AngryJoe: Poltergeist (2015) – Angry Movie Review

DO NOT SEE THIS FILM! AngryJoe and Crew talk about the awful Poltergeist remake that utterly fails to capture the originals horrific magic!

About AngryJoeShow

AngryJoeShow - Just one Guys Opinion on Games, Movies & Geek Stuff.

21 comments

  1. But what if I want to watch a bad movie? LOL. JK.

    Good to know it’s crap.

  2. Wow, Joe! I can’t believe you actually wasted your money seeing this movie, since the first movie was so perfect that it never needed to be remade cause it still stands up today as a great movie. Kinda like Robocop. The trailer was all I needed to see to know that this was gonna be a piece of shit. Sorry you had to endure it. Go see Avengers or Mad Max again, it’ll make you feel better.

  3. Heart-Lightning

    Guys, what were you expecting? A good movie to a movie that had no use for a remake?

    Movie remakes 95% of the time DO NOT WORK. They fall under extreme conditions that just can’t be replicated and fall under the times.

    Video game remakes 95% of the time DO WORK. Why? Because they are assets that can be replicated and improved upon and don’t fall under the times!

  4. I knew it was going to be bad when the commercial showed that they casually let the big reveal out about the cemetery early in the movie. I knew that the atmosphere and growing dread would be tossed aside for cheap jump scares and shitty CGI,

  5. OrphanIsTheNewBlack13

    Eh, it wasn’t THAT bad. It was just incredibly meh.

  6. It’s even more unforgivable because the practical effects of the original movie are still really good. I mean, I still am not sure how they did some of the original movie’s effects, like the mom falling up onto the ceiling or running down the lengthening hall. Not to mention the REAL SKELETONS, which are way scarier than CGI zombies.

    Also, the scariness of the clown in the original was enhanced because it looked like a real toy, as opposed to deliberate nightmare fuel.

    Ah, Sam Rockwell. Sounds like he was wasted.

    “Mama” has forever proven to me that good child actors exist, and there is no excuse for not hiring them, especially when the child is central to the story!

    I liked the teen girl in the original. She had attitude, but she was essentially a nice person.

    Nice to see that they’re making sure it will totally be dated in a year or two. God forbid we not have all the tech possible in a movie about GHOSTS. And reality TV, of course, because nobody can do anything without reality TV.

    Great. The original movie was actually really family-friendly compared to most horror movies (except for the face-peeling scene) but was still scary as hell. This one, of course, has to be a “kiddie” horror movie with no scares.

  7. Tobe Hooper. Tobe. Fuckin. Hooper. Chainsaw. Invaders from Mars. Lifeforce. Speilberg produced, his flavor is certainly there – but this was the EXACT kind of movie he couldn’t deliver (due to branding and his personal skill set as a director). Give credit where it’s due, especially to TOBE HOOPER (That said, I still completely trust your take on this remake.)

    • Greenjackspeaks

      to be fair, spielberg likely was the reason for the more light-hearted parts (like the ghosts gently pushing the kids around the kitchen floor)

    • Spielberg was considered on set to be more of a “actor’s director” than Tobe by most of the cast and crew, and still had a lot of input — he didn’t just produce; this was his story. The only reason they brought Hooper in was because Spielberg wasn’t allowed to direct ET and Poltergeist at the same time. They were both his babies, even evolved out of the same original screenplay (the original was going to be about aliens terrorizing a family, then got split into two movies).

  8. It’s too late for me, Joe. My mother insisted we see it opening weekend. I’m never getting those 90 minutes back.

  9. Moviemantweeter1999

    I didn’t even see this movie and I won’t even bother. But I didn’t know that it was written by the guy who did kids movies(then why isn’t a family hit XD). Also robots I liked that movie but it was made by blue sky studios and 20th century fox not Disney. I definitely wanna see the babadook heard lots of good things about it good thing it’s on Netflix instant stream I can watch it automatically. Good review of a terrible movie people should just go see mad max fury road or avengers age of ultron instead of wasting there money on this. The only people who I would recommend this too are people who wanna point out whats wrong with it and why it’s not as good as the original for everyone else though just go see a different film.

  10. Thankfully, scary movies aren’t my thing so I never had any interest in seeing this. Also, Robots was Dreamworks… that’s probably why it was slightly crappy.

  11. If you think 10 is inappropriate how about 5 or 6, I saw it at with my older brother and sister (5 and 4 y/o then me respectively) on HBO in like 83 or 84. IT was at night we where laying down facing the TV with our hands on our chins and at the bed scene just when the clown grabs the boy, my wonderful day grabs our feet. Needless to day I did not get with-in 3 feet of my bed for about 3 years…I always jumped into it.

  12. *SPOILERS * Did you guys feel like this re-imagining rushed through everything? I’m ok with action starting right away, but it just felt like the movie was rushing through everything to fit as much as possible into the time frame while also throwing references to the original in like dog treats for those of us that know the original. I thought making the boy afraid of the dark (and everything else) was unnecessary and if he had such a fear it was ridiculous for the parents to put him in the attic. Having the tree waving the boy around like a flag was ludicrous. You were so right – the squirrel was the star of the movie; he was the only jump scare that got me. Everything else was so predictable. And…TVs don’t even show static anymore, they have the blank blue screens. If you are going to update the movie, update it, not just picking and choosing what is convenient to update. Lastly,really? You can just ask the ghosts to let go? Well, now I feel better. If I ever get attacked by a poltergeist, I’ll just ask nicely for it to let me go.

