CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Poltergeist trilogy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Poltergeist trilogy

post #1 of 108
Thread Starter 

Last night I caught up on parts 2 and 3, not having seem them in a while.

 

Part 1 is a classic horror movie, full of wonder, mystery, suspense, thrills, chills, scares and plain dread...it's masterfully directed, acted, shot, edited and scored.  And yes, I still believe Spielberg totally directed this movie. 

 

Part 2...tries to at least do something interesting by fleshing out the background of the spirits who kidnapped Carol Anne, led by the evil preacher Kane (a wonderfully unnerving performance by Julian Beck, who is the best thing in the movie by a country mile), and introducing an effective, new Native American element with the warrior, Taylor.  It retains alot of the creepiness and grossness (hello vomit monster) of the original with some inventive set pieces and scenes (the braces monster, the end battle under the Cuesta Verde property).  But it doesn't quite reach the heights of the first film, and honestly without Spielberg's involvement, it didn't have a chance.

 

Part 3 is where things completely fall apart.  I wouldn't even call it a horror movie, as much as I'd call it a comedy.  It starts out decent enough, but the whole thing with mirrors is so overdone it's ridiculous.  And then it becomes apparent the acting has taken a nosedive...instead of playing it straight, the actors revel in scenery chewing and try to act like they're in a horror movie, rather than just act the drama of the situation (which is what made the previous two films work).  And the entire plot is just silly and devolves into parody.  The biggest sin is the score...totally ditching the beautiful Goldsmith orchestral theme (he wasn't involved, but they still could've used it), they use some cheesy synth bullshit...it sounds like something you'd hear on a Tales From The Darkside  TV episode.


Edited by Ambler - 8/1/12 at 1:54pm
post #2 of 108
Carol Anne! Carol Anne! Carol Anne! Carol Anne!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifzsl_BB8oc
post #3 of 108

The original is one of the all-time great entertaining horror movies. The sequels are anal cancer.

post #4 of 108

Julian Beck was actually dying of stomach cancer when he made Poltergeist II. It adds to the creepiness of his performance immeasurably. Before that he had cofounded the Living Theatre with his wife Judith Malina, who is perhaps best known from Dog Day Afternoon and the first Addams Family movie. Beck is really all I remember about Poltergeist II other than Craig T. Nelson freaking out and, as Ambler mentioned, issuing forth the vomit monster.

post #5 of 108

Also, Ambler, not that I really have a dog in this hunt, but what makes you think Spielberg directed it? Seems like a lot of Spielberg-produced films in the '80s have his stamp on them.

post #6 of 108
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Blank View Post

Also, Ambler, not that I really have a dog in this hunt, but what makes you think Spielberg directed it? Seems like a lot of Spielberg-produced films in the '80s have his stamp on them.

 

700

 

 

 

There is a metric ton of evidence...

 

 

 

Quote:
from an AICN interview with Zelda Rubenstein
 
Zelda Rubinstein: I can tell you that Steven directed all six days I was there. I only worked six days on the film and Steven was there. Tobe set up the shots and Steven made the adjustments.
You’re not going to hear that from Tobe Hooper, you’ll hear it from Zelda, because that was my honest to God experience. I’m not a fan of Tobe Hooper.
 
Quint: You’re not?
 
Zelda Rubinstein: No, I’m not, because I feel he allowed… I don’t know how to say this… he allowed some unacceptable chemical agents into his work.
I felt that immediately. I felt that when I first interviewed for the job. Steven was there, Tobe was there, two casting people from MGM were there and I felt at that time Tobe was only partially there.

 

 

Quote:
Here's an excerpt from producer Julia Phillips' book "You'll Never Eat Lunch in this Town Again":
 
Steven takes a tentative puff on my joint, coughs, and passes it back to me. We haven't spoken in four years, but we have run into each other on the MGM lot, where he is directing "Poltergeist." He is supposed to be producing it, but Tobe Hooper, the director, it is whispered, has lost his cookies and Steven has had to step in.

