Original vs. Remake: Poltergeist (2015) vs. Poltergeist (1982)

n

n

nSo it’s time for another episode of Original vs. Remake,nbecause Hollywood is obsessed with retelling successful stories from the past inna bland, less intense fashion. I’m beginning to notice a trend on my ‘Originalnvs. Remake’ articles, the old ones always win! I’m not biased, I always givenremakes a chance, because there’s always the odd chance we might get a good one.nUnfortunately, 99.9% of the time remakes are shit, or as is the case with thisnnew Poltergeist remake, a lesser version of the original. The original Poltergeistntrilogy started with one fantastic film: Poltergeist (1982), a Tobe Hoopernfilm. Tobe Hooper as some of you may know is one of the masters of horror. Henwas the guy behind the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and Salem’s Lotn(1979) amongst a slew of other horror films. Hooper’s Poltergeist was a filmnthat captured the imagination and frightened audiences back in 1982, why?nBecause it was a spectacle, it was made to wow us and frighten us. It wanted tonmake us squirm in our seats. The filmmakers didn’t just want to tell a spookynstory, something they did splendidly well anyways, no, the idea behind thenoriginal Poltergeist was to razzle dazzle us as well, give us a magic show. Andnthat they did, the supernatural shenanigans were an awesome spectacle to behold.nWhen ghosts appeared, you knew you were in for something special. That’s one of the elements I loved the most aboutnPoltergeist (1982), the effects. The guys at Industrial Lights and Magic reallynwent the extra mile to do something awesome.

n

n

n I mean, back then they’d actuallynhave to build the ghosts from the ground up, which of course gave the visuals antangibility that is sourly lacking in the new version. Those slimy tentaclesnthat caught little Carol Anne looked freaking real, not so with the computerngenerated ghosts on this new version. I will admit that the visual effects onnthe new one are slick looking, but they are simply put not better than thenoriginal. Those days of cool effects seem to be gone forever, replaced byncomputer animation and it’s really sad. That artistry that the IndustrialnLights and Magic guys pulled off, it was pure magic and illusion. I long fornmovies that mix both things, the practical with the computer generated. When anfilmmaker uses computer generated images to enhance, not to take over thenvisual effects…then it’s magic. A recent example of this would be thenawesomeness that is Mad Max: Fury Road (2015). Sadly, everything is computerngenerated today, and it takes away from that feeling old movies had of being anmagic show. I sincerely miss that.

n

n

nWhy is the modern horror film so toned down these days?nIt’s all about one of the worst inventions ever made, the dreaded PG-13 rating.nIt’s sad, it truly is. I mean on the first one, the tree that comes alive andntries to eat poor Robbie Freeling looked like some sort of monster, trying tongulp down the little kid, on the remake they toned that whole scene down. Thentree tried to eat the kid on the original film! Not so in the remake. Here thentree grabs the kid, that’s it. I guess anything that was too crazy was eliminated;nit’s the Modus Operandi of modern Hollywood. The producer, Sam Raimi, knowsnwhat horror fans want in a horror film, he’s given us some of the best horrornfilms ever; the Evil Dead films. Yet he is playing ball with Hollywood,nproducing the kind of films they are asking of him, not the kind of horrornfilms he would make. Hollywood doesn’t seem to care that people like cheesy,npeople like crazy ideas and concepts, that’s why we go to the movies! We don’tngo to the movies to see “reality”, we go to see escapism, at least in these kindsnof movies we do. So when a tree is going to come alive and eat a kid, we wantnexactly that. Not a toned down version of that.  

