Review: Poltergeist (2015)

Several months prior to the release of the Poltergeist remake, my wife and I showed the original to our nieces. They were captivated and, at certain points, genuinely terrified of the film.

Which is a credit to the original’s power that it still is able to generate scares three decades after its release.

While they were excited to see the updated version, I had major reservations about it. Why take something that works and remake it? More often than not, updates of old films fail to capture what made the original versions special. Are there exceptions? Absolutely. 1982’s The Thing, 1986’s The Fly and even 2006’s The Hills Have Eyes are just a few examples of using the source material to make riveting films.

However, for every gem, you get a dud like 1998’s Psycho, 2006’s The Wicker Man and, from the same year, When A Stranger Calls (which, save for the original’s opening sequence, is not that great a film to begin with).

So how did 2015’s version of Poltergeist compare to the original?

It’s pretty appropriate that the remake of Poltergeist begins with the Bowen’s son, Griffin (Kyle Catlett) disconnected from the rest of his family as he plays a video game on his tablet because that’s the exact way I felt when watching this film–disconnected. There was never a moment where I felt as if I was invited in to watch a close knit family unravel as the supernatural begins to dominate their lives as was my experience with the original. In fact, the Bowens didn’t feel like a family at all, just random actors hired to stand and deliver lines.

I love Sam Rockwell but we was woefully miscast in this. Each time he was on screen, it appeared as if he culled the best parts of his better past characters (“Wild Bill” Wharton from The Green Mile in particular) rather than develop a character that would resemble anything like a father. The other actors don’t fare much better.

But I don’t blame them. I specifically find fault with the incredibly lazy effort that went into this version courtesy of the filmmakers*. There are so many inconsistencies in this tale that it left me bewildered, trying to figure out whether they chopped entire scenes or just didn’t give a damn about the overall story. I still wonder how one parent laid off from his job and the other a struggling writer can afford not one house, but two! They’re just snapping them up willy nilly I suppose. Also, there’s no slow burn as there was with the original. A few minutes in, we see things start to happen immediately**.

*Director Gil Kenan helmed a much better haunted house tale ten years ago with the exceptional animated film, Monster House. Go watch that instead. 

**I looked at the running times on each film. the 2015 version clocks in at 93 minutes while its predecessor is 21 minutes longer. That extra time makes a big difference, especially in terms of character development. Also, the remake felt as if it was longer because you just want it to be over.

The success of the original Poltergeist stemmed from the premise that this was a typical American family living in a typical suburban neighborhood. The Freeling Family could live next door or could be your own family for that matter. The Bowens? Well, they just move in and shit starts flying. We don’t get time to know them and god forbid they should have any human ties to anyone around them.

And maybe that’s what America has become–cold, isolated and lacking heart. Maybe the new Poltergeist accurately reflects how we are and that’s why it fails on every level. Give me the original any day. I still want to feel something, to be connected, and, most importantly, to be scared by a good horror film.

Poltergeist (2015) grade: D-

Poltergeist (1982) grade: A

Review: Lifeforce (1985)

While watching Lifeforce, I couldn’t help thinking about how many possibilities were squandered, not to mention the talent involved. Director Tobe Hooper is responsible for classics like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and its sequel (both of which I loved in different ways), Poltergeist, and the often chilling made for TV adaptation of Stephen King’s ‘Salem’s Lot. Co-writer Dan O’Bannon was one of the scribes on 1979’s Alien and wrote and directed the 1985 horror classic Return of the Living Dead. Add special effects by John Dykstra and music by Henry Mancini to that combo and it should have been the recipe for a sci-fi/horror classic.

So why did Lifeforce go so horribly wrong in so many ways?

As the film opens, a joint expedition of British and American astronauts aboard the space shuttle Churchill discovers an alien vessel hiding within Halley’s Comet. When a small group led by Colonel Carlsen (Steve Railsback) enters the ship, they find bat-like creatures drained of all bodily fluids as well as three perfectly preserved naked humanoid bodies in suspended animation. The crew remove one of the creatures and the three bodies and take them back to the ship before returning to Earth.

Mission control loses contact with the ship, sends another to investigate, and are shocked to discover a lifeless crew presumably killed by a fire that raged throughout the Churchill. However, the three bodies (one female, two male) are found intact and taken to a space research center in London. The female (Mathilda May) awakens and siphons the “lifeforce” out of a guard as well as some energy from one of the doctors before escaping into the city where she proceeds to leave bodies in her wake. Anyone who has had their “lifeforce” drained becomes a dried husk that eventually reanimates and, in turn, attempts to feed to infuse new life into themselves, much as a legendary vampire would. If they fail, they explode into dust.

