Review: Poltergeist 3 (1988)

  Director: Gary Sherman  

                                                                Actors: Heather O'Rourke, Tom Skerritt, Nancy Allen and Lara Flynn Boyle.                         
                                                                                                        IMDb

                                                                             

Poltergeist 3 is one of very few sequels I will admittedly defend to the death. If there ever was one truly underrated sequel then this is it. Why is this? Poltergeist 3 shares very little with the first movie but what it lacks in imitation it adds in strange atmosphere and otherworldly creepiness. Sure, the ending wasn't done how it was envisioned because of Heather O'Rourke's unfortunate death, but that doesn't affect it's climax in any significant manner. It's a fresh start on something that had become stale, a different take on a familiar story as a proper sequel should be.

The plot is relatively simple, Carol-Anne has been sent to Chicago to live with Daine's sister Pat (Nancy Allen), who lives with her husband Bruce (Tom Skerritt) and his daughter from a previous marriage, Donna (Lara Flynn Boyle). They all live in a luxury skyscraper with an intense fetish for mirrors, which Bruce just so happens to be the manager of. While in Chicago, Carol-Anne goes to special school that specialises in teaching gifted/intelligent children, this is where she routinely receives therapy from Dr. Seaten, who firmly denies any extraordinary encounters with Carol-Anne as merely hallucinatory. He is more or less the central antagonist and takes pleasure in his strict by-the-book assessments. Strange things begin to occur with the mirrors in the skyscraper and Carol-Anne finds herself in danger again from Reverend Kane.

The opening plays out like a John Hughes movie, and you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a sequel to Pretty in Pink if not for Carol-Anne in the picture. The family are quick-witted and play off each others responses with noticeable chemistry. We meet the other family who take Donna and Carol-Anne to their respected schools via an 'every-2-week' carpool. The mum drives Helen with her two sons Martin and Scott taking back seat, and of course her bratty little daughter Marthy at her side. I guess they picked the wrong kid for Scott though as his little sister's remark about his acne doesn't make much sense.

"Oh Scott, my knight in shining acne." Uh?"

From there on we are introduced to Dr. Seaton, the firm sceptic of Carol-Anne's paranormal past and present connection. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence he comes up with elaborate theories to debunk what's obvious. It's hard not to hate this guy but that is good because he feeds the other characters with terrific responses and a good portion of the humour in the film is derived from his absurd explanations. He's like Walter Peck (ol' dickless) in Ghostbusters, if you didn't have him you wouldn't have the terrific comebacks/one liners and emotional mood swings his character causes.

My explanations are retarded.

As the movie progresses the story takes a back-seat to the crazy special effects which are mostly well-done even by today's standards. I'd say not using a blue screen this time around was a good decision. Things progressively get weirder and Tangina comes back one last time to perform her off-beat sixth-sense schtick. So with that brief unspoiled summary of events out of way what do I find so appealing?

The first thing this movie does right is put Carol-Anne in a different environment, and what could be more different than the city of Chicago? Gone is the way of the cliche haunted house, in favour of something much less familiar and more modern. Added to this is the new family that surrounds her, not that the original family was problematic, but having them not be present this time around encapsulates something fresh and different. This film illustrates a progression in more ways than one. It feels like the next chapter of Carol-Anne's life, she's grown and changed as a person, her character has become smarter and more aware of herself and her surroundings.

Another thing I've noticed is the use of more unconventional scares, anything and everything can be a target, it doesn't matter if certain characters are alone or with a large groups of people. Some characters appearing to be aware of the supernatural happenings in the building while others pass by unaffected, for a change it's not always the main characters who react so strongly here. Most horror films tend to stick to the tried and tested rule of using night-time as being more suitable for scars and jumps, while in the opening of this film many of these occur during the day, this heightens the looming ever-present threat Reverend Kane exudes and adds to the uncomfortable dread Carol-Anne must feel. Eye-trickery through the use of mirrors is something this movie really drives home, although not entirely uncommon, the way it's handled here with a heavily stylistic and brightly lit approach is not wholly standard.

