WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Trailer for "Djinn" Horror Film, from "Poltergeist" Director Tobe Hooper

Posted: October 7th, 2013 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Trailer for "Djinn" Horror Film, from "Poltergeist" Director Tobe HooperSubmit Comment
Almost two year ago, we got our first look at the upcoming "Djinn" horror film, directed by Tobe Hooper (Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Salem's Lot, Poltergeist). At the time, the movie was already in post-production, but it is only now that audiences will get to see the film, which will be at the Abu Dhabi Film Festival.

There's still no plan for distribution outside of the Middle East. But because of the film festival, we now have a new trailer. Watch it below.

In "Djinn," an Emirati couple returns home from a trip to the US and discover that their new apartment has been built on a site that's being haunted by some malevolent spirits.

Trailer:


Source: PeliBlog.com


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 32 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
boogiel writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 8:03:20 AM

Sounds like an upgraded version of "Wishmaster".
PORN-FLY writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 8:59:35 AM

those Wishmaster movies were pretty funny
A B+ movie version of Hellraiser
Cannon writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 9:24:22 AM


I remember the voice-over from the Wishmaster trailer: "Wishmaster! Make your wish ...Wishmaster!"

Oh, and Tobe Hooper half-directed Poltergeist, as far as I'm concerned. The other half was some guy named Steven Shineberg or something. Never heard of him.

P.S. Lifeforce is f*cking rad.

cress writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 9:32:53 AM

@Cannon. Yep, Spielberg directed POLTERGEIST. NothingHooper has directed before or since looks as polished or cinematic as POLTERGEIST. Even Zelda Rubenstein said Spielberg called the shots on that film.
BJsforeveryone writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 9:37:43 AM

This looks awfull !!
minkowski writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 10:52:15 AM

That's all conjecture/speculation, Cannon/Cress. To this day it is not clear who did what and to what extent with respect to directing Poltergeist.

Your opinions are just that: opinions. But even Spielberg admits that Hooper performed most of the film's direction, whereas Stevie says he created most of the storyboards and set designs. Frank Marshall agrees.

As for the news, f*ck Hooper. I think I saw that Denise Crosby abomination Mortuary and realized my days of watching anything even touched by Tobe were long, long done.
PORN-FLY writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 11:09:38 AM

Denise Crosby/Kim Bassinger lesbo scene in The Man Who Loved Women could never be long enough
cress writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 11:30:22 AM

@Mink. It's an opinion based upon the finished work, which looks like a Spielberg directed film, not a Hooper one; the accounts of Heather O'Rourke, the girl that played the older sister, the boy that played the older brother, Zelda Rubenstein, etc.; accounts of other on-set crew members. Of course, Marshall and Spielberg are going to put on a good show and say it was Hooper who directed it. The Directors Guild of America even launched an investigation as to whether Hooper deserved the directing credit. The LA Times visited the set oncd and found Spielberg directing some on-location scenes, with Hooper nowhere in sight. So, for all intensive purposes in my mind, I believe Spielberg was the catalyst for the final, finished product.
cress writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 11:35:14 AM

"for all intents and purposes"

Not the jibberish I typed in the sentence above. Geez...when I rush my comments.
minkowski writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 4:53:10 PM

"It's an opinion based upon the finished work, which looks like a Spielberg directed film, not a Hooper one"


It's still an opinion. It's still your own subjective interpretation, which contradicts what Hooper and Spielberg and Marshall have ALL clearly stated.

So...your opinion versus the record of the people involved...no contest.
minkowski writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 6:09:17 PM

Even Wikipedia, that grand, global funnel of information, isn't clear or decisive regarding who did what:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poltergeist_%281982_film%29#Creative_credit

Comes down to whichever side you believe, but whichever doesn't make it an actual fact.



(and don't knock me for using Wiki, either, because it's clear to me that's where you got your information as well)
cress writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 6:23:55 PM

Yes, it's an opinion, not a known fact. But the official story or press release by the players involved doesn't make it a fact either. There's numerous instances in history, whether it be in government or here, in the superficial world of filmmaking, where the "official story" and what the actual truth is may be two different things.
cress writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 6:25:47 PM

Yes, it's an opinion, not a known fact. But the official story or press release by the players involved doesn't make it a fact either. There's numerous instances in history, whether it be in government or here, in the superficial world of filmmaking, where the "official story" and what the actual truth is may be two different things.
Donald Duck writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 7:13:08 PM

All I remember about Lifeforce is the film's beautiful naked alien/vampire female antagonist and the scene in which a possessed (?) Patrick Stewart overacts wildly.

