Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
118 Reviews
Sort by:
Revenge of the 80's: The multiple sequels.
Joseph P. Ulibas29 June 2004
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.

21 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A fun sequel to watch
jeffplus317 November 2000
"Poltergeist II: The Other Side" is a very interesting movie despite the fact that the plot was rather subpar. My favorite movie of all time is the original "Poltergeist," and this movie is a respectable sequel. I like it because of the character Kane, for one, who gives the movie another ghostly dimension. Julian Beck was wonderful in the film as Kane. Also, the children remained good actors, especially the late Heather O'Rourke, who played Carol Anne. This is another strong performance by the young actress, and would have gone on to be a wonderful adult actress later in life had she lived. All in all, I give it a 7.5 out of 10.
20 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
They're Back
nayruslove1416 September 2007
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.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The dangers of drinking the worm in tequilla graphically displayed.
Aaron13752 February 2004
This sequel was okay at the theater when I saw it, but it wasn't great. Kind of an average film that adds plot points that really are a bit weak. We find out in this one that it was not necessarily the fact the little community was sitting on an old cemetery that was the problem in the first one, but rather that the house was over some burial ground of a cult. There is also this really old man that is a bit creepy wandering around looking for Carol Anne and the Freeling clan. I just think they wanted to add a more physical enemy, someone you could focus on. The family is now living with grandma, but strange stuff starts happening again. For some reason they want Carol Anne. An Indian guy comes to their aid and gives them advice and there are a series of happenings, but this one just isn't as good as the first one as it is very slow in places. The ending was just plain lame and only makes this one worse than it is. As not good as this is though, the next Poltergeist makes this one look a lot better. Some good scenes here and there, but ultimately this one disappoints. Though there is that memorable scene with the worm.
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Decent sequel overshadowed by poor post-production
Gregory Kyprianou25 March 2005
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!.

22 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mixed bag of a sequel
Red-Barracuda17 March 2010
In this follow-up to Poltergeist, the Freeling family call on the big Native American fella from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest to help them once again defeat evil malevolent spirits that seem to not like them very much.

As with virtually all sequels this one is inferior to the original. However, the first film wasn't all that great and this one isn't a complete washout either. The story is modified somewhat from the first episode so that now the source of the poltergeist unrest is attributed to the dead followers of a cult leader, as opposed to the dead disturbed by unscrupulous property developers. The change has really only been made so that they can have a sequel to be perfectly honest, however, it does mean that the series is able to introduce the evil Reverend Kane. Kane is probably the best character in the series and his scene where he confronts the Freeling family on their front porch is the scariest and most well-crafted moment in any of the films. Julien Beck is excellent and unforgettable as the skeletal preacher. The rest of the cast play it strictly by numbers, although once again Heather O'Rourke is fab as the little girl. The other daughter is completely written out of this film with no explanation. Although it's a well documented fact that the actress who played her, Dominique Dunne, was murdered shortly after the first film was released, I still don't think it would have trashed her memory to have explained her absence; quite the opposite in fact.

The Poltergeist series was perhaps most famous at the time for its spectacular visual effects and this film is no exception. The demon Kane is a well rendered creation, and there are a number of cool 80's effects throughout. Unfortunately, though, it all ends in a somewhat underwhelming finale where the family enter some vortex or something. I think it would have been better if they had cut back on the special-effects here and simply re-introduced Reverend Kane, as he was much scarier. But I guess having a big effects-laden ending is one of the in-built rules of the Poltergeist movies sadly.

Overall, there's good stuff in this sequel but it's ultimately squandered on a rubbish ending.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
So-so first sequel
ITTMovieFanatic2 June 2004
"Poltergeist II: The Other Side" is a mostly average sequel to the superb 1982 horror movie about unfriendly ghosts terrorizing a suburban family. This movie is not real bad like most people say it is (I did like some of it), but it's not real good either.

