Read Mixed User Reviews for Poltergeist (2015)

6

horcrux2007May 22, 2015

If you're stingy about remakes, stop reading now and stay far away from this movie.

Okay now that the basics are gone, this was actually a good movie. Good. Not great. It's obviously more inspired by the likes of Insidious than theIf you're stingy about remakes, stop reading now and stay far away from this movie.

Okay now that the basics are gone, this was actually a good movie. Good. Not great. It's obviously more inspired by the likes of Insidious than the original Poltergeist, which does make this significantly different than the original. It's certainly not a shot-for-shot remake. The first act is really busy with a lot of scares popping out at you like a haunted house at a carnival, but some of them are very well constructed. After calling the paranormal investigators, it does become significantly more tame. It's never boring, but the scares die down after the 30 minute mark. The scares also get a little more intelligent. There's one scene in particular involving a drill that could rival anything from the original movie. It's a very scary and clever scene that is certainly the most memorable part of the movie. The performances from a majority of the cast are very good, especially Sam Rockwell. What surprised me most was the last 15 minutes. It went a direction I certainly didn't expect, and it ended the movie very well. The biggest problem with this movie is that it is underwhelming for the most part, and the short running time doesn't allow the viewer to really connect to the family. Poltergeist is still a satisfying and worthy remake of the classic; just don't expect to lose any sleep over it.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

4

DCEdmondsJun 20, 2015

"Poltergeist" 10 Scale Rating: 4.5 (Mediocre) ...

The Good: At times, the film is a nice ode to the original, repeating some of the scenes from the horror classic without copying them directly. I thought that Sam Rockwell would be"Poltergeist" 10 Scale Rating: 4.5 (Mediocre) ...

The Good: At times, the film is a nice ode to the original, repeating some of the scenes from the horror classic without copying them directly. I thought that Sam Rockwell would be somewhat out of place, but he did a solid job. Jared Harris, as usual, turns in a good performance as television occultist Carrigan Burke, who is brought in to try and save the family's daughter. When they show what the "other side" looks like, it is very well done. While there are only a few of these scenes (mostly towards the end), they are hands down the best parts of the movie.

The Bad: Sadly, for a horror and suspense film, it's not even remotely scary or suspenseful. Films like this are usually chock full of "jumpy" scenes, but this one was devoid of even that. It also goes from a somewhat slow build up to full throttle out of the blue which was a little jarring. Unfortunately, this movie is no better than the rest of the lazy horror films that have been released in the last 5-10 years.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

4

shooterbossMay 23, 2015

The only problem with this mediocre remake is that it fails to live up to its genre. I found only two good scares throughout the entire film, and both were cheap jump scares.

Poltergeist refused to waste time. It jumps into the action asThe only problem with this mediocre remake is that it fails to live up to its genre. I found only two good scares throughout the entire film, and both were cheap jump scares.

Poltergeist refused to waste time. It jumps into the action as soon as reasonably possible. While the scares themselves were okay, very many of them had barely any build-up preceding them and seemed to end before the viewer could get a proper grasp on 'em.

But besides that, the action was quite good, especially the last sequence. Acting was okay, even for the children. Poltergeist isn't a film that will give me nightmares anytime soon, but it was a decent way to spend a Saturday night. Bottom line: if you've got nothing else to do, Poltergeist 2015 is worth a shot, but if you've got other plans, you may want to pass.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

Jim222001May 31, 2015

What makes a Poltergeist remake unnecessary is that recently movies like the Conjuring and Insidious gave me some Poltergeist deja vu. In those films a psychic showed up to help a family with supernatural problems and brought a team along toWhat makes a Poltergeist remake unnecessary is that recently movies like the Conjuring and Insidious gave me some Poltergeist deja vu. In those films a psychic showed up to help a family with supernatural problems and brought a team along to record their findings. Despite both being good films I already felt like I was watching two Poltergeist remakes.
The remake is better than they say due to a good cast and decent enough acting. Besides the Conjuring and Insidious it seems like movies about ghosts targeting a family come out 2-3 times a year these days. So there's just nothing fresh this remake could give us that wasn't done in recent movies or especially the classic original.
The best thing about the movie is that Sam Rockwell (The Green Mile, Iron Man 2) for some reason is in this as the father. He is believable and makes a good replacement for the original father who was played by Craig T. Nelson. What's missing though is the smart humor of the original. The mom putting a football helmet on the daughter and then putting her on a spot of the kitchen floor that magically pushes objects across the room. Was funny in the original and yes bad parenting. This movie tries too hard to be scary and lacks the originals sense of humor.
I watched the original last week; the film still works and I can't say updated effects made this remake superior in anyway. Which goes for pretty much every remake these days. While it's hardly Poltergeist without Zelda Rubinstein who was great as the psychic in the original.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

