Pet Sematary

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)

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)

I decided to watch both film versions made twenty years apart in one afternoon. The comparison didn’t turn out very well for the remake. I found the children's funeral "procession" amusing. Knowing Americans, something like that would be an incentive for another Salem, it smacked too much of pagan rituals that have no place in the most democratic country on the planet. Black Pascow looked as if he had been attacked by an angry Wolverine. I’m not a huge fan of Jason Clarke. John Lithgow, whom I do like, got too little screen time as Jude. I couldn't even enjoy any potential atmosphere, because the creators bet on the dumbest jump scares and the final cover by Starcrawler was a bad joke. (2019-07-30)

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)

I haven't read the book, and I wasn't too impressed with the 80s movie, so I'm pleasantly surprised here. For the first time in a while, a mainstream horror film that doesn't try to be weird and controversial, but is very audience friendly (there are jump-scares and even blood), so as pure horror entertainment everything is on point here, as it should be. The actors are decent and there are thankfully no illogical missteps, visually it's an inoffensive standard and the horror scenes are effective. The finale is nicely atmospheric and uncompromising and the denouement is certainly a surprise. I'm satisfied. 80%. (2019-04-07)