BA_Harrison
Carol Anne (Heather O'Rourke) is sent to live with her Uncle Bruce and Aunt Patricia (Tom Skerritt and Nancy Allen) in Chicago so that she can attend a special school for gifted children. There, Dr. Seaton (Richard Fire) puts the young girl under hypnosis to try and deal with her emotional problems, but in doing so he releases restless spirit Kane (Nathan Davis), who needs Carol Anne to lead him into the light.Poltergeist III is a bad film: the crappy plot continues the downwards slide started by Poltergeist II, the talents of Skerrit and the lovely Nancy Allen are completely wasted, and the whole thing looks cheap and nasty, with risible special effects. To make matters worse, helium-voiced dwarf Zelda Rubinstein returns as psychic Tangina Barrons.But more than anything, Poltergeist III is a sad film, it's young star Heather O'Rourke clearly very unwell, her angelic face swollen by the steroids given to her for a wrongly diagnosed and ultimately fatal bowel disorder. Poltergeist III may be badly written, poorly executed trash, but Heather's tragic illness makes the film far more difficult to endure.
leplatypus
Well, this is the last movie for this amazing young girl and it's just my saddest mourning for an artist ! She was just a lovable, funny, bright kid and an extraordinary actress as well : here, she has really a lot of screen time before she is abducted (again) and she is just excellent ! This last movie was promising because it was a break for the franchise : after the suburb, the country, now, it's the steel of Chicago Skycrapers. In a way, it reminds me of « die hard » or « gremlins 2 » and maybe « Shining » as the entire movie happens in a new, high-tech building that becomes a dangerous place. The mirror-game is a good idea for tension and fear and « Donna Hayward » and Skerit are efficient arrivals. But, unfortunately, that's all because as soon as Heather disappeared and a short breather from the psychic Tangina back for a last time, the movie just falls apart : it's only a hide-and-game in a malfunctioning building : there are no horrific visions, demons, just cold, smoke and water and shouts of names and « help me ». Allen participates in this disappointment as she seems grumpy and not really caring for her niece. Again, i can't explain Kane's obsession with Carol-Anne and her need for the light. At the end, the movie just stops abruptly without resolving some questions (what about the Doppelganger ? why no final words from the family ?). But, it's a bit hollow to comment beyond because we all know what would have been great! So, Heather, now that you are really on the other side, i really hope that you are happy and if you can, try to reach us as well...
The_Film_Cricket
Never has the adage "leave well enough alone" been more relevant than to the landscape of the American Horror movie. Any horror movie with any minor amount of success, no matter how meager will breed a sequel (I'm looking right at you, "Wrong Turn"). Look around you. Horror sequels are as plentiful as the sands of the desert, and about as useful. The most beloved of horror films must have a sequel, whether they adhere to basic common sense or not.Yet, who wouldn't want to have followed Steven Spielberg? More to the point, who would be crazy enough to try? It could be supposed that after Universal turned "Jaws 2" into a $78,000,000 box office hit without Spielberg's participation, a different set of filmmakers couldn't be blamed for at least giving it the old college try. Yet, you much concede that "Poltergeist" is a different matter. For starters, it ain't "Jaws." This was never a movie that Spielberg had close to his heart. It was seen more or less as an appetizer to his other 1982 property "E.T. - The Extra Terrestrial." In fact, the two were released a week apart. The fact that Spielberg prepped the two films at the same time put him in contractual obligation by Universal not to direct another film which "E.T." was in production. So, in came Tobe Hooper, best known for "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre." Hooper's name was on the film, but Spielberg's handiwork is ever-present.Apparently Spielberg was unhappy about the film's third act, recalling later years that it was the most unsatisfying element of the film. I would disagree. While it does pull the rug out from under Tangina's magic, especially when she pronounces that "This house is clean," it does speak somewhat to the nature of "The Beast" who has been duped, robbed of Carol Anne and now comes back to exact his vengeance by not only retrieving the Freeling's cherubic youngster but the entire house. Personally, I liked the down-beat ending.In later years Spielberg would dismiss "Poltergeist" as "Just a roller-coaster ride." While "E.T." earned four academy awards and a bucket of money, time would shove it into the realm of Kiddie Fair. It is rarely screen today, and most Spielberg fans prefer the horror to the honoree.For brand name and monitory reasons, one must concede that the title might have been the most tempting excuse for taking another dip in the pool, so to speak. Yet, it is left to wonder if the people responsible for "Poltergeist II: The Other Side" had even seen the original before preparation began. If they had they might have known better than to essentially urinate on the foundation of the story that Steven Spielberg left behind. Whereas the story was essentially tied up at the end, "Poltergeist II: The Other Side" breaks away from the tidy ending to tell a story fraught with continuity problems, asking us to re-fit our understanding of the already-established idea that angry spirits from the uprooted cemetery were instead the work of a malevolent 19th century preacher who prepped his flock for the end of the world by sealing them up inside a cave to wait out the end-times. When the predicted date comes and goes, the minister won't let them leave, therefore leaving problems for the Freeling family a century and a half later.That half-assed approach didn't work. Neither did the notion of defeating the evil minister by keeping firm to Freeling's strong family bond. If they stick together, Kane can't pull them apart. Ahem: LAME! Not only is this an idea so ancient it has dust on it, but there's also the problem of the fact that the entire family is not together. One member, Dana, is missing. Maybe Kane missed the head-count.Whatever problems were wrought by "Poltergeist II: The Other Side" they are burdened upon the inevitable – not to mention pathetic – "Poltergeist III." This story, directed by "Vice Squad" scribe Gary Sherman, is weighted down with the unenviable task of continuing the lame Reverend Kane story, asking us to believe that he has followed Carol Anne to Chicago's Hancock building. She's there to undergo therapy for her terrors of the previous adventures under the supervision of a certain Dr. Seaton, who wouldn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. The interior of the Hancock building is made up mostly of mirrors, which gives us a handy excuse for all kinds of ruses, double-takes and "Alice in Wonderland" type tricks. Sadly there is no logic to this mess, and the ending of the movie – which had to be retooled due to O'Rourke's death – is so bad and so confusing that the fate of at least one character is left unclear. In fact, the whole ending is left somewhat unclear."Poltergeist III" is a bad movie, very bad. It's the kind of a galumphing, nonsensical special effects exercise that might be easy to laugh at if the death of young Heather didn't hang over it. That information not only casts a pall over the proceedings but makes things even sadder in that O'Rourke's farewell performance is in a movie that practically crashes and burns before it gets underway. O'Rourke, I will say, is not a bad actor. In fact, she probably gives the most spirited (no pun intended) performance in this disaster. She steals the movie from established actors like Nancy Allen and Tom Skerritt, who play her aunt and uncle and are sandbagged into acting in scenes so bad that you are almost tempted to label their efforts as "heroic." * (of four)
