30 September 2014
HOLLYWOOD CENTURY, 1982: In which horror went mainstream when we weren't looking, and the New Age of the Producer has begun
The question of authorship of 1982's Poltergeist is not going to be resolved here. It is one of the great stubbornly unanswered question of film production in modern days: whether producer/scenarist/co-writer Steven Spielberg (it is one of only three films for which he took a screenwriting credit) in fact directed the movie for which Tobe Hooper received credit, or if he was simply a very, very, very hands-on producer. It is a situation that undoubtedly happens more often than anybody supposes, and the history of the studio system is thick with movie for which the producer had more of a firm hand on the final product than the director, or directors (for it is also the case that many more old films than you could imagine went through multiple directors, with only the last one, or the one who did the most work, getting the onscreen credit; the studios were factories then, not art classes). But in this case, fanboyism kicks in: an anxiety over whether the director of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or the director, also in 1982, of E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial "really" made Poltergeist, and how we're supposed to value it as a result. Which is nonsense, of course; whether Hooper was just there to facilitate Spielberg's vision, or if he was just there to serve as a blind for the DGA while Spielberg facilitated his own vision (and what is not contested is that Hooper had little to nothing to do with post-production, where the bulk of any film's actual personality emerges anyway), there was never any point whn Hooper might possible have ended up as the auteur of what is, every inch, a Spielberg film. And this is not the first time that a producer, and not the director, served as the primary creative spirit behind a movie: one needn't look beyond David O. Selznick's Gone with the Wind and Duel in the Sun for two especially clear-cut examples. The desire to discover who "really" directed Poltergeist is a farrago, mired in 1970s-style belief in Director as God and the way that singular artistic visions can be communicated though an especially collaborative art form. But we are in the 1980s now; the director's artistic vision is dead, and it is now time for branding and marketing and a new iteration of the old studio machine to make movies for us, and not individual genius so much.
Anyway, the point of any film is the film, and whoever really directed Poltergeist, the film does not cease to be the thing it has always been and will always be: a fascinating and in some ways disastrously compromised dark twin to E.T. that also represents a weirdly family-friendly horror movie from an era when "horror movies" almost exclusively meant stories of grotesque psychos stabbing sexually active teenagers with lots of stage blood ensuing. It's one of those haunted house movies about the unpredictable terrors of home ownership, looking at the literal suburban hell faced by the Freeling family: dad Steve (Craig T. Nelson), who got the gorgeous new tract home they all live in as a perk for being the most awesome of all the sales reps for the Cuesta Verde subdivision; mom Diane (JoBeth Williams), teen daughter Dana (Dominique Dunne), young son Robbie (Oliver Robins), and youngest of all, little Carol Anne (Heather O'Rourke), who's the first member of the family to actively notice the odd shifts and bumps that everybody else overlooks. She also develops, early in the movie, a peculiar fascination with the static that the family television receives when programming ends for the evening (ah, the days when TV wasn't broadcasting every hour of every day!). In fact, by the end of the first scene, she'll end up staring intently at the blasting white noise with an implacable look of calm on her face that contrasts mightily with the raging flickers of white light that make her close-up look unnaturally freakish for such a small child.
Something or someone is communicating to Carol Anne through that static, and it starts to mess with the Freeling household at large, creating a weird zone in the kitchen where objects and people slide across the floor, while also battering things about and shaking the house to no end. Inexplicably, the family doesn't take this as their cue to leave immediately; it's not until one particularly violent event during a terrible storm results in Carol Anne having been spirited right out of the house that Steve and Diane begin to suspect that something terrible might be going on; this sends them to call on local parapsychologist Dr. Lesh (Beatrice Straight) to help figure out what the hell is happening, and when she proves no better equipped to to explain the paranormal activity, she brings in the psychic Tangina (Zelda Rubinstein), whose beatific attitude in describing the unholy nexus of dark psychic energy residing in the Freeling home is the freakiest part of the whole movie.
