Poltergeist II. Juegos diabólicos II

I have seen this sequel to "Poltergeist" many times and have always enjoyed it as much as I did the first movie. You will find that most people who dislike this sequel do so for the simple fact that it's a "SEQUEL" to the original 1982 "Steven Spielberg" produced hit (surprise surprise!) and "Spielberg" was nowhere in sight this time around (so what!), not everybody cares about whether a big director is involved with a movie/sequel or not including myself.

The sequel is written & produced by "Mark Victor" & "Michael Grais" who co-wrote the original with "Steven Spielberg" and follows the doomed Freeling family four years after the original classic left off...

I have always regarded "Poltergeist II" as a worthy follow up with it's flaws (which it is) and can still not understand how this movie made it's way from a running time of "130" minutes down to a mere "91".

Its obviously down to MGM rushing the movie's production and ordering pathetic cuts. Some of this movie's editing is really poor and it's a shame because the movie is actually pretty good and only really falls apart at the end when you can see how bad a hack job this movie really received. They should have dropped "The Other Side" from the title because you only get to see it in the movie for about 2 minutes and what you do get to see is a rushed not-finished mess of a finale.

The Poltergeist franchise should have been sold to UNIVERSAL (The company "Steven Spielberg" first approached about the original). They would have given this movie the justice it deserved. As for the third movie "I really don't care" nothing could have saved the third movie from being bad". Even with it's problems, I still loved the character's from the first movie, the plot was on the right track and introduced us to one of the most memorable villains in horror sequel history, the evil "Reverend Kane" brilliantly portrayed by "Julian Beck", and while not being as productive as the original, the special effects held up too.

Wrapping everything up, this movie is a decent sequel and has the advantage of retaining most of the original cast from the first movie (minus "Dominique Dunne" who was murdered by her boyfriend shortly after filming the first movie) and there are some really good classic moments in this sequel, one being... "The Vomit Creature!"...check your Tequila for strange worms swimming around in it next time!.

7/10

The magic from the first one was definitely missing but this was watchable. I always cringe when a movie portrays a Native American and their spiritual ways. It just seems stereotypical anymore. There was a lot of it in this movie. The ending was kind of quick and silly.

How these kids haven't lost their minds yet is beyond me.

Definitely a lot worse sequels to hit movies out there.

Poltergeist II (1986) was the second film of the Poltergeist Trilogy. With the amount of money the first film made. the studio decided to make another film. The principal players from the Freeling family are here (sans Dominique Dunne, for reasons known) along with an old friend from part one. A new character is added to the mix as well. Poltergeist II is darker than the first one (if you can believe that) but not as brilliant as the first one.

The Freelings have moved away from the remnants of the home. After the horrific events of part one, things can't get any worse (or can they...). An evil entity is following the family on the run. For awhile things are relativity calm. They've set up a new residence (with a family member) but the family has fallen on some pretty hard times. But they're about to get even harder. A dark man has been visiting them hurling religious epitaphs at them. Like a family house guest he doesn't want to leave and is even more bothersome than a Fuller Brush salesman or a religious solicitor. Does this strange figure intended to harm the Freelings or is he a person from the family's past?

A scary sequel. Not bad, if you want to follow the exploits of the Freelings then this movie is for you. Poltergeist II is a worthy sequel. I enjoyed it very much. Followed by the final entry in the Poltergeist trilogy, the ever so dark and (surprisingly frightening) part three.

Recommended.

Being a big fan of the original 'Poltergeist', it's fun to see the Freelings reunited (aside from Dominique Dunne, of course, who was murdered soon after filming 'Poltergeist') in this flawed but fun sequel to the original classic.

The film introduces some interesting concepts to the Poltergeist mythos, particularly a great final performance from Julian Beck as the very creepy Reverend Kane (Beck died soon after filming due to stomach cancer - no, not the so called 'poltergeist curse' - Beck was fully aware of his condition whilst working on the movie).

Despite another great performance from little Heather O'Rourke and professional performances from the rest of the cast (albeit not as inspired or memorable as their performances in the original), the film ultimately lacks the heart, warmth and quality of the original.

As a viewer, you can't help but come away with the feeling that if a little more time, money and love had been bestowed on the production this could have been a better film.

Still, there are some memorable moments and genuine spine-tingles in this sequel.

Despite the rushed feeling to some parts of the production, for it's nostalgic revisiting of the family Freeling, the Kane character, the few memorable 'horror' moments and last but not least, the fantastic follow-up soundtrack by the great Jerry Goldsmith, I rate this film 7/10.

While not as good as the first one this movie was interesting. It was well made and featured many of the same actors and actresses as well as a few new ones, who all turned out excellent performances.

The story line was solid and thought out. I particularly felt that Julian Beck's character Cane was a nice addition. He was chilling to watch on screen as a antagonist to the family. Will Sampson as Taylor was also an interesting character. R.I.P to both actors and to O'Rouke.

Overall a good film but one that can not possibly hold a candle to the original.

6 out of 10.