"But the official story or press release by the players involved doesn't make it a fact either."

Minkowski wasn't saying it IS a fact, just that it's the record of the people involved.

Some of you folks should strongly consider actually understanding other users' comments before you reply to them.


minkowski writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 7:28:58 PM

"Yes, it's an opinion, not a known fact."

That's all that needs to be said. End of story, and end of my input on the matter.
minkowski writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 7:34:04 PM

"Minkowski wasn't saying it IS a fact, just that it's the record of the people involved."

I was saying that no one really knows, that there's two sides to the story, and taking one side or the other isn't a embracing of the established facts but a reflexive reliance on personal bias.

That's all.

Personally, I have nothing against Stevie or Tobe, so I have no crusade to lead, no cross to bear, no dog in this fight, to use a few cliches.

If Stevie did the bulk of direction on Poltergeist, so be it. If Tobe did instead, so be it too.

But no one knows for sure. Not me, not Cress, not Cannon, and the whole "Tobe Hooper didn't direct Poltergeist" has that mixture of slight fact and exaggerated urban myth we've come to see so much since the advent of the Internet anyway.

Facts. Give me facts or give me death. Or at least a damned good steak.
Cannon writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 8:14:01 PM


There's facts, and then there's deductive reasoning. And since there are no conclusive facts to work with either way, there isn't much point in addressing the lack of such regarding one opinion or another, let alone dismissing said opinions on those grounds alone. I never intended my opinion as a fact, but as an assessment, as an educated guess.

And it's an opinion based not on mere whims or personal bias, but on how the film in questions was shot and edited; it's dramaturgical style and tone; its use of themes and motifs involving middle-American suburbia, the family unit and an assortment of social/pop-cultural references: the baby boom generation, the Reagan era, land encroachment vs. the cutting corners of capitalism and the central TV-symbol framing device ...and how I correlate all of these factors with the filmography of both directors; their techniques and storytelling sensibilities.

And it's my opinion that Spielberg was the overall creative force behind this film and, at the very least, some 50% responsible for the mise-en-scŤne principle photography, even if it only amounted to Hooper slaving over his storyboards (the way 2nd unit did with the truck chase in Raiders). There's certainly a strong Spielberg vibe in how the family interacted performances of the children.

But I'll also acknowledge what I consider to Hooper's influence with many of the more shock-horror, phantasmagorical elements, including a scene where the dude rips off his own face and another where the mom is sent spiraling up along the walls and ceiling, to name a few.

minkowski writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 8:47:51 PM

That's a fantastical load of gobbledegook, Cannon, and I'm honestly impressed you somehow worked "dramaturgical" into a discussion on Poltergeist, but the simple fact remains you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that Tobe Hooper had as little creative input on the film in question as you claim, and all you've said remains nothing more than the grandiloquent pitter-patter of opinion, your insistence on "deductive reasoning" notwithstanding, given that such thinking clearly operates on facts, which you yourself claimed are in scarcity.

Nice try, bud, but a buttload of impressive jargon a convincing argument does not make, especially when the people you're trying to convince are solely concerned with facts, not opinions, no matter how seemingly self-informed the argument may otherwise appear.
minkowski writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 8:54:12 PM

"I never intended my opinion as a fact, but as an assessment, as an educated guess."

I understand that, Cannon, but I really don't care about your opinion. I care about FACTS.

In lieu of the requisite facts, then, I can form my own opinion. I don't need anyone else to do it for me.

Now, seeing as there is not enough facts to go either way conclusively, it seems to me a waste of intellect to "guess" which is what with respect to a mere film not worthy of as much dissection as you seem to claim.

In other words, that's a lot of work to make an opinion that may well be wrong without the much-needed facts.

As Sherlock said: "I can't make bricks without clay", and as you've said, there doesn't seem to be much clay.

No matter; I will withhold my opinion either way until more facts on the matter become available, as should anyone with genuine respect for the truth.
minkowski writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 9:02:22 PM

" but on how the film in questions was shot and edited; it's dramaturgical style and tone; its use of themes and motifs involving middle-American suburbia, the family unit and an assortment of social/pop-cultural references: the baby boom generation, the Reagan era, land encroachment vs. the cutting corners of capitalism and the central TV-symbol framing device ...and how I correlate all of these factors with the filmography of both directors; their techniques and storytelling sensibilities"

In other words, Poltergeist looks a hell of a lot like ET, then, which isn't surprising considering it was co-written by Steven Spielberg, which means certain elements from E.T. made their way into Poltergeist, which of course doesn't mean, ipso facto 9see, I can use "big words" too) Steven directed the majority of the movie.

