Poltergeist (2015) User Reviews

Was this made for TV?

[Mynameisroman · 4/10 · 26 May 2017]

I was a huge Poltergeist fan when i was a little kid and was really scared of the original movies when i saw them on TV in the late 80s or early 90s. It had everything a good movie should have. a good script, good actors, good director... this one had none of those. the actors feel unmotivated. the script was rewritten to add the typical 21century Hollywood movie formula and the director didn't know what he was doing anyway...

don't watch this remake... stay with the original! its scarier anyway, even today!

Another remake which isn't worth your time

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 12 November 2017]

POLTERGEIST is another pointless remake of a classic horror film which they didn't have a hope of improving upon. The only difference between the two films are some artificial changes in which the story is 'updated' with needless modern technology including drones and tablets, none of which adds anything to the story. As expected, it starts out subtly but descends into the usual CGI-augmented nonsense come the climax, and the story in between has no heart or depth at all. The scares are anything but frightening, and the low quality is rounded out by the generally poor performances, from a slumming-it Sam Rockwell (you can tell his heart isn't really in it) to the mildly embarrassing kids, and Jared Harris chewing the scenery. This isn't the worst remake out there, and if you hadn't seen the original I can imagine you might find the story interesting, but for everyone else, it's really not worth your time.

"It Knows What Scares You" .. not the scariest but still decent

[Samirsbureau · 6/10 · 20 May 2015]

First of all i'm a huge fan of horror films, so when i heard about a remake to the Poltergeist i was so excited and couldn't wait to see the trailer which actually surprised me. And I've went to the movies expecting to watch the old movie but with a few changes.

The thing is , they changed A LOT! So if you have the same expectation well it's not what you think it is. The pace of the movie was really fast in a good way but the only problem was the build up and that it lacked the feelings between the family.

The Scare factor: It basically relies on jump scares but i have to admit they were perfectly done and well timed . There were some clowns in a box which were sort of creepy. and also some edge-of- your seat moments. It's similar to "Insidious" and James Wan effects. So yes when it says from the producer of "Evil Dead" you know what to expect, But it won't prevent you from sleeping.

The acting was fine, CGI was okay and there were wonderful visuals. The 3D was mainly used for the jump out of your seat moments in a gimmicky way (Throwing stuff at the audience).

In the end, I had fun watching Poltergeist and it delivers a few thrills,Sam Raimi did a great job producing this film,for Gil Kenan (Director of Monster House) i think it's a huge step forward. But don't go in with very high expectations or you will be disappointed. Although you should watch it if you're a true horror fan and you're looking for some good scares.

Time dumpster, even for horror fans

[Evansbee · 1/10 · 18 September 2016]

Horror movies are my favorite, but I'm not the type of horror movie fan that will simply judge a movie on its horribly photoshopped cover or generally hold holier than thou attitudes toward technique, execution, writing, and cinematography (although I will bask in the glory of these done well), especially when it comes to remakes. I like to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Poltergeist (2015) was no different. I had wanted to see it for quite awhile but wasn't convinced that it was a movie I needed to buy for $14.99 (thanks iTunes for your options, btw). After watching it tonight (for free, streaming online) the only two things that keep resounding in my head are "Thank you inner voice for telling me not to hit the purchase button" and "OMG. Worst. Remake. Ever." In fact, I will go as far as to say that it's probably one of the worst horror attempts I've ever seen.

I don't need to include spoilers here. If you've seen the original, you know the story. This "remake" definitely assumes you have and gives not even a second thought to the story, nor does it even pretend it cares. It's an afterthought, at best. Actually, this whole movie seems and comes off as an afterthought. This remake was not made by someone wanting to expand upon or do any service artistically to the original. No, this is a pure, unadulterated cash grab at best. At its worst, this is a slap in the face to the horror genre for a quick buck, to fans of horror and to the original altogether.

I won't pretend the original Poltergeist is the best horror movie ever made, it's definitely always been cheesy in its own way. Yet, it managed to make me squirm, creeped me out, and kept me entranced whethercwatching it as a child or as an adult. The original Poltergeist is everything that this film is not....

This "remake" is sloppy, careless, poorly executed and poorly written, all while the actors struggle to pull out performances (even a talented actor like Sam Rockwell comes off disengenuous). It is lazily shot with more early 2000s-esque CGI than anyone should be asked to swallow for 2015...and is as scary as a wet dish towel.

There are exactly two moments in this film that I was slightly taken aback, but most definitely not scared, shocked, or surprised in the least. Mostly, I laughed or shook my head in embarrassment or dismay from how awful what just happened on screen actually was. Definitely not a crowning achievement.

