Poltergeist (2015)

"A family whose suburban home is haunted by evil forces must come together to rescue their youngest daughter after the apparitions take her captive."

Oh God, here we go with the unnecessary remakes again! 'Tis the season! Not that I'm opposed to every remake. Some of them have been better than the originals, particularly in nearly every case of the Asian horror movies which I once collected.

Yeah, some of those remakes are on the Ghost House Pictures label, the same company who are the producers of this movie, so you'd think that they would know what they were doing by now. You'd be wrong, of course. So very wrong.

Look, I'm sure that you know exactly what I'm going to say about "Poltergeist" before I even write it, so let's cut straight through the chase here.

The remake of "Poltergeist" is
complete and utter shite!

Print that on the eventual Blu-ray slipcase!

I don't feel the need to back this up with any reasons. It's already bad enough that I wasted my time and money by watching this soulless piece of crap, and I don't want to torture myself more by writing about it. And no, it has nothing to do with nostalgia.

I've always disliked the original 1982 version because it only has one scene in it which even resembles real poltergeist activity, i.e. the stacking chairs one, and thus even the title of the movie was a bait and switch con job. Fundamentally, the rest of "Poltergeist" is a padded and updated ripoff of the "Little Girl Lost" episode from "The Twilight Zone" TV series anyway.

I can't stand the dope-smoking parents, or the irritating kids, and jump scares don't work on me. On top of that, the smug ghosthunting team and that awful Tangina thing grip my shit. The only two things which I care to remember fondly from the whole ordeal are JoBeth Williams' beautiful shiny legs. That's it.

In my opinion, the original "Poltergeist" is a stupid but fairly harmless, family-friendly Spielberg fantasy in everything but the director's name. I have no idea if Tobe Hooper really directed it or not. I don't care. I simply don't like "Poltergeist". I'm not an American, I don't connect with the suburban situation or the characters, and I have absolutely no nostalgic feelings about it whatsoever. Just waves and waves of bitter disappointment that it isn't actually about poltergeists.

And you know what? I don't like the sequels either.

"Poltergeist II: The Other Side" (1986) seems like an inferior ripoff of John G. Jones' genuinely terrifying "The Amityville Horror Part II" (1982) novel to me, and "Poltergeist III" (1988) is nothing but a badly made final cash grab which isn't worth piss. Back in the day, I only got through that mess of a movie because I didn't want to completely waste the VHS rental fee. It then turned into a waste both of money and part of my life. Fuck that movie too!

As for this "Poltergeist" remake. I've said all that I want to. If you need further validation, I recommend that you read round the other independent reviewers rather than the "big name" sites carrying those enormous "Poltergeist" advertisements. We all feel much the same way. There's probably nothing different on any of the free blogs which I wouldn't have said about "Poltergeist" myself if I even gave two shits about it, but the most condemnation that the shill sites will dare to write is "Well, it's not bad for a remake..." Fuck that noise!

Just watch the IMDb score drop over the weekend as more people find out the truth for themselves. It's only on 5.8 now! The comments on the official Facebook page are hilariously illuminating too. "Poltergeist is bad, it's really bad. It's "A Nightmare on Elm Street" remake bad! It's too modern, truncated, the ending is rushed, the acting/characterisation is horrible, there's no chemistry, no emotion, it isn't scary... Oh, you nearly got me there. No, I'm not doing this anymore. No more negativity!!! I'm outta here!

If you're really that desperate for a "Poltergeist" remake, try "Grave Secrets: The Legacy of Hilltop Drive" (1992) or "Insidious" (2010) instead. I haven't reviewed them either.

An American Ghost Story (2012)

"When Paul, an unemployed writer, decides to rent and live in a house that's rumoured to be haunted, he puts his life and his relationships in grave danger as he obsessively attempts to get the story that will finally make his career."

Whenever a yet to be released horror movie which was made for under $10,000 achieves a 7.5 out of 10 rating on the IMDb, I smell shenanigans. Either not enough non-shills have found it and voted, or the "critics" who received screeners really did find it outstanding. The chances of the latter being true are invariably slim to none though.