Colonel Carlsen is found alive in an escape pod and teams up with SAS Colonel Caine (Peter Firth) to destroy the vampire like creatures before they decimate all of London and then the rest of the world.

And this is where the tale begins to break down. Suddenly the female vampire can shape-shift, the victims act more like zombies than vampires and all logic pretty much goes out the window. Carlsen shares a psychic bond with the female vampire (because, hey, that works when the actual plot runs into a jam) and the “lifeforce” of humans become souls that are harvested to the ship.

Lifeforce begins well enough with some really sharp special effects that look gorgeous in high definition (I happened to catch it on the MGMHD network where, in the past few months, I’ve found more than a few gems from the studio’s huge library), but degenerates into a near convoluted mess as it progresses. The film lacks an identity because it tries to involve too many elements from different genres. While it should be a pretty straightforward sci-fi/horror flick, Lifeforce adds dashes of action, romance and a bit of metaphysics and religion into the mix.

Can all of that work? Certainly, if done correctly. I’d even go so far as to recommend remaking this movie with a modern view. However, Lifeforce in its 1985 incarnation is akin to one of those large pizza chains who try to churn out one gimmicky pizza after another to keep people interested instead of just trying to make a damned good, simple pie.

Lifeforce grade: D+

Review: The Hunger (1983)

Preying on unsuspecting humans, vampires Miriam Blaylock (Catherine Deneuve) and her companion, John (David Bowie), feed upon blood in order to retain their youthful appearances. Or so John thought. Soon he discovers that he’s aging rapidly, turning into an elderly man within days. John seeks out gerontologist Dr. Sarah Roberts (Susan Sarandon) who is researching the effects of rapid aging on primates. Believing him to be another “crank”, she dismisses him. When he visits her again, she realizes that he was serious as he now has apparently aged at least 50 years in the short duration since he last approached her. In one final attempt to stave off his affliction, he feeds upon Alice (Beth Ehlers), a young girl who was studying classical music under the couple’s tutelage. When it has no effect, he begs Miriam to kill him. However, Miriam confesses that the process cannot be reversed and John cannot die. She disposes of him in the same manner as her former lovers–sealed away in an attic coffin.

Later, Sarah tracks down John’s address, only to be told by Miriam that he has gone to Switzerland. Immediately, the two are attracted to one another, leading to Miriam’s attempt to draw Sarah in as her new consort.

Though the erotic imagery of The Hunger might have led to it being described as “a modern classic of perverse fear” (at least according to the above trailer) in 1983, it’s actually pretty tame by today’s standards. Sure, there’s the racy scene between Deneuve and Sarandon, but other than that, there’s really little else that will prove to be perverse in the film.

What about the “fear” part, you might ask?

Well, maybe seeing this film upon its initial release was something to behold (though I find that doubtful) but watching it thirty two years later would be a complete waste of your time as it’s far from scary. In fact, while watching it, I couldn’t help think of a handful of other horror films whose visuals The Hunger borrowed heavily from (effects from The Beyond, The Fog, and Poltergeist immediately spring to mind) that I would rather be watching in lieu of this boring vampire outing.

The Hunger is stylish but director Tony Scott was always adept at creating extraordinary visuals. The only problem is that many of his films lack the sort of substance that makes a story engrossing. Movies like Top Gun, The Last Boy Scout and Days of Thunder are appealing to the eye but there’s little below the surface to make them timeless. I absolutely hated 1990’s Revenge and 1996’s The Fan when I saw them in the theater and, while entertaining as it might be in regards to a sequel, Beverly Hills Cop II lacked the spark that made the original seem so fresh. Of his early outings*, only Crimson Tide** stands out to me as an exceptional film and one I’ll almost certainly watch anytime its on.

*To be honest, I haven’t seen anything of Scott’s after 1998’s Enemy of the State, so it’s difficult to say whether or not either his approach had changed or his ability to pick better material was evident though I’ve heard good things about Man on Fire and Spy Game.

**I know movie fans adore True Romance and I do like it to a certain extent but, again, there’s something about the glossiness of Scott’s directorial style that’s off-putting to me. Considering it’s based on a Tarantino script, that alone elevates it a bit above his other fare, but there was always something about Scott’s style that consistently reminded me I was watching a movie rather than being immersed in the story. I suppose in the end, the look of his films distanced me quite a bit from whatever the material was.  

Anyway, The Hunger was a film that I was most likely not permitted to see back in 1983 and missed when it made the rounds on HBO in the middle of the decade–and it appears I didn’t miss much.

The Hunger grade: D+