Discussions in Darkness

A Paranormal Podcast seeking to investigate the paranormal but with a more objectively scientific approach - also important...we are not scientist

[Discussions in Darkness @DarkDiscussions]

@steven_nee22286 @TheCriticalDri2 With everything becoming decentralized as well - it’s possible the next big Hollywood Hyphenate doesn’t even live in Hollywood

[Discussions in Darkness @DarkDiscussions]

@TheCriticalDri2 I’ve always been of the mind that - logically speaking - $300 million budgets are simply not sustainable…especially with what I’ve heard to be an industry standard ROI of only 10%…it simply doesn’t make sense

[Discussions in Darkness @DarkDiscussions]

@DakotaLaden

[Discussions in Darkness @DarkDiscussions]

As mentioned in Ep #9 - the origin of the plural usage of the word ‘pants’… https://t.co/5I8se5zRco

[Discussions in Darkness @DarkDiscussions]

Ep #9 - Darkness Walk: G. Brown (Archive) https://t.co/nGakyeSGE2 via @YouTube

And for one last bonus episode…I went back into the archives to bring you another early attempt at one of our ‘Darkness Walks’…this time - a guest from an early iteration of an overnight investigation decided to accept the challenge and brave the dark as well…what did she find? - you decide

[Discussions in Darkness @DarkDiscussions]

Ep #8 - Darkness Walk: W. McQuaig (Archive) https://t.co/koPayO0oNF via @YouTube

For this episode - since the first offering wasn’t as on point as I had hoped…I decided to go into the archives to find a better example of what a ‘darkness walk’ was intended to be…Enjoy!!

[Discussions in Darkness @DarkDiscussions]

Ep #7 - Darkness Walk: W. McQuaig (Overnight #2) https://t.co/SkibiKCvU1 via @YouTube

And - here is part 2…

Enjoy!

[Discussions in Darkness @DarkDiscussions]

Ep #6 - Experiment: Paranormal Music Box (w/Guest: B. Dizzle) https://t.co/ymyHLSLp0j via @YouTube

Since I missed sharing last week’s video due to the holiday…I decided to do a little bit of a ‘two-fer’ this week…

So - here is part 1…

[Discussions in Darkness @DarkDiscussions]

@stfuesh High Tension

[Discussions in Darkness @DarkDiscussions]

As mentioned in Episode #5 - here is a quick Grok explanation for some of the potential causes of our experience with one of our devices… https://t.co/kintvNeAxV

[Discussions in Darkness @DarkDiscussions]

Ep #5 - Investigation w/ Guest: B. Dizzle https://t.co/vMkCq1F6Mf via @YouTube

Check out this weeks episode as myself and my guest - @BobbyDizzleCast - conduct our walkthrough investigation of the hospital…did we find anything? - you be the judge…

[Discussions in Darkness @DarkDiscussions]

Ep #4 - Discussion w/ Guest: B. Dizzle https://t.co/7Cz7tFAMPX via @YouTube

This weeks episode is here!!!…check out my discussion with friend of the show - @BobbyDizzleCast

[Discussions in Darkness @DarkDiscussions]

Ep #3 - Experiment: Spirit Box (w/Guest: R. Raley) https://t.co/RuSfkzrc77 via @YouTube

Our Newest Episode is out!!

We ran the first of our many ‘scientific experiments’ (or as close as we could get - remember we aren’t scientists) on the Spirit Box…check out the video to see what we found!

[Discussions in Darkness @DarkDiscussions]

Ep #2 - Investigation w/ Guest: R. Raley https://t.co/reW7XB9HVc via @YouTube

Wait - another episode already?

That’s right…this week we are doing our first investigation of the hospital…did we catch anything? - you be the judge

[Discussions in Darkness @DarkDiscussions]

@CinemaOfScreams I did a review of this film a while back on my feed…so if you want my full thoughts on it…go read that on: @DarkDiscussions

But since this is a response to your post…in a nutshell - 1st half was decent…2nd half WTF?!?