I mean, Christ, Lucas wrote the story basis for Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, but Irwin Kirshner directed it. Are you telling me, then, based on your analysis of Empire's dramaturgical motifs, Lucas probably directed most of Empire too?

Not a very convincing argument.
minkowski writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 9:02:43 PM

-9 +(
cress writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 9:21:25 PM

If you look at Hooper's entire body of work, side by side with POLTERGEIST, nothing he has ever done looks remotely as polished or shot with the style and finesse as POLTERGEIST. It LOOKS like a Spielberg film through and through, with Spielbergian shots ( the slow dolly moving into a character for a close-up, etc.) Hooper has none of this in any of his films. I should really shut up on the matter, because it's an unwinnable argument, but when I look at that film, I SEE Spielberg in the shots. I'll just always be on the side of the argunent that says Spielberg directed it, an opinion I know, and I'm comfortable with that.
minkowski writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 9:24:24 PM

"its use of themes and motifs involving middle-American suburbia, the family unit and an assortment of social/pop-cultural references: the baby boom generation, the Reagan era, land encroachment vs. the cutting corners of capitalism and the central TV-symbol framing device"

My god, man, that's a THOUSAND 80s movies in a nutshell...and one might also argue you're reading WAY, WAY too much into the film.

Not like there wasn't a heap load of movies that played on the "nuclear family" during the stated period, either, given that many people have compared it to the 1950s, so much as labeling that decade the second ten years of the 50s.

And Reagan...lol. What movie in the 80s didn't mock or criticize the man? Even Back to the Future 2 and They Live managed a dig at him and his presidency. Typical left-wing Hollywoodism. Same for George W. Bush. That's standard fare for Cali liberals.

Basically...not enough. Not enough "dramaturgical analysis" and comparison of motifs. You'll have to dig deeper if you want me to believe that Stevie directed most of Poltergeist just because that film and ET share some digs at Reaganism and the nuclear family.

Hell, on that basis alone, I could claim Married...with Children was directed by Spielberg too, since every point you mentioned appeared in that series as well, and perhaps more prominently than Poltergeist.

I do see what you mean about the land encroachment thing, though, because Stevie was a writer on The Goonies, so a case can me made there, but still, a writer only says what elements will be included in the film. He creates the recipe. The director is the cook. He follows the recipe and makes what's on paper. You can't use common elements from several movies, all written by the same guy, to say that this same guy also performed the majority of direction. That's a non-sequitur.

You get what I'm saying? Back to the Empire thing. Empire and the other two films are very similar. Why? Different directors, but the same guy wrote the recipe. Doesn't mean Lucas had any hand in directing the movie itself.



You have to learn how a film is actually *constructed* before any of that hard-won, fancy-shmancy film analysis will pay off decent dividends.




In short, I think I'll trump up most of the similar "dramaturgical motifs" to the fact Stevie co-wrote Poltergeist, and not to the unsubstantiated possibility he performed most of the film's direction, until I hear differently from a reputable, factual source.
minkowski writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 9:32:54 PM

@Cress: yes, we all know on an instinctual level Poltergiest LOOKS like a Spielberg movie, but is that enough? Are we sure we're not handpicking a few scenes? Are we sure we're not seeing what we want to see? Are we sure Spielberg was behind the camera and not merely telling Tobe what to do and how to do it?

You make a point that Hooper hasn't made a film as polished as Poltergeist, and that's true, but might not part of that apparent truth be wrapped up in the fact he hasn't had the same level of support since then, nor can we say he's been as hungry since 1982?

And if you look at the man's work, it's mostly if not entirely low-grade horror schlock. So perhaps part of the reason Poltergeist looks as good as it does might be because he was held to a higher standard with more support than he received on, say, The Mangler.




All I'm saying is the scientist in me doesn't operate on "opinion" in situations such as these. There's not enough facts, as Cannon himself has clearly stated.

So why would I go one way or another? Because you and Cannon have already made up your mind towards the cynical and negative? Do you know FOR SURE who did what and when and where? No. Neither do I. neither does anyone but the principle players, and they've given confusing and often contradicting statements.





Even Sherlock would say "I need more data!".
minkowski writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 9:33:48 PM

*contradictory
cress writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 9:43:44 PM

Hooper had a pretty big budget for the time($25 million) in LIFEFORCE, yet it looks like a piece of B-movie schlock. He had all the money and technical wizardry at his hands, but made a terrible film. I know it was Golan-Globus behind it, the worst producers ever, but he should've put something out better than the finished product--the guy that "directed" POLTERGEIST. I actaully liked the premise of LIFEFORCE, but it turned out looking amateurish at best.
minkowski writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 9:50:18 PM

Yeah, Life Force. His second-best movie. But like you said, the producers were hacks, and all the money in the world can't compensate for the lack of a talented and passionate guiding hand.
cress writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 9:53:52 PM

"...and not merely telling Tobe what to do and how to do it?"

