Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986)

Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

disgusting, overrated, pointless

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

For sequel month, it only fits we'd get a sequel that's pretty pointless. This film became somewhat notorious because of the absence of the elder sister character whose actress Dominique Dunne, was strangled in real life by her boyfriend. The most entertaining bit is probably how this new villain Kane looks a lot like Fred Phelps. Fred Phelps didn't even look like that at the time the movie was made. We actually do get some pretty creative sequences. It's still just mediocre, particularly with how the pacing isn't good.None of the actors and actresses are really bad. It does expand a little on the mythology of the series, but it doesn't really amount to much. I really do praise Heather O'Rourke for her role in this. It's hard to find really good child actresses. The visual effects are quite good, given the year it came out. It still reprises too much stuff, but can be watchable. **1/2

While the sequel, "Poltergeist II: The Other Side", was never fully up to par with the original "Poltergeist" movie, then it has always been one of my favorites. And the reason for this was because of Julian Beck in the role of reverend Henry Kane. Man, that guy was spooky in that role, and he really carried most of the movie.Right, well the movie essentially picks up where "Poltergeist" left off, with the Freeling family, minus Dana, staying at the grandmother's house. Back at the original Cuesta Verde site, the foundation of the house has been uprooted, revealing a horrible tomb underneath, where people were lead to their deaths by a reverend who preached the end of days, and end that never came, but the reverend refused to release his congregation. Reverend Henry Kane is out to get the angelic Carol Anne and nothing can stop him.Story-wise, then "Poltergeist II: The Other Side" isn't as fully thought through as the first movie. But it was still entertaining and it does have its moments. My personal favorites are all the scenes with Julian Beck.The effects were adequate enough for a movie back from 1986, but for some reason they were outdone by the effects in the first movie. Which was a bit odd.The acting in part 2 was good, and it really carried the movie quite a long way, with most of the original cast making a return trip to the screen.Like the first "Poltergeist", I have seen "Poltergeist II: The Other Side" so many times that I have long lost count. And it will probably always be one of those movies that I keep making a return trip to, no matter how many years pass by."Poltergeist II: The Other Side" is an entertaining movie, considering it is from 1986. And it is a must watch alongside with the first "Poltergeist" movie, especially if you enjoyed the first movie. This sequel is a well worthy addition to the collection of any horror aficionado.

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 way5.2/10

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.