writing for "variety", andrew barker called it "generally entertaining yet fundamentally unnecessary" and concluded: "even when one is inclined to admire the cleverness with which the remake revisits and reincorporates "poltergeist"s themes, it’s hard to pinpoint a single moment where it improves on them, and the aura of inessentiality hangs thick over the proceedings". neil genzlinger gave the film a mostly positive review in "the new york times", writing: "the new "poltergeist" might well be the scariest movie 13-or-unders have yet seen, just as the original was for their parents back in 1982. those parents might find it an enjoyable trip down memory lane, even if they do now recognize it as largely a well-served collection of horror-movie tropes". eddie goldberger echoed that sentiment in the new york daily news, writing "it doesn't approach the original--really, how could it? but the new "poltergeist" is a fun, worthy horror entry." tirdad derakhshani wrote in "the philadelphia inquirer": "it's not exactly a scary film, but it does provide an enjoyable ride. it's good fun. but it left me befuddled", adding: "why would anyone want to remake "poltergeist" in the first place?". writing in "the daily telegraph", mike mccahill called the film "an efficient scare-machine". bilge ebiri wrote in "new york" magazine: "this new "poltergeist" isn't anything special... but it's not a travesty, and that feels like cause for brief celebration".