User Reviews

I saw this film for the first time recently and was amazed at the striking similarities between this movie and the original Poltergeist, made in 1982. "The Uninvited takes place in an affluent, Cuesta-Verde-like neighborhood. The family's house has a twisted old tree much like the one that the Freelings' have in Poltergeist. The story here is a tad different, with Sharon Lawrence's character having a baby that is stillborn. It is after this that she begins to witness strange phenomena in her house. At this point, the parallels begin: When the poltergeist-like phenomena start to happen, she is amused by it and thinks of it as a "playful supernatural force" that we don't yet understand. This also happens in Poltergeist: Remember Diane and Carol-Anne playing with their poltergeist in the kitchen. Later in "The Uninvited" the poltergeist, of course, turns menacing, posing a particular threat to Sharon Lawrence's young son, played by Alex D. Linz, just as the poltergeist targets Carol-Anne in the original. Sharon Lawrence soon enlists the aid of an older psychic woman to help her make sense of it all. She informs us that the "heart" of the house is in the child's closet. In a scene that mirrors the original poltergeist, the closet lights up and opens to reveal all of the toys (including wind-up toys) moving around on their own. Then comes an earthquake-like shaking followed by a shot of Sharon Lawrence clinging to the psychic with tears running down her face saying "Go into the light! Your mother is waiting for you in the light!" We also learn that the house is built on a cemetery where, surprise surprise, they didn't move the bodies. If you have seen Poltergeist, you will recognize the similar scenarios and camera shots throughout "The Uninvited:" The mother running down a moving hallway to reach her children to have the door slammed in her face and the door locked by the poltergeist; The classic "stacking" scene- here done with eggs rather than chairs; The father searching around a mud pit in the pouring rain discovers the remains of the cemetery; The confrontation between the mother and the poltergeist that, when it becomes visible, looks like the twin of the one in the Spielberg movie. Bottom line: Rent the horror classic "Poltergeist" and forget this unofficial remake.

The best performance in this movie is turned in by the possessed garden hose. But it's the unexplained appearance of a watery vortex in the basement that really seals the deal on this unintentionally hilarious crapfest.

I hope Beau Bridges and Sharon Lawrence were able to pay a lot of bills off after making this movie, because it sure wasn't about the "art". I've read better dialogue on bathroom stalls.

A few highlights:

Note the psychic who does nothing throughout most of the movie except point out the obvious and creep people out when they first meet her. Also note that the 80 year old woman who was half out of her mind had the cajones to stand up to the malevolent specter, but not the psychic.

Wh does every little boy in film from age 3-6 have that same bowl haircut. Do they all have the same stylist? Is it a SAG thing, something in the contract for all boys that age?

Finally, watch for the rotary pay phone in the hospital. I thought this movie was made in 1996, not 1946.

This movie had to be made by liftime television for women, it just had that type of feel of one of their movies, i think it had some of the same actos too. It was pretty bad all around, if this was supposedly based on some true story I'm pretty sure it didn't go down the way it was portrayed in this film. If it did, then that lady's kid is one stupid child. I mean, what kid goes down into a flooded basement and just sits down and plays in the water? Then just sits there and doesn't move when a hose is coming for him. Stupid. And the guy that played the father had to be the weakest human being on the planet for not being able to break through a door with a huge ax and pick, yet he was able to dig a huge whole to uncover the graves buried in the backyard - oh thats right, did I mention this is a rip off of poltergiest? Its entertaining, thats true, not scary and I wouldn't mind any of these actors being killed by the ghosts in the movie but undortantly it didn't happen

...but it was called Poltergeist and it really scared the bejeezus out of you and stuck with you for days.

You probably understand the story line at this point from the other reviews here, but if not - here's a summation, with plot spoiler: Dad, mom & two kids move out into the burbs... Dad's gone A LOT for work... Mom & son are seeing "things" around the house (lights, movements, bloody water)... Dad doesn't believe her... Mom doesn't try too hard to prove her point... Mom stumbles across a psychic that tries to warn her of the harm coming her way... Dad has mom hauled off... 5 minutes later, dad's digging up gravestones in the back yard in the rain... Mom escapes from the hospital only to save her son in the last possible moment from the baddie while dad exclaims "I should've believed you!". Yawn.