 

Quote:
"Tobe isn't what you'd call a take-charge sort of guy. He's just not a strong presence on a movie set. If a question was asked and an answer wasn't immediately forthcoming, I'd jump up and say what we could do. Tobe would nod agreement, and that became the process of the collaboration. I did not want to direct the movie-I had to do 'E.T.' five weeks after principal photography on 'Poltergeist.'"
 
"My enthusiasm for wanting to make 'Poltergeist' would have been difficult for any director I would have hired. It derived from my imagination and my experiences, and it came out of my typewriter [after re-writing the Grais/Victor draft]. I felt a proprietary interest in this project that was stronger than if I was just an executive producer. I thought I'd be able to turn 'Poltergeist' over to a director and walk away. I was wrong. [On future films] If I write it myself, I'll direct it myself. I won't put someone else through what I put Tobe through, and I'll be more honest in my contributions to a film."
 
Spielberg made these comments to writer Dale Pollock in a May, 1982 interview with the "L.A. Times." He also said that he "designed" the movie through story boards and that he was involved in all the camera setups and the designing of the specific shots.

 

 

Quote:
"Steven (Spielberg) was there every day," said the Texas-born actress. "He had very clear and strong ideas about what he wanted done and how he wanted it done. "Even though Tobe was there and participating," she added, "you felt Steven had the final say on everything." The actress says that in the initial days of shooting there often was confusion with two people giving conflicting directions. "Sometimes Steven would tell us one thing and Tobe another," Miss Williams said. "But they soon realized that was doing us more harm than good, so they stopped. Later on, whatever discussions Tobe and Steven had, they held in private and then came to us with their decisions."
 
-Jobeth Williams

 

Quote:
"The most startling rumor about the film-that it was actually directed by Spielberg-does seem to have basis in fact. All the crewmembers we have spoken to say that Spielberg was very active on the set, to the point where he should at least be considered co-director, though Tobe Hooper will have the sole director's credit."
 
-From an early 1982 issue of "FANGORIA," before the film's release.

 

Jerry Goldsmith said Hooper wasn't even at the scoring sessions, he only dealt with Spielberg:

 

 

Quote:
"I worked only with Steven. One day Hooper came into a screening and sat down. Steve just ignored him, and after five minutes he got up and left." [Goldsmith's] estimate of the shooting: "Hooper said 'Action' and that's the last thing he did." 

 

 

Quote:
Writer David Giler of "Alien" fame was an extra in the football scene early in the film, along with Spielberg's agent Guy McElwaine. Quoted in Joesph McBride's book "Steven Spielberg-A biography," Giler states "When I came back from the set, I said 'Well, now I know what the executive producer does. I've always wondered. He sets up the camera, tells the actors what to do, stands back, and lets the director say 'Action!'" Another person who visited the set told McBride that it was "uncomfortable," since whenever Hooper would give an instruction to cinematographer Matthew F. Leonetti, Leonetti would look over his shoulder at Spielberg, who would either shake his head or nod.

 

And the most clear headed, logical answer is this:  Not only does Poltergeist look, feel and play nothing like Hooper's other films (in fact it feels more Spielberg than Hooper by a huge margin), but Spielberg has produced over 50 films, and Poltergeist is the only one with this controversy over who directed it.  Why is Poltergeist the only one with this controversy?


Edited by Ambler - 8/1/12 at 3:44pm
post #7 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

And the most clear headed, logical answer is this:  Not only does Poltergeist look, feel and play nothing like Hooper's other films (in fact it feels more Spielberg than Hooper by a huge margin), but Spielberg has produced over 50 films, and Poltergeist is the only one with this controversy over who directed it.  If Spielberg was as hands on with his other produced films, why is Poltergeist the only one with this controversy?

 

Quick:  let's start the rumor that Spielberg actually directed THE MONEY PIT!

post #8 of 108

Yes, I've seen that website too. But nobody has explained to me to my satisfaction why, if Tobe Hooper alone was not the director, Spielberg said in so many words (quoted on the same website) "Tobe Hooper alone was the director."

 

Again, I'm not a Spielberg hater or a Hooper kool-aid drinker (I don't think he's done anything of worth in twenty years, though Chainsaw is a masterpiece). I really, really don't come from a place where I want one story or the other to be true. But it seems like (A) Spielberg got a little too hands-on, because he wrote the story and was excited about it, and (B) someone saw him lining up a 2nd-unit shot and said "Whoa, Spielberg's the real director."

