MovieChat Forums > Poltergeist (1982) Discussion > How not to make a horror film

How not to make a horror film


Always going for "big effects" when a subtler approach would have been so much scarier. I'll concede this is a fun movie though it's nowhere near the classic it should, and could, have been. Maybe if Spielberg had had less to work with, like he did in "Jaws" and "Duel," he might have turned out something that favored suggestiveness over splashiness a lot more (but then again a less fx-heavy approach would have assured "Poltergeist" of not raking in nearly as much money as it did).

reply

Yeah, it’s too “gee whiz,” “oh wow,” and the music is too romantic and overpowering. It never lets you feel a sense of dread. It’s always screaming at you to FEEL SOMETHING.

reply

Absolutely.

reply

Maybe he learned the wrong lessons from Jaws.

reply

Could not disagree more when it comes to Jerry Goldsmith’s film score.
It’s Absolutely beautiful…

reply

Don’t get me wrong. It’s nice. For a live action Care Bears movie though.

reply

Weird. Wonder why it was nominated for an Oscar that year.

reply

Oscar? I'm wondering why such a lame-ass film can be discussed at length with most movie goers between the ages of 45 and 70 some 40 years after it's release. You know, such a shit film should have easily fallen through the cracks like most of the other films that were released the same year...

Most of these kinds of conversations on here are nothing but people pulling each others' dicks. Most negative posts are like that. Putting the onus of proof on anyone who'd challenge the assertion that "DiS mOvIe Is TeH sUcK!!!111!!!" (Granted, AT's original post is a bit more than just that but not by much).

reply

It's weird, but before I saw this movie on BBC1 in the 1980s, I had the worst stomach-ache of my life earlier in the evening. It's like it was a warning to stay in bed and miss this movie, but I saw this movie and found it terrifying.

reply

I would not go that far. I think some of the special effects actually work well and add to the creepiness. One example being the sequence in which the camera is pointed at the stairs and starts filming the mysterious white shape coming down it. It's a spine-tingling moment. Other effects look dated like the face ripping scene or the tree outside being sucked up by the tornado.

All in all I think they struck a good balance with this film in terms of subtle and showy moments. Without any special effects however it wouldn't have had that Spielbergian charm, and would not be nearly as memorable or as you say, successful. So even though it could have been more subtle, the special effects make it the film that it is. At least it knew not to show the 'other side' like the sequel and the ghastly remake did.

reply

That's Spielberg for ya. Same way he ruined Minority Report by shoehorning in a bunch effects driven fun factor.

reply

the seqeul is much scaryer. much better films.

reply

The sequel was scarier after they introduced a villain like the creepy pastor known as Kane.

reply

I love Poltergeist but I always saw it as more of a family oriented movie because of the light-hearted scenes.

reply

That's Spielberg for you. I quite like the idea: scary horror mixed in with his brand of family wholesomeness and Americana.

reply

The contrast makes the horror all the more horrific.

reply

It's a family horror movie, and succeeds well at this.

reply

That wholesome 80s Americana family vibe is what granted us the Milfiest Milf that ever Milfed in Diane Freeling (portrayed by JoMilf Williams) so we can not complain at all.

Take away that wholesome atmosphere and she wouldn't have been such an endearing mother figure and thus she wouldn't have been such a MILF.

reply

rubbish it was great .

reply