Thus, as much as I didn't want to backtrack to another one of last year's movies—especially not one with a title change designed to cash-in on the success of FX's "American Horror Story" TV series—curiosity meant that I had no choice but to check out the ghost story formerly known as "Revenant". I'm pleased to say that I wasn't disappointed by my discoveries either. Although very little has improved since Derek Cole and Stephen Twardokus made "Human Behavior" (2006), at least this movie is in colour like something created in the 21st century should be.

Unfortunately, with annoying, atmosphere-killing background music throughout, "An American Ghost Story" fails to generate an ambience conducive to scares. Things improve enormously when silence reigns, but at its worst, the music sounds like a cat walking up and down a piano keyboard while a tone-deaf 5-year-old child practices chords next to it. Occasionally, it even overpowers the dialogue, and that's a real shame because the acting is fairly decent.

Stephen Twardokus is very good as Paul the obsessive ghost hunter who bites off more than he can chew, and natural beauty Liesel Kopp is ideal as his girlfriend Stella. Liesel Kopp has a lovely, expressive face with big, watery eyes that exude genuine fear in her nighttime scenes. It's a pity that Stella disappears from the movie after 30 minutes, but she's really only in it to represent the sane action which most people would choose when faced with living in a haunted house.

Even Paul's best friend Sam (Cain Clifton) is likeable, so I have to give credit where it's due for the casting choices and characterisation. Wendy Haines is a bit over the top as former resident Sue, and Jon Gale isn't quite so hot as Skip the house-owner, but they only have very small roles which don't add much to the story anyway. Both provide minimal exposition/confirmations about details which have already been said rather than falling into the "idiot lecture" trap.

So where does it all go wrong? Well, apart from the aforementioned awful background music which is only used properly in two action-packed places, "An American Ghost Story" is a very slow burn, and it's full of clichés and homages instead of originality.

There's absolutely nothing here that you haven't seen before, especially if you're a fan of haunted house movies. In particular, "An American Ghost Story" owes a lot to the "Paranormal Activity" series. You could even describe it as a conflation of all the jump scares from the "Paranormal Activity" movies without the camcorders and home security surveillance contrivances.

As much as I would love to praise the "old school" use of tripods and zooms to provide an easy film to watch, there are flaws with the cinematography. Some of the long shots never zoom in enough, and several others are poorly framed. One of this story's biggest contrivances is to have Paul investigating the house at night using a flashlight, which leads to scenes that are too dark to see properly. The intention may have been to cover-up a multitude of effects sins by using the darkness for cover, but it also makes Paul's actions moronic in a house with fully functional electric lights and no power outages!

The house itself is very modern, and amazingly neat and tidy inside. It may have a lot of mismatched wood going on—a mahogany dining table among light oak cupboards is the worst culprit—but it's not a sinister looking house at all. Apart from one of those Crosley Companion radios which is designed to look like an antique one, there's nothing creepy to see. The characters may keep saying how oppressive the atmosphere is, but the "Emperor's new clothes" technique doesn't work when the reality is so painfully obvious.

Even with its flaws, all but two of the jump scares work, but so they should since they've been done to death in other movies! Without spoiling things too much for you, I'll just mention that doors and cupboards open on their own, a basketball is predictably rolled towards Paul by an invisible being, the scary-looking radio switches itself on, and there's a chair-stacking homage to "Poltergeist" (1982) which made me groan. There are a lot of excessively loud bangs to catch you out, and one computer-based moment which I should have known better than to fall for (because I leaned in close to the screen) really works! All I'll say about it, after nearly soiling myself, is that I'm surprised that anyone still uses AOL mail... and you can't animate a jpg image! Well played, Derek Cole, you ass!

As you can see in the trailer, the big thing in "An American Ghost Story" is the use of "sheet ghosts" which, of course, also appear briefly in "Paranormal Activity 3" (2011). The last time I saw sheet ghosts before that was in The Avalanches' "Frontier Psychiatrist" music video. Sheet ghosts are traditionally used for comic effect as in "Beetlejuice" (1988) rather than being terrifying for anyone other than small children, but they work very well here. In its favour, "An American Ghost Story" seriously attempts to make sheet ghosts scary again!

