|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Apr 4, 2019 4:51:50 GMT
Emphasis on the word "remake" and not "readaptation". This had more of the tone of the 89 movie than the book, imo.
Jason Clarke is a million times better than the damp towel who played the dad in the original. And the ending was better. Otherwise, I actually might prefer the original. I definitely prefer Fred Gwynne as Jed, and Miko Hughes was creepier than not-Drew Barrymore (who is good as a sweet little girl, but not remotely scary as evil).
Meh.
|
|
|
Post by James on Apr 4, 2019 10:30:35 GMT
Interesting. Whenever I do get the chance to see it, I’ll get back to this thread.
On a side note I liked the guy who played the father in the original. He was very believable.
|
|
|
Post by OffTheBoatPsycho on Apr 4, 2019 11:34:40 GMT
Fred Gwynne playing Jud Crandall in my opinion was the best part of Pet Sematary (1989). The bigger boots to fill as much as making an adaptation of one of Kings' best novels. Seems like it was good but not great which is what I think of the 1989 version. I have high expectations on this which can have a negative viewpoint overall. The trailers look good and have seen reviews which claim it's scary as heck. But we all know that's exaggerated. I'll pick up the DVD.
|
|
|
Post by James on Apr 4, 2019 12:36:23 GMT
Interesting. Whenever I do get the chance to see it, I’ll get back to this thread. On a side note I liked the guy who played the father in the original. He was very believable.I found him too dreary. A damp towel is an apt description. I also didn't like Denise Crosby. Looks like I’m alone on that one. Though to be fair, Fred Gwynne and Miko Hughes were the best performances.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Apr 4, 2019 13:31:49 GMT
Pet Sematary was one of the first movies I saw in theaters (at the ripe old age of 5), so I'm kind of thinking I will need to see this in theaters as well, just for tradition. I don't have much in the way of expectations, especially now that the trailer gave most of it away.
I still like the original, and agree with most points raised. I think my favorite part however is the theme song at the end from The Ramones. 😎
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Apr 4, 2019 14:50:15 GMT
That is why it is meant to be a 2 yr old kid. It was disturbing and shocking and he was still a baby. Sort of. I like the original movie, but I do think that making a up an adorable little baby in monster makeup and telling him to make scary and mean faces made for some kind of laughable moments. That's pretty hard to take seriously. It may have actually worked better the second time around though. This could have been an instance where the advancement in special effects might have allowed for new techniques to achieve that imagery and to avoid that cheesiness.
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Apr 6, 2019 0:41:21 GMT
Just saw it today. I was thoroughly disappointed. I went into it sure that I was going to like it, and it was the definition of "meh". I did really like the ending, though. Also, props to the young actress who played Ellie. It wasn't her fault the movie fizzled.
|
|
simest
Sophomore
@simest
Posts: 243
Likes: 222
|
Post by simest on Apr 6, 2019 14:03:47 GMT
I've decided to give this one a miss.
I loved the novel and was largely disappointed with the original movie. Doesn't sound like this one is any significant improvement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2019 22:23:18 GMT
any dead ghostly CGI cameos by herman munster - even if just for a split second?
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Apr 7, 2019 15:09:45 GMT
any dead ghostly CGI cameos by herman munster - even if just for a split second? Yeah, the whole 3rd act is archival footage of Fred Gwyne spliced so that he and John Lithgow are just talking about their favorite Stephen King movies.
|
|
rogerthat
Sophomore
@rogerthat
Posts: 734
Likes: 478
|
Post by rogerthat on Apr 7, 2019 22:35:43 GMT
Still haven't seen it but am questioning if I should wait for it to be on streaming services going by a lot of audience reviews
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Apr 8, 2019 2:51:53 GMT
Still haven't seen it but am questioning if I should wait for it to be on streaming services going by a lot of audience reviews Roger that.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Apr 8, 2019 2:53:34 GMT
any dead ghostly CGI cameos by herman munster - even if just for a split second? Yeah, the whole 3rd act is archival footage of Fred Gwyne spliced so that he and John Lithgow are just talking about their favorite Stephen King movies. "Sometimes, Dead Zone is better."
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Apr 8, 2019 3:05:48 GMT
I'm a Stephen King fan but have zero interest in this new adaptation. The 1989 film is my favourite horror movie of that year and a wonderfully faithful adaptation of the novel. Eerie to the core. There was no need for this rejigged version. The reviews have been fairly mixed as well.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Apr 8, 2019 15:20:54 GMT
I'm a Stephen King fan but have zero interest in this new adaptation. The 1989 film is my favourite horror movie of that year and a wonderfully faithful adaptation of the novel. Eerie to the core. There was no need for this rejigged version. The reviews have been fairly mixed as well. Yeah it wasn't great. The original has some pretty serious flaws as well though. The new one is better in some of the ways the original really got wrong. Namely the cast. Outside of Fred Gwynne, who falls into caricature from time to time, the acting is not very good. This movie has a much better male lead, and even though the female lead of the first film was not terrible, this movie has, I think, a better actor playing the Rachel character. The little girl is much better this time around too. In fact the only actor who could really be considered a step down would be the boy playing Gage, but that's almost entirely just because he (they, I guess) doesn't (don't) have much of anything to do. The issues here mostly stem from a lack of a sense of place and time. It really didn't feel like there was any sense of how much time had passed, what this town was like outside of their property, and what the move and the new job had done to the family. It was a very insular story in that way, perhaps on purpose. The best stuff in the original film (outside of Fred Gwynne) was that feeling of the location, and the way that the Pascow and Zelda characters were used as framing devices. Those two elements felt like they were shortchanged a bit in this film. But the sets looked great, it was well shot, the effects were good, and we were spared some of the cheesiness in the original film. And I liked this new ending. The original's ending worked too, and this hardly changed much of anything.. it's sort of just the logical next step after the ending we saw in the '89 version. I have not read the book, I likely will soon, but I'd say both filmed versions of this story are just ok.