Poltergeist is a garden variety haunted house movie in a lot of ways; it benefits most from coming at a time when, after years and years of treating horror as a shoddy B-commodity to be hidden with shame, the studios were starting to realise, en masse, that there was some money to be made in the genre. And it especially benefits from being a pet project of Spielberg's right in the window of time when he could basically do no wrong: he had, between 1975 and 1981, directed three of the most indescribably enormous hits in the history of American cinema (and also the mega-flop 1941, from which he sprung back quickly), and if he wanted to oversee the first special effects horror extravaganza of the new popcorn movie era, nobody was likely to step in and tell him no. And so Poltergeist is executed with a tremendous array of cinematic tricks that were the absolute state of the art in 1982, most of which have aged fairly well. Though a lot of it feels sort of identical to his 1977 Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and therein lies the problem.
Poltergeist is a Steven Spielberg movie. I've said it, but it needs to be repeated: whether Tobe Hooper "directed" it or not, he was only executing Spielberg's very specific and very characteristic vision. That the film came from the exact same period in Spielberg's adulthood reminiscing about Spielberg's childhood as E.T. is absolutely impossible to miss, as both present a version of the California suburbs as a nexus for childhood fantasies - happy fantasies of finding a best friend and having adventures in E.T., scary fantasies of looming spooky trees and creepy clown dolls and the ineffable terror of thunderstorms in Poltergeist. But Steven Spielberg, for all the thrillers dotting his career, has an attitude that is completely at odds with the impulses of horror, and however much influence Hooper had on the pre-production and production (and nobody denies that he was active in the film's pre-production), the fingerprints of a man who certainly isn't known for his family-friendly work are clearly to be felt in patches here and there. So we have, on the one hand, a writer and producer whose instincts are unyieldingly safe and juvenile in focus: let's make Poltergeist a spooky story about the things that scare little kids, but not too spooky. And on the other, we have a collaborator who made America's most widely-seen film about cannibalism prior to The Silence of the Lambs. Given how much of the film ends up walking back all of the actual scary material with lengthy conversations about metaphysics and light shows in which ghosts look like even more gentle Spielbergian aliens, it's remarkable that Hooper, or whoever, was able to get as much of the legitimate nightmare fuel smuggled into the film as he was: it's never sustained for more than a scene, and it's usually only a single isolated effect at a time, but there's a reason Poltergeist started the conversation that ultimately led to the creation of the PG-13 rating. Rotting flesh hallucinations and giant hell-skulls and some acutely terrifying sound effects come along just often enough to pierce through the "let's tell a scary bedtime story!" attitude that is Poltergeist's main mode for it to feel legitimately darker and harsher than a first approximation of the story and the way the story has been told would ever lead one to believe.
At the same time, it leaves the film feeling erratic and lumpy: not like the largely gentle-touch of the horror was a deliberate choice to let those occasional high-impact moments land harder, but like the film was being torn in two directions. And again, we don't know that happened; but the story about how Jerry Goldsmith (hired to give a disappointingly generic John Williams impression) was shocked to find that he'd be working with the producer, not the director seems awfully telling in at least one respect. For the score, more than anything else, is the film's keenest tool in knocking the edge off its horror with a sweetness and even Romantic air that significantly undercuts the moody lighting and looming camera angles (particularly in the very last shot, which seems for all the world like it should be brooding, except that the music insists, in a most bullying way, "all is well, the heroes have won, la-la").
The production values alone are enough to make this one of the 1980s' most distinctive and important horror movies, showcasing what the genre could do when given unprecedented resources and support; its thematic concerns - living in the suburbs is actually bad for your soul! - make it essential viewing for any even semi-serious Spielberg aficionado, of whom I understand that there are at least one or two out in the world. Its interpolation of enormously ambitious shot set-ups and effects sequences into the modest domestic setting of a single family home set it out as one of the most unique of the first generation of post-Star Wars effects showcases. And yet for all that I'd basically recommend it as necessary viewing for everybody, I can't convince myself that Poltergeist actually works all that well. Truly, it achieves the exact goal it sets for itself, to provide the most intense scary movie experience that the whole family can enjoy. But speaking as a grown-up horror fan, I can't help but wish for more out of this one-of-a-kind marriage of Spielbergian extravagance with genre mechanics, and while Poltergeist does not fail on its own terms, it still feels very much like a missed opportunity.
