Highly Overrated But Still Good

Awesome Movie

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

Nonsensical supernatural thriller continues the other-worldly nightmares plaguing the TV set-fearing Freeling family, originally introduced in 1982's "Poltergeist". Here, a Native American shaman helps protect the family from the spirit of a demonic, skeletal preacher who wants to possess little Carol Anne. Depressive sequel reunites the central cast members from the original but fails to build on their characters (much of this seems like a cheaply-rendered rerun). Director Brian Gibson mistakes tasteless jolts (such as "the Vomit Monster") for scary thrills--and has a severe case of Spielberg-itis besides. Few involved with the project were satisfied with the results, and smart audiences knew to stay away. *1/2 from ****

Having a taste for Carol Anne's life force the evil cult leader and his victims want their spirits freed. Made in a time when sequels were usually cheap cash ins and one if any of the original cast would return, Poltergeist II production values are welcomely high, with the majority of the main cast returning. The only family member absent from the film is Dana, (sadly actress Dominique Dunne was murdered in real life) the reason for her character's absence however is never explained. The late director Brian Gibson's Poltergeist instalment is more interesting when JoBeth Williams and Craig T. Nelson reprising their roles as Dianne and Steve are acting the hell out of it or when creepy Kane played eerily by the brilliant late Julian Beck is on screen with the visual effects, floating chainsaws, possession and heroic spell castings taking a backseat. The special effects are nearly 30 years old and while some don't hold up they're still pretty effective for the narrative. That said, the practical effects are outstanding, notably a vomit monster scene where Kane comes out from Steve (Nelson) and begins to take form like something from The Thing or Hellraiser. There are some touching moments in the first half with the death of the Grandma but also oddities especially after she dies, they seem to get over the death quickly and the formalities involved, like arranging a funeral never happen.Writers Michael Grais and Mark Victor give a solid cult back story and the ghoulish Kane is more scary than some of the effects setups whether its wire braces attacking the family or desert scenes which could rival The Exorcist Heretic bizarreness. The late Will Sampson who plays Taylor the medicine man is notable. There's comedy littered throughout and many creepy moments, ghouls in mirrors, head tuning dolls, evil tequila worms, zombies and skeletons bursting out from nowhere which add to its appeal.While it does expand the mythology it's not a touch on the first, but to Gibson's credit part two is all aboveboard in a time when sequels weren't very good.

Poltergeist II is one of better ghost/horror sequels I've seen, a story where the Freeling family moves to a new house, but followed by the supernatural, in the form of Reverend Kane.Being a movie made in the early 1980s, like its prequel, it still holds a great amount of horror, as its elements will grip you and send chills down your spine. This movie doesn't rely on gore and violence to make it entertaining, but rather relies on the ghosts' presence and their frightening powers that they are able to unleash onto the unfortunately family, highlighted also in very polished and keen special effects.The screenplay and story by Michael Grais and Mark Victor were well-written, giving us a captivating and exciting plot, and the direction by Brian Gibson is solid and thrilling like the original. The cast of characters gave another superb and heartfelt performance.Overall, it's a good continuation of the original Poltergeist, but also works great as a sequel with its unique storyline superb acting.Grade B+

"Poltergeist II: The Other Side" is sound and fury signifying nothing, a good-looking special effects show that contains no less than a flying chainsaw, a set of killer braces and a creature excised from the human body through vomiting, yet it can't find a cohesive foothold to string any of those ideas together. Then again perhaps they couldn't. How exactly do you build a narrative that leads to killer braces? It isn't exactly news to report that "Poltergeist II: The Other Side" is a sequel to the hit 1982 thriller, but the surprising news is that this movie does everything wrong that the original film got right. Like "The Exorcist", key to the success of "Poltergeist" was that the characters were so grounded in reality that when the supernatural stuff started to happen, it leant the effects a degree of credibility. This sequel goes the other way around so we feel the effects but the characters are simply there to be knocked around.That's too bad because "Poltergeist" is one of the rare horror films that actually earns the right to a sequel by virtue of ending on a note so melodramatic that we might have been disappointed if someone didn't find a way to get that family out of their funk. That film, you will recall, ended with the Freeling family fleeing their house as dead bodies popped out of the ground before the house was sucked into oblivion. The family, now homeless, checked into the Holiday Inn.As much as "Poltergeist II: The Other Side" is valid enough to continue their story, it does not, however, live up to the original. The story is silly and the characters feel like cardboard cut-outs, with witty little jokey dialogue, when it isn't laced with supernatural hoo-ha. The supernatural stuff in the original was mounted on a semi-plausible idea: their house was mounted on the grounds of a relocated cemetery. Here there's some nonsense about protection from evil forces and the protective force of the family bond. This is filtered through Indian mystical nonsense and something about a 200 year old religious sect that wants Carol Anne's life force back on "the other side". Whatever.The story picks up a year later, which is a problem because the two movies were produced four years apart. That means that the little blonde Carol Anne, who was five years-old in the original is six now and played by Heather O'Rourke, who is actually nine. That gives us the agonizing sight of watching a nine year-old playing a six-year old. Why not just set the movie four years later? Anyway, the story deals once again with the Freeling family, Dad Steve (Craig T. Nelson), Mom Diane (JoBeth Williams), and the kids Robbie (Oliver Robins) and Carol Anne. The teenage daughter Dana is absent here and never mentioned even in dialogue. They have moved in with Grandma (Geraldine Fitzgerald) after their house was sucked into oblivion. Naturally, Dad refuses to buy a TV.The hole where their house once stood is under investigation by the medium Tangina Barrons (Zelda Rubenstein) and a Native American mystic named Taylor (Will Sampson) because "there's a presence." What that "presence" is steps on the premise of the original film. In the earlier film, it was explained that a real estate company made a strange decision to uproot the cemetery without moving the bodies.Now we learn that a 19th century cult sealed itself inside a cave at the urging of an evil minister named Henry Kane. Kane is alive and well and stalking around trying to capture little Carol Anne and take her back to the other side. It is hard to figure out exactly what Kane is, whether he's a spirit or some kind of satanic manifestation. We never know. There's some suggestion that he can manifest himself into a different forms but that is never really explained either. This movie is one long series of loose-ends.The movie is also one long series of special effects for their own sake. Hardly a scene in this movie isn't crafted without one. The back half of the movie is a strange venture into the mystical world that seems to be neither here nor there. Somehow the family does battle with the forces of evil by using their strong family lifeforce - nevermind the fact that one of their numbers, 17 year-old, Dana is missing. Somehow they enter the netherworld through a multi-colored Indian campfire, and I was never completely sure how they got out. I suppose I wasn't supposed to ask. It's a sad day when the only way to enjoy a movie is to stop questioning its overwhelming gaps in logic.The one thing that does work here is the performance of Julian Beck as Henry Kane. Dressed in the vestments of an 19th century minister, his face is skeletal with large teeth bared over curled lips. His voice is slippery and unnerving. There is something about his presence that, in a better movie, could have really come to something. He shows signs of what the movie could have been. More priest and less family bonding might have helped. You know what would have been a great sequel? This family in therapy.