"Poltergeist II" takes place in Arizona, which is where the Freeling family now resides. But no matter where you go you can't keep a nasty ghost down, and those pesky spirits are back to terrorize the family once again. Where the first film was scary with a great sense of humor, the second film comes off more funny than scary. Not a good sign for a horror film where you're expected to be scared. And there isn't much scares this time around. Plus, the special effects this time around aren't as effective as they were in the first film. Nevertheless, the effects received another Oscar nomination, which to me was surprising.

If there's anything to like about "Poltergeist II", it's the acting. JoBeth Williams, Craig T. Nelson, Heather O'Rourke, Oliver Robins, and Zelda Rubinstein are all back reprising their roles from the first film, with a few new faces add to the cast. The new cast members add some spark here. Will Sampson is very good as the Indian medicine man who also happens to be an exorcist, and comes in to help out the Freelings; Julian Beck makes a strong presence as the evil preacher who happens to be the leader of the ill-mannered ghosts (Beck was reportedly very ill when he made this, and it shows on the screen; he died right after filming completed); and the great veteran actress Geraldine Fitzgerald has a nice small part as Grandma Freeling. So to sum up this film: good acting, bad story, so-so effects, which makes for an average movie.

*** (out of five)
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Crappy, crappy sequel
zmaturin20 July 2000
This is one incredibly moronic movie. It begins with magical spirits flying up a man's nose (he looks like a telekinetic coke addict), and then goes down hill from there.

The older daughter from the first movie is missing and no attempt is made to explain her absence. The rest of the family is back, though, headed up by stoner parents JoBeth Williams and Coach (a.k.a Craig T. Nelson, who is painfully bad in this), who both have really bad hair. Once again they're plagued by spirits from beyond. Who do they trust? The annoying Native American guy who sits around their backyard, speaks in half-assed proverbs, and does nothing for about an hour of screen time? Or the silly-beyond-words Reverend Kane, who sings asinine bible songs at the top of his lungs? Who cares? You'll be too busy laughing at this film's unending parade of goofiness.

The first movie was really good- it held your attention, had interesting effects, and had some very scary, eerie sequences. It wasn't perfect, but it was an enjoyable movie. This flick is ridiculous. It has a few okay moments whenever the main monster shows up (He first appears after Coach vomits him up!). He's pretty cool looking, but you don't get to see him much. The rest of the movie's effects sequences are completely preposterous. In one scene a kid is attacked by his own braces. Then Coach sits on a ghost. That's about it.

Pointless scenes drag on, filled with boring dialog about the family's power when they work together, blah, blah, blah, and the characters all become so annoying that you'll wear out your fast forward button. If you make it to the end, you'll be treated to an absurd sequence where the family goes into the spirit world and floats around like Christopher Reeves' Superman. These scenes are so incredibly goofy, I simply cannot do them justice here. If you think you know goofy, just wait. The movie "A Goofy Movie" wasn't as goofy as this movie. The key word here is "goofy".

You will laugh at this movie, but not with it. This movie tries very hard to be funny, but fails miserably. Take for instance the "classic" closing scene: Annoying Native American guy and Coach look at Coach's car. Coach says "How can I make the car happy?" Annoying Native American guy says "It wants to go home with me!" So Coach gives him the keys and he drives away- but then the family realizes that they need a ride home! D'oh! They chase after the car as the credits roll. That's the film's stinger, the scene they thought would cement this movie in the hearts of film goers everywhere. Instead, I'd like to cement it in a crate at the bottom of the ocean, mobster-style.

I hated this movie.
15 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
underrated but terrific sequel
burgershmurger11 October 2003
Warning: Spoilers
It seems as though most people will give a sequel a bad rating just for being a sequel. I think this is the case with "Poltergeist II". Though the sequel may not have been written and produced by Steven Spielberg, it still retains the same qualities as the original feature. The Freeling family are still quite likeable and despite the past events they have not lost their sense of humour; the special effects are top notch, Jerry Goldsmith's spooky music sends shivers down your spine and the cast deliver, in particular the late Julian Beck as Rev Henry Kane. What an uncanny and intense performance! MINOR SPOILER!!!! Watch P2 at dead of night and hear him sing "God lives in his only temple" accompanied by Goldsmith's awesome score and then tell me it doesn't scare the hell out of you and you're a liar in my eyes! In my humble opinion, the scene with Kane approaching the family's house and asking the father to let him in, ranks among the most terrifying scenes in movie history! Genius!