 

As for the idea that Hooper directed nothing else that looked like Poltergeist, well, Lifeforce definitely had its Spielbergian moments. And like I said, a lot of Spielberg-produced films had that Spielberg sheen while their directors (Dante, Levinson, Donner, Zemeckis) made other films that looked a lot different. And Poltergeist was edited by Michael Kahn, Spielberg's usual editor. It was probably the slickest crew Hooper had ever worked with, and ever worked with thereafter.

 

Plus one of the arguments for Spielberg directing it (that he didn't want to get into trouble from the Guild) actually makes him look bad.


Edited by Martin Blank - 8/1/12 at 4:21pm
post #9 of 108
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Blank View Post

Yes, I've seen that website too. But nobody has explained to me to my satisfaction why, if Tobe Hooper alone was not the director, Spielberg said in so many words (quoted on the same website) "Tobe Hooper alone was the director."

 

Damage control.  It's very uncool to say the guy who's name appears on the director credit, didn't direct his own movie...even if it's true.

 

Spielberg only backtracked after the DGA frowned upon his comments in the press about the control he wielded.  It's so transparent that it's laughable.  But he basically (in the LA Times interview), in so many words, said "I directed this movie".  It's a confession.  It doesn't get much clearer than that.  And based on the other quotes, and the fact that the film feels very very Spielberg (not in just content, but direction), I don't see how there can be any doubt.  Saying "action" and "cut" is not directing, it's in the details and Spielberg presided absolutely over those details.  

 

Quote:
Again, I'm not a Spielberg hater or a Hooper kool-aid drinker (I don't think he's done anything of worth in twenty years, though Chainsaw is a masterpiece). I really, really don't come from a place where I want one story or the other to be true. But it seems like (A) Spielberg got a little too hands-on, because he wrote the story and was excited about it, and (B) someone saw him lining up a 2nd-unit shot and said "Whoa, Spielberg's the real director."

 

There are plenty of nuggets on Spielberg lining up more than a 2nd unit shot.  Crew members said he directed first unit, which includes the actors.  Did you miss the quotes?  Rubenstein confirmed he directed all her scenes...did Spielberg stop directing when she was gone?  Incredibly unlikely.  He was there every day...why would he direct Rubenstein's scenes (and the other actors were in those scenes) and suddenly step back when she's not around?  I just don't see how one can look at the mountain of evidence here and still doubt this is a Spielberg film...okay, so Hooper had some input...alot of people have input on films, but the overriding vision comes from the director.  In this case, it was clearly Spielberg.   What does the word "direct" imply?  


Edited by Ambler - 8/1/12 at 4:38pm
post #10 of 108

Rubinstein also disliked Hooper on sight (she implied he was a cokehead; probably true) and maybe wanted to add fuel to the controversy. Other actors saw it differently.

 

Anyway it's a great movie no matter who directed it.

post #11 of 108
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Blank View Post

Rubinstein also disliked Hooper on sight (she implied he was a cokehead; probably true) and maybe wanted to add fuel to the controversy. Other actors saw it differently.

 

It still doesn't change what the crew members, Giler and Jo Beth Williams saw.  And it doesn't change what Julia Philips wrote.  And it doesn't change what Goldsmith saw (I've never heard of a director never speaking with his own composer).  And it doesn't change what Spielberg flat out ADMITTED to the LA Times before the film came out.  I'm a very if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck kinda guy.

 

And I don't see what Rubenstein gains from outing Hooper.  A 30 year old vendetta?  If she was pissed at Hooper enough for her comments to be false, why didn't she speak about this earlier when the sting is more potent?  It doesn't jive with me.  I believe her, and if this were a courtroom, all the evidence would speak for itself IMO.

post #12 of 108

Not wanting to argue further -- if John Ford descended from the heavens right now and said "I say unto you, Tobe Hooper did not direct jack shit on Poltergeist," I would lose zero sleep.