Well, if that's the case, and Hooper directed each scene exactly as Spielberg told him to, then Hooper was just a proxy for Spielberg's direction, and the term "ghost-directed" would be apropos.
Cannon writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 9:55:02 PM

There are facts -- or at least objective observations -- on how the film was stylistically directed (concerning shots, framing, editing, etc.) and its incorporated thematic content; and how it compares to other films of both directors. Iím looking at a film and Iím studying it, like one would, say, a crime scene, for (artistic) imprints and the consistency of signatures and patterns as to determine who was involved and, in this case, to what degree. Iíve presented my theory, my assessment. If you think it is bunk, super, please share your opposing view of the above factors. I enjoy such discussions on film.

Instead, youíre not doing any of that. Honestly, I donít know WHAT youíre doing, other than just bitching and scoffing away rather arrogantly any argument that opposes your one assumption that this is, first and foremost, Tobe Hooper film based solely on press statements of the credited director and producers, as if the existence of such statements somehow magically nullifies any-and-all other factors to consider, including contradicting statements made by cast/crew members and the details of the finished film itself; as if the possibility that such statements were made primarily to cool controversy and remove any blemishes from the appearance of a kosher production is utterly ridiculous; as if such PR practice by countless other industries doesnít happen every other day across the media.

Accusations of gobbledegook, grandiose pitter-patter, and flashy jargon, itself, amounts to little more than slander. Donít dodge my argument by calling it silly; counter it -- BETTER it -- with an argument of your own that goes beyond: "They said this and thatís all that matters!"

"and I'm honestly impressed you somehow worked "dramaturgical" into a discussion on Poltergeist"

Itís a movie. It features acting and staged drama. How does the term not apply? Or are you simply jabbing it for not being common-speak?

minkowski writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 10:07:14 PM

So I guess you, Cress, and Cannon are of the opinion Spielberg basically directed most of Poltergeist, right? Just to be on the same page, so to speak.

Not really seeing that. Not really seeing that as factually supported. Maybe it happened. Maybe Stevie directed the entire damned thing, and he couldn't admit as much because he was contractually obligated to not direct another movie in the same period as E.T.

Still, supposition is fine and dandy, but what are the facts? Sure, Cannon has a nice theory that Spielberg films, such as E.T. and The Goonies, have many "scriptual" connections within the realm of motifs, and I agree, but how do you go from such an apparent observation to believing without much a doubt Stevie essentially made all or at least most of Poltergeist from behind the camera?

Do I think it is possible, or even likely? Sure. I agree Tobe hasn't made a film of quality even half that of Poltergeist and I agree Stevie has more than a few reasons for keeping mum on the matter, and I agree that some of the film's camerawork is fairly reminiscent of Stevie's style, but a nice theory is just that.






Let me give you another example, this time from the realm of unsolved mysteries. A little guy named Jack the Ripper. Nice guy. Hack and slash. Murdered perhaps five or six people, maybe more.

Anyway, there's a great theory a certain man, known to the police at the time, was the killer. Much circ*mstantial evidence seems to tie him to the crimes, not the least of which is an apparent but unconfirmed identification from a witness at one of the crime scenes, wherein someone named Lawende (or even Israel Schwarz) got a good look at the likely killer. Seems even a few top-ranking investigators thought this man guilty. But he was never charged, much less convicted.

Was he Jack the Ripper? Many people seem to think so, including myself. He was a paranoid schizophrenic, as are many such killers, and had a very "good" location amongst the crime scenes. He was also Jewish and fit the Ripper's build and appearance. And at one point this man tried to assault his sister with a knife, which of course recalls the actual crimes.

Unfortunately, no one is entirely convinced this man was the Ripper, including myself. We'd love to think he was, is, whatever, the killer, but circ*mstantial just isn't enough for the honest investigator. And I must admit more is known with respect to this man being the legendary killer than perhaps with respect to the direction of Poltergeist, at least on the factual level.

Do you see what I'm saying? I hope so, because I really don't feel like typing any more.
minkowski writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 10:18:36 PM

I'm not going to respond to Cannon because I can't. My hands hurt and it's not worth it. He's assured himself of the truth and people such as that are never convinced away from their beliefs. it's too much like a religion with them.




