Carol Ann is sent by her parents to live in a Chicago high rise with her aunt (Nancy Allen, Carrie) and uncle (Tom Skeritt, Alien), Carol Ann discovers she must now face demons more frightening than ever before. Led by the Reverend Kane, the spirits have moved from invading homes to taking over an entire skyscraper.IF you have a drinking game and took a drink every time somebody says "Carol Ann" you will be die of alcohol poisoning.The film has a bad plot and stupid dialog. It's not scary or even worth $1. If someone were to make another Poltergeist film I doubt it would be as abd as this!

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.

This first time I saw this movie full, I never full seen the whole people movie, I have seen bits and bobs of the year.This movie was weakest of the series for sure, I didn't think all that bad,This time is only girl they come back for this sequel and the rest of cast didn't come back for this sequel.This movie had a strange plot, there were some decent moment in this movie, that were worth watching, nothing scary or creepy like first movie.Some of effect in this movie were hit and miss but mostly missing really, as felt really out of place for this movie.Some of acting in this movie was really bad from some of the cast members , the rest of the cast was really good.The ending was okay but could have ended better then that. 4 out of 10

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!