our disbelief when it hits us.

    In this iteration, there is no such skill, instead we’re almost
    immediately hit over the head with everything at once, too early in the
    movie and a scene that is more ‘Whomping Willow’ from Harry Potter than
    Poltergeist.

    Talk about shooting your load too soon, the makers of this film clearly
    don’t understand what made the original so compelling. This would have
    been in much better hands had it been made by the team who brought us
    The Conjuring.

  • thesar-2February 5, 2016Reply

    More of a Stephen King’s Sleepwalkers remake

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • sakronaxFebruary 8, 2016Reply

    A shitty remake of an amazing classic.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • nanagladysFebruary 20, 2016Reply

    Has everyone gone mad ? Possible spoilers ??

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • dark_angel_89March 2, 2016Reply

    One of the worst remakes i’ve ever seen….

    How people say this is 1 of the best remakes they’ve even seen is
    beyond me…

    Tt’s nothing in comparison to the original…

    They have changed TOO much..

    It definitely doesn’t have the same effect on you as the original..

    plus it was only on our Cinema’s here for a week so what does that
    say…

    STOP remaking classics!!!!

    Find new ideas for a change!!

    Rant over!!

  • thebigbang003March 5, 2016Reply

    A Great Remake

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Lollex TranceMarch 6, 2016Reply

    Not a scary movie

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Eka HerlyantiMarch 10, 2016Reply

    Is This Movie Exclusively Made For Children?

    I’m sorry to say, but it looked like I was watching horror movie
    exclusively made for children. I wasn’t scared at all. And I didn’t get
    the idea why the ghosts here love playing around with electricity. They
    were farmers, right? Actually the part when Eric got choked is really
    scary. And also about the drill thing. Those were the only scenes I
    love. I want to see the first version of this movie. Maybe it is scary.
    Who knows?

    I’ve seen few American horror movies, and now I can see the pattern. A
    family move into a new house, they don’t know the history of the house.
    Even though they know, they don’t care because they get a good price
    for a big house. Then the ghost or anything like paranormal activity
    happens to them. And so with this Poltergeist movie as well as
    Insidious and The Conjuring.

    I wonder, who comes first with the Idea. But, whoever get the first
    idea, nothing can beat Insidious series and The Conjuring. The same
    theme with Poltergeist, but still the best story and they got me scared
    to death. I hope the first version of Poltergeist will do the same.

  • cquesada-668-419329March 12, 2016Reply

    Uninspired and unnecessary

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • vincentlynch-moonoiMarch 13, 2016Reply

    Truly pathetic remake of a classic

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Nitzan HavocMarch 17, 2016Reply

    Regardless to the original – fun and impressive!

    To most people, Poltergeist is a remake of the 1982 Stephen Spielberg
    classic. Personally, I’ve never seen the original, as I became a Horror
    fan during my late teens and have never been able to connect to the
    classics (excluding Freddie and Jason). So to me, the 2015 version was
    the first ever encounter with the brand.

    Reading the plot synopsis would have you expecting a regular Ghost
    Story sub-genre film, with several jump-scares and terrifying ghosts
    (hopefully living up to Asian standards). However, Poltergeist’s
    perhaps most impressive feature is that the ”ghosts” (quite frightening
    as they might be, albeit mediocre and no more than some professional
    makeup work) receive very little screen time (perhaps 3 seconds
    altogether). The film is scary and disturbing due to the story and
    presented scenarios, without relying on scenes which appeal more to the
    human physiology than the human mind. In this day and age, succeeding
    in creating a film that is scary without using jump-scares or heavy
    makeup/CGI effects is quite an achievement, one that screenwriter David
    Lindsay-Abaire and director Gil Kenan have definitely earnt.

    The story describes a family of 5 characters (two hardworking parents,
    one spoiled teenager, one anxious 8-9 year old and one adorable 5 year
    old) who move into a new house. Unbeknownst to them, the house is built
    on burial grounds, and the spirits aren’t too happy about it. Corny as
    it may sound, bare in mind that this plot originated in the early 80’s.
    At the time, electrical disturbances, moving objects and a young child
    communicating with ghosts were all fairly new ideas, and the 2015
    version presents them beautifully. The characters are all very likable,
    excluding the annoying middle son whose anxieties simply feel
    exaggerated and over the top. The acting is not half bad (by the entire
    cast), especially Kennedi Clements as little Madison (young talent
    never seizes to impress me).