n

n

nHonestly it’s starting to feel a whole lot like GeorgenOrwell’s 1984 around here. In that novel the government doesn’t allow people tonfeel intense emotions, everyone’s supposed to be emotionless all the time, allnthis because intense emotions supposedly lead to war and all that. In reality,nit was a technique to control the masses, keep them from revolting against the oppressivengovernment, to keep them from expressing themselves, saying what they want andnfeel. I think a similar technique is being used in Hollywood films of today.nWhy is Hollywood so afraid to be intense? Is there something wrong with feelingnintensely? I want that spine tingling feeling, I want that jolt, that’s why Ingo to see horror films; afterwards I go home to reality. But for two hours, Inwant to escape man! There was a time when the occasional good remake would slipnin, but nowadays, wow, all the remakes are just bland renditions of thenoriginal. Total Recall (2012)? Bland. Robocop (2014)? Beyond bland and backnagain. Poltergeist (2015)? Bland again. It’s just sad. Let’s count the ways innwhich this new Poltergeist film is bland when compared to Tobe Hooper’snoriginal special effects extravaganza.

n

n

nFirst, as is to be expected, there were a few changes, fornexample, the family in this new film isn’t “The Freaky Freelings! The familynwhose house disappeared!” Nope, these are the Bowen’s the family who goesnthrough everything the Freelings did; only they aren’t the Freelings. Why thenchange? Why is the little girl not Carol Anne? Isn’t yelling out “Carol Anne!”na million times one of the most iconic things about the old Poltergeist movies?nI mean, seriously, you could have a drinking game every time they say CarolnAnne in the old movies! Trust me; you’ll be passed out half way through thenmovie! But no, on this one we get a little girl called Madison, and she isn’tneven blonde. But whatever, those are minor changes right? What really pissed menoff where the major changes, like the whole softening up of the horror elements,nwhich I didn’t get because from inception, Poltergeist was always a straightnforward horror film, it meant to horrify you. These films weren’t afraid tonpush the limits; they wanted to scare your pants off. In contrast, this newnPoltergeist film feels like its holding back, like it doesn’t want to scare yountoo much for fear of losing its coveted PG-13 rating. And that’s really what it’snall about these days, retaining the PG-13 rating so you can reach a widernaudience and make more millions. Because if it’s rated ‘R’, then the kiddies cantnpony up their allowance to see the movie, because theaters won’t sell ticketsnto an ‘R’ rated film to a minor, right? Stop me if I’m wrong, but this nevernhappened to me, ever. Maybe where I live things are done differently, but I wasnnever stopped from seeing an ‘R’ film by the theater! Does this really matter? It’snso sad that the quality of our horror films is decided by this factor.

n

nSo what else did they change? Well, let’s see, anything thatnwas too edgy or horrifying; two elements that any horror movie should have innspades. For example, remember how Steve and Diane Freeling smoked weed in theirnroom and were being all sexy with each other? For this new one, they switchednthe weed for alcohol, which immediately takes off that imperfect, free spiritednfeeling that the Freeling family had in the original. They weren’t a perfectnfamily and because of this they felt real. Mom and pop were struggling tonsurvive, but they still knew how to have a little fun, smoking a dooby in theirnprivate chambers after the kids were tucked in. There’s a scene in which theirneldest daughter flipped the finger on the men who were working on their poolnwhen they started saying nasty things at her. So anyhow, say goodbye to thatnedginess the Freelings had, this new family is pretty much the picture perfect Americannfamily. The father, portrayed by a “gimme my paycheck” Sam Rockwell doesn’tnhave a job, but you’d never know he’s worried about this because his portrayalnof the father figure without a job is very unrealistic. He doesn’t seem to benworried that he’s got no money to feed the kids. Is he supposed to live on hisncredits cards forever? These problems are presented, but never dealt with in anrealistic manner. I know I’d be freaking ripping my hairs out of my head if Inhad three kids and no job. And how about the chemistry between the parents? It’snnothing like the magic that Jobeth Williams and Craig T. Nelson had in thenoriginal film. That relationship I bought. The one in this new one is Non-existent.nSam Rockwell, I’m sorry to say, was not truly invested in this film. In thenoriginal, both Jobeth Williams and Craig T. Nelson displayed emotion, I bought themncrying out to Carol Anne, here, it’s like they are ashamed to be talking aboutnghosts and “the other side”. I guess we can chalk that up to modern cynicism.