4

NerdConsultantJun 1, 2015

Is Poltergeist bad? Not incredibly, which means it’s not as bad as I thought it was going to be, but I would hardly call it good and it’s fairly obvious when you are watching it that you could save your money and just stay at home and watchIs Poltergeist bad? Not incredibly, which means it’s not as bad as I thought it was going to be, but I would hardly call it good and it’s fairly obvious when you are watching it that you could save your money and just stay at home and watch the original. I would refrain from calling it a disastrous re-make, but I would hardly call it a good one! Everything just feels a lot like you are watching the first film, but with a lot less! What this film really needed was a better screenplay writer and a better director, because I think there was every possibility that this film could have been better. As it stands, just see the original, there is really no need to see this one. The effects are less good, the actors are less good, the plot’s less good, everything is just less good!! That just shows the futility of this film and fans of the original need not apply.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

Meth-dudeMay 22, 2015

Well the movie was maybe not scary but one thing is sure.It is a really fun and entertaining movie.Great acting by the main characters and great visuals are what makes the movie this good.Even the kids were not that bad.

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

FilmPhonicMay 23, 2015

Sticking almost religiously to the original, this version of ‘Poltergeist’ cuts down the lead-in and updates the visual effects to give you the most bang-for-your buck in terms of frights and therein lies the first problem, there’s just notSticking almost religiously to the original, this version of ‘Poltergeist’ cuts down the lead-in and updates the visual effects to give you the most bang-for-your buck in terms of frights and therein lies the first problem, there’s just not enough build-up and time spent on the family dynamic before the weirdness starts, one of the strengths of the original, the result of which is that you’re not that emotionally invested in what eventually happens to them.

Problem number 2 is more serious and goes to the heart of the film, ‘Poltergeist’ is not the worst remake of a classic horror film, in fact it may be the best, but like all the others it’s underwhelming and completely redundant.

So what’s the purpose?, to get butts in cinema seats of course and we can’t blame 20th Century Fox for that, but we can’t forgive the premium charged for perhaps the most pointless 3D ever which further entrenches our position that, for the most part, 3D remains a gimmick that doesn’t enhance the cinematic experience.

So what we’re left with is a film that in isolation is a decent suspenseful horror that’s somewhat family friendly and well crafted, but nothing exists in isolation so ‘Poltergeist’ is just another example of how horror remakes don’t work, whether you stay faithful to the original or re-invent the scary wheel.

The Bottom Line…
Slick, suspenseful and scary, ‘Poltergeist’ might be worth a cinema trip for those who haven’t seen the original, for those who have there’s really nothing here for you and for everyone, we strongly suggest watching the 1982 original.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

TheQuietGamerFeb 18, 2016

Most horror movie remakes are downright awful. They usually fail to capture any of the magic of the original or bring any worthwhile new ideas to the table. That isn't so much the case here. It's got a few cool new ideas. but ultimately it'sMost horror movie remakes are downright awful. They usually fail to capture any of the magic of the original or bring any worthwhile new ideas to the table. That isn't so much the case here. It's got a few cool new ideas. but ultimately it's definitely not as good as the original. However rather than being awful what we have is more of a boring affair.

It's most exciting moments are when it is recreating scenes from the original with it's own twists. These scenes bring back fond memories of the original, but don't really make much of an impression on their own, with the exception of the clown scene.

Part of what made the original Poltergeist so fantastic was the characters. They were likable, real, and made us care about them. There are some talented actors playing these new interpretations of them, and they do have some real world problems and interactions. The problem is that they feel just like the average modern horror movie protagonists. By that I mean they feel like faceless character types with no depth created for the sole purpose of screaming at scary stuff.

Considering this is a horror movie, one of the most important aspects I need to touch on when reviewing it is whether or not it is scary. It's not. Creepy specters show their ugly faces and people get grabbed, but there's never a sense of fear or urgency from the film. This might be partly due to the fact that many of us have seen the original. This remake doesn't deviate too far from it so those of us who have seen it already know what's going to happen.

That being said, I doubt those experiencing Poltergeist for the first time this way are likely to be frightened. It's pretty tame and by the numbers. At least it doesn't rely on jump scares, so there's that.

