Radical Sequel Roundup 1

They Live 'Again!' - John Carpenter opts against Escape from LA to bring a sequel to his 1988 cult classic; They Live. Roddy Piper returns as John Nada and Kurt Russell co-stars as a tough as nails detective, Sam Hurt. Set after humanities first attack and imprisonment of the aliens of the first film, John Nada is cloned back to life using advanced alien technology, the only problem is.. Zodern, a very elusive mastermind alien, is doing the same thing with what's left of the alien population, and now the clock is ticking down for Nada and Hurt to hunt down Zodern and his followers before they can create an army large enough to control LA and memory-wipe the world with airborne hallucinogens. Roddy Piper delivers a heavy performance as a man forced into an unstable world on the verge of collapse while also wrestling with emotions of who he is as a clone, while Kurt Russell offers the voice of action and reason to a bluntly dismissive John Nada, the suspense ramps up as the two try desperately to catch Zodern, but nothing will prepare you for the explosive finale that several high profile reviewers including Roger Ebert say trumps the first film.

Roadhouse Las Vegas - Off of his return to cinemas with the hit movie Donnie Darko, it was a busy year for Patrick Swayze with 11:14 and One Last Dance, but he hit his final roundhouse with stellar blockbuster Roadhouse Las Vegas. The year is now 2003 and an older James Dalton is faced with the deadly choice of life in prison or operate an elite squad of bouncers at the hardest gig in town, the 15 storey Ocean Casino, where the mob and corrupt police rule and the only way to exit is in a body bag. It's down to Dalton and his two loyal friends, Cassidy Walker and Elliot Miller, to take down the special armed forces and security that control the upper floors, then the infamous and sadistic big boss, Don Hogue.

Indiana Jones and The Thorns of Helheim - The 4th entry in the popular film franchise was released in 1996, Harrison Ford decided to depart Sabrina early into production to return one last time to his undisputed role of Indiana Jones. Set in 1942 in the heart of Iceland, several feet deep beneath the surface sits the entrance to Helheim, the long since thought fictitious Hel of Norse mythology. Accidentally excavated by Indiana Jones and his team of diggers in search of a mysterious blue boat of gold, it's up to Indiana Jones and his young friend Short Round to explore the grand labyrinth-like city below. All seems promising as the two quickly return with gem-encrusted golden artifacts, until the entrance is suddenly sealed shut and with no exit it's up to the pair to continue the treacherous journey below in search of an exit. Critics and fans were predominantly overjoyed, saying it delivered the right tone with it's dark and more adult subject matter that Temple of Doom simply couldn't get right. Short Round is equal parts comic relief as he is a useful quick-thinking sidekick, with deeper emotion depth and a character arc that continues on where Temple of Doom only dabbled.

In Defense of The Older Action-Movie Star

You've seen it, the general negative opinion of older actors returning to their action roots, it's everywhere you look, from snooty critics to movie site comments, to the damning box office. But what is exactly wrong with actors in their 60's doing physical demanding roles?

One might say it's their appearance, that they are no longer the glorious image of strength and peek psychical fitness they once were. In this instance it seems if an actor ages they must do drama or more suitable 'old man' roles, but action stars are not forever young and truth be told most started their careers in their 30's. Most didn't have the foresight to how successful they might become. So should they therefore give up what they're good at because they don't look as youthful as they did? Frankly, it seems to be a shallow judgement any which way you slice it.

"They should age gracefully and pull away from psychical demanding roles". Why should they if they can pull off a strong role like Sylvester Stallone has shown with his later succession of films, from Rambo 4 and on, looking older but nowhere near frail or incapable of such heroic feats, then why be a negative ball and chain of such things unless you don't want to see more of their action films.

Let's take Arnold Schwarzenegger for example, as he appears to be the most strong bearer or criticism due to his age. Why is now that Schwarzenegger is receiving the brunt when comments regarding The Sixth Day in 2000 featured nothing of the sort, age wasn't a factor in the slightest degree, what happened in 13 years that grew out the public's disapproval? Could it be his time as governor, or his well publicized affair in 2012, two things that really shouldn't affect ones view of his action movies, or is the sad truth that the public simply can't separate the man off-screen from the actor on-screen? I personally think it's directly related.