Yes, the young newcomer actress is cute, and does her best...but you're not given an opportunity to care about what happens to her character or her family.

My husband fell asleep 7 times (I counted), and afterward said "People standing around in a white sheet have been scarier and more interesting". I agree.

Some remakes are good, most are bad, and unfortunately for Poltergeist and horror fans this trainwreck is the latter. It's a shame in a way because if it had been done well, it could have been pretty awesome.

Watch it, or don't, just don't buy it. You'll regret it. I promise. And most of all, do not expect to be satiated, scared or impressed in the least.

An Honest Review

[generationofswine · 1/10 · 7 April 2017]

Have you seen it? No? There is likely a very good reason for that...it stinks.

Like nearly ALL the endless remakes and reboots that have been plaguing movie goers for the past decade or so....all this is, is a heartless version of the original.

It has no heart.

It has no soul.

It is a retelling of a film that we all love and cherish...and it adds nothing to the story. It improves nothing but the special effects--which held up very well over time--and in some cases belittles the fans of the original...particularly in the fact that they remade the movie at all, without adding anything clever to it.

Like so many other remakes it is a hallow shell of the original.

It's worst than the reviews here

[ktulu789 · 1/10 · 19 December 2019]

No review can tell you how bad it is. Bad acting, bad story, bad effects, bad remake, boring, predictable, pointless. If you really wanna watch this... Go out, do something else until it goes away, really.

Not a bad movie if you don't expect too much...

[zsuzsannafazekas · 6/10 · 25 June 2015]

So first of all I didn't see the original one and I'm not that kind of person who can watch any horror saying oh it was nothing, I didn't get scared. But now I really have to say that the most of the movie was not scary at all.

Instead of making long mysterious moments when you are starting to cover your eyes because you know that something really creepy will happen they just made big fancy moments. And no I'm not talking about jump scares even those jump scares had no effect. They were trying to make long scary moments too but it just failed (except only one scene). It was more about big fancy overdone scenes. Which is OK but not in a horror movie. So for me it was more like a kind of fantasy-scifi stuff, not a horror.

The whole atmosphere of the movie was not what you expect from a good horror. Most of the times it was not creepy, not dark and the actors didn't really feel what is happening also it made some very unrealistic moments, sometimes I felt I'm in a comedy.

Just the whole movie didn't take it seriously what happened...usually when a family finds out that something is not OK with their house or if something weird is happening to their kid they panic a bit more... (The little boy made the best, most realistic job at acting btw...)

So after all for me it failed as a horror. BUT I still gave 7 stars because if I'm looking at it as a not too serious fantasy thing then it was quite entertaining. Not what I expected, but not bad.

A poor remake of the great Spielberg creation.

[I_should_be_reading_a_book · 1/10 · 5 December 2019]

While the original Poltergeist had us gripping the movie theater armchairs, this one in not only bland, unimaginative and bords on plagiarism. Don't loose your time, even if there's nothing else to watch. Watch the original again ; it will please you more.

I wonder why producers dump their money on these garbage pieces.

Good but don't trust the tin

[buckersmail · 7/10 · 24 May 2015]

Please let me begin by stating that I love the original movie; it is easily among my most favourite ever movies. For this reason, I decided to view this remake as it's own movie, trying not to compare it to the original. Being a fan of paranormal movies, and seeing the trailer for this movie, I had hoped that I was in store for a scarefest. By the time that the credits were rolling, I had realised that what I had seen was something quite different to what was advertised.

The trailer shows that this is a very scary movie whereas, however desensitised I may be to the majority of scary movies, I feel that it is a lot less scary than it could have been. Please do not get me wrong, a good portion of the movie was scary, tension-building or/and interesting but then far too much of the movie was comical. For me, the movie felt almost like a ramped-up Ghostbusters.

This doesn't mean to say that the movie was not entertaining, I was very entertained and I felt that the movie was good, just not necessarily what was advertised.

I thought Sam Rockwell was largely mis- cast as the father of the family and felt that his role needed a much more commanding performance. It would have been interesting to see somebody like Christian Bale in that role. Rosemarie DeWitt did well as the mother of the family. Kennedi Clements performance was excellent and beyond her years as Madison and Kyle Catlett possibly shone as the star of the cast with his showing in the part of Griffin. Saxon Sharbino was just annoying and unnecessary as the elder daughter.

I loved the effects that were used as nothing looked too unbelievable.

Overall, this is a solid movie with a good script but expect to chuckle more than jump.