Honestly I just recommend watching the original. This remake isn't bad and has a talented cast. Some of the original's humor finds it's way here as well. None of that changes the fact that this is still a pretty boring horror movie that's devoid of any frights. It's not as bad as most horror movie remakes, and honestly it isn't really that bad at all. However none of that changes the fact that there are plenty of more entertaining options out there, as well as the infinitely superior original. If you've already exhausted your other options though, this isn't that bad.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

HaithamBMay 23, 2015

Poltergeist is well - shot but not well - realized as a remake. It is not particularly bad, it is entertaining. However, one of the most enGROSSing sequences is cutout . . . you only had ONE JOB HOLLYWOOD!

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

chrismovieguyJun 5, 2015

ok so i had my doubt's about even seeing this movie from the start but on a slow boring day decided what the hell i will see it and it was definetiley the worst choice in movies i have made so far this year not that scary plane boring in someok so i had my doubt's about even seeing this movie from the start but on a slow boring day decided what the hell i will see it and it was definetiley the worst choice in movies i have made so far this year not that scary plane boring in some parts yea the little kid was a doll baby but that's not what i payed 12 bucks for should have went with my first gut choice and skipped it all together not the worst i have ever seen but definetiley the worst this year' yes i saw mall cop 2 its a oscar winner compaired to this **** ' so i say skip it… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

SolInvictaMay 24, 2015

It's one of the better recent horror remakes but that isn't saying much. However, as a standalone B-horror midnight popcorn creepfest, Poltergeist can provide more than a modicum of entertainment.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

davidprice96May 24, 2015

I went into this movie not having seen the original, so I'm not sure how this movie compares to it. But here's my opinion:

The entire cast is pretty bland. The actors did a decent job (especially the kids) but because of the lack ofI went into this movie not having seen the original, so I'm not sure how this movie compares to it. But here's my opinion:

The entire cast is pretty bland. The actors did a decent job (especially the kids) but because of the lack of character development, which was desperately needed, I had no emotional attachment to the any of the characters. The plot was also a bit lacking; very little was explained and the ending was SOOOO lame that the movie left a bitter taste in my mouth.

So if the character development and plot are lacking then the movie should certainly make up for it through its special effects and scariness right? Well the former is actually the highlight of the movie but the latter is actually my least favorite thing about the movie. I'll go ahead and say it. This movie is not scary in any sense. Their are a handful of jump-scares, but they barely even made me flinch. I was practically BEGGING the movie to scare me around half way through, and I ended up being disappointed. The trailer is scarier than the movie. The poster that you've probably seen in movie theaters with the clown doll on it is scarier than the movie. The dark parking lot that I had to walk through to get back to my car after watching the movie was - you guessed it - scarier than the movie.

Is this movie bad? No. It kept my interest through its entirety because of its special effects and cool set pieces. But I expect a horror movie to keep me on the edge of my seat for the whole movie. I was never on the edge of my seat in this movie.

Bottom line:
If you want to go to this movie for the scares (like I did) - STAY AWAY.
If a haunted house movie with cool special effects sounds appealing to you - See it.
If you're on the fence, I would definitely say pass.

If you're considering watching this in 3D, DON'T. I have tried for years to convince myself that 3D could actually add depth to movies (no pun intended), but this movie reinforces my belief that 3D is just a gimmick to milk more money out of movie-goers like myself.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

HellHoleHorrorFeb 16, 2022

This is not a bad film, it is just totally superfluous. The Hole (2009) did the exact same story but much better. Far less memorable than the original albeit better visual effects. The last half-hour is good although not enough to drag thisThis is not a bad film, it is just totally superfluous. The Hole (2009) did the exact same story but much better. Far less memorable than the original albeit better visual effects. The last half-hour is good although not enough to drag this above mediocracy. The only thing I didn’t like apart from the drab atheistic for the real world is the casting of the father in the family. The action and occasional horror was pretty cool.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

TVJerryMay 28, 2015

The basics are the same as the original: a happy family moves into a new house where the youngest is held captive by angry spirits. This time, the uncanny occurrences are ramped up, aided by computer generated effects and heavy-handed music.The basics are the same as the original: a happy family moves into a new house where the youngest is held captive by angry spirits. This time, the uncanny occurrences are ramped up, aided by computer generated effects and heavy-handed music. The family's plight is compelling (thanks to warm performances from Sam Rockwell, Rosemarie DeWitt and the kids) and there are lots of creepy surprises. There are even a few minor scares, even though the ending is more a noisy spectacle than a fright. It's not genuinely scary, but sometimes slightly suspenseful and mildly entertaining.… Expand