Elsewhere in American cinema in 1982
-Austrian bodybuilder Arnold Schwarzenegger learns what is best in life in Conan the Barbarian, and becomes the most unexpected superstar in generations
-The lingering memory of the Holocaust poisons the present, as Meryl Streep is forced to make Sophie's Choice
-Fast Times at Ridgemont High is the film that launched a thousand puberties, and proved the teen sex comedy could be pretty darn good cinema, too
Elsewhere in world cinema in 1982
-The Palme d'Or victory for Yol brings Turkish cinema to new international prominence
-In the last year of his life, ultra-prolific Rainer Werner Fassbinder releases his final masterwork, Veronika Voss
-Contemporary history is solemnly embalmed by the British-Indian co-production Gandhi
Anyway, the point of any film is the film, and whoever really directed Poltergeist, the film does not cease to be the thing it has always been and will always be: a fascinating and in some ways disastrously compromised dark twin to E.T. that also represents a weirdly family-friendly horror movie from an era when "horror movies" almost exclusively meant stories of grotesque psychos stabbing sexually active teenagers with lots of stage blood ensuing. It's one of those haunted house movies about the unpredictable terrors of home ownership, looking at the literal suburban hell faced by the Freeling family: dad Steve (Craig T. Nelson), who got the gorgeous new tract home they all live in as a perk for being the most awesome of all the sales reps for the Cuesta Verde subdivision; mom Diane (JoBeth Williams), teen daughter Dana (Dominique Dunne), young son Robbie (Oliver Robins), and youngest of all, little Carol Anne (Heather O'Rourke), who's the first member of the family to actively notice the odd shifts and bumps that everybody else overlooks. She also develops, early in the movie, a peculiar fascination with the static that the family television receives when programming ends for the evening (ah, the days when TV wasn't broadcasting every hour of every day!). In fact, by the end of the first scene, she'll end up staring intently at the blasting white noise with an implacable look of calm on her face that contrasts mightily with the raging flickers of white light that make her close-up look unnaturally freakish for such a small child.
Something or someone is communicating to Carol Anne through that static, and it starts to mess with the Freeling household at large, creating a weird zone in the kitchen where objects and people slide across the floor, while also battering things about and shaking the house to no end. Inexplicably, the family doesn't take this as their cue to leave immediately; it's not until one particularly violent event during a terrible storm results in Carol Anne having been spirited right out of the house that Steve and Diane begin to suspect that something terrible might be going on; this sends them to call on local parapsychologist Dr. Lesh (Beatrice Straight) to help figure out what the hell is happening, and when she proves no better equipped to to explain the paranormal activity, she brings in the psychic Tangina (Zelda Rubinstein), whose beatific attitude in describing the unholy nexus of dark psychic energy residing in the Freeling home is the freakiest part of the whole movie.
Poltergeist is a garden variety haunted house movie in a lot of ways; it benefits most from coming at a time when, after years and years of treating horror as a shoddy B-commodity to be hidden with shame, the studios were starting to realise, en masse, that there was some money to be made in the genre. And it especially benefits from being a pet project of Spielberg's right in the window of time when he could basically do no wrong: he had, between 1975 and 1981, directed three of the most indescribably enormous hits in the history of American cinema (and also the mega-flop 1941, from which he sprung back quickly), and if he wanted to oversee the first special effects horror extravaganza of the new popcorn movie era, nobody was likely to step in and tell him no. And so Poltergeist is executed with a tremendous array of cinematic tricks that were the absolute state of the art in 1982, most of which have aged fairly well. Though a lot of it feels sort of identical to his 1977 Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and therein lies the problem.