    All in all, Poltergeist 2015 is living proof that when done right – a
    good Horror film doesn’t need to stoop down to using cheats and ”boo!”
    moments. Most of the fear sensation is achieved by making the audience
    use their imagination, not unlike when reading a scary book. This is
    definitely not the scariest film to watch, as it’s even suitable to
    certain children, but that’s what I find to be so impressive about it.
    Fans of the original classic would probably hate it on account of it
    being ”untrue to the source”, but actual Horror fans would probably
    appreciate it for what it is: a scary film that is fun to watch.

  • GL84March 18, 2016Reply

    Enjoyable enough remake but has some flaws overall

    After moving to a new home, a family finds that the series of strange
    incidents around the house are the cause of a vicious, violent
    poltergeist living with them and must rely on a group of experts when
    they kidnap their daughter into another dimension.

    For the most part this was a fine if somewhat flawed remake. The
    biggest thing against this one is the fact that there’s much more of an
    emphasis on speeding throughout everything that it tends to come off as
    quite rushed without any reason. This one starts in on the supernatural
    theme quite early on, merely minutes after the move-in with nothing
    that is worth getting upset over and yet the insistence on moving away
    is brought up which makes this feel so rushed. It gives off the idea of
    having missed a few steps in order to get to this spot in the film
    rather than simply going from the arrival to the initial claims of
    something happening in the house beyond the steps shown here. Even the
    other antics here, from the spirit attacks on the house to the random
    blurting out of the big twist here that starts the whole haunting being
    a throwaway line in the middle of the movie rather than gradually
    developing naturally in here since it has to rush through everything.
    Likewise, there’s also the fact that being a remake it severely
    diminishes a lot of the surprise and shock from what happens here by
    pretty much running through the entire plot without much deviation
    which makes what happens in here not that shocking or original when it
    showcases the attacks in the bedroom or forces them to bring in the
    spiritual guides. Once it gets past all that and focuses on the two in
    the other dimension, the heavy-handed and obvious CGI environment
    leaves a lot to be desired with the rather lame look that’s not at all
    realistic and likely to actually occur given the way it looks
    throughout the time in there as the bright flashes and obviously fake
    heads are just atrocious-looking to take them out of the moment.
    There’s some damage done here because of that yet there’s still a few
    rather enjoyable parts here. Despite the rushed nature of what’s
    happening, the film isn’t truly boring at all as there’s plenty of
    build-up to the actual haunting where this one really gets a lot right.
    Those scenes are incredibly fun, with the family’s supernatural- based
    attacks being quite impressive, the actual segment where the house
    comes alive and begins targeting them with far more intense abandon
    than expected. Even the action leading into the trip into the other
    dimension is a lot of fun with the ghosts becoming aggressive in a fun
    enough form that makes for a great sense of fun here, and leading into
    the great finale that’s even bigger in terms of fun action. They make
    this one fun enough to be enjoyable.

    Rated PG-13: Violence, Language and children-in-jeopardy.

  • DBLurkerMarch 20, 2016Reply

    SCARY MOVIE! – If you were born yesterday..

    This is one of the new age ”horror” movies. So expect a lot of loud
    noises and beyond obvious jump ”scares”. Add to that, the same old
    terrible cliché-fest involving a child in the house speaking to the
    dead and the family bringing in the Ghostbusters to help them fight the
    evil spirits (on whose graves they were living on BTW, jerks).

    This movie, is awful.

    Just awful.

    I am still trying to figure out which scared me most. The awfully
    uninteresting characters (every single one of them), the generic
    screenplay or the lack of any actual horror.

    I usually say ”watch it if you have nothing else to watch” but I now
    want to say, ”if you have nothing else to watch, good, keep it that
    way”.

    Awful, boring movie. Ruined my day.. well, not really.

  • Mike KashubaMarch 23, 2016Reply

    Waste of time…

    I personally found that I could have wasted one hour and thirty three
    minutes staring out the window instead of watching this movie. As seen
    in many other reviews I agree that this remake is unnecessary. Aside
    from the stunning visual affects which is more realistic than a
    majority of other movies filmed today, ”Poltergeist”, for lack of a
    better word, sucks. I found the acting flat and lacking any emotional
    connection to the story and the characters themselves. In addition, the
    movie itself is uncreative both visually and script-wise. There were
    many opportunities to display unique cinematography however after the
    first scene, I found myself categorizing the movie as just another a
    useless, cliché, horror story, that lowers the bar for the horror
    genre. Gil Kenan’s ”Monster House” was a terrific, original, and fresh
    masterpiece that added volume to the horror genre. However after
    watching ”Poltergeist” I have lost faith in his directorial abilities.
    I usually enjoy most movies, however this one was truly unbearable to
    watch. I give it three stars for the foundation of the story and the
    excellent work of the visual effects team.