 

My closing thought is this: wasn't this Spielberg's first film as a hands-on producer only? (As opposed to executive producer, which he'd done a couple of times, probably more to get the movies made, as a favor to Zemeckis and Kasdan.) A lot of his statements, to me, read as kind of a sheepish admission, "Yeah, I did way more on this movie than a producer is really supposed to be doing." My feeling is that Hooper got bulldozed by Spielberg's enthusiasm. He wasn't supposed to be directing the movie but he kind of wanted to anyway: "I thought I'd be able to turn 'Poltergeist' over to a director and walk away. I was wrong. [On future films] If I write it myself, I'll direct it myself. I won't put someone else through what I put Tobe through, and I'll be more honest in my contributions to a film." If it hadn't been Hooper, it might've been someone else Spielberg elbowed aside.

post #13 of 108

On even-numbered days I credit Spielberg, odd-numbered ones it's Hooper and weekends I figure 50-50, but for me Poltergeist is almost a pure Spielberg movie. He would've directed fully had he not been busy with E.T., but this was back before he'd perfected having two films in the works concurrently. 

 

I love Poltergeist, for me it just works; the characters and family dynamics, the story, f/x, photography, chills, the humor...  And goddamn, GOLDSMITH.

 

I liked the sequel, but rarely sought it out.  Always the first thing that comes to mind is Julian Beck's withered and gaunt face looking through the screen door. And Amber, you're totally right, Spielberg's absence is palpable. I haven't seen it in a while but I've got it queued up, probably watch it this weekend. 

 

For me personally there is no trilogy, just one Poltergeist. 

 

And fuck the third and it's mirrors. 

post #14 of 108
Of course it's a Spielberg movie. I wasn't aware there was any debate at is point. Nice quote aggregate, Ambler.

Aside from the creepy dying man Julian Beck (anytime someone brings up the Slender Man legend, this is the guy I imagine), there's pretty much nothing for me to enjoy in the sequels. I don't like the Native American stuff or the vomit monster, and the less said about 3 the better. It's like Jaws for me, in that the original dwarfs the rest so soundly I barely consider them related. But damn the first one is good.
post #15 of 108

Yeah, this is Spielberg's baby through and through. Unfortunately, we'll never see a proper retrospective documentary on the film because of it (not until Tobe Hooper's death I suppose ala. Kurt Russell going into detail about being the real director of Tombstone when George Cosmatos died).

 

We've been kind of lucky to avoid the inevitable Poltergeist reboot. I know it's been off and on for a couple of years now but nothing has actually pushed forward. I wonder if Spielberg has a say since so far none of his films directed or produced have been rebooted as of yet.

post #16 of 108

That is a horrible prospect for a remake, actually. There's nothing here you can't do in another unrelated movie easily. Insidious is very nearly a Poltergeist remake. The only thing an actual remake could possibly offer would be references to the original.

post #17 of 108

Yes part 3 falls apart and shockingly there is no blu-ray of part 3. However I seem to remember hearing something about part 3 being originally intended as a spinoff. Like if the actress that palyed Carol Ann had lived she was suppsoed to to lead an investigative team to deal with ghosts or something to that affect. I believe that is where the tv show came from.

post #18 of 108

Movies that Spielberg produced will probably be remade at some point, but I'd be amazed if any of his (ghost) directed movies ever are, in his lifetime, at least.

post #19 of 108

Poltergeist has my favorite cinematic storm clouds. That effect is one of my all-time favorite practical f/x.

post #20 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by brandhay View Post

Movies that Spielberg produced will probably be remade at some point, but I'd be amazed if any of his (ghost) directed movies ever are, in his lifetime, at least.

 

Any studio remaking a Spielberg product is probably burning its chance at ever working with him in any capacity. That's going to be a huge hurdle for a while.

post #21 of 108

As far as the Spielberg-directed debacle is concerned, I think Spielberg felt the need to take over. If Zelda's comments are true, then it must have been necessary at the time, at least in Spielberg's mind. He was producer on the film, everything was riding on the film not turning into a trainwreck and a lot of it was his fault, trying to put two films together at the same time. I mean, literally, he was going from the E.T. set to the Poltergeist set every day. And he had worked it out that they were both shot in the same neighborhood. But if Tobe was under the influence of something heavy and things weren't going to get done, a young, still hungry Spielberg would have to suffice.

