Unlike our own Scott Weinberg, I am not a fan of horror films. At all. Not only do they not scare me, they typically bore me like nothing else. That said, I will admit to being scared as a child by two films, Poltergeist and Poltergeist III. The former is not that surprising to you, I'm sure, but the latter may have you questioning my credibility once again. Sure, it isn't a good movie (evidenced by its 15% on Rotten Tomatoes and its 3.6 rating on IMDb, not to mention Scott's claim that it's, "easily one of the worst movies ever made"), but it is really creepy, and it still continues to hold a unique power over me. Every time I watch it, I do double-takes at mirrors for days -- I just have to make sure that my reflection doesn't stay behind when I walk away. Okay, so really it's just that early scene with Tom Skerritt and Nancy Allen that gives me the willies, and I admit that I often lose interest half-way in, but I really do love the premise and I can't say I never watch the movie all the way through.

The thing I don't understand is how Poltergeist 2: The Other Side is lauded as being the better of the sequels. That movie, aside from giving me an early fear of tequila, isn't scary, nor does it have an interesting plot. Yes, it introduces us to the whole Reverend Kane storyline, but only as a set up to part III, in my opinion. The thing is, you can't beat any pic that primarily takes place in a tall building, especially when it deals with frightening creatures. This was the '80s, and the time had come for the haunted house to become the haunted skyscraper. It works for Ghostbusters, it works for Gremlins 2 (which came later, in 1990) and it works for Poltergeist III. I know I'm not the only one who thinks so, either.
categories Features, Cinematical