Poltergeist (1982)
Honestly, for a ghost movie, Poltergeist didn't really scare me. It leaned more heavily into the thriller category. I had forgotten, but this movie was meant to be in the horror genre as well, but I didn’t remember until the scene where Ryan pulled his face off in the mirror and chunks fell into the sink. What makes this movie scary was all of the things happening off set, like using real skeletons without telling the actors, lots of near death/actual death of actors, exorcisms on the sequels set, etc. This movie felt like a good comparison to The Amityville Horror in its multiple haunting tropes. We get lots of elements that feel like parodies of ghosts paired with stoned parents being super emotional.
Earlier in the movie I was cruising along and enjoying the moving chair, the talking TV, the tree monster, and the dog barking at the burn in the wall. I even enjoyed the idea that Carol Anne got pulled into the vortex and can only talk to her family through the TV. The vortex being in her closet was a little predictable, but I enjoyed it. But after the point when her parents called in the 'experts', that's when the movie started losing my interest. I know it's an old movie, but it became too over-the-top for me. I still can't believe that after everything the fictional family went through, they stayed another night in the house before heading to the hotel.
The special effects were very unconvincing, but given that the movie was made in 1982 that was to be expected. Now I'm a sucker for cheesy special effects, and my favorite movie is The Princess Bride (which has a man in a rat suit as a R.O.U.S- rats of unusual size). Because of that comparison, I found the special effects of the poltergeist face and tentacles very funny. Despite looking fake, I enjoyed them. Even the medium cleansing the house was fairly humorous. The fact that the old lady's face contrasted so much with her childlike voice was amazing.
But is this a poltergeist movie? The name suggests so, but does the movie? A poltergeist is defined as: a type of ghost or spirit that is responsible for physical disturbances, such as loud noises and objects being moved or destroyed, and they are purportedly capable of pinching, biting, hitting, and tripping people. We do get biting and objects being throw around, including the chairs moving and the children’s bedroom literally having everything float around in the air. So by the definition above, it is a poltergeist. But then again, we have multiple ghosts in the house, and the image we get from inside the closet seems more demonic than ghostly. When I think of poltergeists, my mind always goes to Peeves from Harry Potter, where I think of mischievous more than murderous. So in my mind, this movie was more a demonic force with other spirits than a poltergeist in itself.
Overall: the movie was hysterical, but maybe don’t
show it to kids.
Maddy,
ReplyDeleteThe difference between what you saw here versus in Amityville is that a poltergeist is haunting that no one can agree what makes it. Noisy ghosts, a group of ghosts, children's ghosts, angry spirits, etc. But, it is one haunting with multiple spirits, evil and benign.
Yes, the special effects here aren't too significant. Just keep in mind the year the film was made and remember what it did for the original audience with those effects. You should read about the "curse" of the series. You'd be intrigued by it.
I want to push you to do more research on poltergeist hauntings. This film presents a solid what could be one, had we had experts agree on what it is. Demonic entities also don't run in packs as we see here, and they certainly do not come from a vortex to another dimension.
-Alexis
Would you believe this film was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects? Even better, it WON the BAFTA award for Best Special Visual Effects that year. Isn't that hysterical? Floating toys, crawling meat, and the peeling face scene were groundbreaking stuff once upon a time.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree about that last night in the house. These people do have the financial means to get out. They even say they are going to stay in the Holiday Inn. But then Mom takes a relaxing bath leaving her two little ones to argue over toys in the child-eating bedroom from hell? Really? I'd be camped out in the front yard with all three kids eating my way through a metric ton of junk food and sucking on a box of wine while counting the seconds until Dad got home and we could leave. Better yet, why are they waiting for Dad at all? Zoinks!
Wow! They used real skeletons? I didn't know that -- and I wonder why. That is horrifying all by itself. I'll have to read your link, but I wonder where they got them. Who would want their earthly remains to be featured in a movie? Well, it was a Spielberg movie, so maybe that's why.
ReplyDeleteI also didn't buy Mom letting the kids stay in their bedroom. Very unrealistic concept. Both kids had been severely traumatized. They would certainly not be able to settle down in there, and especially not by themselves.
Also Dad said they were all going to stay in a Holiday Inn before that scene. So why were they in bed in the first place? And who dyes their hair on moving day/night?
For today's audiences the movie is a bit campy. I still like it. I especially like Craig T. Nelsen, quintessential dad, in the film. His performance is refreshingly subdued and we really see his stress.