That boy just can't act! Poor remake.

[Jester222 · 3/10 · 25 October 2019]

Poor remake. Zero real scares. Nonsensical reactions from the family. The young boy just can't act ....or was badly directed. Just widening the eyes a little and walking everywhere tentatively in slow motion steps isn't convincing anyone. He walks through most of the movie like this and it became really annoying very quickly.

People see the most shocking things and then don't even mention it!?

Whomever wrote the script should be ashamed of themselves. Truly terrible. Totally unbelievable characters and reactions. Plot holes and stupid dialogue.

Watch the original.

One plus. The 3D was great fun. (If a little forces at times) Blatant cash in that fell flat on its face.

It wasn't too bad, guys!

[CinderFall · 9/10 · 28 May 2015]

When you have a remake you can't really set it up to the original to be EXACTLY like the original. That would be boring and a waste of film. I watched the original when it was on TV one Halloween, and I fell in love with the film! Everything about it was wonderful! I think I was...7? 8? Anyways, I went to go see this the Friday that it opened because I was so excited to see it. Sam Rockwell was one of my favorite actors from the forgetful time between 1986 and 1991 as he starred in "Clownhouse" which was a marvel. Anyways, I was watching this movie and even though it does have jump scares, the idea that they were able to remake the movie and still have a good idea of the cast and how the characters were was good enough for me. Sure it was no Spielburg, but nothing will ever be the same as the original. I like to view this as its own movie and not one connected to an original, because then it looks better, feels better, and all in all is better. The character Madison was well thought out and was a good new take on Carol Anne. I liked how well the family reacted, they felt more like a family than other remakes (or sequels *cough cough* Poltergeist 3 *cough cough*) they felt more human. I do have cons for it though, I hate jump scares. They aren't scary, but they are a tacky waste. Given that, some movies kind of need at least a few to keep the ball rolling. This movie desperately needed it as if it hadn't most people would call it a yawn-fest or a snoozeathon. And not only that, but it would make the teenagers nowadays want to know more and seek the original. That's why this movie helps, rather than destroys this series' reputation. I liked the movie and will gladly see it again.

Surprisingly heavy on CGI, although it does present unusual viewing.

[quincytheodore · 6/10 · 31 October 2015]

Due to competitions that utilize atmosphere and thrill aspect better, this remake of Poltergeist would probably not be as memorable as the original. It also follows the premise rather rigidly, which by now is already outdated. However, it may just present a couple of horror gimmicks bizarre enough to at least entertain the new generation.

Story is predictable, a family is haunted by an unknown entity and the daughter is in danger of being abducted. Usually audience would react unfavorably towards the stiff plot, but considering that the original sets up this theme for the genre, some degree of lenience is warranted. For the acting, this family doesn't really stand out from the rest of haunting victims, although the child actors perform pretty well since much of the movie invests on them.

The original's creepy atmosphere is definitely superior. It has the luxury of being made in simpler time. The remake does try to produce the same effect, yet it feels lacking on a few notes. Movies like Insidious or Sinister arguably have better ambiance and set up, so it opts for a more literal modern touch.

Instead of practical effects, Poltergeist uses plenty of CGI, especially towards the latter half. It has its pro and con, the first being it has more peculiar look, which might not be better than most horror flicks but it does stand out. The flaw is it takes much of the horror away. It dabbles more on shocking visual than instilling dread that culminate in fright, the effectiveness of such method hinges on one's taste.

In a way Poltergeist tries to modernize itself, it doesn't reach the same air of its original, but the sense of uniqueness helps in presenting a decent eccentric spectacle.

What a waste of time,even if it is quaratine time

[seriousangel2 · 1/10 · 5 May 2020]

I was really hoping that someone could pull this off but apprantly not even the great Sam Rami could muster up enough talent to save this God-awful remake.Sometimes remakes end up better than the original because of all the new tech, but nothing could pull this steaming pile of waste out of the toilet. I wonder if they dosed the entire crew with sleeping pills the acting was so dead. Esp the father behaved in ways I have never seen a real father behave, where in the hell do they their actors? I have seen more talent at high school plays, and who wrote this crap unbelievable lines coming from unbelievable actors. I am sure my cat could deliver lines that would be more believable. The Original Poltergeist is a shining gem, this remake was a Steaming pile of excrement and that is putting it nicely. waste you time if you want, I guess that will pass time while we are all quarantine.or better yet watch the Original and have a good scare.

Why?

