Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

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

amesmonde The Freeling family have sent Carol Anne to auntie Pat (not the one from Eastenders) who lives in a luxurious skyscraper, unaware that the evil spirit in limbo, Rev. Henry Kane, has come to get little Carol Anne and take her back to the spirit world.From the director of the unrated horror gem Dead and Buried - Gary Sherman, comes Poltergeist III. Made in a time when sequels usually weren't very good, Sherman's offering is unfairly written off by critics, which is a shame given that it's tragically the late Heather O'Rourke's final performance. That's not to say Poltergeist III is perfect by any stretch, there are some lapse in story logic and lose ends, what did happen to Donna's boyfriend, Scott (Kipley Wentz), why did Pat have a change of heart? At one point Tom Skerritt's Bruce Gardner casually is talking about the buildings issues after witnessing a supernatural occurrence. There's many issues that hamper Sherman's and Brian Taggert screenplay. Whether it's the editing, script changes or a lack of enthusiasm after O'Rourke's untimely death, who knows, but what works are the practical special effects which prevents Sherman's offering dating too much. There are very few optical effects, to Sherman's credit it's all pulled off with cleverly executed old school camera tricks, lighting, reverse shots, body doubles and literally smoke and mirrors. Refreshingly there's not a TV in sight.Along with O'Rourke, Zelda Rubinstein are the only original cast to return. The first act is the most effective with Lara Flynn Boyle (in her prime) and cast giving some good performances. Then in the second act there's cliché partying teenage subplot which reduces Boyle efforts as Donna redundant, although she is quite menacing and scary when she bursts out of Tangina's body or when Boyle later has part of her face pealed off. Co-star Nancy Allen is emotional as the auntie but her character is never fleshed out. Acting veteran Tom Skerritt is on his usual fine form when he's not spending his time smooching, hugging or snogging Allen's character's hands or kissing Boyle. Nevertheless, there is a great setup where they go over to the other-side and are trapped by snow covered cars and a shock moment when they get attacked in a lift. The closing act wastes both Skerritt and Allen as they spend most of their time running around the building with the rest of the cast being put on the bench never to be substituted until seconds of the end. The cityscape and location is captured wonderfully which gives it an air of realism making it feel uneasy in contrast to the fantasy horror elements. Joe Renzetti's music is fitting, the creepy make up effects are outstanding and will get hairs standing on end. There's plenty of jump scares, mainly the eerie reflections or zombie-like hands popping up with the sound design to complement the on screen shenanigans. The lapses in logic aside there's many spine chilling set ups scattered throughout and I'd be a very rich man if I had a fiver every time some said Carol-Anne. Overall, it's not perfect and of its day but there's plenty of horror segments that are worth checking out. If it didn't have a real life tragedy surrounding it maybe it would have gained something of a cult following.

Coventry This is the third and final (although, knowing Hollywood, there will probably come a remake of the original sooner rather than later) entry in the "Poltergeist" franchise, which is according to yours truly the most overrated and unjustly successful horror franchises in the history of cinema. I never understood the popularity of the original "classic" because it is an incredibly clichéd, immature and over-sentimental piece of crap that presumably only had success because Steven Spielberg's name was attached to it. The sequel - unimaginatively entitled "The Other Side" - is just as dull, but for some incomprehensible reason even that film is highly appreciated among horror loving audiences. "Poltergeist III", however, is widely considered as a downright failure and a disgrace to the series. Now I don't intend to be contradictory without reason, but personally I actually enjoyed the third part a lot more than the first two parts! This is still an extremely mediocre, forgettable and sometimes very dumb spook-tale, but at least it's not as infantile and whiny than its predecessors.Thanks to the more specific horror expertise of director Gary Sherman ("Dead & Buried", "Vice Squad") and writer Brian Taggert ("Visiting Hours", "Of Unknown Origin"), "Poltergeist III" relies more on macabre atmosphere and gruesome effects, rather than on expensive lights & lasers shows. The screenplay inventively adds the use of mirrors to generate multiple uncomfortable sequences, and the film contains a lot less false scares and pointless "boo-moments!" The Freeling family finally got fed up with all of little Carol-Anne unwelcome and irritating ghost-stalkers, so they send her away to Auntie Patricia and Uncle Bruce in Chicago. They live high up in the ultra-modern and hi-tech skyscraper of which Bruce is the caretaker, and Carol-Anne attends school in an institution for gifted but emotionally unstable children. It doesn't take long before the Preacher Kane shows his nasty mug in the tower again. He enjoys cracking the mirrors, messing with the elevators and icing the luxurious pools, but he mainly just keeps nagging for Carol-Anne to lead them back into the light. Midget-medium Zelda Rubinstein to the rescue once again, I'm afraid… There's a lot of senseless nonsense and too many tedious dialogs in the script, but at least this is partially compensated through a handful of creepy moments (the possessed cars, eerie mirror reflections or the absence hereof…). The make-up effects are delightfully tacky and typically 80's, including one of the characters bursting through the corpse of another. Heather O'Rourke, the young ambassador of the whole series, sadly crossed over to the other side herself before the movie was fully completed. "Poltergeist III" is dedicated to her memory.