  • lymond01April 4, 2016Reply

    Terrible Movie

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Shopaholic35April 12, 2016Reply

    It sent a shiver through my spine.

    Poltergeist (2015) thankfully doesn’t feel like your traditional
    reenactment of a classic horror film. It has the same concept but it
    had a different 21st century feel to it.

    Initially I found it hard to watch and some of the scenes were so
    terrible that they were comical but as the film progressed it began to
    actually get scary. The little girl was the one who sold it for me,
    she’s terrifyingly sweet. It’s just unfortunate that the rest of the
    cast were a bit lame in comparison.

    For a horror film…not bad. It had everything I was looking for and
    the special effects were actually pretty good. They were gruesome and
    quite different. It’s not the best thing to come from the genre but it
    was scarier than some I’ve seen recently.

  • Camelot_2000April 14, 2016Reply

    A 21st Century CGI Predicable Remake

    I just caught this on Netflick and my expectations were low regarding
    the so-called remake from the 1982 original. It was professionally made
    with equally professionally actors, but regardless of all that good
    potential, the movie just doesn’t pan out in this day and age.

    Today’s world is spoiled rotten with CGI and the overwhelmingly
    multitude of movies available at any $5 dollar Walmart bin. Something
    that’s a success today will be a bargain basement DVD tomorrow. It’s
    like tossing pennies at multi-million dollar projects that last for a
    brief time before falling into the hole of a ”cheap” Walmart.

    This is obviously just a step-by-step path for the original and with
    less punch. The girl even says, ”They’re Here!”, with as much gusto as
    an Elementary School play. The solid punch of the original just isn’t
    here. It’s like playing shadow puppets with something that’s far more
    superior than what later follows.

  • ostrogorskyApril 23, 2016Reply

    Dismal. Horrible. Perfect!

    This movie is awful on every possible level : the script, the casting,
    the acting, the music and most importantly the direction.

    So why am I saying it’s perfect ? Simple. This is the best example of
    why remakes are terrible ideas. There is 33 years between the original
    and this abomination and the 1982 movie is infinitely superior in every
    way.

    You’d think that modern movie making and computer effects would help
    make a better movie. NOPE. IF anything modern technology has made
    directors and everyone involved in the production super lazy and
    unimaginative.

    Hollywood big wigs don’t care as long as it turns a dollar in profit so
    we’re bound to see more of these stupid remakes. Poltergeist 2015 is
    the perfect embodiment of why remakes should never be made and I’m glad
    I got to see it to have final proof of what everyone is saying since
    the first remakes…

    DON’T DO THEM.

  • birdmad1969April 25, 2016Reply

    Curiosity killed my afternoon

    A huge steaming pile of garbage that can’t hold a candle to the
    original film. Not scary, poorly acted, horrible script, and completely
    lame from minute one. I forced myself to sit through it to give it a
    chance to get better, but it never did.

    Characters were wooden, and I felt absolutely no empathy for them
    whatsoever. When you’re clamouring for one/any of the characters to
    have at least the gravitas of Zelda Rubenstein, you know the movie is
    in trouble.

    The effects in the original were more realistic and much scarier than
    this crappy CGIfest. While it tried to pay homage to the original in
    many scenes, it felt extremely ham-fisted and failed on every attempt.

    Watch if you absolutely must, but my eyes haven’t stopped rolling yet.

  • sussmanbernMay 31, 2016Reply

    A remake, but not the same

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • RaymondJune 3, 2016Reply

    Entertaining, but not that scary

    I’m a bit of a fan of the original Poltergeist. It’s got that great
    80’s Spielberg factor I grew up with, but with a Tobe Hoopers horror
    touch. I wasn’t really looking forward or planning on seeing this
    remake, but since it popped up on the new movies list on an on-demand
    movie site, I decided to give it a go.

    Have to say I was pleasantly surprised. I hadn’t read anything about it
    beforehand, so I didn’t know if it was crap or gold. It’s kind of a
    weird movie actually, it’s not excessively scary, no gore and the tone
    is somewhat light. There are creepy moments and definitely some good
    mild scares, but the overall feel is entertaining rather than scary.
    Which in my opinion works for the benefit of this movie.