[SpielbergRules · 1/10 · 21 April 2020]

Why in the WORLD would this be remade? There are SO many remakes, reboots and whatever other term they use to try and fool the audience into thinking this will be a good movie.

I can't imagine that Heather O'Rourke, Dominique Dunne, and all the others who have passed since the original was made haven't rolled over in their graves.

Absolutely disgusting. Watch the original.

Just not good

[iceman88869 · 2/10 · 25 November 2016]

The psychic they made out to be some guy faking it through his life instead of like in the original where she was legit and respected. Most scenes from the first are there, but NONE of the original scenes are even close to being half as good as the original. Remember "There herrreeee", well, there was no life in it when this girl repeated the same line. The casting was not bad. I think it was the director and script writers that really butchered this. The first movie had an atmosphere about it. This had nothing. I have seen B flicks with better atmosphere.

I cannot recommend this movie unless you are really bored or maybe want to compare to the original. Or you are just tired of banging your head against the wall.

WTF just happened?

[nheld · 3/10 · 30 July 2018]

This movie startet actually pretty okay, at least way better than I expected. For around 45 minutes I said to myself "This isn't so bad. That's a solid 6.5." Okay, there wasn't happening much, but that's not a bad thing. You keep the pacing slow and than some strange things start to happen, until the girl disappears and the family decides "to call someone". But instead some freaky, weird and maybe creepy lady showing up, there just came this drunk fella, pissing me in the face for 45 minutes. This became so absurd in a bad way, so dumb dialogue, so unnecessary scenes, so never ending stoned / drunk Sam Rockwell, that I can't imagine how this was green lit in the first place. Filmed. Produced. Showed in cinemas. I mean: What the heck? Did someone even bother to read through the entire script?!

But there's one good thing about this pile of horse rubbish. I realised what is the problem with all those (remakes of) modern horror films: They don't take the subject seriously. They don't buy their own stories. There isn't the same sense of wonder and believe in occultism, that has been in the late 60s, 70s and maybe early 80s. That's why they produce such mindless bull crap.

Seriously - don't watch this.

Drama/Comedy

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 13 November 2015]

The movie works better if you watch it as drama rather than a horror movie. I know fans of the original will go/call sacrilege (but they'd do that anyway ... well mostly). But if you watch this as a family drama (and I'm certain this was intended, seeing Sam Rockwell and his interpretation of the role), you will get more out of it. It is fairly decent considering that.

Of course that's only true for fans of the genre (Horror), others who are not used to Horror might not see it exactly the same way. There are frightening scenes in this don't get me wrong, but anyone with a little "experience" will see them coming and will not be entertained (or scared for that matter) by them. The acting though? Pretty solid by everyone involved - again not if seen as Horror. Can you dig that? If so watch, if not, you've been warned

Not nearly as effective as the original.

[paulclaassen · 3/10 · 11 June 2018]

Director Gil Kenan is relatively new in the director's chair, and unfortunately it shows. This modernized telling of the classic original is neither scary nor convincing. The acting was merely ok and the effects so-so. I'd rather watch the original ten times over than to watch this remake a second time.

A good movie but not perfect

[skydragon-4 · 7/10 · 21 June 2015]

I watched the original Poltergeist movie for the first time in the early 90's. I was only around 10 years old but found it pretty damn scary. As I grew up and watched it several more times it became less so and, having just watched it again last year, looked dated.

So obviously I was happy that a remake had been announced but I was cautious because Hollywood has a knack for screwing it up. After eventually watching it earlier this year, I'm not sure what to think. People inevitably are going to compare it with the original. Others are going to try and forget about the original and watch it as a modern day movie which is what I did. I can honestly say that it did have its moments but I just couldn't help feeling as if it could've delivered more somehow. That's not to say that I'm disappointed or anything because it was a decent movie to watch. Would recommend watching it although people who liked the original may walk away a little disappointed. Definitely better than a lot of movies in this genre that get higher ratings for some strange reason when they're rubbish.

Bad acting, bad cgi, large plot holes and not scary.

[tstudstrup · 2/10 · 8 April 2017]

I can't really remember the original. I do know that when it comes to horror I prefer practical effects over cgi. And this remake has way too much cgi. The old one of course only had practical effects. I still don't remember it as scary though. Except one scene where a technician in horror thinks he's pulling his own face off. This being PG13, we only get a scene where an annoying rude Ashton Kutcher-type-technician gets his arm stuck and is almost getting a drill into his face. Pretty lame.Especially considering the scene just before where it would have been nice if he had been killed by the drill.

The acting goes from bad to decent to bad to decent again. And there are plot holes biggger than the one in the little girls closet.

