Poltergeist

“They're here.” Poltergeist is a strangely disjointed horror movie that initially ridicules a model 1980s yuppie family and their lifestyle (rationality, pragmatism, disconnection from nature, which then strikes back in the form of intrusive mosquitoes and man-eating trees), but then, through that same family’s misfortune, defends the values on which Reagan’s America stood (the use of paranormal phenomena as the impetus to return the characters to a time when they still “believed in miracles”, as Diane says, is ambiguous). Similarly, the film is unclear as to whether viewers should fear or sympathise with the ghosts, because they are – according to the clairvoyant – so alone. Perhaps both, except that the transitions from family-friendly entertainment, keeping us under the illusion that nothing is really happening, to brutal horror, with characters peeling the skin off their faces (resembling a cut of meat that they were getting ready to consume, which I’m not sure was meant to be some sort of sophisticated critique of consumerism), manifested also in the changing style (urgent details vs. units with multiple plans of action), are not very subtle. The film is not balanced either rhythmically (its pace is slowed by long explanatory passages, the narrative continues in a “set time” after everything essential has been said) or in terms of tricks (some are still impressive, while others, like the digital tornado, are laughable). Though Poltergeist contains the best of both Steven Spielberg and Tobe Hooper’s work, it fails to combine the two approaches in a way that doesn’t seem irritating. 70% (24.02.2017)

Some parts are pretty scary, some parts are tedious, but pretty good fun overall; certainly better than most of today’s long haired ghost stories. Horror for the whole family. 80% (26.05.2008)

An excellent family Spielberg horror that even children can watch. Well, I´m not completely sure. If I had watched this one at the age of six or seven, so I would have never been willing to sleep in my bed alone anymore. However, the film could have been much better if it had not been so intoxicated by the technical achievements and did not use effects only for effects´ sake, which today, however, inevitably seem ridiculous. What it lacks is timelessness and this disturbs the otherwise carefully constructed atmosphere. At the same time, when the creators are content with the murmur of television, the blue light behind the door, they sensitively know their parents about "Beast Behind the Curtain", a motionless clown toy by the crib (with an intruder poster in the background), Goldsmith's music. Practical effects or directly human remains, so it can be impressive even today. There is simply a certain contradiction in this, which is clearly seen in many aspects. This is most noticeable in the final half hour, when the regular final (Aťka Janoušková versus From beyond) and the closing take place. But instead of subtitles, the second part follows in the form of the second regular final, which, however, is made in a completely different mode. And both are excellent, although I much prefer the second one. The poltergeist should have been shorter, to rely less on "CGI" effects, and not to have such a noticeable discrepancy between Hooper's and Spielberg's visions. Even so (or because of that,) it is still a movie that you can easily find in every good ranking of the most important genre films. And there´s a clear reason for that. (10.01.2017)

There has been much speculation about the extent to which Tobe Hooper, the nominal director, or producer Steven Spielberg had control over the project. In terms of overall style and motifs, the film fits in with Spielberg’s 1980s directorial and production work, with which it shares both the transplanting of a fantastical premise into the essentially domestic suburban setting of the time and the motif of family togetherness as an absolute good. Though we can also find parallels with Hooper’s filmography, particularly in the motif of terrifying and haunted houses, his own Invaders from Mars makes it clear that he doesn’t know how to work with child actors, which is not at all evident in Poltergeist. In any case, their joint creation can be considered the beginning of the 1980s trend of children’s horror movies. Though in comparison with later movies, Poltergeist resides more in the realm of horror; children and youths are its primary audience (it is no coincidence that the distributor asked the MPAA to change its rating to PG), which is reflected in the fact that it builds on unease and fearful wonder instead of terror. In other words, Poltergeist is an excellent horror film for the whole family that will keep especially children glued to the screen. (12.10.2015)

The film has an excellent technical side (where Spielberg's work is most visible) and the nomination for visual and sound effects is, in my opinion, absolutely deserved. The ending is literally a whirlwind of directorial ideas, various visual tricks, and throughout the film, we can see scenes masterfully set with lights. Maybe if it had a faster pace, I would have pressed for a higher rating. (10.04.2005)

Aus dem Fernsehen kommt selten etwas Gutes. Die Stimmung der ersten Hälfte ist großartig (auch wenn die Herren Spielberg und Hooper auf der Baum hätten verzichten können), die zweite Hälfte ist nicht mehr so einwandfrei. Manchmal muss man über das Verhalten der Figuren den Kopf schütteln. Vor allem dann, wenn sie sich freiwillig entscheiden, in dem Haus noch eine Nacht zu verbringen. Manchmal ist es auch sehr an den Haaren herbeigezogen (der Clown). Trotzdem überwiegen die Positiva. Ich kann mir gut vorstellen, dass Spielberg das Drehbuch ursprünglich für Unglaubliche Geschichten geschrieben hat. Er wollte es aber nicht kürzen. Deshalb hat er Poltergeist für eine Weile in die Schublade versteckt (hihi). Ich denke, dass man gut sehen kann, welche Szenen er gedreht hat (die besten, wie z. B. den Nachtbesuch) und welche Hooper. Der erfrischende schwarze Humor beim Eintreffen der Experten und die Schauspielleistung der kleinen JoBeth Williams waren eine nette Überraschung. Jerry Goldsmith hat wieder gepunktet und die US-amerikanische Hymne klingt noch bedrohlicher als sonst. (04.05.2013)

I can't believe that this is truly the work of the same Tobe Hooper who in 1974 enveloped the world in a cloud of fear in the form of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. This is nothing but a one-off and desperately boring farce whose main goal was probably to scare you with the sight of a buzzing TV set. Anyway, the effects were very impressive, especially towards the end, and even Goldsmith's music had something to it, but all the good stuff ends up in a head-scratching story with a terrible bad ending, something I definitely wouldn't expect from a Spielberg-influenced horror film. Such sloppy wasted potential should perhaps be punished. (10.08.2022)

An above-average ghost thriller that benefits mostly from Spielberg's great script, visual effects, and dense sound. Spielberg himself also oversaw the directorial side, so for me an enjoyable experience, particularly augmented by the elaborate visuals. (02.08.2009)