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Apr 9, 2019 1:48:29 GMT
I'm a Stephen King fan but have zero interest in this new adaptation. The 1989 film is my favourite horror movie of that year and a wonderfully faithful adaptation of the novel. Eerie to the core. There was no need for this rejigged version. The reviews have been fairly mixed as well. Yeah it wasn't great. The original has some pretty serious flaws as well though. The new one is better in some of the ways the original really got wrong. Namely the cast. Outside of Fred Gwynne, who falls into caricature from time to time, the acting is not very good. This movie has a much better male lead, and even though the female lead of the first film was not terrible, this movie has, I think, a better actor playing the Rachel character. The little girl is much better this time around too. In fact the only actor who could really be considered a step down would be the boy playing Gage, but that's almost entirely just because he (they, I guess) doesn't (don't) have much of anything to do. The issues here mostly stem from a lack of a sense of place and time. It really didn't feel like there was any sense of how much time had passed, what this town was like outside of their property, and what the move and the new job had done to the family. It was a very insular story in that way, perhaps on purpose. The best stuff in the original film (outside of Fred Gwynne) was that feeling of the location, and the way that the Pascow and Zelda characters were used as framing devices. Those two elements felt like they were shortchanged a bit in this film. But the sets looked great, it was well shot, the effects were good, and we were spared some of the cheesiness in the original film. And I liked this new ending. The original's ending worked too, and this hardly changed much of anything.. it's sort of just the logical next step after the ending we saw in the '89 version. I have not read the book, I likely will soon, but I'd say both filmed versions of this story are just ok. Thanks for your insight. One of the things that made the 1989 film stand out so much for me was the constant sense of impending doom that seemed to permeate the entire work. It was very atmospheric. I wouldn't be a massive Denise Crosby fan, but felt she did a good job there. It's interesting to hear that you regard the acting on display here as superior to what came before, but not at all surprised to hear that even John Lithgow doesn't surpass Fred Gwynne as Jud Crandall. He was the star of the show for me. Oh, and enjoy the book! While not my absolute favourite SK work, it's definitely one of his stronger ones and matches the details of the 1989 film quite closely - though there are some differences.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Apr 9, 2019 14:07:24 GMT
Oh, and enjoy the book! While not my absolute favourite SK work, it's definitely one of his stronger ones and matches the details of the 1989 film quite closely - though there are some differences. Yeah, it was sort of an impossible task for John Lithgow to top Fred Gwynne. He tends to be what people most remember about that film. He had to sort of shy away from doing the same thing, so the accent is gone, he doesn't deepen his voice and he's less emotional. He's perfectly serviceable, but this is not a standout job by an actor who is clearly capable of a standout performance. The biggest difference is from the leading family characters. Nobody's particularly great, but but to some degree the original cast dragged down what could have been better. I do intend to read the book, but have always shied away, in part because when Stephen King tells you this book is too dark, cynical, and depressing even for him, it gives me pause with regard to getting started.
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Apr 10, 2019 1:36:45 GMT
Oh, and enjoy the book! While not my absolute favourite SK work, it's definitely one of his stronger ones and matches the details of the 1989 film quite closely - though there are some differences. Yeah, it was sort of an impossible task for John Lithgow to top Fred Gwynne. He tends to be what people most remember about that film. He had to sort of shy away from doing the same thing, so the accent is gone, he doesn't deepen his voice and he's less emotional. He's perfectly serviceable, but this is not a standout job by an actor who is clearly capable of a standout performance. The biggest difference is from the leading family characters. Nobody's particularly great, but but to some degree the original cast dragged down what could have been better. I do intend to read the book, but have always shied away, in part because when Stephen King tells you this book is too dark, cynical, and depressing even for him, it gives me pause with regard to getting started. It is a bleak book, but anyone who has seen the film(s) knows what to expect. The shock factor won't really be there in the same way as it might for someone engaging with the story for the first time without any prior knowledge of the narrative. I'd class it as the second best SK novel of the early 80s, after Apt Pupil.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Apr 10, 2019 15:13:29 GMT
It is a bleak book, but anyone who has seen the film(s) knows what to expect. The shock factor won't really be there in the same way as it might for someone engaging with the story for the first time without any prior knowledge of the narrative. I'd class it as the second best SK novel of the early 80s, after Apt Pupil. Good to know. I've also never read Apt Pupil, and was underwhelmed a bit by the movie, but I do find the premise totally fascinating. I may check that out soon as well.
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Apr 11, 2019 1:42:39 GMT
It is a bleak book, but anyone who has seen the film(s) knows what to expect. The shock factor won't really be there in the same way as it might for someone engaging with the story for the first time without any prior knowledge of the narrative. I'd class it as the second best SK novel of the early 80s, after Apt Pupil. Good to know. I've also never read Apt Pupil, and was underwhelmed a bit by the movie, but I do find the premise totally fascinating. I may check that out soon as well. I read all 200 pages in a single day. King is a master of characterisation and Apt Pupil is a resounding reminder of that fact.
|
|