    Acting, directing, cinematography, editing, fx .. all good. Can’t
    remember how the music was actually, but I suppose it worked fine if it
    didn’t stick out.

    Recommended. Not for hardcore horror freaks, but as a Friday night
    entertainment it’s pretty good. Simple, back to basics kind of movie,
    not filled with hundreds of underlying themes and endless plot twists.

  • jdegelingJuly 5, 2016Reply

    The original wasn’t that good anyway… Thnx for the remake! (Beginner filmmaker)

    Why i like this film: 1) good effects (loved the clown doll)

    2) great acting and well selected actors ( the little girl is very cute
    )

    3) good script ( was not cheesy like the original)

    4) good cinematography and lighting

    As a beginner film maker ( age 13 ), I compare originals to remakes to
    see what could be improved of already well known films or classics. I
    watched the original first and found it particularly slow and cheesy.
    The medium was super annoying and overall a poorly chosen actor. In the
    remake, there was no cheese. There was lots of good elements which add
    to the quality of the film rather than take away from it.

    I gave this film an 8 because I am not fond of the idea of remakes.
    Todays directors need to find new ideas to create new and original
    masterpieces like the original. The only reason i watched it was to see
    what another director with a different interpretation can do with an
    already great film. And how it could get even better. Overall, I liked
    the film more than the original but still think it was wrong to make a
    remake in the first place… I know, it is confusing… Give it a
    chance though even though it is a remake.

  • vladanzokaJuly 10, 2016Reply

    Disappointed with film

    This review is in the first place to those who has watched an original
    Poltergeist from 1982 and hope to watch some maybe better remake of
    great horror movie. But his remake is awful (in 95% remake are just
    that). Act,plot,story are pale copy of original movie.Don’t watch this
    and waste your time. Go watch Poltergeist from 1982 if you didn’t watch
    instead of this remake failure. It’s full of great act,twist’s and
    awesome special effect who is still awesome after 30+ year ago. This
    new Poltergeist dose not follow the old movie. It’s look like they have
    budget of 35 dollars instead of 35.000.000 dollars. Only good thing in
    this ”movie” is the actor Sam Rockwell. I’m disappointed with those big
    productions house what they do with great movie title. Like I was
    saying,don’t watch this and waste your time.

  • rsheppard52July 19, 2016Reply

    PLEASE don’t give anyone money for making this rubbish

    A few bullet points I came up with within an hour of seeing it:

    1. There’s no likable characters. Not effort to establish them or
    reasons to sympathise with them. We get a few minutes of exposition
    about the schlub fathers bad career luck, that’s it. ”Hey, why bother
    writing a good story, everyone knows what Poltergeist is about already
    right?”. The establishing scenes (moving in/seeing ghosts for first
    time/getting paranormal investigators in) is all done so quickly and
    uncreatively.

    2. The dialogue is terrible, like the screenplay was scribbled down in
    half an hour after a quick viewing of the original.

    3. Did any of the writers actually bother to find out what G.P.S. even
    stands for? Or how it works? Let alone find out what cheap drones are
    really capable of. Apparently Bluetooth can travel between different
    dimensions, wonder what version they were on?

    4. The parent’s performances are perfunctory, the kids are all bad. The
    Irish ghost hunter is the only slightly-likable performance but that’s
    barely enough and it’s right at the end.

    5. There’s no attempt to put any interesting spins on the original
    story. Bolting on a (really bad) slightly alternative ending doesn’t
    count. So damn lazy.

    6. Absolutely none of the CG ghosts/effects are scary. The original
    succeeded in having effective scares when needed, but also effective
    humour too. This glaringly has neither. Hang on, i’m wrong….there
    were a couple of laughably-bad scenes, but not many of them either.

    7. The whole thing has the cynical air of ”Let’s just get this over and
    done with as quickly and efficiently as possible so we can hopefully
    make a fair profit for minimal effort and expense”.