Verdict: So all in all P2 deserves to be recognised as a compelling and most riveting sequel that should have gotten the recognition it deserves. I've seen it dozens of times and the excitement and fun has yet to wear off. Just watch it with an open mind. It's well worth it. 9/10
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Undistinguised sequel with the likable family pursued by diabolic forces
ma-cortes23 June 2008
This second installment concerns about the young Freeling family(Jobeth Williams, Craig T Nelson, Robbins, O'Rourke and no Dominick Dunne but was suddenly killed) again, various months later and in a new house. Then appears the otherworld Beast in a ghostly apparition as the evil reverend Kane(Julian Beck.)It seems all of his supernatural powers have just about sent over the edge. The nasty reverend back from the other side and he wishes the good Carol(Heather O'Rourke), but with help her family, united to psychic Tangina, an Indian American(Will Patton) and the Granma(Geraldine Fitzgerald)confront against the weird being.

This inferior sequel from original (produced by Spielberg and directed by Tobe Hooper) contains spooky scenes, intrigue, suspense and dazzling special effects by Richard Edlund. The performances are uninspired and is badly paced with flaws and gaps which cause lack common sense and no coherence . Spectacular music score by the master Jerry Goldsmith and colorful cinematography by Andrew Lazslo. The complete project collapses under a regular direction by Brian Gibson(1944-2004). He was a director with no much success, and a biographies expert, such as : 'The Josephine Baker story and Tina Turner' ,and also directed 'The Juror, Still crazy and Camarena story'. Followed by a third sequel starred by Heather O'Rourke who surprisingly deceased, Tom Skerrit, Nancy Allen and Zelda Rubinstein, usual in the tree parts. The motion picture is classified PG-13(Parents guide) for violence, tense events and intensity. This pointless sequel and occasionally plodding will like to strange deeds buffs and Poltergeist trilogy fans.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
They're here, again!
OllieSuave-00727 May 2014
Poltergeist II is one of better ghost/horror sequels I've seen, a story where the Freeling family moves to a new house, but followed by the supernatural, in the form of Reverend Kane.

Being a movie made in the early 1980s, like its prequel, it still holds a great amount of horror, as its elements will grip you and send chills down your spine. This movie doesn't rely on gore and violence to make it entertaining, but rather relies on the ghosts' presence and their frightening powers that they are able to unleash onto the unfortunately family, highlighted also in very polished and keen special effects.

The screenplay and story by Michael Grais and Mark Victor were well-written, giving us a captivating and exciting plot, and the direction by Brian Gibson is solid and thrilling like the original. The cast of characters gave another superb and heartfelt performance.

Overall, it's a good continuation of the original Poltergeist, but also works great as a sequel with its unique storyline superb acting.

Grade B+
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
simply awful
david ford3 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I really have to start my review lampooning the decision to make a sequel to Poltergeist, a well crafted ghost story by Tobe Hooper and Steven Spielberg, whilst no classic was well made enough, with some good chills and good effects. But Poltergeist 2 seems to have been made by people who had no idea of what made the original so worthwhile - it ends up a completely unsuspensful mess, and such may well be the worst sequel of all time. We begin by meeting the freeling family after the events of the first movie (homeless and living with jobeth Williams' mother), after an absurd opening featuring shamans and Indians and excavating... until carol Anne sees a mysterious figure at the mall, which turns out to be Reverend Henry Kane, who wants Carol Anne. Add to this mix is an Indian played by Will Sampson, who tries to protect the family. If this sounds jumbled, you should see the movie. The major Problem with this movie is a complete lack of any suspense whatsoever. Any decent horror movie worth its salt has suspense, or tries to utilise it because that is what terror is all about, the long silences waiting for something to happen, the build up to it... Poltergeist 2 simply does not even try in this area,For example when carol Anne sees Kane at the mall, menacing and staring at her, in order to build up the tension, Director Brian Gibson didn't need to show us that Kane was a ghost, any director with any idea of suspense would have let us make up our own minds, as soon as we see Kane walking through people and things we know straight away what he is and any suspense vanishes. as a result pic becomes predictable and boring the effects are hammy and aside from Julian Beck,(who gives the movies only high point with a terrifically creepy performance)Jobeth Williams and Craig T Nelson look bored to death. It says an awful lot that i rated the 3rd instalment higher than this drivel, and believe me that was no classic by any means.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The magic is gone
Jexxon25 March 2005
The poor family from the first Poltergeist film think they're safe, after having moved and thrown out the TV. Well, they're wrong. Now living with grandma, they soon discover that the nasty ghosts and goblins are back - led by the nasty reverend Kane, who for some reason wants to get his hands on little Carol Anne.

