It is heartbreakingly sad that Heather did not outlive this, her final movie. It is worth watching to witness her proffessionalism alone. She made this film despite being in frightening pain, she is the perfect actress, as her suffering does not show. How many adult actors have performed so flawlessly when actually dying?
Who should see this film: This film is for people who want a bit of scaryness, but don't want to be freaked out of their skin. It is perfect if you want formulaic scary bits, but also want a happy ending. It is quite a 'fun' horror film because many expectations are met. It is not inivative or new or origional, but it is a fun time-passer. It is also has less annoying cliches & characters than the origional, but the adult casting is a severe disopointment. Ignore the adults, look at Heather & Lara Flynn Boyle's characters and in Heather's case see a potentialy brilliant actress who never had the chance to fullfil what would have been a brilliant career.
Tips: View this movie as you would a dream. Get into the imagery & symbolism, ignore the bad adult acting & direction and just look at what Carol Anne went through. The idea of 'Alice through the looking glass' is explored through the horror genre to 3D psychological terror. This is a subtle philosophical film & not a mainstream 'easy digestible' horror. The viewer is meant to consider their role as voyeur & not in the 'Hammer House of Horror' sense. This film challenges how we 'look' at film in general. It makes us question what we truelly want to happen & whether this makes us 'sick' or not. This film deserves more credit than it got upon release, because it has not been understood. The ending does ruin the deepness of the philosophical content, so ignore the ending & question the main sequences that deal exclusively with 'reflextion' & reflecting/projection of us & expectations. The middle of the film is reflective of what the great Trauffaut tried to achieve, but never quite could - the projection of self in others. It is a very intelligent film that has been badly edited, unlike the previous films that weren't very intelligent, but cleverly edited! I hope we get a 'Director's cut', as it may offer an ending to compliment the content.
This film is the last of it's kind in the horror genre, a straight narrative, with formulaic structure. It gives you the popcorn that you expect. It is no Wes Craven psychiatric epic. But, if you look, it gives you more, as it's actualy more rewatchable than Poltergeist 1. It's a film that you can watch over & over & still not understand all that is possible, unlike the previous films. It is not nearly as scary as the previous films, so you can rewatch it to contemplate the philosophy behind it. It's very clever idea, but badly constructed. There are many loose ends not resolved by the end, such as the demonic teenagers. It is this that ultimately proves the editing to be at fault. This film needs re-editing. Don't see this film if you want a quick fix & flawless viewing. Well worth watching if you love 'reading' or studying a film.
Who should see this film: This film is for people who want a bit of scaryness, but don't want to be freaked out of their skin. It is perfect if you want formulaic scary bits, but also want a happy ending. It is quite a 'fun' horror film because many expectations are met. It is not inivative or new or origional, but it is a fun time-passer. It is also has less annoying cliches & characters than the origional, but the adult casting is a severe disopointment. Ignore the adults, look at Heather & Lara Flynn Boyle's characters and in Heather's case see a potentialy brilliant actress who never had the chance to fullfil what would have been a brilliant career.
Tips: View this movie as you would a dream. Get into the imagery & symbolism, ignore the bad adult acting & direction and just look at what Carol Anne went through. The idea of 'Alice through the looking glass' is explored through the horror genre to 3D psychological terror. This is a subtle philosophical film & not a mainstream 'easy digestible' horror. The viewer is meant to consider their role as voyeur & not in the 'Hammer House of Horror' sense. This film challenges how we 'look' at film in general. It makes us question what we truelly want to happen & whether this makes us 'sick' or not. This film deserves more credit than it got upon release, because it has not been understood. The ending does ruin the deepness of the philosophical content, so ignore the ending & question the main sequences that deal exclusively with 'reflextion' & reflecting/projection of us & expectations. The middle of the film is reflective of what the great Trauffaut tried to achieve, but never quite could - the projection of self in others. It is a very intelligent film that has been badly edited, unlike the previous films that weren't very intelligent, but cleverly edited! I hope we get a 'Director's cut', as it may offer an ending to compliment the content.
This film is the last of it's kind in the horror genre, a straight narrative, with formulaic structure. It gives you the popcorn that you expect. It is no Wes Craven psychiatric epic. But, if you look, it gives you more, as it's actualy more rewatchable than Poltergeist 1. It's a film that you can watch over & over & still not understand all that is possible, unlike the previous films. It is not nearly as scary as the previous films, so you can rewatch it to contemplate the philosophy behind it. It's very clever idea, but badly constructed. There are many loose ends not resolved by the end, such as the demonic teenagers. It is this that ultimately proves the editing to be at fault. This film needs re-editing. Don't see this film if you want a quick fix & flawless viewing. Well worth watching if you love 'reading' or studying a film.