This completely undisguised and unnecessary retelling of the Poltergeist story flips and flops like a fish out of water. It's almost painful to watch, but for some reason it is just barely able to hold you for the duration of the movie although it's rarely startling and never frightening.

Unfortunately, it's terribly clichéd and predictable from start to finish and it didn't have to be that way. The two main actors (although Beau is missing for long expanses of the movie (probably for reasons of salary)) hold this stinker together, and the supporting cast does a fine job of helping them along the way.

For whatever reason, the producer or director tried to insert some amount of levity at completely inappropriate times, and you could only notice this by the musical score becoming suddenly very "Looney Toons"esquire when there was terror afoot (note: I keep putting e s q u e after Looney Toons but it keeps auto-changing it to "esquire" and my corrections don't stick). These failed attempts at wry humor were completely lost, and perhaps I'm the only one that noticed they even tried.

Still, the special effects are well done and the music (aside from the unfortunate segues, above) is suitable if not sometimes sparse. If you've got nothing else to do and the couch is having a wicked gravitational pull on you, then watch it but be prepared to be unimpressed overall.

The Victim of the Haunt, aka The Uninvited,(1996) was a made for TV movie. It was directed by Larry 'Shaw, and was written by Karen Clark, She gives us a decidedly feminist take on Poltergeist. Spoilers ahead, read on if you don't care. Even as The Uninvited I had no recollection of this I decided to give it a go,

The, "Family moves into a house with a Dark past" genera was formulaic, even back then. The "made for TV" factor, rendered this project toothless. Not that the show ever lacked forward momentum and innuendo It was entertaining as it hit all the clichés, An observation; The rotary dial phone was still common. That was less then twenty years ago. Oh, the changes we've seen, but not in the plot.

The young couple here, Patty and Charles, played by Sharon Lawrence and Beau Bridges with their little ones, Jonathan and Molly, played by Alex Linz and Emily Bridges, move into a new home. Daddy is always away at work, but Mom and the kids know that there is something not right with the house. Formula plot point ahead. Patty befriends a psychic reader, What is unusual here is the feminist slant. Since the men are too blind to see whats going on, as well as their intentions may be, they are in the background. It will be a woman's love that overpowers the forces of darkness,

Favorite inevitable line, "Oh honey, I should have listened to you!" Six dreary stars out of Ten, the special effects must have seemed epic, not! a homage to Spielberg none the less. 

Methinks somebody has been watching POLTERGEIST one too many times...as is the case with many, many mid '90s television movies, this is utter rubbish. Just as I expected. Throughout the film little happens, apart from a few inexplicable events. The climax arrives with zero tension or suspense and a big poorly-animated CGI head arrives floating in the air. Maybe Jan de Bont saw this when he was making THE HAUNTING. Absolutely nothing here is original, and even the best scare, a bath overrunning with blood, has been taken from countless other films (THE SHINING to name just one). The acting is poor and Beau Bridges should be ashamed of appearing in this one. He also has a wife about twenty years younger than him.

So, if your idea of fear is a few doors banging shut and a bath filling with water, then this film is for you. Unfortunately the film makers saw fit to have a sickening "cute" ghost around too, appearing via some "wondrous" special effects of sparkling lights. I'm being just ever so slightly sarcastic here. Oh, and they couldn't even spell cemetery correctly in the epilogue, either. Every plot twist is predictable, every moment boring. I had a battle of wills while watching this; the sensible half of me wanted to switch it off, the stubborn side wanted to watch it for the sake of completeness. I did, in the end, but I wish I hadn't bothered. Dull, pointless and totally irredeemable, this is just another in a long line of television movies that didn't deserve to have been made.

I liked the movie. Not sure why so many poor reviews. Since ghost hauntings/ghost hunting are pretty cut and dry. I mean, once you watch these on TV shows or in a movie, they are pretty much the same.

Some of the things that were shown to happen, like the blood bubbling up in the bathtub to the basement at the end (reminded me of the movie Poltergeist). I just can't see those things really happening. Or, the boy levitating in the bathroom.

I've lived in a true haunted house. And, had a paranormal investigative team come in, as well as a medium. I have Evps to prove it. We just couldn't get rid of it. So yes, we got out of there.