It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

This is my fav all time horror film - I saw it in the cinema as a teenager in the 80s and was traumatised! The music, acting and special effects were overwhelming on the big screen and it still holds up well. I like the plot structure also where you think it's all over at the end but it all starts up again. A really warm and 'human' horror film with amazing acting all round. You really get a sense of family life and the connection between the characters. The music is a masterclass and really adds to the the whole effect. Sure some of the specially effects look a little clunky but it's better that some of today's CGI nonsense. The idea of the girl being pulled into a portal in the closet and only being able to be heard via the TV signal is really clever and a really clever way of embedding supernatural events in the middle of a domestic setting. The remake of the film was an abomination. No one should watch it. A real wasted opportunity - if they want to remake this film they should stick closely to the book of the film which was also really good and a different take on the whole proceedings.

This movie has some of the creepiest and most disturbing scenes you can imagine, yet it retains the warm feeling of a family movie somehow! The story makes you feel and care about the characters, and the great practical effects keep you on the edge of your seat. When it comes to buildup and "using your scares wisely" this movie could be used as a textbook. Basically when something happens in this movie, you will remember it! See it, you will not regret it.. and you will definitely not forget it!

Stephen Spielberg claims that while he produced Poltergeist, he did not direct it. If that's true, then official director did an amazing job of channeling Spielberg's 80s style. He captures Spielberg's ability to portray children as both natural and distinctly alien and mysterious. He captured his swooping camera shots and his slick use of special effects.Whether Hooper did all that, decided he didn't like it and never did it again, or whether Spielberg was the puppet master, the result is a terrific, fast-paced thriller full of terrific moments, suspense and humor.It was also a movie I was shocked to learn my girlfriend had never seen. When I asked her what I thought she had a whole analysis of the movie as a commentary on suburban culture. It made sense, so I guess it's deeper than I realized.The only scene I don't like is the one I feel certain is all Tobe Hooper's; that face melting thing. It's gross and feels out of place. Well, out of place in a Spielberg movie, anyway.

Poltergeist: Tobe Hooper; Steven Spielberg. In the clichéd phrase: This is a movie that those who like this kind of thing will like. A movie I wanted to like, but found dated and disappointing. The performances are adequate, although the family are disconnected and loveless; why, for instance, include an elder daughter who gets less than five minutes of screen time? (And given my arithmetic , would have been born when her mother was sixteen.) As so often in Spielberg, a child is endangered; as so often in Spielberg, the child is rescued, in this case, safe in her mother's arms, and covered in red-orange jello. Unsurprisingly, the visual effects now seems a bit quaint,, which is not the movie's fault. What is its fault is its failure to make us care about its characters. For example, when the medium asks which is the authoritative parent, the couple are at a loss. Also objectionable — one hopes then as now — is JoBeth Williams's costume for the final showdown, a not quite crotch length tee shirt and visible white panties — enough, presumably, to satisfy male voyeurs — and in the bathroom is subjected to a kind of supernatural rape. But hey — a mom's gotta do what a mom's gotta do, and she couldn't be expected to know that "this house is not clean" before she luxuriates in the tub, thinking all is well. Unless, that is, she'd ever seen a horror movie, which would have alerted her that as a woman with a daughter, she'd constitute the Final Girl. Given the running time, she should also have known that the house is most definitely not clean, and that she'd have to face a final showdown with fierce and enraged ghosts and spirits. I admit to being puzzled by television's being the conduit to their world. Is the message that TV is dangerous? or that children shouldn't be allowed to watch it? or that they should be taken to the movies instead? Presumably not this film, which in my admittedly conservative view is too gruesome for preteens (although they probably love it). If there's a Lubitsch touch, let's propose a Spielberg touch, and assume that had Spielberg had time to direct it, it would have been a different and better film. But if he had, we might not have ET (with its feisty single mother and convincing children), and that we would miss more acutely than this film with its unconvincing family.