[Discussions in Darkness @DarkDiscussions]

Ep #1 - Discussion w/ Guest: R. Raley https://t.co/jh0bZX8zRP via @YouTube

I give you:

‘Discussions in Darkness v2.0’

[Discussions in Darkness @DarkDiscussions]

7 Days... https://t.co/B0mZiqKUF6 via @YouTube

[Discussions in Darkness @DarkDiscussions]

'Poltergeist 2' (1986) - A Review

Want to know an interesting fun fact about these reviews? - I never know how to start one…usually, I want to try to give my initial thoughts and reactions immediately after the film has finished…but this in and of itself often proves to be more of a challenge than anything else…how do I process a film - while I also attempt to write a review for the film I’m attempting to process?…feels sort of like a weird mental loop…admittedly sometimes it’s easier to write when the film itself was interesting - but as I feel like I’m finding out with each of these reviews (especially when it comes to ‘sequels’) is that most ‘ghost’ films are either - a) not that good (narratively speaking) - or b) blending so many different elements (be them production or narrative) that it overshadows the ‘ghost’ aspect of the film all together…which adds yet another layer of difficulty - how do I explain my thoughts on one aspect of a film (be it good or not) - when another aspect of the same film is completely at odds with the first element?…in some ways it really makes me wonder about Hollywood (at large)…am I reading too much into these films (due to my being self taught)? - or has Hollywood cast some sort of weird spell over America so we never notice these issues?…my gut says it’s prolly a mix of both - but either way I’m sure for most this is all too esoteric for a film review…I swear this all plays a role in my thoughts for this film though…

Speaking of which - I guess now is as good a time as any to get to the film itself…

To start with some positives…we have all of the original cast members back for this sequel…JoBeth Williams, Craig T. Nelson, Heather O’Rourke & Oliver Robins - all reprise their original roles from the first film…the only notable character missing is the older sister - Dominique Dunne - but narratively speaking her absence is fairly reasonable…so it never really proves to be a noticeable loss (no disrespect intended of course)…in addition, this film did employ a fair amount of production ‘special effects’ - similar to the first - and although they may not have been particularly groundbreaking (like the first one was - for the time) - these elements were still done in a fairly decent and organic way…so much so that it never felt like the production was trying to compare itself to the first film or even emulate it for that matter - as much as it was trying to be a respectable continuation of what the first film created…whether they succeeded at this or not is a different question - which I’ll get to shortly…sticking with the production element though - I feel like the film really captured that ’80’s vibe’ like the first one did…although it wasn’t a ‘Spielberg 80’s’ film - it was still a solid 80’s film…which for me gives it that little bit of nostalgia needed to make it feel nice and vintage - which I can appreciate (even if the narrative isn’t great)

So I’ve tiptoed around it enough - time to move on to the narrative…

As I’ve said in many reviews in the past…If I had to describe the narrative in a single word - that word would be ‘messy’…I think the best way I can explain my thoughts here is by comparing and contrasting them to what I would describe as a ‘clean’ narrative…in a ‘clean’ narrative - things would be fairly well organized…the audience would have a clear sense of what’s going on (initially), why the characters are acting the way they are, where things are going, how it might end, etc…so - by contrast - it would seem that a ‘messy’ narrative would be less organized and less clear - basically the exact opposite of this right?…in my view, the answer to this question would be - ‘not exactly’…although this would be a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw here - the simple truth of the matter is that a ‘messy’ narrative is more accurately described as a narrative that falls ‘somewhere in between’…it’s not fully clear - but its not fully unclear either…this is where breaking down a films narrative can get difficult and mind numbingly convoluted

Think about it kinda like a ‘mud puddle’ (side note: just to show how convoluted it can become trying to understand film narrative - don’t confuse a ‘messy’ narrative with a ‘muddy’ narrative - they are different)…back to my example though - in the context of a ‘mud puddle’…although some of the more solid soil elements will quickly settle to the bottom - the water that sits on top of those elements still has the cloudy tinge left behind by the soil…it never fully clears itself out naturally…sure - over a long enough period of time it could clear those elements out naturally (at least to a degree anyway)…but the moment the puddle is disturbed again - the bulk of those elements are going to be stirred up and make everything cloudy again…

How does this example relate to a film?…films are supposed to be finite - or ‘fixed in time’…well - to me - when you watch a film for the first time its almost like jumping in to the deep end of a pool - or a mud puddle in this case…when you jump in the deep end - you’re looking for those things to help you get back to the surface…be them ‘skillsets’ (like swimming) or ‘literal objects’ (like lifejackets) to help you achieve this…a well organized film narrative - or a ‘clean’ narrative - will help you do this in such an efficient manner that it can actually make the process of watching a film fun and enjoyable…by contrast - a ‘messy’ narrative - will have some of those elements but not all of them…some of which will eventually help you get back to the surface - while some will simply lead to dead ends…it may take a while and may do it by simply leading you to the shallower end of the pool - but you will inevitably find the ‘surface’ again…it just might take a while…to put an even finer point on it here too - a ‘muddy’ narrative - is where nothing is really defined or clean…its like jumping into the deep end of a pool and having no clear way to get back to the surface…in the end - you simply regret jumping in in the first place

How does this long winded explanation relate back to this film?

