Originally posted: January 10th, 2022
Ralph Bakshi, the champion of underground animation. Throughout his career he has always fought to push animation in other directions than the kid oriented market of the American mainstream with films like Fritz the Cat. Unafraid to go raunchy, gritty irreverent and just plain dark, his work is characterized for focusing less on technical perfection and more on trying to do something new and daring. Which makes the case of this film such a tragic loss.
Originally pitched as a flat out erotic horror film involving the daughter of a human comic book artist and the living incarnation of one of his characters, executive meddling(from both the producer and lead actress Kim Basinger) befuddled almost everything this movie was aiming for. The desire to make it something more family friendly led to a movie that isn't fully adult oriented yet isn't really appropriate for children either. Murder, sexuality and vice are still rampant, just not as overtly explicit, and in a clumsy attempt to cash on the success of Roger Rabbit (something Bakshi wasn't interested in doing) they got a young Brad Pitt to interpret a cop dating a cartoon girl while trying to stop another one from bedding a human, since that's the one forbidden crime in the cartoon world.
If the plot sounds like a mess… it's because it is. So what's worthwhile here? That despite the butchering of Bakshi's vision, there's still something enthralling about this thwarted experiment. While a film like Roger Rabbit presents an inviting cartoon world, everything here is twisted, both literally and metaphorically. It feels less like Looney Tunes and more like a Tijuana Bible.
It's underground, grungy aesthetic combined with some shreds of potential the mangled plot still has, while unable to tell a striking tale on it's own, do fuel the imagination of what could've been and show the possibilities the premise of two different worlds clashing actually offer. Such a bloody shame.
Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986). The Freeling family have a new house, but their troubles with supernatural forces don't seem to be over.
Having re-watched the original only a few days ago, I was looking forward to seeing what angle they'd take the sequel and, well! It's certainly an interesting one! It's nowhere near as good, which isn't exactly uncommon with 80s sequels, and it's tendency to overshow the monstrous/the other side ruins a lot of the tension (those 80s VFX have not aged well), but still, it has its moments, and it's nice to spend a little more time with the family. 5/10.
Strange and creepy happenings beset an average California family, the Freelings -- Steve (Craig T. Nelson), Diane (JoBeth Williams), teenaged Dana (Dominique Dunne), eight-year-old Robbie (Oliver Robins), and five-year-old Carol Ann (Heather O'Rourke) -- when ghosts commune with them through the television set. Initially friendly and playful, the spirits turn unexpectedly menacing, and, when Carol Ann goes missing, Steve and Diane turn to a parapsychologist and eventually an exorcist for help.
I’ve seen this comment a few times on my art here and on insta and I’m genuinely curious— WHERE did people get the idea that the Creature “just had creepy eyes”?? That Victor only ran away because the Creature’s eyes freaked him out?
I’ve seen people say this repeatedly and it couldn’t be further from the truth like. He is explicitly described as an eight foot tall cobbled together corpse with skin that barely covers his veins, yes his eyes are creepy but that would probably be the last thing anyone would notice about the Creature tbh 😭
You can tell Poltergeist was made before the PG-13 rating existed. I mean that in a good way. Unshackled by censorship, this family-aimed horror film occasionally delves into territory too frightening for young children but is generally tame enough that most family members could gather around it. The mix of moods is wholly unique and makes for several memorable scenes.
Steven (Craig T. Nelson) and Diane Freeling (JoBeth Williams) are living quietly in their new home with their three children: Dana (Dominique Dunne), Robbie (Oliver Robins) and Carol Anne (Heather O'Rourke). Suddenly, their house and the objects within it begin acting strangely. The Freelings are unsettled but mostly amused until mysterious voices abduct young Carol Anne.
When the characters in a horror film act like they’ve never seen a horror movie before, it rubs you the wrong way. In every ghost movie since Poltergeist, you wonder why the family doesn’t leave the second they see strange manifestations around the house. Here, it works because the stuff happening around the Freelings is kind of cool. It’s unsettling to have objects move on their own, but once Diane figures out that if an item is placed exactly in a certain spot the mysterious presence in the house will make it slide across the floor, they, and you, forget about the sinister implications. There’s a reason haunted houses draw crowds. We’re all curious to see what it would be like and as long as the walls aren't bleeding and there are no headless corpses walking around, you don't feel the need to worry about all this strangeness.
And then… things get crazy. If you grew up with Poltergeist, you remember the big scenes. That one where Marty (Martin Casella) looks in the mirror (special effects here may be a little dated but it’s still ample nightmare fuel), when the tree comes through the window, that… THING! in the closet or the toy clown. How could you forget?
Directed by Tobe Hooper, this is a distinctly early 80’s film. Not in a slasher type of way, but in the attitudes of the characters, and sub-themes. There’s a fear of conformity, and a wariness surrounding the planned community being sold to the family. The air of unease in this suburbia seems to leak out of your TV and into your home. Doesn’t it suddenly feel like something's a bit off? Like a certain thing that was there when you young has somehow shifted abnormally? Maybe I’m just getting overly nostalgic or paranoid.
We’re unlikely to get another film like Poltergeist. Even the remake, which copied large chunks of the film and didn’t really change much, didn’t have the same tone as this (sorta) family-friendly horror. It’s alternatively sweet and terrifying, which in a way makes it feel true. Whether you’re nostalgic for it or not, something about Poltergeist sticks with you. (On DVD, October 3, 2018)
#onemannsmovies review of "Poltergeist" (1982). #Poltergeist. 40 years on, a spooky classic that still packs a Spielberg-style punch. 4.5/5.
A One Mann’s Movies review of “Poltergeist” (1982).
Just to make me feel really, REALLY old again, “Poltergeist” has been re-released to cinemas, for a limited run, on its 40th anniversary. (Basil Fawlty: “That was your life, Mate! Oh, that was quick. Do I get another? Sorry, Mate. That’s your lot.“)
I was expecting to cringe a bit at the effects. But, it really holds up pretty well still.
By…
THIS WHOLE INTERACTION IS SO SWEET, HIS DAD DOING THE CELEBRATION, JUDE LAUGHING, HIS DAD ASKING FOR THE PHONE TO SPEAK TO JUDE & JUDE TAKING PICS OF THEM IN THE BOX🥹🥹🥰🥰🥰🥰
The following review was written by Ultimate Rabbit correspondent, Tony Farinella.
“Poltergeist” is a film I haven’t watched in probably close to sixteen years. The last time I remember watching it was when I was preparing to interview the late Zelda Rubinstein for the DVD release of the film back in the day. Upon revisiting “Poltergeist,” I found it to be a mixed bag. There are certain…
Two people who understand each other deeply. The power they hold over each other's hearts. the trust between them. That's why I keep reading books. It fascinates me.