The original is a classic - this one isn't. It's got quick-cash project written all over it. The effects are less than special, the plot leaves a lot to be desired, and it just feels sloppy and uninspired. Poltergeist managed to be funny, scary, dramatic, and overall entertaining - all at once. The sequel is just boring, albeit we do get to see Craig T Nelson acting all coked up for some reason.

The plot is little more than a thinly disguised allegory over the importance of the concept of family (see how the dad feel's inadequate, starts drinking and literally turns into a different person). All talk about how the family must stick together feels strange considering that one of the kids from the first film isn't in this one, and no explanation is given either (yes, I know the actress was killed shortly after the first one - but still...).

There's also a subplot about psychic powers that just doesn't go anywhere. Most of the film is just talk, talk, talk. Occasionally there's a "cheap" jump scare thrown in there, just to keep people awake. But considering the anticlimactic ending, you might as well stay asleep. [1/10]
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Interesting Sequel, But Really Not Needed.
tfrizzell15 March 2002
Interesting sequel to the box office hit of 1982 gets a little too smart for its own good early on. The thing that made the first so frightening was the fact that nothing was ever really explained. "Poltergeist II: The Other Side" tries to give background into the events of the first and this is not really needed. For those with curious minds the sequel may be better than the original, but I felt that the audience was better off "being in the dark" about what was happening. Not bad, but really one of those films that was just used because of the enormous success of its predecessor. 2.5 out of 5 stars.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A depressing mess of a movie
Maciste_Brother29 October 2003
There are so many things wrong with POLTERGEIST II that it's not worth listing all of them. Suffice it to say, I find this movie very depressing, mainly because of Heather O'Rourke and her untimely death after making POLTERGEIST III. It's difficult to watch a movie about evil characters trying to kill Heather when you know she died as a kid in real life. The other depressing aspects are everything else in this movie: story & script, acting, special effects, etc. It's bad and nothing works. The scene when Craig Nelson vomits that monster is stupid. The horror elements are totally disjointed and don't make any sense at all. But the worst thing about this sequel, aside from the scenes taking place on the other side, is the fact that this big budget movie is only 87 minutes long and yet if feels like it's three hours long. Such a short running time for such a big studio project is ALWAYS a bad sign (a lot of stuff must have been edited out) and in this case, it's true. Take away the time for the opening and closing credits, and the movie is probably 77 minutes long. That's only 1 hour and 17 minutes. Avoid this mess.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Freeling Family in the Temple of Doom
moonspinner5511 September 2016
Nonsensical supernatural thriller continues the other-worldly nightmares plaguing the TV set-fearing Freeling family, originally introduced in 1982's "Poltergeist". Here, a Native American shaman helps protect the family from the spirit of a demonic, skeletal preacher who wants to possess little Carol Anne. Depressive sequel reunites the central cast members from the original but fails to build on their characters (much of this seems like a cheaply-rendered rerun). Director Brian Gibson mistakes tasteless jolts (such as "the Vomit Monster") for scary thrills--and has a severe case of Spielberg-itis besides. Few involved with the project were satisfied with the results, and smart audiences knew to stay away. *1/2 from ****
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
filmbuff197029 May 2002
Containing none of the chills and thrills of the first this lame movie goes nowhere slowly.The final act is poor too.The cast look as bored as i was.im suprised this ever got to a third movie.a very bad sequal.avoid.1 out of 10
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Too much of an extension of the first movie.
Boba_Fett11387 July 2004
One of the problems with this movie is that it relies too much on the events that happened in the first movie. The result is that the story is too silly and some of the events are recycled and the movie leaves an overall needless impression.