post #22 of 108
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

As far as the Spielberg-directed debacle is concerned, I think Spielberg felt the need to take over. If Zelda's comments are true, then it must have been necessary at the time, at least in Spielberg's mind. He was producer on the film, everything was riding on the film not turning into a trainwreck and a lot of it was his fault, trying to put two films together at the same time. I mean, literally, he was going from the E.T. set to the Poltergeist set every day. And he had worked it out that they were both shot in the same neighborhood. But if Tobe was under the influence of something heavy and things weren't going to get done, a young, still hungry Spielberg would have to suffice.

 

E.T. didn't lens until after Poltergeist wrapped.  He was in pre-production on E.T., but not shooting it yet.  And they were not shot in the same neighborhood.  The Poltergeist house was shot in Simi Valley, CA and the E.T. house was in Tujunga, CA.  Not trying to be a dick, but I'm a stickler for factual information.  But you're right in that he did basically direct two classics back to back, which is unbelievable.  He was firmly in his prime.

post #23 of 108

POLTERGEIST: love... 

POLTERGEIST II: THE OTHER SIDE: like... 

POLTERGEIST III: can sort of tolerate... but only just.

 

Further evidence that Tobe Hooper didn't direct POLTERGEIST...  Tobe never directed anything even remotely as good ever again.  We can like the b-movieness of INVADERS FROM MARS, LIFEFORCE and TEXAS CHAINSAW 2 all we like, but they just aren't as well conceived or constructed.  For me, POLTERGEIST is pretty much perfect.

 

POLTERGEIST III has some interesting low-budget in-camera effect stuff going on but yeah, terrible for the most part.  That said, I always liked the part with the screaming Lara Flynn Boyle crawling out of the frozen foam-rubber Zelba Rubenstein body.  THAT was pretty crazy.  :)


Edited by Engineer - 8/3/12 at 7:01pm
post #24 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

 

E.T. didn't lens until after Poltergeist wrapped.  He was in pre-production on E.T., but not shooting it yet.  And they were not shot in the same neighborhood.  The Poltergeist house was shot in Simi Valley, CA and the E.T. house was in Tujunga, CA.  Not trying to be a dick, but I'm a stickler for factual information.  But you're right in that he did basically direct two classics back to back, which is unbelievable.  He was firmly in his prime.


Oh, didn't know that. I thought I had read that they were within a small distance of each other.

 

Either way, yeah, I mean, he was working on the films at the same time. Still fucking insane.

 

Since we're also talking franchise here, I fucking love Poltergeist like nobody's business. The film is full of thrills, chills, and goosebumps with some of the best acting you'll find. It's a real blockbuster ghost story that I think to this day has never been done again.

 

Poltergeist II is good but sort of undone once the third act kicks in. Didn't think seeing The Other Side would be dull and anti-climatic. But it has great moments. Vomit monster. Indian mysticism. Fucking Skull Face Reverend Kane. It kinda poo poos on the original though in that the Beast is no longer the fucking devil but just some random evil dude. At least Kane has a creepy religious fanatic back story to keep things unsettling.

 

Poltergeist III is a turd with some interesting things going on in it. There's a scene with a demon Carol Anne and a door that is hard to shake in it's scary imagery and the mirror stuff is pretty good.  But the film is often times annoying, some times makes no sense, and mostly by the numbers. But if there's anything I absolutely detest with the film... it's the score. To go from Goldsmith, who also churned out a kick ass, but different score for Poltergeist II, to some schmuck with a piano and some synthesizers, it's an insult. Not to mention, the score is just dull at times. And you really miss the Freeling family.


Edited by Carnotaur3 - 8/4/12 at 9:50am
post #25 of 108

The tired "who directed what and when" debate* goes on.....but the creepy, ominous inclusion of the 1988 Super Bowl poster is the issue that haunts quietly in the shadows.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* You know how many films would have controversies about the actual directing work done by the person ultimately credited with such duties? Poltergeist would have much company.

post #26 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post

but the creepy, ominous inclusion of the 1988 Super Bowl poster is the issue that haunts quietly in the shadows.