This leads into the old age equation by way of mocking and ridicule, one instance of criticism (his affair) leads to another criticism (he's no longer the flawless man we grew up with) which leads to another. Age is simply one of the most obvious targets. Whether they are valid in relation to the actor's public output or not, all the faults of the celebrity are in the spotlight and are up for scrutiny.

I grew up with action heroes such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone and it's not a mere nostalgia trip to see their new movies, it's about more quality action movies from quality action stars who have the personality as well as the muscles. Two things (despite new comers like Dwayne Johnson) that have rarely been duplicated so well. I don't see two frail actors struggling to breathe, cooped up in a wheelchair with some debilitating illness, what ever trends come or go, whether politically correct or on the fence, whether violence is in or out, I see two actors past their prime but still in top form.

Yep, still got it.

Films That Should Be : Jumanji 2

Jumanji had all the makings of trilogy, it's hard to fathom then how a sequel was never made. The end scene of the film was clearly set up for sequel, in such a way that I wouldn't be surprised if a script was on stand-by. Besides it made a lot of money at the box-office, raking in $262,797,249 worldwide and becoming the 7th highest grossing movie of 1995, just under the marvellous GoldenEye. It received mixed reviews from critics but audience goers paid with their wallets and thought it was the best family movie of the holidays.

I personally saw it in cinemas in '95 and I enjoyed the hell out of it. When I left the cinema I day-dreamed about the possibilities of a sequel, as the ending made me anticipate one. It would surely be more extraordinary and more wild than the first, perhaps they would travel to the jungle itself? Or maybe it would be set in a desolate theme park, there were numerous doors opening in my mind. I'm sure many others thought just as myself that it wouldn't be long until a new Jumanji.

I became a fan overnight and as Christmas was only a week away my family quickly knew what to get me. Many sleepless nights later and the fateful day rolled around, I got given the official movie tie-in novel and board game. One thing I really wanted was the board game. To me as a kid it's style and design was a work or art, so I was wrapped and quite content regardless of whatever other presents I got. Now this game wasn't quite like the movie as that was wooden and this was cardboard, but it's overall effect was the same and I was happy to have it. The novel was a fun read that I'd re-read ad-nauseam just to remember every detail, until it was eventually released on cable.

Many years have now passed and Jumanji isn't the golden gem I once thought. It's not bad by any means but the CGI hasn't stood the test of time and now feels dated. Secondly some comedic parts feel too kiddy like what you'd expect from an Ernest movie, but 19 years later there's still much to enjoy.

I first expected a sequel within the coming years around '98 or so. There was rumours flying and tidbits of news circulating on Entertainment Tonight, yet sadly nothing was confirmed or eventuated. Years rolled on I'd given up hope and instead become preoccupied with Pokemon, Dawson's Creek and various cartoons including Jumanji. I definitely felt the cartoon was the best and closest to a sequel we'd get.

Why Jumanji 2 wasn't made remains a mystery, much of it's history is unintentionally or intentionally shrouded in secrecy. Zathura was the most recent link which was given the unofficial title of a sequel, yet it's merely the same author and features a board game that manifests things. The board game itself is very different to the 1995 film and most importantly isn't 'Jumanji'.

In '99 aintitcool news revealed a plot outline for the sequel which concerned The President of The United States visiting a strange shop somewhere in Europe, where he sees and buys the magical board game, perhaps as a present for his children. He takes it back to America and strikes up a game with the Vice President in the oval office. Unfortunately the President makes the same mistake as Alan Parrish and is sucked into the jungle of Jumanji, after which the Vice-President who has pesky ulterior motives, takes advantage of the situation and quickly hides the board game. Eventually resulting in him becoming President and all hell breaking loose.

I assume Robin Williams turned down the role a couple of years prior and 'Plan-B' was opted, which unmistakably sounds awful. Not only is the President unrelatable but uninteresting, cliche and way too grand, even in the adventurous spirit of the first movie. I can only hope this was a very loose plot device that would have counted for 10 minutes of actual screen time, then thankfully focused on another family. The cartoon series had much better plot potential with a hefty number episodes working flawlessly as a continuation of the film.

