Most suspenseful, scary movies are good for one viewing only. After you know what's going to happen, it's not exciting, or even scary, any more.
Now, the original Poltergeist was different. It actually seemed to get better (and scarier) the more often you saw it. It's too early to tell if this sequel will stand the test of repetition so well. But the first time around, it provides a heckuva good scare!
Poltergeist II finds that all-American family, the Freelings, being hounded by the supernatural forces they (and we!) thought were taken care of at the end of Poltergeist I.
Actually, Stephen (Nelson) and Diane (Williams) have lost a few of their normal next-door-neighbor characteristics. They are now living with Diane's mother (Geraldine Fitzgerald), and they're almost broke. The insurance company won't pay up for their house, which simply "vanished into thin air," as they honestly reported on their claim form. And there's no T.V. in their new residence. (The boob tube provided the port of entry for the nasty spirits in the first movie.)
But, fortunately for them and us, they haven't lost their sense of humor. And their down-to-earth skepticism and true grit serves them well in this current onslaught from beyond the Twilight Zone.
Poltergeist II includes the same kinds of explanatory scenes as the other movie. You know, where theories of existence in other dimensions and how the dead pass on to other kinds of consciousness are expounded as scientific reality. So be warned if you object to this sort of malarkey, either because it offends or because it cuts down on the movie's action.
This sequel even adds another dimension, as it were, to its theoretical framework, by introducing the character of Taylor (Will Sampson). He is an Indian who possesses powers similar to those of Carlos Casteneda's Don Juan. And he talks about them a lot, and in the same way.
As I said, all this mumbo-jumbo may not appeal to you. But I think it's kind of interesting. And it does allow an outlandish story to make a kind of sense. It's nice, I feel, that the writers at least make an effort along these lines!
Overall, Poltergeist II isn't as stylish or as unpredictable as its predecessor. It stoops to more cheap shots, thrillwise, as well; and the ending, while fairly satisfying, is much too hokey. I suspect, for these reasons, that it won't have the earlier movie's staying power.
But it does have first-class creepy creatures and special effects. Not to mention something the original lacked: an actual, human (well, sort of) villain, who is just about the most sinister character I've ever seen on the screen.
He's played by Julian Beck, and I hope for this poor man's sake that most of the effect he creates is due to make-up and lighting. But it's not just his looks that are creepy. There's menace in his every word and gesture to boot.
There are advantages to having a single focal point for the heroes' actions and the audience's fear and loathing. And Beck's crazy preacher provides one in spades. Thanks to him, I'll probably have my usual trouble entering darkened rooms, being in the house alone, etc., for a while. Aren't horror movies wonderful?!
June 4, 1986 |