Another example of how the movie relies too much on the first movie is the fact that the brought back the character Tangina Barrons. It is understandable why they did it since her character has grown into a well known movie character but I don't know, for some reason I feel that the movie would had been better off without her.

And poor Craig T. Nelson. He tries very hard to make the unbelievable story line's and ridiculous dialogue's believable. It was a shame to see him struggle with the line's so much. He does his very best but the end result isn't always successful.

Another problem I had with the movie is that it wasn't scary. Main reason for this is that there now is a main villain in an human form. Granted the the actor Julian Beck who portrays him is one scary looking guy but he seemed more like a psycho than a creep from another dimension. Yes, Julian Beck acts very well and even though he isn't the right villain for this movie, he was still one of the highlights. He also really seemed to be in serious pain by every line he delivered, I don't know if this has anything to do by his decease which claimed his life, or if it just is his way of acting. But it doesn't really matter, with this worthy last role he played the part of his life.

But is this movie a complete disaster? No, far from it. There are some nice special effects and with Jerry Goldsmith composing an horror score you always have a winner.

But anyway, overall a(nother) needless sequel that only might be recommendable if you also liked the superior first movie.


8 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Nothing is here... and it never came back.
pronco10 July 2010
Not even Heather O'Rourke (may she rest in peace) could save this franchise. Tobe Hooper's/Stephen Spielberg's joint collaboration on Poltergeist made it my favorite movie ever; unfortunately, the success of the first movie is the only reason the next two movies were made. Not even the acting was immune to the switch in directors: Brian Gibson utterly destroys the once-stellar performances of both Craig T. Nelson and JoBeth Williams (as Steve and Diane Freeling), so much so that the two wisely failed to show up for the third, and thankfully last, installment. Gibson then gave up to hand the failure to director Gary Sherman, who carried the same desperate storyline of Reverend Kane into Poltergeist III and who did only a slightly better job than Gibson (incidentally, the actor who played Kane in Poltergeist II, Julian Beck, also jumped ship). Both sequels rely on cheap jump gags, bizarre and unexplained twists, disjointed subplots, tedious dialogue, and weird and boring gore. The music in Poltergeist III, which is itself poor, lets you know everything before it happens, and Nancy Allen's performance greatly underscores the performance she gave us in Robocop. There is even a hanging thread in the third movie: we never know what happens to one of the characters. Yawned throughout both. Total junk; if corny fright is what you're after, you'd be better off with a traditional slasher.

With regards to the Reverend Kane plot, it was invented solely so Gibson could continue the franchise. To Gibson's credit, it would have been hard to pick up the story believably anyway, as the conflict in Poltergeist had been completely resolved by the end of the movie-- in typical Spielberg fashion, and possibly even as a warning by Spielberg to any would-be successors to leave the story alone. Gibson, however, could have worked harder to integrate the original and riveting antagonist with his sequel instead of, shall we say, booting it retroactively out the door. I'm sorry, but you can't rewrite a movie as huge as Poltergeist like that and expect its fans to accept you for it.

Whereas Poltergeist was nominated for three Oscars, won a BAFTA film award, won the Saturn Award in three categories along with three other nominations, and was nominated for a Young Artist Award, Poltergeist II was nominated for only a single Oscar and two Saturn Awards, I can only imagine, out of pity; it won the BMI Film Music award presumably as a post-facto nod to composer Jerry Goldsmith, who didn't manage to clinch the Oscar for best music and original score in Poltergeist and who, like almost all of the other talent with the exception of flagship Heather O'Rourke, didn't stick around for Poltergeist III. Poltergeist II is also the first movie that received a nomination for a Razzie and, again, a Young Artist award nomination for Heather O'Rourke. But Poltergeist III simply got the cold shoulder, with just two nominations: a Saturn Award for Zelda Rubinstein's decent performance and a Razzie Award for the same. Game over.