Poltergeist is a Steven Spielberg movie. I've said it, but it needs to be repeated: whether Tobe Hooper "directed" it or not, he was only executing Spielberg's very specific and very characteristic vision. That the film came from the exact same period in Spielberg's adulthood reminiscing about Spielberg's childhood as E.T. is absolutely impossible to miss, as both present a version of the California suburbs as a nexus for childhood fantasies - happy fantasies of finding a best friend and having adventures in E.T., scary fantasies of looming spooky trees and creepy clown dolls and the ineffable terror of thunderstorms in Poltergeist. But Steven Spielberg, for all the thrillers dotting his career, has an attitude that is completely at odds with the impulses of horror, and however much influence Hooper had on the pre-production and production (and nobody denies that he was active in the film's pre-production), the fingerprints of a man who certainly isn't known for his family-friendly work are clearly to be felt in patches here and there. So we have, on the one hand, a writer and producer whose instincts are unyieldingly safe and juvenile in focus: let's make Poltergeist a spooky story about the things that scare little kids, but not too spooky. And on the other, we have a collaborator who made America's most widely-seen film about cannibalism prior to The Silence of the Lambs. Given how much of the film ends up walking back all of the actual scary material with lengthy conversations about metaphysics and light shows in which ghosts look like even more gentle Spielbergian aliens, it's remarkable that Hooper, or whoever, was able to get as much of the legitimate nightmare fuel smuggled into the film as he was: it's never sustained for more than a scene, and it's usually only a single isolated effect at a time, but there's a reason Poltergeist started the conversation that ultimately led to the creation of the PG-13 rating. Rotting flesh hallucinations and giant hell-skulls and some acutely terrifying sound effects come along just often enough to pierce through the "let's tell a scary bedtime story!" attitude that is Poltergeist's main mode for it to feel legitimately darker and harsher than a first approximation of the story and the way the story has been told would ever lead one to believe.
At the same time, it leaves the film feeling erratic and lumpy: not like the largely gentle-touch of the horror was a deliberate choice to let those occasional high-impact moments land harder, but like the film was being torn in two directions. And again, we don't know that happened; but the story about how Jerry Goldsmith (hired to give a disappointingly generic John Williams impression) was shocked to find that he'd be working with the producer, not the director seems awfully telling in at least one respect. For the score, more than anything else, is the film's keenest tool in knocking the edge off its horror with a sweetness and even Romantic air that significantly undercuts the moody lighting and looming camera angles (particularly in the very last shot, which seems for all the world like it should be brooding, except that the music insists, in a most bullying way, "all is well, the heroes have won, la-la").
The production values alone are enough to make this one of the 1980s' most distinctive and important horror movies, showcasing what the genre could do when given unprecedented resources and support; its thematic concerns - living in the suburbs is actually bad for your soul! - make it essential viewing for any even semi-serious Spielberg aficionado, of whom I understand that there are at least one or two out in the world. Its interpolation of enormously ambitious shot set-ups and effects sequences into the modest domestic setting of a single family home set it out as one of the most unique of the first generation of post-Star Wars effects showcases. And yet for all that I'd basically recommend it as necessary viewing for everybody, I can't convince myself that Poltergeist actually works all that well. Truly, it achieves the exact goal it sets for itself, to provide the most intense scary movie experience that the whole family can enjoy. But speaking as a grown-up horror fan, I can't help but wish for more out of this one-of-a-kind marriage of Spielbergian extravagance with genre mechanics, and while Poltergeist does not fail on its own terms, it still feels very much like a missed opportunity.
Elsewhere in American cinema in 1982
-Austrian bodybuilder Arnold Schwarzenegger learns what is best in life in Conan the Barbarian, and becomes the most unexpected superstar in generations
-The lingering memory of the Holocaust poisons the present, as Meryl Streep is forced to make Sophie's Choice
-Fast Times at Ridgemont High is the film that launched a thousand puberties, and proved the teen sex comedy could be pretty darn good cinema, too
Elsewhere in world cinema in 1982
-The Palme d'Or victory for Yol brings Turkish cinema to new international prominence
-In the last year of his life, ultra-prolific Rainer Werner Fassbinder releases his final masterwork, Veronika Voss
-Contemporary history is solemnly embalmed by the British-Indian co-production Gandhi
19 comments:
Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.
Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.
I feel like you accidentally chopped off the last paragraph or three of this review, which is a shame because it's really interesting so far.
ReplyDelete"The production values alo..."
The production values alone what???
Also, the title says 1980 and the last (full) paragraph refers to "the good guys have one". ;)
ReplyDeleteTim, it looks like the last paragraph of your review got cut off.
ReplyDeleteWhy aren't you writing books? this retrospective is great, it's a fascinating combination of film history and the history of the culture surrounding the films that's accessible, easy for a beginner to understand but informative enough for the more experienced cinephile. Along with your comprehensive history of theWalt Disney Studios, I could see it being required reading for any first year film student.
Plus I'd love to have a copy on my shelf.
I would buy your book, as long as the last few paragraphs aren't mysteriously missing.
ReplyDeleteI wish you could "like" comments on here. I'll just tell you all I like them here.