For a family that has lost their youngest daughter to angry spirits, they remain very calm, only to break down a couple of times. If I had kids and one of them had gone missing, I would be terrified all the time, unable to eat or sleep.

As far as plot holes go, the entire movie is a major plothole, like how a father who was recently fired, can get a bankloan to buy a house.Especially since the mother isn't working How the family can just borrow the ghost hunters car at the end of the movie, only to never give it back and never come back for their own car. How the father with cancelled creditcards can buy expensive gifts for his family. How they're forcing their boy to sleep in the attic,. when he's terrified. How they find creepy clown dolls in his closet and don't get rid of them, even though they scare the boy.

As far as the girl gone missing this was done way better in Insidious where a boy went missing the exact same way. And most likely much better in the original Poltergeist movie.

If you can live with all these plot holes and some annoying characters, acting illogical in many situations, then you will like this movie. If you want good acting and real scare, watch Insidious instead.

What More can you ask for?

[wlculley · 9/10 · 23 May 2015]

I showed up to this movie ready to not like it after multiple remake disappoints... In addition I recently watched the original and thought to myself... This movie would be awesome to remake if the writer/director team does it right!?!... Well I got my wish, the movie was truly impressive. My entire office drove 30 minutes to the theatre and everyone felt it was worth the trip! The team sticks close to the original storyline... keeping true to the fans of the original and the actors do a great job bringing the characters to life. The CG was spot on and the movie reels you in.... The only reason I didn't give a 10 was because the ending seemed sort of abrupt.. would have like to see the journey of Zelda's replacement... would have been brilliant!

Lower then average horror flick, and poor remake

[851222 · 6/10 · 20 September 2015]

Greetings from Lithuania.

"Poltergeist" (2015) is a poor remake of a good original movie, but it is not the worst flick on it's own. That said, "Poltergeist" (2015) is kinda nicely acted, although i didn't buy Sam Rockwell's performance - he was miscast or maybe he new this is going to be poor movie so acted just for fun, but it is clear that this wasn't his favorite job to say the least. Kinds did OK job, especially one who played Griffin, and Rosemarie DeWitt's performance was probably the best in this movie.

As a horror movie, "Poltergeist" (2015) features tons of clichés, and there aren't true scary moments, you can see "jump scare" scenes from a mile. What i enjoyed about this movie was not the horror elements, but simply family scenes especially during first hour of this movie, but when so called "horror" starts, movie started to drag and by the end i was watching left time like each 5 min.

Overall, "Poltergeist" (2015) isn't good, but it isn't particularly bad. If you loved the original, it is nice for seeing it once just for nostalgia, but if you are looking for a decent horror movie, this isn't the one.

It had potential.

[absel123 · 2/10 · 23 March 2018]

So, I watched the 2015 Poltergeist with my sister tonight and it was pretty disappointing. It felt very rushed and it just took itself way too seriously. I felt the nervousness of the director, whoever that may be. I realize they were attempting to live up to the hype, as Poltergeist was a VERY big hit, but he/she needed to relax and take the time to get it right. I won't go into details in case anyone hasn't seen it by now because it took me this long to watch it myself, but the lighting and sound is everything. I liked the twist it had at the end and I liked the idea they had for the drone and the drill, but the rest of the movie doesn't add up to the greatness of those ideas. I really wanted to like it, but it was just trying way too hard and combine that with the budget, which I know they probably had issues with because of how iffy most directors are with one-time movies, it just didn't do well. It had potential, but it sold itself short. If I were to give advice to the director of this movie, I'd tell them to go back to basics and learn film and narrative aspects and to study the original a little further. I really do think if this director had more time and had relaxed a bit, it would've been a much better movie. Living up to Steven Spielberg and Tobe Hooper, that's up to debate(they're legends and legends are incredibly hard to surpass), but I could be proven wrong.

Crappy Carbon Copy

[droog-56936 · 3/10 · 11 October 2019]

An absolutely pointless remake of the classic collaboration between Tobe Hooper and Steven Spielberg. The three stars I gave this are strictly for Sam Rockwell's acting chops. Nothing else and I mean nothing else works. The kids are annoying., the mother is forgettable and the poltergeist hunters are dull. Terrible special effects that are crappy CGI copies of the groundbreaking original movies' practical effects are everywhere in this dumpster fire. Forget this and watch the original classic.

Totally unnecessary remake

[hkpolarbear · 3/10 · 19 February 2020]

The 3 stars I gave goes to the 1st 30 minutes. That means the rest of this production is really annoying.