This suggests that the story is written from the view that human nature is smothered by our contemporary culture, and that it leads to spiritual stagnation by playing to human desires. This theme is not explored properly. It merely makes its subtle complaint without exploring why this is wrong or a problem.
Only this individual family is affected by the turn of events, and their experience is inconsequential since they are ordinary and closer to cardboard cut-outs than real people.
Page 1 — Page 2
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
1 - Aaron Fleming
I agree, it is an overrated and silly flick.
2 - Casey Lunkley
I just don't get how the hell you've never seen Poltergeist before. I saw it as a kid, which is probably why I still like it.
3 - Rodney Welch
I loved it. I thought it was scary as hell, and actually paid several times to see it at the theater. To me, it was a terrific joyride, and I loved the performances of Craig T. Nelson and JoBeth Williams; they were, to my recollection, the first pair of truly 1980s parents, the kind you would see parodied in the show "Family Ties" -- people who came of age in the 1960s and now found themselves in Reagan America. That one scene of them in the bedroom -- her rolling joints, him reading a Reagan biography -- had about it the real sense of a cultural shift. They are cool parents struggling to be hip and still make it the Middle America where they are stuck, which made them the perfect foils for the demonic terrors that had seized the home.
The movie also had a kooky sense of humor (here was a movie where television really, truly is a corrupting influence) and a sense of terror that is both over the top and subtle. I think part of the reason the movie works so well -- for me, anyway; I know a lot of people didn't get into it at all -- is that it tapped into the fears of both children and adults, that there really is a boogeyman out there that will snatch you away. At least one reviewer I recall said that the loss of the little girl reflected a family's fear not just of a child being kidnapped but also of being molested. The child in the movie isn't just gone; you have this grave sense she's being harmed.
I've never been sure to what extent this is Spielberg's movie, since it was directed by horrormeister Tobe Hooper. I think there was some talk that Spielberg had a heavy hand in the final product, which is to be expected, although he himself gave Hooper the lion's share of credit for the film's power.
Jonathan writes of Spielberg: "The man has no sense of character or pacing, and doesn't really get cinema." Am I to understand by this that Jonathan, by contrast, DOES get cinema?
4 - Duane
I thought it was excellent. I guess I have bad taste. Charming, scary (that damned toy clown), some memorable scenes (the maggots in the meat, the guy tearing his face off, the little girl scooting across the floor wearing a football helmet, the construction crew and the older girl, "it knows what scares you," and lotsa others), good sound effects and music.
This suggests that the story is written from the view that human nature is smothered by our contemporary culture, and that it leads to spiritual stagnation by playing to human desires.
Man. Reminds me of BSing my way through English midterms in college.
5 - David
Seriously. "Poltergeist" is a great, fun movie. The sequels weren't as good, but still had their positive aspects. Check out my web site dedicated to the third (and worst) in the series:>)
www.poltergeistIII.com
6 - jennyliison
I agree with this review. I don't think it's scary in the slightest, but it is fun all the same and I love it for those reasons alone. There is one very shocking and out of place scene in the middle when Marty goes into the bathroom after eating the maggot infested chicken. That was disgusting!