ReplyDeleteThis was a great review, and it's something I always felt about Poltergeist that I always thought I was alone in. The tone is off... it's not scary the way it could have been and the music is partly to blame.
I would love to see how the review ends!
Apologies, all! I was posting from the most terrible Starbuck's I've ever had the misfortune to use the wi-fi at, and it apparently ate everything after the last time I hit "save". Going to go back in and fix it all now, it will take maybe 10 minutes? Assuming I remember what I had to say.
ReplyDeleteAnd, fixed!
ReplyDeleteSo Tim, who do you think really produced The Beatles' Let It Be album?
ReplyDeleteI thought '82 would be either this or Tron (or perhaps Annie, or even Fast Times).
ReplyDeleteI'm not nearly as knowledgeable about movies as you, but I think Poltergeist is a pretty coherent film. It certainly is a strange marriage between the guy who gave us ET (just one week later!) and the guy who gave us Leatherface, but as you pointed out, Spielberg's good-humored idealism provides the perfect lull for Hooper's horrors to grab you by the ankles. It's all shock value, but let's face it, shock value is at the nucleus of horror. I certainly value the creepiness of not knowing what's down the dark hallway, but this is still a movie whose monsters live up to the promises. And Spielberg, for all his cutesy reputation, could certainly turn on the scary when he wanted--when you first watched Jurassic Park, you got the chills when you first heard the Rex's footsteps, didn't you?
But then, maybe I'm a tad biased since it did come out in my birth year, and my first home was a California condo in a neighborhood that looked rather like Cuesta Verde. Was this the first haunted house movie to take place in a modern house rather than a rambling Gothic manor?
I'm a bit intrigued by your suggestion of using an unhappy theme over the ending credits, based on the imagery in the final scene. On one hand I would consider that an improvement. On the other, the main theme still has that sorta creepy tinkling music box vibe to it, so it's not entirely treacle. Also...have you ever watched the credits all the way through? At the end it breaks down into some creepy child laughter.
For '83 I'm guessing...Risky Business? Or perhaps Scarface?
"the fingerprints of a man who never made another film besides this one that even slightly resembles a family-friendly picture"
ReplyDeleteHe actually did, Tim. There's the 1986 remake of Invaders from Mars, which isn't a great movie or anything but I think is a fun family horror movie.
"Poltergeist"!!!
ReplyDelete*sits back in leather wing chair, sips brandy and strokes grey-streaked beard thoughtfully*
I saw it the night it opened. It was great fun, and the modern tract home and planned community setting were truly unique. I can't think of a haunted house movie prior to "Poltergeist" that used that setting.
It's got a great sound mix, as you mentioned, and really aggressive in 70mm.
You didn't mention the performances, but JoBeth Williams and Craig T. Nelson are terrific, sympathetic leads. And the movie is genuinely funny. The audience was laughing as often as they were screaming.
The plot makes no damn sense, even by its own rules, but it's fun as hell to watch, especially with a big audience.
"a fairly well-to-do suburban family of five would only own one television set!"
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, they had at least two. There was a TV in the parents' bedroom, and there might have been a little portable in the kitchen.
Great write up, as usual, though I am honestly shocked at your reaction to Goldsmith's score. I know in film composer circles it's considered one of his best and it ranks as one of my personal all-time faves from any film. Was it just the Carol Anne (La-La-la) theme that spoils it for you or the whole thing? I found the scenes involving any sort of suspense or terror to be pretty terrifically accompanied, particularly when he uses that creepy sliding effect (sorry, my musically-inadequate vocabulary knows not what's it's actually called but it does appear at the beginning of the track called "The Calling.") I also admired Goldsmith's decision to remain silent in certain scenes, usually ones involving that damed clown doll, and let our imaginations take over.
ReplyDeleteAndrew- Oh, so close! It was Risky Business for ages, but it ended up making more sense to do another early Tom Cruise film instead.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have indeed listened all the way through to the end credits, and you're right, but I feel like that's "outside" the film enough that I wouldn't personally count it.
Mysterious F.- I had no idea. Rephrased it.
Rick- Thanks for pointing that out about the TV. That line has been snipped out
catinthebrain- It's the la-las, for sure. Though even the best bits of it don't rank near the top of Goldsmith for me. I prefer his more nakedly experimental stuff, like Planet of the Apes, or even the V'Ger theme from Star Trek (of which echoes show up here, I think that's the sliding noise you're talking about. I don't have the vocab for it, either).