    8. Watch the excellent original and forget this rubbish ever existed.

  • housecountrywifeJuly 23, 2016Reply

    Slap in the Face

    What was the point of this movie? Simple : a slap in the face from the
    morons at Hollywood and beyond. The only reason I bothered with this
    remake is because I was under the false impression that it was another
    story in the saga, or rather, an updated version of the story with
    different plot, etc etc… Instead, a bland, rushed, completely
    POINTLESS piece of work, and an absolute waste of money. I won’t bother
    with spoilers, if you can read between the lines and have been seeing
    the garbage released for the last 10 years (atleast), then you
    understand. A sign of the times indeed, and also a sign that Hollywood
    is bankrupt on ideas, as people have been wising up to the pirates in
    the industry stealing original story lines and selling them as their
    own. It that true Sam Raimi had something to do with? If so, shame
    shame.

  • frakerthomasJuly 25, 2016Reply

    Great remake

    So I just watched the original and remake of Poltergeist back to back.
    1982/2015.

    I prefer the original for a few reasons. The story telling is better,
    the remake relies to heavily on the original to tell key points of the
    movie for them. The original was more suspenseful and the acting was
    better.

    But on the other hand, the remake had some awesome affects and added a
    few twists of it’s own to the story. They stayed very true to the
    original without feeling like a rerun.

    The remake was creepier and that was awesome but the original makes you
    feel more invested in the family. So both are great movies.

  • rosecaliforniaJuly 30, 2016Reply

    Not as good as the original

    When you see an original older film and enjoy it – and of course it is
    highly rated as this original. Then you need to ask, why did someone
    think it was a good ideal for a remake. Did this have something new to
    add to this story, and was it something different from the typically
    stated, wanting to bring it up to date with our current times.

    Well this film failed. And essentially is a pointless remake.

    One of the oddest thing I have to note, is casting evidently looked far
    and wide to find a little girl that had large eyes and similar facial
    structure to Heather O’Roarke.

    This remake consists of many similarities, even identical script in
    some areas to the original. So I guess that the writers,directors
    thought that this film lacked – the typical angst ridden teen with her
    face either in a cellphone or laptop, and to bring it current they put
    in the story-line of being out of work, money issues, foreclosed homes,
    and a father that is trying to connect to a son that just doesn’t get
    him.

    This film also decides to use the extremely loud bangs and bumps
    throughout to try and give the viewer that jump scare.

    This movie really isn’t worth the time out of your evening to watch.
    Well that is unless you want to spend the entire time watching each
    scene and script and comparing it do the great original.

  • bobbysingAugust 1, 2016Reply

    Nothing new in this unimpressive remake reminding you of the basic plot of Ramsay’s HOTEL (1985)

    A recently released English horror movie is normally expected to
    introduce some fresh element into the genre with the help of advanced
    technology capable of contributing a lot. But surprisingly as
    POLTERGEIST, we get to see a quiet unconvincing and under performing
    remake of the 1982 original film with the same title that was also
    co-written and produced by Steven Spielberg.

    Probably POLTERGEIST was remade since the older version is still very
    popular among the lovers of horror films in particular. However sadly
    it does no justice to its reputed legacy and turns out to be nothing
    more than a pointless remake bringing back the old memories without
    scaring you in any way in its 90 minutes of duration (shorter than the
    original). Moreover in these past decades, so many films have already
    exploited this clichéd idea of a family moving into a new house to meet
    some invisible power, that one doesn’t feel any kind of excitement
    watching it once again without any fresh elements added into the old
    script (except the Drone!).

    Hence even though it follows the same (once) interesting sequences as
    it is, the excitement goes missing due to the repetitive or stale
    execution. And that remains applicable to both the section of viewers,
    one who have earlier seen the original long time back and the others
    who haven’t or know nothing about the famous movie and its other
    different sequels released in the past decades. In fact the viewers
    already familiar with the 1982 version might feel more disappointed
    watching the remake due to its poor show of emotions and unimpressive
    interactions between the key characters (despite their kid girl being
    abducted by the evil spirits) making no impact whatsoever on the end
    user.

    For friends, who simply wish to know about the scary quotient of the
    film, there is nothing much to write about since it truly lacks the
    much expected shock value or intensity normally seen in such horror
    based movies. As a result, the new age POLTERGEIST simply fails to
    impress the audience with an outdated presentation offering nothing new
    and one might feel more entertained re-watching a hit Ramsay movie
    instead to give you a clear idea.

    Interestingly the basic plot of the film, revealing the existence of an
    old cemetery on the same plot used by the builders, also reminds you of
    a Ramsay brother’s film titled HOTEL revolving around a similar theme
    released in 1985.