While Poltergeist III could be interpreted as more inspired and creative than Poltergeist II with only modestly worse acting, a slightly faster plot, and a single quip by a side-actor that actually made me laugh, it was scorched by viewers and pundits, presumably, because everyone was now simply disappointed and tired. Heather O'Rourke, aged twelve, knew the original Spielberg-inspired ride was long due to be over too when she said, "I hope to do a different character some day. I'm tired of this one, kind of. If there is a sequel, a 'Poltergeist IV,' I hope it's the last."

Out of the mouths of babes.
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
"A sequel without soul"
Romeo Garcia24 January 2015
The first movie of course is one of the best horror-terror movies of all time.The movie scare to they all generation of the 80's and still scare new generations.That what happen because 2 important things:Tobe Hopper and Steven Spielberg. This time this masterminds are not comeback and you can see the result of that.The movie simply don't have soul,don't have the magic of the first movie,don't have the scares,the terror,the chemistry,the emotion,the mystery nothing of the original movie.

This movie feels like a chapter of THE TWILIGHT ZONE of the 80's (i see better chapter in the series than this movie) so this nothing great or special of this movie that deserves your attention.

Believe you not lost something not see this movie...If you wanna see a good sequel of the 80's see FRIGHT NIGHT 2,CHILD PLAY 2,ALIENS to say some movies.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
because of Dominique (web)
leplatypus3 February 2014
Well, hadn't she been killed by her real ex-boyfriend, i'm sure that the big sister would have rejoiced this Freeling family again! Strangely, her absence is never explained in this sequel, nor the next one. In all cases, the best thing of this movie is again the incredible cast because the parents and the kids are really the best family ever made for screen. Then, i'm straightforward and i acknowledge that the movie hasn't the quality of « P1 ». The great difference is that « P1 » was about ordinary getting extraordinary while « P2 » is totally extraordinary : with the opening of a native exorcism, you can only expect ghosts afterward! The characters of reverend Kane, very creepy, and Taylor are a bit too Old West for me. Sometimes, i thought i was watching the episode « Showdown at Malibu Beach High » from Baywatch (SE3EP6). And notice that the pair would be the next two victims of the curse (read about the stunning anecdote of Nelson visiting his grave !). However, there are good scenes in the movie, especially when the father becomes infected. At this moment, i thought to « alien » and « Prometheus » and it was a surprise to discover on the credits that the monster was designed by Giger. If it's still difficult to understand the explanation about the light and why they need Carol Ann, what i will remember definitely about the movie is that Carol Ann said that she didn't want to grow up and that her last words to her dying Grandma was « i love you », the same she told her real mother at the end.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not as good as first movie
atinder3 November 2012
Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986)

This sequel was not as good as first movie at all, it was decent follow up.

I found this movie a little be more creepy then first movie as the tall old man Taylor , Man was he really creepy.

I found some parts of the movie a little dull at times, I did get little bored at times, didn't flow like the first movie.

The ending was really nice (Maybe little cheesy for nowadays) and fits in with the the movie.

The acting was really good from the whole cast, 6 out of 10
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Sometimes it's amusing, but mostly it's just lame.
Scott LeBrun19 April 2017
Here we have yet another belated, completely unnecessary sequel that only barely gets by. After their otherworldly encounters, the Freeling family has relocated and are now living with Dianes' (JoBeth Williams) mother (Geraldine Fitzgerald). They don't get much of a breather before supernatural forces again begin to plague them. And these forces still want to get their hands on little Carol Anne (Heather O'Rourke). Diane, Steve (Craig T. Nelson), Carol Anne, and Robbie (Oliver Robins) this time receive assistance from a wise Indian (Will Sampson), while Tangina (Zelda Rubinstein) makes an encore appearance.