Ken Ralston was reportedly attached to direct, basically using the sequel as a launching pad to make Mysterious Island sometime after. Ralston has no direction to his name but a large list of visual effects supervising work on many films including Jumanji. Which in theory sounds like a great fit although by most reports he would have rushed the sequel and it would've suffered. It even got to the stage of preliminary animation before Ralston left the project, which seemed to steam from arguments with Sony, who were then in charge.

I can't say I'm sad this effort didn't get off the ground. The wrong people were involved, the plot was almost non-existent and most importantly it wasn't a continuation of the first film, but something very different and mostly tacked-on. I believe Robin Williams was a stepping-stone to a faithful new chapter that would've been true to the original while elaborating more strange characters and problems from the jungle. It's difficult to imagine that more attempts and efforts weren't made subsequent or prior.

Williams would have opted out of a sequel after '95 because he was too busy. Making 5 films a year until the turn of the millennium, It would be surprising if he even considered cramming Jumanji 2 somewhere in the mix. Williams was clearly riding the wave of success and a sequel would have been beneath him, while also unusual as he only ever returned to play Genie in Aladdin until later roles.

2005 would have been an ideal time to make a sequel as it was the ten year anniversary and Robin Williams' schedule was relatively empty with only two films to his name that year, The Big White and Robots, the latter being one he could do in his sleep. Williams would have been in his early 50's, a few years before his heart problems, and raring to have a another crack at a family comedy after a series of dark dramas and thrillers.
Zathura was also released in 2005, which maybe coincidental but to me adds weight that the ten year mark was ideal and something studio heads would have wanted. Perhaps after exhausting their efforts they settled on Chris Van Allsburg's other children's book.

Maybe it's a good thing it wasn't made but I can't help wondering what might have been if not for a few obstacles. Especially something so successful and wildly popular that it now seems odd that nothing afterwards was made. Where The Crow gets 3 sequels after the Brandon Lee's death and Jumanji can't even manage one, and there's no real reason, deliberation or explanation for fans, except a visually better looking re-boot that'll surely be a pale imitation and not nearly the same.

Review: Samurai Jack Episode 1 (2001)

Creator and Director: Genny Tartakovsky

Voice Actors: Phil LaMarr (Jack), Mako Iwamatsu (Aku)

Samurai Jack was an action/adventure cartoon which aired on Cartoon Network between 2001 and 2004. It was primarily about a samurai warrior that was sent to the future by a demon wizard, Aku, just moments before he was to be defeated. It's about the time-displaced samurai who adopts the name 'Jack' and his journey to find way back to his own time, to rid the world of Aku once and for all.

I remember the show fondly as a kid and tried to catch it whenever it was on TV in the early 00's, unfortunately I missed a few episodes here and there so I was never sure exactly where I was in the series. But I always liked how action was at it's forefront and it's sci-fi setting naturally stuck out to me, it's lengthy fight scenes were exciting and the blocky shaped style with it's brightly lit colours was visually splendid.

'The Beginning' is as you'd expect the very first episode, and as such it mostly serves as a origin tale. Aku is brought back to the living by a lightning bolt and eclipse, coincidentally as a young boy's dad, an Emperor, explains the history of Aku and his almost eternal past threat. Although his dad believes he vanquished him long ago with the help of a special sword crafted by three monks with mystical powers. His father tells him to 'always be alert, for the presence of evil is sometimes right behind you', just as the evil demonic wizard crashes through the roof of the palace. Almost at once his father's army attacks and shoots a thousand arrows, all of which are collected effortlessly and shot back by Aku. The little boy's father tries to grab the magical sword but is quickly stopped and held captive by Aku. All is lost but not before the father instructs his mum to protect the Prince.

The two thankfully escape by boat and travel out to a large ship, where the Prince must tearfully depart alone and leave his mum. Aboard the large ship the Prince begins his quest to fulfil his father's wishes. What follows is a fun montage that summarizes the young Prince's turn from student to warrior, he trains with gladiators, Vikings, Russian axe throwers, Mongolians, Tibetan monks and even Robin Hood. How this exactly occurs over the span of 30 years is interesting, but nevertheless our samurai emerges strong and ready. He travels to a temple in the clouds where he reunites with his mother and is given his father's sword.