What's my verdict then? All things considered, and with the wind blowing in the right direction, I don't think "An American Ghost Story" deserves its 7.5 out of 10 rating on the IMDb (note: it's now dropped to 6.2 and still falling), but I'm willing to give it a pass mark of 4.5 out of 10 simply because I was entertained. If "An American Ghost Story" was due to be released without any background music, it would be much stronger. It still wouldn't be more than a clone of other haunted house movies, but the sad truth is that the chances of ever seeing any groundbreaking originality in this subgenre is unlikely anyway.

"An American Ghost Story" is definitely worth a rental. If you aren't so enamoured by Katie Featherston that you've vowed never to watch another haunted house movie unless she's in it, you'll probably enjoy this a lot more.

Dark Skies (2013)

"As the Barrett family's peaceful suburban life is rocked by an escalating series of disturbing events, they come to learn that a terrifying and deadly force is after them."

While other people were getting all excited about the "Evil Dead" remake which, undoubtedly, will be reviewed on every horror blog this weekend until you are sick to death of reading about it, I chose to watch something different last night. There were no "Evil Dead" marathons for me because I don't even like the original anymore. Instead of getting caught up in the circus of Bruce Campbell grinning like a lunatic, chopping bits of himself off and waving a chainsaw about, I decided to watch something completely alien to me in more ways than one.

I endeavoured to find enjoyment in yet another Blumhouse Productions movie which has already been slammed by discerning horror critics from one side of the internet to the other. I heard that it had cats in it at one point, and really that's all a movie needs to keep me entertained nowadays. Well, that and a decent bit of storytelling, of course.

I'm not going to get into the finer details because I could easily sum up "Dark Skies" in a couple of choice expletives after it gave me another bout of "Juno Syndrome". For those of you who never read my blog regularly when I was more prolific, "Juno Syndrome" is my own term for when I enjoy a movie throughout its running time then realise 2 minutes after it ends that it was a load of contrived crap which doesn't stand up to any kind of critical deconstruction. "Dark Skies" has good production values, quite a few creepy moments, and I got fished into the Spielberg-esque suburban family problems, but almost as soon as the credits were over, I realised that I had been well and truly misled.

Already people will think, "Ah, but you're just a hater and don't like any PG-13 movies!" That's not entirely true. I didn't even know that "Dark Skies" was a PG-13. I also didn't know anything about the story beforehand other than it might have "extra terrestrials" in it. As long as a PG-13 movie doesn't intentionally have its punches pulled to earn that rating, I'm actually okay with it.

An anorexic teenager with a big head is behind you!

A lot of people also think that I'm totally against PG-13 rated horror just because horror shouldn't be PG-13. That's not actually true either as there are quite a few PG-13 horror and sci-fi movies which I've enjoyed over the years including "Poltergeist" (1982), "Signs" (2002), and even "The New Daughter" (2009). It's just as well really since "Dark Skies" is little more than a fusion of those three all over again. Unfortunately, with it being a Blumhouse Production, "Dark Skies" also shares the same plot construction as "Insidious", "Paranormal Activity" and "Sinister", and I really do hate those.

"Dark Skies" is "Poltergeist" with more discovery contrivances and the ghosts changed to evil grey aliens who look like "Slenderman". If you think you've seen it all before, you have. The only thing which stands out in a good way is the Apple product placement because I'm pretty sure that my next computer really will be an Apple after all the trouble I've had with Linux recently. It's refreshing to see the computers in use rather than being pawed by a certain immature blonde on YouTube.

No, I'm joking. The highlight of "Dark Skies" is actually the cat-owning "alien expert" Edwin Pollard, played by J.K. Simmons, whose exposition is up there with the best of them even if it borrows a lot from the scene between Roger Wayne (James Gammon) and John James (Kevin Costner) in "The New Daughter". I've seen J.K. Simmons in a lot of things. He's a great actor, but he'll still always be Vern Schillinger from "Oz" to me.