"Well, if that's the case, and Hooper directed each scene exactly as Spielberg told him to, then Hooper was just a proxy for Spielberg's direction, and the term "ghost-directed" would be apropos"

No, not at all. A ghostwriting is just that. Someone writes what you want and you put your name on it. Ghostdirecting would be no different. Spielberg does the work and Tobe gets the credit. If Tobe actually DID the work, and Spielberg guided him, even shot for shot, that's not the same thing. It wouldn't even be cinematic dictation because Tobe still has to provide his own low-level input, even if Stevie tells him what to do. It's simply not possible for Tobe to be Spielberg's perfect surrogate, then, as would be the case of written dictation.

And all of this assumes what you've claimed, which was not my argument. I simply said Spielberg gave Tobe a "guiding hand", and nothing more.

Besides, you can tell people how to frame and shoot their shots. I've never worked a camera, but assuming I did and someone said we need such and such here, I could probably do it and have it resemble my instructor's style. After all, that's what goes on in thousands of film classes across the world every day. Doesn't mean such stylistic compliance would take hold or I would continue to use that style, as it simply might not be my naturally desired way of shooting.

I think people seem to think shooting a film is like painting a masterpiece, in that only a master can do his own work, but directing is more mechanistic and less personal because although the director has certain artistic leeway, he is still largely confined by commercial norms, and as such, what he can do with the camera, even among the masters like Cameron, is still much more limited than say what Picasso was allowed to do with paint, and in that respect, you can more easily duplicate a director's style than you can a master painter's.

Assuredly, if I knew how to operate a commercial camera and all the lights and equipment that goes with it, I could crank out a mean imitation of Cameron's Terminator 2 (in style and "motifs")just by hitting all the relevant bullet points.
Cannon writes:
on October 7th, 2013 at 10:45:43 PM

"In other words, Poltergeist looks a hell of a lot like ET, then, which isn't surprising considering it was co-written by Steven Spielberg..."

Youíre saying that the visual look of the film (of any film) is predicated on its scripted content?

"I mean, Christ, Lucas wrote the story basis for Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, but Irwin Kirshner directed it. Are you telling me, then, based on your analysis of Empire's dramaturgical motifs, Lucas probably directed most of Empire too?"

Strawman. I never said Poltergeist is a Spielberg directed film, let alone that itís a Spielberg directed film because it because it is a Spielberg written film. As for my other points concerning themes you say can be found in various films of same era, I merely consider them in relation to the whole of my assessment, added to the visual look and tone of the film, not as irrefutable evidence in and of itself.

"@Cress: yes, we all know on an instinctual level Poltergiest LOOKS like a Spielberg movie, but is that enough? Are we sure we're not handpicking a few scenes? Are we sure we're not seeing what we want to see?"

I, for one, can say with the confidence of my own observation that the majority of scenes in Poltergeist are directed with the prominent in-camera editing style (staging and blocking actors as they move in and out of frame) that is nearly identical to every other Spielberg film and nearly absent from every other Hooper film.

"Are we sure Spielberg was behind the camera and not merely telling Tobe what to do and how to do it?"

That could have very well been the case, but what, then, is the real difference? If itís Spielberg telling Hooper how to shoot the scenes, or the latter working specifically from the formerís shot-by-shot storyboards, then how is Hooper not merely a glorified cameraman or, at the very least, a glorified 2nd unit director?

"I really don't care about your opinion. I care about FACTS. -- In lieu of the requisite facts, then, I can form my own opinion. I don't need anyone else to do it for me."

Iím not trying to do it for you. Iím simply SHARING my opinion, Mink. Share-ring. Thatís it. If you donít care, fine, but why bother objecting in the first place?

"Now, seeing as there is not enough facts to go either way conclusively, it seems to me a waste of intellect to "guess" which is what with respect to a mere film not worthy of as much dissection as you seem to claim."

Thatís subjective. Iíve always enjoyed Poltergeist and I consider it a fine work of pop-art both for-and-of its time. As a cinephile, I donít think itís a waste of anything to exercise an analysis of any film, particularly one that I enjoy.

The point here is that Cress and I, in the absence of conclusive facts, are indulging (or have since indulged) in the act of studying a film and then sharing our theories as to whom was the overall creative author and, youíre slamming us for it because...because whatever. I donít know. Itís not as if weíre then demanding any action should be taken; that Hooper should be jailed simply because we suspect that his was not the primary artistic stamp on this film. Again, I think Hooper brought a lot to Poltergeist, and I enjoy his contributions. I just donít think itís his movie.

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond

Marvel Has Contingency Plans In Case It Regains Rights to Superheroes

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

"Transformers 5" Plot Details Revealed
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved