|
|
Post by cwsims on Oct 5, 2018 17:06:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 6, 2018 4:11:27 GMT
I'm not particularly excited. The book read like an existential drana with horror elements, and I doubt this film will take that route.
|
|
|
|
Post by James on Oct 6, 2018 17:57:26 GMT
I just hope it'll be good. The '89 film was quite a surprise for me. Have never read the book.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Oct 6, 2018 19:26:25 GMT
I just hope it'll be good. The '89 film was quite a surprise for me. Have never read the book. I strongly recommend you read the book. It's one of King's scariest books. Real horror show. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2018 20:20:11 GMT
I'm not particularly excited. The book read like an existential drana with horror elements, and I doubt this film will take that route. The novel is the most frightening book I've ever read. I really hope they go the same route of the book. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 6, 2018 21:16:55 GMT
The original is one of my favorite King movies so hope it's good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Apr 7, 2019 23:31:08 GMT
sadly this movie didnt do the book any justice. half of my theatre was laughing where it was supposed to be scared.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemanjackson on Apr 7, 2019 23:52:20 GMT
I liked it, though moreso in the first two thirds of the movie as opposed to the final act. Thought the direction was confident, the atmosphere notable, and solid performances. But at some point, it's hard to see how Louis simply isn't a damn ass face-palming idiot lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Apr 8, 2019 2:20:29 GMT
I liked it, though moreso in the first two thirds of the movie as opposed to the final act. Thought the direction was confident, the atmosphere notable, and solid performances. But at some point, it's hard to see how Louis simply isn't a damn ass face-palming idiot lol. exactly. his idiocy was too owerpowering. plus throughout the movie i was mostly worried that the cat who played Church didnt have an ok time on the set  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 17:37:15 GMT
I had kind of a hard time swallowing this movie. The cat bordered on comical, I heard some giggles in the theatre. He was kind of cute tho. And the way they had to pamper and shelter he little girl was slightly annoy9ng. Still, you could tell a lot of thought went into the writing and overall construction of the film to try to make it as believable as possible, and admiration goes 9ut to them for sticking to their guns to stay as serious as possible. 5.5 out of 10.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jul 3, 2019 20:43:35 GMT
PET SEMATARY 3/10 Because of the story elements that PET SEMATARY PART II focuses more on, it doesn't get the chance of being complex or moving. To be fair, PET SEMATARY PART I had that chance but didn't make the most out of it. Also, there are improvements in other areas. The actors are better, the characters have more personality, Russell Carpenter's cinematography is more interesting and the title sequence now has a real atmosphere that helps set up what's to come. That being said, overall it's once again an unscary film where the music score sometimes feels out of place and where the soundtrack always feels out of place. Tom Finan's editing is horrible. Both movies have a bunch of over-the-top moments but, this time around, it feels like the makers are purposefully going for a horror comedy vibe. In the 1st one, they came off as unintentionally funny stupidity. Stephen King adapted his own book into the script for the 1st installment, but one of his common tropes was missing: The bullies that are willing to go too far (and therefore don't feel like real people). They are present in this installment, even though King wasn't involved. How odd. 4/10 Whenever there's a 2nd film adaptation of a book, people debate on whether it counts as a remake or not. Since PET SEMATARY 2019 includes some elements created for PET SEMATARY 1989 (including the theme song), I'll judge it as a remake. It felt like it was going to be an improvement, with better production values, some additions (including a new antagonist) and the removal of certain characters and subplots that weren't really needed. Unfortunately, it's mostly a retread of the same story, only somehow less scary. While the original's final scene didn't completely work (the situation was tragic, but it took the focus away from the central conflict, thereby losing the opportunity to dig deep into the morality and ethics of the issues), this remake thinks that plot twists are the most important thing. They're not even that shocking. We're supposed to be scared about the toddler's potential death, even though we saw him die halfway through the other movie?! Jeté Laurence's performance is the best of the 3 installments. Jason Clarke's isn't the worst of the 3 installments, but it's pretty bad nonetheless. John Lithgow does an OK job playing his character (JUD CRANDALL) as a sympathetic man (which is what Fred Gwynne did too), but it doesn't make sense anymore. During the 1st half, he's treated as a red herring for a villain. Just pay attention to his physical appearance and some of his lines, as well as how the camera and the music score present him. When he's attacked by the true villain, the latter morphs into NORMA (his late wife) as a way to mess with his head, and then morphs back in order to kill him. However, since this sequence consists of close-ups, all I could think was "Is her head on a little girl's body? How would that look like?" 1/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog. |
|
kickass im excited for this movie hurry up and give us a trailer
kickass im excited for this movie hurry up and give us a trailer
