Bear in mind that you can't really compare it to the next generation like Nightmare on Elm St, Poltergeist etc. since they're already moving away from the straight-up slasher - more complex plots, adding mainstream elements like humour, and far bigger budgets.

The comparison to Halloween is reasonable since it really was a Halloween wannabe, but it's a bit like saying you're not as smart as Einstein.

Now, if you really want to diss the film, compare it to Evil Dead which came out only a year later on a smaller budget.

So spooky!

Although, I don't know why the poltergeist was pushing stuff towards points where fishing line could run, like under doors to the left and right and around those pipes at the bottom right.

Who can tell why disembodied spirits do the things they do...

First time I actually noticed a dolly zoom, was Poltergeist (Spielberg's, not that new abomination) the scene where the hallway stretches out as the mom is trying to get to the daughter's room.

*music almost *nsfw

The original Poltergeist flick, on cable/VCR, for me at my a Christian's house.

"Friday the 3th Part 5 : A New Beginning"

The girl was Tina and the guy was Eddie.

I didn't watch many of these movies, but my dad took me to Poltergeist when I was 6 and we didn't make it through the whole move. Some of the same fears and lack of understanding ring close to the memories I have of those times.

Man, if there was ever a remake of Poltergeist 2, George Takei would be the perfect cast for Reverend Kane. Creepiest lovable person I've ever seen.

and Poltergeist!

I don't know about this... It looks like a wait and see. Some of those scenes look like they are trying too hard...like WAY too hard; essentially they are trying to scare us using all of the extremely stupid ideas that have been used in all horror films since 2000...

Poltergeist was inventive, and awesome. Not only was it NOT a rated R film, but it STILL imposed a sense of dread that you don't get from many horror movies--because they all rely on two things: the "gotcha" scenes where something unexpected happens too fast for your senses to comprehend...thus it creates fear; and second, make something normal look absolutely not normal (the little girl in the closet for an example).

I hope they can pull it off, but it looks to me like they failed to grasp the reason WHY the first film did do so well. The beginning of the show was hard to even tell it WAS a horror film, and when things start to happen, the family was more in awe and ready to experiment with it...at first (and other signs were passed off as natural phenomena).

This looks like it is straight up: horror. I really hope that is not the case. Poltergeist spent a long time to setup it's scary moments, many of it's most scary moments are actually psychological--because you can see them coming, they never jump out at you (except when things go crazy at the very end). I hope they realize this at least...but as I said, it sure looks like they didn't.

BTW, anyone with the info on it, who is writing it, producing it, and directing it? Otherwise I'll go look it up (and see how bad it is; it already said it was from the producers of Evil Dead...like that is something to be proud of...it wasn't a good remake...).

You never saw the original version from the (19)80s? It's basically that.

Also, another trailer with different scenes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u2KUpPNIf4 from http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/35713/second-teaser-poltergeist ...

Back when Poltergeist came out, we didn't have the internet for constant updates and fact checking. It would have been very easy to hear that a movie was R and just accept that as fact.

Also, I don't know about you guys, but my parents weren't fooled by PG ratings. They paid attention to whether the film was scary or violent, and wouldn't let me see it.

I don't think it would be that hard for studios to release both an R and PG-13 version of a movie to theaters at the same time. Simply have the R ones start after 9pm, and PG-13 start before. Or on weekends show both in different rooms (since many of the larger theaters have same movie running on multiple screens anyway).

Personally I don't pay attention to the ratings when deciding to see a movie or not, but I can see it being important for parents taking their kids to see something. For example I didn't NOT see Expendables 3 because it was PG-13, I chose not too because it looked exactly like the first 2, and didn't want to waste money on it. Maybe I'll watch it on Netflix eventually.

I also thought the remakes of both Total Recall and Robocop were decent in their own way, both were PG-13 where the originals were R, and I don't think it took away from the movie.

Of course movies like Scarface have to be R, because that's the nature of the story and character. Look for the TV version of Scarface, and the voice-overs they did to achieve it- so funny ("This city's like a chicken, waiting to be plucked").

Poltergeist should not have been PG. Thinking of that scene with the tree during the thunderstorm still gives me goosebumps.

Well I did some googling, and apparently Poltergeist came out in June of 1982, and the R rating was overturned in May. This being the pre-internet era, I'm guessing you found out about the R rating but never discovered that it had been overturned.

Per Wikipedia: "Poltergeist initially received an R rating[15] from the MPAA. As the PG-13 rating did not come into effect until 1984, which would have been an appropriate rating at the time, Steven Spielberg and Tobe Hooper disagreed with the 'R' rating and managed to have the film changed to a 'PG' rating on appeal."

Poltergeist was NOT fucking PG! I clearly remember not being able to see it because it was R. I don't think I'll watch past the 40seconds I made it to. /:<

The first Poltergeist movie!