At this point the Prince seeks out his home land, to deliver payback and death upon his life-long enemy. We see what was once the Prince's home has long since become Aku's desolate land, which resembles Hell in many ways, even consisting of slaves building structures and digging for jewels by the strict command of Aku minions. The minions are dressed with devil-horned hoods and red and black ninja clothes, with black whips at their side, they are eager to inflict pain for any who disobey. Elsewhere in Aku's massive cave-like fortress, the Prince's father is stuck at the bottom of a statue of Aku, where he works under the watchful eye of a tormenting minion.

The Prince arrives and quickly defeats Aku's minions with swift strikes and chops. After freeing his father, he promises him to finally vanquish Aku. The Prince charges on horseback towards Aku's tower where he calls the formidable demon out. With swift and continuos strikes and calculated blows, Aku's shape-shifting attack method proves fruitless. Each strike takes more of Aku's power until he is a just weak shadow. In a last desperate attempt to stay alive, the demonic wizard opens a portal where the Prince is flung inside and sent into the future.

In comparison to other episodes there's seems to be a general lack of humour, it's unmistakable, I suppose given it's dark subject matter and the fact we are only are just getting to know the Prince, it's to be expected. The action on the otherhand, especially the final battle between The Prince and Aku is really exciting, it makes the whole episode worth watching. It's most of all satisfying seeing our warrior finally rise to the occasion.

'The Beginning' serves as a first taste of the main characters and their world, and as such we unfortunately don't get to see the fun and comedic side of Samurai Jack. Even it's unintentional comedic pauses and sight gags aren't for show. I think the comedy is important because it breaks up the daunting  violence with much-needed light-hearted humour. It's a balance that I believe wasn't crafted as well in this episode, yet I don't think it would have suited it's tone if more prominent.

Tartakovsky manages to show off his cinematic story-telling like few others. Despite simplistic drawings his inventiveness shines with creative screen layouts, such as splicing from comic book panels to traditional widescreen film, as well as epic music and sound effects of movie caliber. Samurai Jack has moments of brilliance and compared to other shows from Cartoon Network the action is jaw-dropping. Almost all cartoon shows of this era tried to shoe-horn in kid-friendly humour, whereas Jack was also serious enough that you could enjoy it as an action movie.

Dexter and It's Dull Art Direction.

As a long time fan of Dexter something that always bothered me is the art direction. When I think of a picture to sum up a 12 episode season, with all it's twists and turns, gripping action and interesting character study, I think of obvious cards that should be drawn into the equation, such as trademarks of the villain and landmarks featured throughout the season. This is just scratching the surface of a possible art direction but we are instead given bland profile shots of Dexter.

        
Get it? Blood, because he's a blood spatter expert. Even season 4, arguably it's finest season, can't escape the same uninspired fate.

I don't think these covers offer much beyond a superficial thought. If I didn't know, I'd think Dexter was some gleeful deranged psycho basking in blood from a fresh kill, proud of his senseless murder of innocent people. Some may argue that the subtlety and straightness of these images is the point, but I disagree when there's next to no variation. It's the same crap repackaged in a slightly different box. It's as if the thinking switch was turned off and the art designer/s settled with a random photo of Michael C. Hall, altered it's contrast and called it a day.
Now I could understand if these images were just teaser posters of upcoming seasons but they're the legitimate final stamp of the season.
And I say art direction because this plain style is across the board. Everywhere you see official Dexter themed art, whether game, novel or merch, there's next to no variation. Take a look at some items on show:

 


                                                              T-Shirts and Music.

One reason for this choice of art direction, of lack thereof, could possibly be because of the first two books by Jeff Lindsay that came before the tv-show, namely; Darkly Dreaming Dexter (2004) and Dearly Devoted Dexter (2005).


    Possible original.     Re-release with new logo but character visually different to show.

Perhaps they were trying to keep with the theme of these covers, yet novels very rarely offer much and are inherently basic. There's of course oddities such as teen orientated books, but they usually always walk a fine line between being visually striking and lacking anything beyond text. I tend to think they tried to mimic the design of the books, as the tv-show covers could easily pass off as book covers, it's hardly a stretch to envision.