  13. I’m so tired of cg-bashing and bitching. If cg’s so evil than stop using it in your own vids.

  14. I dunno guys. CGI scares or not CGI scares, what’s the difference? Practical effect can look fake as well. Ever watched the old Stephen King movie Silver Bullets? YOu’ll laugh at the werewolf, especially when he uses a baseball bat. 😀

    Also, you complain that they PG13-ad this movie, yet then you say the original was a family movie too. Soooo… difference?

    Me, I didn’t watch the original and won’t watch this either. Horror, all it does is scare me and that I do not need, thank you wery much.

  15. *SPOILERS AND PAINFULLY LONG*

    They put all of the focus on the brother. He was the main character. The majority of what happens with him, originally happened to the girl in Poltergeist 2. Right down to having been lost in a mall and having some unexplained psychic ability. He even got to be the one that freaks about the light being off when he is in bed. It really cinches that it is about him when he overcomes his nearly debilitating fear of EVERYTHING and decides to go to the other side to get the girl. I don’t need to say why that is so stupid. They shouldn’t have shown what the other side looked like. It turned out badly in 2, and it turned out badly here. To me the spirits just looked like the I Am Legend vampires. The scene also served to show how the mom would do anything to get her child back, and that she was strong enough to do it, which is stolen from the character entirely while also negating the dad feeling useless, since the girl would only hear her mother’s voice on the other side.

    The characters aren’t likeable and there isn’t any kind of bond between the family members. When it comes and takes the girl, it didn’t have any reason to attack the other two. If the parents had been there, sure, but as we see by the boy leaving the girl alone, it didn’t need to create the distraction to draw everyone away from her. It didn’t bother with the older sister in the original, so why the new one took the puddle scene in Poltergeist 3 and crammed it in to mess with her is beyond me.

    One coffin and skeleton at the end is just sad. The whole ending with coffins popping up all over Cuesta Verde and the house being sucked in to the portal was my favorite part in the original and they just ruined it.

    As for practical effects vs CGI, the “Beast” practical effect in the original blows all of the new CGI out of the water. Even the practical effects in 3 are better, and I’ve never managed to figure out how they did a bunch of the mirror effects.

    Worst of all, it is very clearly stated that girl herself isn’t important. She wasn’t born in the house like the original, and I think she just drew the short straw as there are surely other kids her age in the neighborhood that it could have used.

    It may be a nitpick, but discovering the whole bi-location portal thing was handled so horribly. The original introduced it by dropping all kinds of jewelry and whatnot that belonged to the people still buried beneath the housing development. The dad being the person that sold most of the houses in the area was another plot element they omitted that was really important.

    Lastly… WTF was the point of showing him all angry about being broke, then buying all kinds of expensive toys? It has no bearing on anything and how he did it makes no sense (maxed out that last credit card maybe, but if the limit was that high, most of their immediate money woes are mute). The only trait from the original dad that I saw in him, was drinking a lot like the dad did in part 2.

    I new going in it would be bad, but I couldn’t have imagined they’d turned it in to this.

    /rant

    TL:DR Every endearing, funny, terrifying, and subtle plot element that made the original work, was left out or butchered to the point of not being recognizable, while elements added from the 2 sequels were forced in where they didn’t belong.

  16. This movie was an automatic failure when it took a film that DIDN’T follow the “This new house is a new start for all of us, honey! Boy I sure hope there’s no ghosts in here” trope and made it do that. They completely missed the point of this being about poltergeists and it not being a strict haunting. The original family had been living in their house for years and shit just started to suddenly happen, which is what Poltergeists do, by the film’s own logic. They are drawn to people, not locations. That is way scarier than “boy oh boy new house that’s totally not haunted but it actually is” because there’s an easy way to avoid that: Listen to the scary music and don’t move into a creepy house. The original said “This can happen anywhere if the darkness wants you bad enough.”

    I cannot put a lot of the blame on the little girl for her performance in this movie, because a lot of the more iconic things we remember about Heather O’Rourke and her performance (being tormented and afraid in the other world, for instance) came out of scenes that were much longer and more focused. If you look at a lot of the key scenes in this remake, they are so cluttered with cheap special effects and so rushed that you don’t get a lot of time to see the tension build. Think about that original “contacting Carol-Anne” scene. It built so much tension with just a bunch of people in a mostly empty room talking to white noise, and hearing a child respond. No special effects needed. No weird camera effects. The conversation is what made it scary. In this new one, they spent HALF as much time on the scene, had a lot of jump-cuts to special cameras, etc, and the conversation isn’t even important because 1) The “beast” character doesn’t exist in this universe, and 2) You can’t hear the kid anyway. The clown scene is another sign of them rushing — the original slowly built on that. You know that clown is gonna get up to shit from the first ten minutes of the movie, but there’s no payoff until the end, when you’ve all but forgotten it, and it works. In this, the clown is one of the first scares to make an appearance. That’s like remaking The Empire Strikes Back and having the “I am your father” revelation in the first 20 minutes of the film.

    Zero impact.

  17. Why did they have to remake it while the knowledge actual corpses were used is horrifying the original is one of those films that to try and remake it is cheapening to it

  18. Olgoth the Humiliator

    I recently did see the original and thought it was great.
    I never saw the remake but i’m not going to bother.

Leave a Reply