  • olijordan-86707September 3, 2016Reply

    The worst horror film of the past 15 years.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • EvansbeeSeptember 18, 2016Reply

    Time dumpster, even for horror fans

    Horror movies are my favorite, but I’m not the type of horror movie fan
    that will simply judge a movie on its horribly photoshopped cover or
    generally hold holier than thou attitudes toward technique, execution,
    writing, and cinematography (although I will bask in the glory of these
    done well), especially when it comes to remakes. I like to give them
    the benefit of the doubt.

    Poltergeist (2015) was no different. I had wanted to see it for quite
    awhile but wasn’t convinced that it was a movie I needed to buy for
    $14.99 (thanks iTunes for your options, btw). After watching it tonight
    (for free, streaming online) the only two things that keep resounding
    in my head are ”Thank you inner voice for telling me not to hit the
    purchase button” and ”OMG. Worst. Remake. Ever.” In fact, I will go as
    far as to say that it’s probably one of the worst horror attempts I’ve
    ever seen.

    I don’t need to include spoilers here. If you’ve seen the original, you
    know the story. This ”remake” definitely assumes you have and gives not
    even a second thought to the story, nor does it even pretend it cares.
    It’s an afterthought, at best. Actually, this whole movie seems and
    comes off as an afterthought. This remake was not made by someone
    wanting to expand upon or do any service artistically to the original.
    No, this is a pure, unadulterated cash grab at best. At its worst, this
    is a slap in the face to the horror genre for a quick buck, to fans of
    horror and to the original altogether.

    I won’t pretend the original Poltergeist is the best horror movie ever
    made, it’s definitely always been cheesy in its own way. Yet, it
    managed to make me squirm, creeped me out, and kept me entranced
    whethercwatching it as a child or as an adult. The original Poltergeist
    is everything that this film is not….

    This ”remake” is sloppy, careless, poorly executed and poorly written,
    all while the actors struggle to pull out performances (even a talented
    actor like Sam Rockwell comes off disengenuous). It is lazily shot with
    more early 2000s-esque CGI than anyone should be asked to swallow for
    2015…and is as scary as a wet dish towel.

    There are exactly two moments in this film that I was slightly taken
    aback, but most definitely not scared, shocked, or surprised in the
    least. Mostly, I laughed or shook my head in embarrassment or dismay
    from how awful what just happened on screen actually was. Definitely
    not a crowning achievement.

    Yes, the young newcomer actress is cute, and does her best…but you’re
    not given an opportunity to care about what happens to her character or
    her family.

    My husband fell asleep 7 times (I counted), and afterward said ”People
    standing around in a white sheet have been scarier and more
    interesting”. I agree.

    Some remakes are good, most are bad, and unfortunately for Poltergeist
    and horror fans this trainwreck is the latter. It’s a shame in a way
    because if it had been done well, it could have been pretty awesome.

    Watch it, or don’t, just don’t buy it. You’ll regret it. I promise. And
    most of all, do not expect to be satiated, scared or impressed in the
    least.

  • ThatMonkey ([email protected])October 22, 2016Reply

    Nevery Hire These Idiots Again!

    The original film is hands down a classic. It’s comedy, horror,
    suspense, drama and a stone cold thriller. Despite compelling
    performances from Sam Rockwell, Rosemary DeWitt and the little girl,
    the plot, execution and pacing of this film just stinks. The writer,
    director and producer should never work again as this material was pure
    gold and they turned it into something more worthy of direct to VOD,
    bargain basement trash.

    So much potential, but the only scary moment for me was realizing what
    an absolute abortion this film turned out to be. I’m a huge fan of
    remakes despite most people calling Hollywood less than creative, but
    movies like this make it hard for me to keep up my argument.

    Today’s technology along with a story more in line with the original
    script should have been a huge hit, but again, this was complete
    garbage. Had it not, we probably could have got cameos from Jo Beth and
    Craig T.

  • aesgaard41October 23, 2016Reply

    From The Reboots We Didn’t Need Department

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Tessa ClaireOctober 30, 2016Reply

    Its not bad….But not good

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • gwnightscreamNovember 7, 2016Reply

    ”Not Bad Supernatural Remake!”

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • iceman88869November 25, 2016Reply

    Just not good

    The psychic they made out to be some guy faking it through his life
    instead of like in the original where she was legit and respected. Most
    scenes from the first are there, but NONE of the original scenes are
    even close to being half as good as the original. Remember ”There
    herrreeee”, well, there was no life in it when this girl repeated the
    same line. The casting was not bad. I think it was the director and
    script writers that really butchered this. The first movie had an
    atmosphere about it. This had nothing. I have seen B flicks with better
    atmosphere.