 

Holy shit! I never even noticed that before.

 

700

post #27 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

 

Holy shit! I never even noticed that before.

 

700

MY GOD! WHY!?

post #28 of 108

I just want my Darth Vader action figure carrier back.

post #29 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

 

Holy shit! I never even noticed that before.

 

700

 

Obviously Spielberg was planning a franchise crossover for Poltergeist 4...

 

 

0.jpg

post #30 of 108

As much as that looks like '1988' it must say '1983', right? 

post #31 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workyticket View Post

 

Obviously Spielberg was planning a franchise crossover for Poltergeist 4...

 

 

0.jpg

"And you might remember this little item from the 80s - called the Ghostbuster."

post #32 of 108

I just found out both POLTERGEIST and GHOSTBUSTERS are playing on the big screen in Boston in October.    HELL to the fuckin' YEAAAAAAH!!

post #33 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workyticket View Post

 

Obviously Spielberg was planning a franchise crossover for Poltergeist 4..

 

 

Or.....

post #34 of 108
Blew through the Poltergeist movies again in the past couple days so I found this thread. Had to bump it because that last post is really really creepy though it's gotta be a hoax...I hope..
post #35 of 108
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
 

 

 

Or.....

 

WTF

post #36 of 108
The lesson here is not to allow poltergeists into your fantasy football league.
post #37 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

WTF
WTF indeed. Somebody has a sick sense of humor or something..
post #38 of 108
I bet it says 1983.
post #39 of 108
The Roman numerals help. Super Bowl XXII was 1988..
Edited by Fraid uh noman - 12/18/13 at 3:54pm
post #40 of 108
Thread Starter 

1983 makes even less sense since the film was shot in 1981.

post #41 of 108

I just checked my DVD of it and it definitely looks like 1988 to me.  I wonder if anyone has thought to check with POLTERGEIST's set decorator, Cheryal Kearney.  Someone somewhere has a line on that poster.  Nevermind the coincidence of the date.  Who hangs a poster up for a Superbowl game seven years in the future?  It's just a weird choice for a film shot in 1981 to have on a wall.

post #42 of 108
Maybe there's a dropped backstory where the kid wanted to be an NFL player when he grew up and he drew a poster kinda like "see, that's me at the Super Bowl in 6 years". That seems kinda Spielberg-ish. Shit....I dunno haha.
post #43 of 108
Thread Starter 

Actually it's not an official poster, it was drawn by the kid, Robbie, who I suppose dreamed of being in the 1988 Superbowl when he was of age (I guess he'd be in his late teens, which still doesn't make much sense, but would in the mind of an adolescent?)?  Even ignoring that, the coincidence of the date coinciding with the girl's death is enough send shivers down the spine.

post #44 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

Actually it's not an official poster, it was drawn by the kid, Robbie, who I suppose dreamed of being in the 1988 Superbowl when he was of age (I guess he'd be in his late teens, which still doesn't make much sense, but would in the mind of an adolescent?)?  Even ignoring that, the coincidence of the date coinciding with the girl's death is enough send shivers down the spine.
Lol oh so I was right then.
post #45 of 108
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

Actually it's not an official poster, it was drawn by the kid, Robbie, who I suppose dreamed of being in the 1988 Superbowl when he was of age (I guess he'd be in his late teens, which still doesn't make much sense, but would in the mind of an adolescent?)?  Even ignoring that, the coincidence of the date coinciding with the girl's death is enough send shivers down the spine.

 

Source?  Is this in a "making of" featurette somewhere?

post #46 of 108
http://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3447116/tobe-hooper-pretended-direct-poltergeist-steven-spielberg/

Assistant Cameraman and brother of DP for Poltergeist comes out about Spielberg directing.
post #47 of 108

With Tobe's passing, I have a feeling the floodgates will open in the coming weeks/months from many who remained silent on the matter. 

post #48 of 108
Maybe finally a decent documentary on this classic!
post #49 of 108

You're more likely to see that instead of, say, Twilight Zone: the Movie (which I would be fascinated to see).

post #50 of 108
Frankly, I think it's Spielberg that is keeping this story from receiving the honesty it deserves.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Poltergeist trilogy