n

n

nThen we have the ghosts, which are decidedly a whole lotnless horrifying. On the old film, the ghosts showed their ugly faces all thentime, I remember that spider like creature that came out of the closet, whichnsadly doesn’t make an appearance on this one. There’s no slimy, sinewy tunnelnto the other side. On this one the ghosts are relegated to being shadowyncreatures that we hardly ever get a look at. The old film reveled in showing usnthe ghosts. When the ghosts showed up, you were going to be wowed. Not so here.nThe spectacle is gone. They don’t want to scare you too much. The best examplenI can think to explain the dampening of the horror elements in this film is thenpool scene. On the original, the Freelings are building a pool, so they gotnthis muddy hole next to the house. And of course, as anyone who has seen thenoriginal knows, the house was built on top of the cemetery, so when it startsnto rain and the earth loosens up, we get that awesome scene in which all thencorpses start popping out of their caskets, apparently trying to grab DianenFreeling as she screams in horror. On the remake, it was almost funny….we onlynget one little cgi skeleton that pops out of the ground, for 5 milliseconds. Onnthe original, that scene just went on and on, horrifying us with its real,ntangible skeletons. On this one, it’s a freaking joke. That was one of my favoritenscenes from the original! Want another example? They even took out that scenenwhere the guys face melts as he looks at himself in front of the mirror! Howncould they! The bastards!

n

n

nSo anyhow, I’m sorely disappointed with this remake. It’snanother fine example of how violence and horror is being toned down on purposenby the powers that be. Hey, Hollywood, check this out. I want horror movies tonbe scary. When I go see a movie about ghosts, that’s what I want, I want to seenthe ghosts, I want to see something that’s intense and scary. Bottom line my friends:nthe original Poltergeist is still the superior of the two films. It has thenspectacle element, it had the horror element turned up to the max and it had anfamily I could believe in, with some real heart and chemistry.  At the end of the day, that’s really what thenPoltergeist movies are truly about, family. As for this remake, I wouldn’t saynit’s a horrible film. Its well shot, looks pretty and in a surprising twist, actually takenus to “the other side” without being overtly cheesy like Poltergeist II: ThenOther Side (1986). It introduces a couple of innovative concepts, like sendingna drone with a camera into the other side to check it out, gotta hand it tonthem,  that was a cool idea. I went into this one wanting to hate it, but it kind of warmed up on me, but there’s no denying it was missing that edge. Sorry. 

n

n

nIt’s also anperfectly good movie to get your 10 year old kid started with horror films. Why?nBecause it’s an extremely light horror film which probably has something to donwith the fact that it was directed by Gil Kenan, the director behind the children’snhorror film Monster House (2006). Sadly, I don’t think he was the right guy tondirect this film; we needed somebody with more of a horror loving heart, a truenhorror connoisseur. I mean, we went from Tobe Hooper to Gil Kenan? Something’snnot right there. Why not give today’s horror masters a chance? Sadly, whatnKenan did was take away what I loved about the original, a film that wasn’tnafraid to scare us at the while still being a family film, which is an odd mix.nKenan treated this one like it was another kid’s film, which I think was a hugenmistake because audiences are expecting something along the lines of thenhorrifying spectacle that Tobe Hooper and Stephen Spielberg gave us back in ’82.nAnd it’s a bad thing to play with audiences expectations, especially when itncomes to a remake. Yes my friends, the original Poltergeist was a strange bird.nIt was the first family oriented horror film that didn’t forget it was a horrornmovie and that it was there to scare us. Worst part of this whole ordeal? Thenoriginal Poltergeist was rated PG, a whole rating beneath PG-13 and as it turnsnout, it was far scarier. Go figure!

n

nPoltergeist (1982) Rating: 5 out of 5

n

nPoltergeist (2015) Rating: 3 out of 5     

n