The use of strange happenings in mirrors is used to full unsettling effect in Poltergeist 3 

What it all boils down to for most is where it sits in the series. I personally view the film as it's own bag and like it much better than the first sequel, which is more or less the same as the first film. If you take A Nightmare on Elm St for example, it would be like if Nancy went to a different house and it started all over again. It's insulting to the audience who saw her overcome Freddy Krueger's terror, it makes her best efforts to stop him worthless and renders the first film a joke in progression. It also doesn't deliver on being as interesting or captivating as the first because of a lesser director. I think everyone wanted more bang for their buck with Poltergeist 2 yet what they got was entirely underwhelming.

I don't know. I could swear this is the same movie.

I could speak highly of this film all day but it's certainly not without it faults, the score is very deliberate with amplifying the scares and can be too much at times, while the acting by the leads is generally of good quality, the rest of the cast seem to just phone it in as if reading from cue cards. Even the rerecording of dialogue seems off. As a result it tends to have moments of a less-than-memorable tv-movie/ day-time soap. I guess the fact that Gary Sherman, the director, predominantly did tv-movies kind of rubbed off on Poltergeist 3.

In regards to what others find so terrible about the movie, one thing people have a problem with is the use of a different actor in the role of Reverend Kane. I find this mostly absurd as his performance wasn't anything special in the sequel, I'd even go as far to say his role would work with a sizable number of similar frail/old actors. At this stage in the series of movies Reverend Kane is more of a boogie man than a significant personalty. He barely has any dialogue and now merely works as scary/shadowy figure. Even if you can't tolerate another actor in the role, Kane is hardly in the 3rd movie for it to be a notable concern.

*Not a big deal.

Roger Ebert thought the lack of police presence was a serious issue, yet he seemed to overlook how this sequel blurs the line of reality with supernatural and surreal dream-like visuals. No viewer particularly knows exactly what certain characters see as the forefront of this movie is hallucinations and false imagery, 'eye-trickery' as I mentioned earlier. When Scott comes bursting out of the pool frozen and is later found to be simply soaked in water, it's intentionally confusing because that's what the movie is going for. You're meant to second guess and determine what's real just as the characters do.

Certain characters calling out other characters names, especially Carol-Anne, is a much talked about point against this film. While I'll admit this does occur a lot, it's not something I find diminishes the story being told, in truth it's hardly as annoying as everyone claims. It's mostly a nit-pick in terms of judging the film and holds little weight. 

One final point I'd like to address is the bogus notion of it having no likeable characters. Bruce for one is a kind-hearted man who truly loves Carol-Anne and will stop at nothing to protect her, the little conversations he has with her acting as a father-figure and friend are heart-warming, you'd be blind to not notice the bond the two share. When you break it down, he's a likeable guy who isn't afraid to crack jokes and keep the peace when the wheels fall off. Pat also shows motherly qualities, obviously to a lesser extent and with discomfort as she sees Carol-Anne as different and feels she was pressured into it looking after her, but she's friendly when it matters and is unafraid to voice her opinion like the strong personality she is. Donna doesn't have much of an outgoing personalty and she's a tad vain, but she's the 80's personification of cool and is always up for a bit of fun. Carol-Anne looks up to her like a sister and Donna isn't afraid to return the favour because, mischief aside, she has a good heart. It's fair to say that Dr Seaton and the rest of the cast are far from likeable but there's no denying that the characters that are close to Carol-Anne, although only briefly developed, are relatable and not in the slightest bit loathable.

In summary, while not the greatest entry in the series, it's a solid 80's paranormal horror movie with great visuals and special effects, in a style that routinely tricks the eye and is not widely common. Unlike the other entires this one has some real-world problems for Carol-Anne to overcome such as bullies, sceptics and moving on with a potential new family. Who knows what further development she'd go on to have in later sequels. While not entirely scary it does push the envelope in terms of delivering unnatural nightmare-esque visuals that creep under the skin. The opening and build up is adequate without stretching out too long, and there's enough screen time to get up to speed with all the characters before it's inevitable descent into the strange. I think the main complaint is it not living up to the first movie but if you take a step back you'll see that it has it's own bag of tricks and doesn't seek to be like the first, it doesn't rely on the source material and takes liberties in various inventive ways to add a legitimate new chapter to the series.