Here’s how…at the outset of this film - with the exception of the opening scene in the desert - it’s fairly well established that the events of the first film are in the immediate past for these characters (like within months - if not weeks)…thus inferring that what we are seeing is part of the aftermath of the first film…as we progress into the film a little more - it becomes relatively clear that in a lot of ways what we are being given is effectively an ‘extension’ of the narrative created in the first film…this is done when a character from the first film (ie - the medium) connects with a new character introduced in the opening desert scene…but here’s where it starts to take a strange turn - after this we are introduced to a 'new element’ of the original story…without giving it away as best I can - it seems that something was ‘buried underneath’ what was already ‘buried’ in the first film…none of which was even alluded to in the first film…for me, although this is frustrating - its not a deal breaker (meaning: I’m not gonna turn it off) - this wouldn’t be as big of an issue though if they simply stuck to the parameters of this new situation…unfortunately - this film didn’t do that…as the film progressed the understanding of what this element actually meant continued to change…now you could make the argument here that maybe it wasn’t that clear to begin with - which is fair - but if memory serves correctly ‘an understanding’ of what was meant - was established…so what we effectively got as the film progressed wasn’t any sort of ‘further explanation’ of what we saw - it was a ‘redefining’ of what we saw…and that’s where the real problem comes in…

As the film progressed through its subsequent acts…this constant redefinition made it difficult - if not impossible - for myself (or an audience) to figure out where it was all going in the long run…not to mention, it made each ‘narrative revelation’ difficult to even figure out what it actually meant at any given moment…so - how can anybody keep track of what is going on in the narrative when everything is constantly shifting on you?…the simple answer here is that you can’t…now to be fair to this particular film - some of the ‘narrative revelations’ given actually did make sense within the context of how they were presented…but it was achieved at somewhat of a cost - the ‘cost’ being the previous understanding you had prior to that scene/revelation…so in a lot of ways the film that the audience was left with (in hindsight) - was not the same film they were presented with at the films outset…thus making the viewing experience somewhat confusing - if only for me anyway

So - now the important questions…

As a ‘ghost’ film - the vast majority of the ‘creeps and chills’ in this film came from two specific elements: ’jump scares’ [which I’ve already established I’m not a fan of] & ‘body horror’ (think David Cronenberg)…although I’m not specifically a fan of this style of horror - I do recognize it has it’s place in film history…and the fact that the first film utilized this element as well - makes it a fairly reasonable element to include as part of the ‘horror’ element of this film…but here’s my issue with it - ‘body horror’ is not ‘ghostly’…in my mind - these are two distinctly different elements…with this in mind, if you take the body horror element out of this film - you don’t really have much left in terms of ‘chilling’ or ‘creepy’ sequences

Would I recommend it?

Let me put it this way - there’s a reason it has a 5.7 rating on IMDb…in addition - at the risk of splitting hairs - I do think it would really depend on why you would watch it in the first place…if you’re watching it more as a learning experience - it’s not terrible…It is a watchable film…but if you’re watching it for literally any other reason - I think it would have to be a pass…there are interesting ideas here that in different films - in different narrative scenarios - could be decent and fun…but with the way it’s all presented in this film - it just misses the mark…which is unfortunate I think

[Discussions in Darkness @DarkDiscussions]

Special Note before tonight’s feature

Due to recent changes in my work schedule and just life in general…in an attempt to get back to a more regular review schedule…I will be changing up how I do these reviews and how I post…so be on the lookout for that…for the time being though - I sincerely ask for your patience and hopefully I can get everything ironed out in a relatively timely fashion…that way this project can get back to moving forward with furthering production plans and other topics of discussion moving forward into the new year…

Ohhh 😮…also important - this is a very special week…on Wednesday @ 7 pm (central time) you’ll see why…