Technically, "Poltergeist II: The Other Side" is reasonably well made. But it's so lazily conceived that it's very hard to care what happens here. Making things tolerable are a still very likable bunch of actors, but they have some pretty bad material to work with this time around. A lot of the dialogue is simply abysmal. Attempts at humor largely fall flat. Director Brian Gibson is no Steven Spielberg, or Tobe Hooper, and can't generate any suspense or excitement at all. The efforts of a very talented visual effects team (supervised by Richard Edlund) can only do so much to help. It's hard to believe this was written by the same guys who wrote the first film.

This is not to say that this sequel is devoid of highlights. One pleasure is in watching the supremely creepy Julian Beck as a malevolent "reverend" who puts a human face, of sorts, on the antagonistic spirits. One ingenious moment involves Robbies' braces; the other is a sequence many people do enjoy about this sequel. That would be the "vomit creature" sequence. It turns out there are consequences for swallowing the worm at the bottle of a tequila bottle.

The family is still worth rooting for; young O'Rourke is as adorable as before. It's just too bad they're stuck in such a blah story.

H.R. Giger ("Alien", "Species") is credited with conceptual design.

Sadly, the final film for both Beck and Sampson.

Five out of 10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A relatively poor sequel that is void of tension and suspense
callanvass24 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The Freeling family has survived the intense ordeal of the supernatural from the first movie. They move into Grandma-Jesshouse, hoping to wipe the slate clean with everything and start fresh. When Grandma-Jess abruptly passes away, things begin to go downhill. Carol's abductor from the first movie shows up as a ghostly apparition (Reverend Kane) He's a religious nut that is responsible for many deaths. With the help of a mysterious Indian Shaman named Taylor (Will Sampson) The Freeling's are forced to battle evil once more.

I saw this years ago and remember being thoroughly underwhelmed by it. It turns out that this was the case on my second viewing as well. The first movie wasn't perfect, but it was an extremely well crafted film that knew how to entertain. Steven Spielberg's presence is sorely lacking in this one and everybody just seems to go through the motions. With all due respect to director Brian Gibson, he doesn't have the flare or vision of Spielberg. Like a lot of sequels that are here to make cash, it feels awfully contrived. The emotion I felt from the family is nowhere to be found in this movie. One of the reasons the first movie worked so well is the cohesiveness of the family. It felt genuine and I believed them. The cast tries their hardest in this movie to make it feel real, but I wasn't buying into it this time. Spielberg is fantastic with family drama in his movies and Gibson isn't able to pull that off. We get some lame boo scares that pale in comparison to the first and there is no tension to be found. It lacks humor, something the original did very well as well. I know those that are reading this may be getting annoyed at me comparing this sequel to the original with so many things, but I can't help it. Any praise for this film? A few things. I did like the continuity from the first movie. The effects certainly hold up well. I won't spoil it, but wait until you see the braces moment involving Robbie, and the tequila worm. The acting is great, definitely not their fault. JoBeth Williams is solid as the mother, putting her all into the part. Craig Nelson is excellent, too. I didn't like how his character shrugged everything off for a while. He was in no position to disbelieve things after the first movie, didn't make much sense. I also felt they didn't go far enough with his possession storyline. That was really dark and had the ability to be something memorable. It's too bad it was so half-assed. Heather O'Rourke is one of the best child actors I've ever seen. She came through like a champ for her age. Zelda Rubenstein's presence wasn't needed in this movie. She gets on my nerves to begin with and her small part felt inconsequential. Julian Beck is one of the scariest horror villains in history. If this movie wasn't so disappointing, I truly believe Julian would get the credit he deserves. You won't find many things creepier than Reverend Kane. Will Sampson is OK. Geraldine Fitzgerald has a mere cameo, but added class to it. The storytelling is very jumbled at the end and left me feeling very confused at some of the events that transpired.

This movie isn't horrible, but it lacks the spectacle of the original. I haven't seen Poltergeist III in many years, but I remember it being worse than this movie. This is worth a look if you've seen the first movie, but you're better off sticking with the original. This movie had potential, but failed to capitalize on it in a big way

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews