Poltergeist (2015)

Goaty · 05/02/15 - 15:06

Yep it is reboot of the original! I loved the original Poltergeist and it still so scary!

Here's the teaser, full trailer tomorrow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp0l_VVTRs0

GARETH197901 · 05/02/15 - 19:19

full trailer is already up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViWTPto3atU&feature=share

its actually better than i expected

dee123 · 05/02/15 - 23:43

Ho hum. Of all the horror films that could of been improved upon by a remake this wouldn't even be on my list.

MrSuper · 06/02/15 - 01:12

Reboot? It's a remake. An unnecessary one at that.

dee123 · 06/02/15 - 03:36

MrSuper wrote: »

Reboot? It's a remake. An unnecessary one at that.

Yep. And it's sooooooooooooooooooooooo paint by numbers it isn't funny. How do you top the original television scene? Let have MORE hand prints. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. So predictable.

JurassicMark · 06/02/15 - 06:43

Enjoyed the original as I was really into the supernatural when younger, but have grown out of all that and it seems a bit silly now.

There's nothing in the trailer which makes me want to watch this, have got fed up with horror movie cliches and I think I've seen them all.

Tassium · 06/02/15 - 08:30

Quite a lot of these reboot/remakes come across like the first episode of a TV series based on a classic film.

Derivative, merely competent film making. No spark to it. A robot could have directed.

While the actually creative people have been chased out of "hollywood" and seem to be working in TV these days.

Sifter22 · 06/02/15 - 18:13

Didn't some of the cast die tragically with the original one? Like the whole thing was cursed. Surprised they're going there again.

Johnny Clay · 06/02/15 - 21:08

Looks like yet another gloomy, quick-edit horror. Difficult to gauge if they've contemporised it any more than just applying current visual tropes. We'll see.

The original worked due to context: taking recognisably Spielbergian white family/suburbia and turning it on its head. Yet its horror was as glossy and audience-friendly as that which it was subverting. It's a little too 'kitchen sink' for my taste, but Tobe Hooper keeps the cosiness in check, and makes sure this often very effective rollercoater horror always stays on the rails. Something of an oddity when you think about it - updating it was always going to be tricky.

David Waine · 07/02/15 - 06:10

The original had an 18 certificate in the UK, largely because of the scene where a man imagines that he is tearing his own face off. This new film is to have a PG-13 rating in the USA, which presumably means that it will be a 12A here, so I doubt whether that scene has been retained. I always thought that the scene and the character involved in it were rather superfluous anyway, and that they had been written in to give the work some beefier credentials as a horror film. Take it out, however, and what is left? A good film, certainly, but not really a great deal scarier than, for example, 'Jaws'.

All of which begs the question, why bother? The original is a good film and doesn't look hopelessly out of date even now. Like 'Jaws', it is sullied by a series of dreadful sequels, but you can't blame the first film for that. Is this new version going to break some new ground? There is no hint of it in the trailer. It looks very much like the same film with different faces.

There was only one death that I know of connected with the original. Heather o'Rourke, who played the little girl, suffered from Crohn's Disease and died when she was only twelve.

GARETH197901 · 07/02/15 - 06:44

David Waine wrote: »

The original had an 18 certificate in the UK, largely because of the scene where a man imagines that he is tearing his own face off. This new film is to have a PG-13 rating in the USA, which presumably means that it will be a 12A here, so I doubt whether that scene has been retained. I always thought that the scene and the character involved in it were rather superfluous anyway, and that they had been written in to give the work some beefier credentials as a horror film. Take it out, however, and what is left? A good film, certainly, but not really a great deal scarier than, for example, 'Jaws'.

All of which begs the question, why bother? The original is a good film and doesn't look hopelessly out of date even now. Like 'Jaws', it is sullied by a series of dreadful sequels, but you can't blame the first film for that. Is this new version going to break some new ground? There is no hint of it in the trailer. It looks very much like the same film with different faces.

There was only one death that I know of connected with the original. Heather o'Rourke, who played the little girl, suffered from Crohn's Disease and died when she was only twelve.

The Original Film had a 15 certificate here in the UK,but in america it had a PG Certificate(both Spielberg and Tobe Hooper petitioned the MPAA because they felt it didnt warrant a R rating),these days a 12A is around where it would get its rating here in the UK if it was re classified using the more modern leanings at the BBFC,so if the new film is PG-13/12A then not much has changed

David Waine · 07/02/15 - 07:08

You may be right, but I saw this film on first release and my memory insists that it was one of the first to carry the newly-introduced 18 certificate. Perhaps the certification has been revised since. In any case, I cannot understand how it received a PG certificate in the US unless the face ripping scene was cut over there. It was gruesome. Other than that, I would agree that 12A would be appropriate.

GARETH197901 · 07/02/15 - 07:27

David Waine wrote: »

You may be right, but I saw this film on first release and my memory insists that it was one of the first to carry the newly-introduced 18 certificate. Perhaps the certification has been revised since. In any case, I cannot understand how it received a PG certificate in the US unless the face ripping scene was cut over there. It was gruesome. Other than that, I would agree that 12A would be appropriate.

iT was given an X rating back in 82,but that was only because the BBFC didn't have a 15 certificate until 1983 and the distributor couldn't wait to get it out there to get the lower certificate,not long after release it was re rated as 15,so that's why you remember the 18 certificate,it didn't get it because of that scene,it got it because there was no rating for younger teens back then
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/poltergeist

it got a PG in the US with that scene intact,because back then there was no certificate that made up the gap between Parental Guidance and 15,its one of many films that got a PG rating simply because there was no middle ground over in the US Certificate wise(Gremlins,Beetlejuice,Jaws,Raiders of the Lost Ark)

David Waine · 07/02/15 - 07:49

Thanks, Gareth, that has cleared it up. Still surprised about the scene, though.

dee123 · 07/02/15 - 08:54

Sifter22 wrote: »

Didn't some of the cast die tragically with the original one? Like the whole thing was cursed. Surprised they're going there again.

There was tragedy all around it but i wouldn't really call it a curse, however there does seem to have be a lot of death surrounding the trilogy:

Real skeletons were used in 1 & 2.

The young actress who played the older sister was killed by her boyfriend between the filming of 1 & 2.

The man who played Kane in 2 had stomach cancer and died shortly after filming wrapped. Though this was known to producers before the shoot even started.

The Young actress who played Carol Anne died in surgery before 3 was finished and the ending had to be changed.

Hey there!

Quick Links

Poltergeist (2015)

Comments