AaronCapenBanner Heather O' Rourke(who sadly died before film was released) again plays poor Carol Anne, who is once again plagued by the same sinister spirits from the first two pictures. Here, she is staying with her rich uncle (Tom Skerritt) in his high rise apartment complex(Craig T. Nelson & Jo Beth Williams did not return) where she is forced to call upon once more the help of family friend and medium Tangina(Zelda Rubenstein) who is determined to end this supernatural menace once and for all...Sequel is really no better or worse than Part II, yet remains just as melodramatic and nonsensical, though it does at least lead to a conclusion of the trilogy, which to date has not been changed(thank goodness!)

MaximumMadness I recently have been going through a "ghost kick." I've been watching tons of ghost and haunted-house films. Everything I can get my hands on- from classics like "The Haunting" and "The Changeling", to foreign films like "Ringu" and "Ju-On", to modern films like the "Paranormal Activity" trilogy and "Insidious." So, naturally, when I saw "Poltergeist II" and "III" on Netflix, I started them up, intending to watch them back-to-back. I actually like "Poltergeist II"- it's silly, but is a fun sequel overall. I hadn't seen the third film, however, in years, and I wish it had stayed this way."Poltergeist III" is scary. Not because of effective jumps, a creepy atmosphere, or top-notch writing like the original. But because it is so bad. Just foul, awful. Tedious.This time around, Carol-Anne (Heather O'Rourke) has been sent to live with her relatives in Chicago, supposedly because she's been accepted into a school for gifted youngsters. The real reason is that the actors for the first two films probably read the script and refused to be involved.She is staying with her aunt Pat (Nancy Allen), her uncle Bruce (Tom Skerrit) and her cousin Donna (Laura Flynn Boyle). Bruce owns the high-rise building where they stay, and Pat apparently works in an art gallery in the same building.Carol-Anne has been tormented by memories from the first two films. At her new school, a doctor named Seaton (Richard Fire) believes that she isn't haunted by ghosts, but rather is a manipulator who can cause mass-hallucinations by using hypnosis... uh... yeah, the movie actually goes there. It insults the audience by suggesting that Carol-Anne may be a manipulative hypnotist. Of course, we know it's actually the vengeful spirit of Henry Kane who is haunting her. But the fact that the movie stoops this low by even suggesting this as a possible explanation is just pitiful.Blah, blah, blah- you know the drill. Kane catches up with Carol-Anne, and torments her, nobody believes her at first, and so on. Eventually, the family must come together (with the help of Tangina, again played by Zelda Rubinstein) to stop Kane once and for all.This movie... sucks.The plot is all over the place. The first two films at least had a logic to them. This movie starts up by adding new rules and layers to the "haunting" that make no sense. Kane just sort of hangs around inside of mirrors the whole time. I'm not kidding. Mirrors were never used like this in the first two films. But in literally EVERY SINGLE SCENE, there's a lame scare where Kane will appear in a mirror (mirrors line the halls of the building), and it actually becomes funny within 10 minutes, because you KNOW it's going to continue. They try to change it up later on, by doing other gags where the mirrors don't reflect things properly, but it's still the EXACT SAME "SCARE"... It happens at least 50 times in the movie, I'm not kidding. It gets old really fast. They sort-of try to explain it (I guess the mirrors reflect the spiritual world, or some such nonsense), but it doesn't mean anything.Also, whereas the first two films used special effects effectively, and had all sorts of monsters and creatures and skeletons, this film has none. Remember the giant skull from the first film? The "Vomit Creature" from the second? They are tossed out the window so Kane can randomly appear in a mirror and cackle before vanishing in every single scene. It's so uncreative that it hurts to watch.I also must say, the "rules" for this film have no consistency. Somehow, Kane can now "clone" people in the Mirror/Spirit world, so half the movie, you're not seeing the characters, but rather evil reflections of them that don't do anything in particular, just act evil at random. Like everything else, it makes no sense.The film is a mess. There is also a recurring "scare" where Carol-Anne will hear Kane calling her, but like the mirror gag, it becomes funny when we realize it never, ever stops. I was able to predict when it was coming and say it along with him in the movie, it was so blatant and over-used.The acting was pretty bad. O'Rourke tries, but can't work with the material, and seems more like a brat than an innocent little girl. Nancy Allan starts off nice, but her dialog makes her come off as a nasty, self-centered jerk even though she's one of our "heroes", and Tom Skerritt... he just seems creepy and unsettling, even though he's meant to be a nice guy. The actors simply have no good dialog or development to feed off of, and all suffer for it.The film is abysmal. I'm only giving it a 2 to honor the late Heather O'Rourke. But it's actually, easily a 1 out of 10. Avoid this, please, for your sake!