    I cannot recommend this movie unless you are really bored or maybe want
    to compare to the original. Or you are just tired of banging your head
    against the wall.

  • IMBdUser1002December 3, 2016Reply

    Not very scary, but a pretty good movie

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • jackbax-94771December 21, 2016Reply

    Not What It’s Cracked Up To Be

    Having seen this erm… ”flick”, I became homesick and melancholic to a
    time when everything was indeed better, for then back in 1982 Spielberg
    and Hooper grabbed the attention of the viewer in a way we nowadays
    rarely see… Characters had personal ”depth” and you’d close them in
    your heart… Those were also the days you’d leave the theater with a
    warm kinda feeling that lingered on for a few days.

    Now… we have the 2015 rape version, which is a poor match for the
    original installment. Effects are to say the least erm… (wha?). And
    suspense let alone tension, is to be sought with a magnifying glass or
    a microscope.

    Of course you have to take in account, this is another Poltergeist than
    what we spoiled-rotten viewers are accustomed to. Too thin a plot to
    call spectacular, too meager the performances due to lack of emotions
    of characters…

    It was… blèh!

  • gemandeye1March 3, 2017Reply

    Should not have been billed a Remake but just a New Story Line

    I enjoyed this film probably more so after hearing how many people
    hated it. Rockwell is a great actor and does a fie job with what he has
    to work with. But like my summary said if this was billed as a new
    story line in the Poltergeist franchise I don’t think people would have
    been so harsh. expecting something to top an iconic classic like the
    original is nearly impossible. As a stand alone film this did have
    genuine scares and much of it’s own story line. If they would have
    removed some things they purposely copied and gave this a secondary
    title following Poltergeist (Just an example Poltergeist: Their Back) I
    think this would have done so much better.

  • nmn34March 7, 2017Reply

    It Somehow is Worse Than it Looks

    The original Poltergeist was an amazing work of art. Its effects have
    shown their age but there is still a beauty to a lot of the effects.
    The parade of spirits descending the stairs is among the most memorable
    scenes in cinema and a work of art. The remake, not so much.

    The special effects have been updated, I can give them that. The
    problem is there is just no direction to it, no artistry. There isn’t
    really much to set it apart from other generic horror movies, there is
    your shadow children running around, goopy skeletons, and CGI squirrel
    attacks, the whole laundry list of generic haunted house movie effects.
    The big exception that the movie feels like it was banking on is the
    spirit world that the original could never pull off. And they don’t do
    much better. They describe it as a realm where spacial reasoning makes
    no sense. If they were to stray from the path, if they were to go up or
    down, they would never be able to find their way back. Then they cross
    that barrier, and its a hallway. A hallway of groping goopy skeletons,
    but a hallway none the less. It feels like you just watched Babe Ruth
    point to the outfield and then strike out without ever taking a swing.

    Then their is the cast. The focus of the remake is on the middle child,
    Griffin Bowen, and he will get on your nerves in a matter of seconds.
    He is the most cowardly child ever put to film, he is literally afraid
    of everything. The tree scene that sets the kidnapping of Carol Ann in
    the original where it tries to consume the young boy, it is that level
    of fear he has when a branch scrapes the window. The fact that this is
    the hero just kills all of the suspense as he reacts the same as his
    sister gets kidnapped by ghosts as he does when his mother forgets to
    leave the light on. And of course they give him the attic, the scariest
    room in the house, knowing full well that he has the fortitude of a
    limp noodle.

    The family isn’t much better. There is a massive problem with modern
    movies that try to make the cast seem deeper than they need to be. They
    are given other problems that they are going through and they more than
    often aren’t handling them well. And as a result, they come off as the
    worst people to have ever lived. In this case it money troubles. They
    are so deep into crippling debt and are only digging themselves in
    deeper that they are ignoring all of the haunted stuff going on around
    them. Hearing them just disregard Griffin as he is trying to tell them
    of the goings on becomes a testament of frustration as the audience
    screams at the top of their lungs to move on and get this over with
    already.