The rest of the acting is fairly decent too. I couldn't understand a single thing the little brother said, and the unnecessary close-ups of Keri Russell's upper lip mole distracted me, but it's fine otherwise. I can't abide kids in movies anyway, and Keri Russell is still fairly hot without any lipstick so I'm not going to condemn the cinematographer of "Dark Skies" for wanting to get near her. The characterisation is very good to the extent that the family and their lifestyle are more interesting in themselves than any of the alien abduction nonsense which comes along to ruin it.

The trouble is that aliens and alien abductions simply aren't real. It's total bullshit. If "Dark Skies" had been about a demonic house possession (which it really is anyway given so many "Poltergeist" homages) then it would be a worthy (albeit very generic) entry into the genre. Apart from an awesome (but borrowed) bird scene and one genuinely terrifying (also borrowed) moment near the end, "Dark Skies" is long on tension but disappointingly short on scares.

There's barely a trace of originality in "Dark Skies" other than the "twist" ending which should have quit while it was ahead. It seems to be a trademark of Blumhouse to deliver a great punchline and then ruin it all by adding too many anti-climactic minutes afterwards. It's not as if they care. Movies are just a pop product to them. As long as they make as much money as possible (as quickly as possible), to Hell with leaving the audience feeling satisfied.

Apartment 143 (2011)

"A team of parapsychologists try to figure out a strange phenomenon occurring in an apartment building."

Since I'm in request mode this week, I decided to watch "Apartment 143" so that I could reply to someone who asked about it in a Facebook group that I belong to. As with most faux found footage movies, I pretty much hated its lack of originality immediately, and it really didn't get any better for me as the story progressed.

If you imagine a found footage version of "The Haunting" (1963), but change the location to someone's boring and sparsely furnished American apartment, you have the setting for this absolute turd of a movie. Then just downgrade the number of paranormal researchers to three and make them completely unlikeable and you almost have this film in its entirety minus, of course, the equally unlikeable family of three whose haunting was being investigated.

From just reading through the titles of a lot of blog posts rather than skimming the reviews themselves, I've noticed that a lot of reviewers have compared "Apartment 143" to the "Paranormal Activity" series. For me, it was more like an even cheaper ripoff of "Ghostwatch" (1992) but without the TV show background. In fact, that's the problem with "Apartment 143". It was like so many other movies in the same subgenre that it was more noticeable for what it lacked than for what it tried to add. As someone put it on another blog, "it had way too much of nothing going on".

Everything about "Apartment 143" was predictable including the two good effects and the lame twist at the end. I honestly sat here timing the final jump scare and it was almost exactly to the second the same as the long pause before the voting results on the "X Factor". For those of you who are unfamiliar with that annoyance, basically, my expectations had already peaked and turned to boredom before the punchline was delivered.

I suppose they tried to make this into more of a poltergeist movie than a real haunting with the clichéd scientific explanation which was delivered by the professor character in one go rather than let the shocking revelation build-up naturally from the story itself. I very nearly fell for it though and started to think that it was kind of neat to actually have a poltergeist story since even Steven Spielberg didn't manage to do that properly. Unfortunately, they just had to go and ruin it all with even more heavy-handedness.

As the camerawork was nearly all done with handheld shakycams, I had to give it 0 out 10 for that element. Call me old-fashioned, but I do actually like to see what is happening on screen without wanting to vomit up my dinner. There was even a scene with a strobe light effect which really hurt my eyes and would probably cause an epileptic seizure for anyone susceptible to such things.

The ten minutes of screaming and destruction which happened twenty minutes from the end was so loud that it hurt my delicate little ears, and forced me to turn the volume right down. I probably should have kept the sound off and left "Apartment 143" at that point because the rest of the movie wasn't much more than a badly tacked-on epilogue anyway.

Guess where "Apartment 143" is going? That's right, it's another one for "The Dungeon". There was nothing in this which hadn't been done better at least fifty times before.