1. I basically love this movie. And I saw it for the first time when I was about 20, so there's no childhood nostalgia going into that.
ReplyDelete2. There are some shifts in tone, but not nearly as many or as jarring as in something from Hong Kong or Korea. Personally, I like that it can do so much, cover so much ground.
3. You hardly mentioned the characters and the performances, which are all at least solid (except maybe for the oldest daughter) and very sympathetic. We really believe this is a real family in a real neighborhood and we care what happens to them.
4. I think sometimes people assume things like the face-gouging nightmare must have been from Hooper, but Spielberg did plenty of gross-out creepy stuff in the Indiana Jones movies. Remember the heart-ripping stuff in Temple of Doom? Plus, everyone's always talking about how scary Jaws is. So it's not like Spielberg couldn't be responsible for the scary parts too.
5. I think that Close Encounters, E.T., and Poltergeist actually maybe represent a new breed of American movie mythmaking, where the suburbs become the new locus of wonder and terror. It used to be the Old West and the Small Town, but Spielberg began a whole new phase in Hollywood imagining with these movies--children and families in the suburbs where everything seems boring/conformist, confronted by strange creatures/aliens/magic/ghosts that allows them to experience new dreams and wonder. Amblin has spent much of the last quarter century fleshing out that storytelling set-up, and other movies from Flight of the Navigator to Explorers to Jumanji to The Iron Giant to The Incredibles have followed in their footsteps until it's become its own genre and practically a primary myth of American childhood. (Not to mention the way the dream of spaceflight and alien life in CE3K and ET and the wonder and excitement those provoke have become part of the texture of almost anything to do with space now, from Contact to Wall-E to Gravity.)
I just think Spielberg's work here is special in deeper, more powerful ways than being really good at making blockbusters--he influenced the dreams of generations.
Looks like we're moving to the '80s! '82 was a special year because E.T. is the very first movie I ever saw in the theater (I was a baby,though!). A few years later, I discover "The Secret of NIMH" (also an '82 release that was unfortunately eclipsed by E.T.).
ReplyDeleteWow, this film scared the living crap out of me when I was 9, even though I knew even back than that it's just a big ol' Steven Spielberg special effects extravaganza. The Beard has a sublime way how to manipulate emotions:)
ReplyDeleteEven though I sort of like/love this film, it has one of the most jarring and inappropriate cuts I can ever think of in a mainstream film, the moment that takes us from Diane showing Steve the chairs (and Carol Anne) sliding around in the kitchen to the two of them standing in front of their neighbors' house. I can't remember exactly what it was, but there was something tremendously 'off' about the sound design, in a way that fiercely took me out of the film.
ReplyDeleteI rewatched this last night for the first time in years and had my initial skepticism confirmed--I continue to be absolutely flabbergasted by the status of 'Poltergeist' as a classic, canonical horror film.
ReplyDeleteAfter a terrific first 30 minutes, almost nothing works from the initial haunting onward: the tone is totally off, the direction and editing are absolutely flat, the endless expositional speeches are irritating, the emotional goodwill built up by the first act is squandered in Spielbergian schmaltz (and I don't usually mind Spielberg!), any potential for flavor and quirk via the paranormal investigators is utterly mis-handled, the alleged dramatic payoff for the main conflict (the rope thing to retrieve the missing girl) is super dumb and confusing and bereft of any dramatic force, the little girl herself is absolutely insufferable and a terrible actor even by small child standards, and above all, almost none of it is all that scary. Some cool effects and set design, and some pretty likeable actors, and two great jump scares. A two-and-a-half-star movie at the very, very best. Even that feels generous to me.
I get that a lot of people behind the hype for this film saw it when they were kids, and I guess it holds up as a nostalgia trip. (I'll sit through any 80s horror movie, really.) But I frequently see this film sizing up with the likes of The Exorcist, both in terms of quality and scares, and that's total nonsense.
Sorry if this is a bummer... I'm not trying to pee on anyone's childhood favorite here. My whole thing it, basically: it's not like people are trying to elevate like 'Last Action Hero' to the annals of immortality alongside 'The French Connection'. Why does this sort of thing only happen to horror?