The problem is they're playing it safe and simply sticking to the source material, however bare-bones it happens to be. There's plenty of room for elaboration and it's not like the fans would throw their arms in rage to a little artistic flair. There's so many possibilities that can be incorporated and shown as evidenced by the 5-issue Marvel comic series released in 2013.

Landscape. Actual landscape.

Written by Jeff Lindsay and illustrated by Dalibor Talajic, the comic-book series basically encapsulates what it should be. With landscapes and more than one idea for viewers to interpret, it's the perfect balance that summarizes a series of events while still maintaining focus on the main character. The blending of images offers a deeper insight into Dexter and offers clues as to what the story inside is all about. After reading it one can reflect on the cover and know it without having to skim through or read a summary. The front cover acts as a story telling device just as the actual panels contained.

When I go to my local DVD and Blu-ray store and see Dexter covers first hand I struggle to buy a copy because I find them bland and uninspired. I'd feel right at home buying an online copy because I feel there's nothing visually significant and appealing about the containers for the tv-show. I simply don't feel I'm missing out by not having a physical representation. And it's a shame because Dexter's art design could have been so much more but it was twarted by safe bets. (Spoilers) Like the opening introduction scene that was only changed for one single solitary episode throughout a 8 season time span, or long running characters that could have been killed off for a more emotionally devastating final season, or Debra's half-baked love affair with Dexter that was ultimately written out due to fans reaction, and ultimately not killing Dexter when it could have saved an otherwise terrible ending. 

Game: Chip's Challenge (1990)

Platform: Lynx, Dos, Windows

                                                                                                 Developer: Epyx

                                                                                                 Genre: Puzzle

                                                                                           Creator: Chuck Somerville  

Chip's Challenge for any that are unaware was a 90's game where you played as the title character in a 2D overhead perspective, tile-based puzzle game. I first came to play it via Windows in the early 90's and became quickly hooked. It was a perfect time waster after school that I found a vastly more enjoyable alternative to Minesweeper. Part of why I liked it so much was how easy it was to learn, no instructions were needed as the brightly lit keys and chips clued the way forward. Practically any age group could play it and with many hint boxes in the early stages even the not-so-bright could catch on.

In Chip's Challenge you play as a highschool nerd named Chip McCallahan, Chip will do anything to be in The Bit Busters, a select computer club of which Melinda The Mental Marvel is leader. Judging by the cover, I guess Melinda is the object of Chip's affection but with the limited info given who knows. Melinda agrees for Chip to be a member if he can make it through her Clubhouse in one piece and collect all the computer chips. To complete a level you must collect all the chips before the time runs out, this is done by collecting keys and opening various doors, once none of the computer chips are left you stand on The Chip Socket, a dark and light blue coloured tile, and it'll transport you to the next level.

         

                         
Initially the levels seem quick and easy but as you progress so does the difficulty. Trail and error is an  obvious way to progress, while mentally picturing what has to be done before rushing around is also important. There's 148 levels and each has enough variety to keep the persistent gamer happy. If one seems kind of dull then the next ten will be more interesting, some may test your puzzle solving skills while others rely on fast paced action without hesitation.

You'll soon find green and black strips known as force floors as well as water traps, invisible walls and monsters, some of which need special shoes to manoeuvre past while others need fast evading. It should feel repetitive and tiresome but with an assortment of problems and special objects to acquire it stays enjoyable.

Overall it does feel rewarding when the level meter goes up and you can see the end in sight, as well as when the time meter is up and you've completed a level in record time. Besides that I'd say the summary sign that pops up when you've completed a level along with a shiny new four-letter password really reinforces that great sense of achievement. I know it might sound boring but as an old game it's simplicity comes with the territory, game designers couldn't do a hell of a lot back then.

As an old game it is clunky and the animation (or lack thereof) is jarring, even given the time you'd think they could have at least have animated Chip. But if you think of it as an alternative to the very select few puzzle games on the early Windows such as Mindsweeper, it's actually an easy stand out. It's a game you can picture as an early NES title before the system started pushing it's full 8-bit capability, it's basic but not so much as take away the feeling of being a legitimate game. There's enough difference between levels to not feel like Noughts and Crosses while enough variety of terrain to fend off growing bored from continuously collecting chips.

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.