    The extended cast isn’t much better. It was a dick move when the
    researcher raids their fridge in the first movie, and their steak of
    all things, but the one in this movie takes it far deeper. Probing a
    child and all but calling his parents liars to his face is just
    unacceptable behavior for any grown man. The rest of them aren’t very
    memorable which is especially a problem with David Carrigan. He comes
    off as just a generic ghost hunting show host which is a shame as the
    character he is playing was so memorable in the first movie. They just
    don’t stand out among the many shovelware horror movies that are thrown
    into theaters these days.

  • agostino-dallasMarch 11, 2017Reply

    You got scared with this movie? Really?

    Poltergeist was a classic and for that, and the time it was first seen,
    the original was so much better. Hollywood has been failing to create
    something as good in the last years. It is a bunch of movie loaded with
    clichés and lack of a good plot to ensure quality. No point asking why
    people have been enjoying the parodies. You name it! Paranormal
    Activity, Scary movie, remakes like this one of Poltergeist are so
    badly made, I can’t classify them. It should be totally forgotten.
    Enough with electricity ghosts, evil tree branches, haunted TVs and
    toys, it is pathetic to say the least!Not another family to be
    tormented by the evil spirit. It was good…20 years ago! Now it is all
    about zombies or the living dead. What the heck is wrong with Hollywood
    and horror movies producers? There might be a good one out there
    expecting to be released.

  • pheden-39824March 20, 2017Reply

    Worst movie I’ve ever seen for real ?

    I actually created this account just to make this review. I’ve never
    ever seen such a bad acting Seriously the (Dad) is trying to be so cool
    all time so it gets embarrassing. His walking like his a bodybuilder
    and got this rough hard attitude against his family members so its just
    make you wanna crawl out of the skin AWFUL: Same with the mother
    absolutely ZERO actress and their dialog are so unnatural like their
    reading it from a book. Alsom their expressions doesn’t fit what
    they’re saying at all.

    There’s not even ONE moment where i even get a little scared all is so
    predictable.

    I cant believe they got the permission to do a remake of this (cult
    movie) Don’t see it just keep you’re memories from the original MOvie.

    Im honestly stunned how bad the (Parents) are its like a Joke.

  • generationofswineApril 7, 2017Reply

    An Honest Review

    Have you seen it? No? There is likely a very good reason for that…it
    stinks.

    Like nearly ALL the endless remakes and reboots that have been plaguing
    movie goers for the past decade or so….all this is, is a heartless
    version of the original.

    It has no heart.

    It has no soul.

    It is a retelling of a film that we all love and cherish…and it adds
    nothing to the story. It improves nothing but the special
    effects–which held up very well over time–and in some cases belittles
    the fans of the original…particularly in the fact that they remade
    the movie at all, without adding anything clever to it.

    Like so many other remakes it is a hallow shell of the original.

  • tstudstrupApril 8, 2017Reply

    Bad acting, bad cgi, large plot holes and not scary.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Syo KennexApril 20, 2017Reply

    Not as bad as everyone said

    This was definitely not as bad as people said.

    When I started watching, I was waiting for the worst horror movie ever
    made, worse than all those cheesy horror films, like The Bunnyman
    Massacre, and things like that.

    What I found was actually a pretty suspenseful, decent horror movie.

    Okay, so they could have laid off the really tacky CGI a little more
    than they did, that was horrendous. However, the use of suspense was
    really well done. I had goosebumps, I was on the edge of me seat and I
    kept chewing on my nails. I shivered, and I was really quite scared.

    There was quite a lot that they could have done better, that is for
    sure. There was a lot of things that could be edited, and they could
    have done tons better on the CGI, as I mentioned before, things like
    the tree and the ghosts themselves were just really, really terrible. I
    laughed a lot at some of it, couldn’t stop laughing really. It wasn’t
    meant to be funny, but I just couldn’t stop laughing.

    It could have been a lot better, but it also could have been a lot
    worse. It’s really not as bad as everyone was saying, definitely watch
    this and make your own opinion on it.

  • MynameisromanMay 26, 2017Reply

    Was this made for TV?

    I was a huge Poltergeist fan when i was a little kid and was really
    scared of the original movies when i saw them on TV in the late 80s or
    early 90s. It had everything a good movie should have. a good script,
    good actors, good director… this one had none of those. the actors
    feel unmotivated. the script was rewritten to add the typical 21century
    Hollywood movie formula and the director didn’t know what he was doing
    anyway…

    don’t watch this remake… stay with the original! its scarier anyway,
    even today!

Leave a comment

Name *
Add a display name
Email *
Your email address will not be published
Website