Pet Sematary

Pet Sematary is stuck in the last century and is a routinely-directed showcase of stale resources, with which the creators try in vain to scare the audience, starting with the sinister-looking cat and ending with a funeral procession of children in carnival masks. In contrast to King's book, the film is a very psychologically flat and sparse horror, suffering from the absence of tension, cursed in recurring nightmares of its protagonists, simple grave motifs and obligatory, the cheapest possible jump scares, and without any sign of ingenuity. The film differs only minimally from the previous, thirty-year-old adaptation, as the sporadic changes in the plot suggest that the creators at least tried not to make copy it in its entirety, but (through quality images and contemporary actors) unfortunately, that is where the modernization ends. (2019-04-04)

If any of Stephen King’s books are made into a movie, usually, the result cannot be bad. Except, maybe, when the filming is made by a bungler, the result can be quite a screw-up. What sometimes happens is that an average movie is made from a quality theme, but that depends on the abilities of the makers – or the lack thereof. Pet Sematary, for example, was not filmed for the first time, but I cannot say that there is anything different or unique about it. I think that it is a standard horror movie, which does not even make you scared, because the thought of fear is somewhat turned upside down. Also, it is kind of boring and without the last half an hour, I would probably rate it with even less stars. (2020-01-08)

This is an uninteresting and badly made King adaptation, which perhaps no one wished for anyway, as its existence is unjustified when compared with the honorable thirty-year-old version by Mary Lambert. This movie has no penmanship, no energy. The makers of this did not manage to come up with anything interesting, on the contrary, in the parts where they tried to deviate slightly from the book and introduce something new, the movie begins to be so stupid and tawdry to such an unbearable degree that it is just a smack in the face. The movie therefore fails to evoke any sort of emotion in the audience, there are no surprises, just nothing. Finally, the final smack in the face will come during the end credits, when a cover version of "Pet Sematary" from the original movie starts playing, as if the makers put an underlying message that it is just cool to make a tedious and sexless remake of what used to be good years ago today and we should just put up with it. However, I am not going to. (2019-08-27)

I received the source material a few months before viewing it and out of the growing stack of Stephen King's books that I have read, this is definitely one of the scariest, if not the scariest, and certainly the most unpleasant, disturbing, and inducing of lingering nightmares. The adaptation logically shortens or simplifies many storylines, which is not a problem as long as it manages to take all the motifs far enough and lets the main characters get where they belong. In this spirit, I easily accept both the change of the central twist and the subsequent shortcuts in favor of tension. However, what I can't accept is the last approximately ten minutes, which, although effectively scary and frightening, are exactly the way the book never was. There a hint or a few glances, actions, and sentences were enough, and this gave rise to the ending, which I consider to be one of the best endings I have ever read. Unfortunately, the adaptation takes the opposite, more action-oriented path, but perhaps because I understand that the film medium is completely different from the literary one, especially in this genre, I am being more lenient in my rating. The mood that settled in my soul for months after reading, namely Jud's message about male hearts that are simply stonier, is also present here, although the viewer must actively seek it out. (2019-07-06)

It's like someone has been reading my reviews of contemporary horror films for the last five years. And didn't much care for me. Who are these people I'm supposed to be worried about? What are they into? Why should I care about their hardships? Is it really that hard to make a horror movie set in the woods and actually shoot it in the woods? Does it really not bother anyone that the night exteriors look like a digitally rejuvenated Russian studio fairy tale from the 80s? Don't tell me it never once occurred to any of the filmmakers that a camera with a high frame rate looks absolutely dreadful in a horror movie. I know you like how fast and easy it can refocus, how many colors it captures, and how monumental the resolution is, but watch that shot of Jason Clarke running to get his daughter after the collision with the truck, for example. And then watch it again. And then shoot yourself. Do it! Personally, I'm not much of a King fan, but at the same time I know he hates his characters and thinks they're jerks. But even he seems to be struggling to show the motivations behind their seemingly moronic decisions. Here, the characters are constantly acting like they've pressed a self-destruct button. Apparently there are some literary explanations to the reasons for their behavior. They still can't be divined from the film. The reason is that it's awfully poorly shot, dreadfully written, and the people there don't really know how to act. But, hey, it’s got jump scares! Yay. They're great, there's about 200 of them, and when a frog croaks in the silence, your hair falls out. A fast-moving truck only makes a sound within a one-meter radius, and besides, if you discover the key to how they work, you've got it made, because it always means the scene is suggesting something's going to pop out from one side, but then it pops out from another! Heavens preserve us! (2019-07-09)