|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Apr 14, 2019 0:42:41 GMT
I saw it and liked it. The horror stuff is not at all scary or shocking, but creepy. The most shocking moment in the movie for me is not a supernatural horror, but an unexpected natural (or incidental) horror, which could be said to be instigated by a supernatural horror. By the way, one question I have is, when they come back, is it their actual spirits gone bad, or completely different evil spirits that assume the former hosts' empty vessels ? |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Apr 18, 2019 2:33:17 GMT
***SPOILERS***
Well, I finally got around to seeing the Pet Sematary remake today. The verdict? Very disappointing.
First off, I knew going into it that it was the daughter who was going to be killed in the truck accident and return from the dead, instead of the little boy Gage. That was pretty much common knowledge before the movie was even released. And I was actually fine with that. But I really objected to the way everything was completely rewritten after Ellie was buried; that was total sacrilege to the novel. I didn't find this change scary or disturbing, just ridiculous.
I was really counting on this remake to improve on the 1989 version by expanding on certain details from novel that were not included in the original, most notably the backstory of Timmy Baterman, but it didn't happen. Nor do we get a chance to see the Wendigo. Also, the Creed family's grief wasn't explored. Anybody who has read the novel will know that these are vital elements to the story.
This had the potential to be a great version, but the filmmakers totally blew it. Anyway, that's my humble opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 18, 2019 14:01:27 GMT
I shied away from both film versions mainly because King was clearly taking a page from the Leonid Andreyev short story Lazarus: i.e. the true horror of the dead returning to the world of the living resides in the irrevocable separation from it that the process of death imposes. The dead can never shake off what happens to them in the grave to sanely rejoin this world. That's an atmospheric thing that's tough to suggest on film with any degree of subtlety--and Andreyev's original story suggests it in a more spare, existential and terrifying way than King's, which naturally had to play more to his audience base with the addition of gore and jump scares; which only tend to get magnified in any film adaptation. A film that could really capture the essence of that central conceit would be frightening as hell, but I can't imagine how you'd set about depicting it, so neither of these versions holds much interest for me, since they both substitute bang-you-over-the head unsubtle visual scares for the less pyrotechnic, but more chilling, psychological variety.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Apr 19, 2019 3:33:17 GMT
Saw it. Was a pretty fine pop horror that did its job adequately. I appreciated the third act deviation from what we've seen before, but didn't appreciate the weak Ramones cover at the end as much.
6/10
|
|
|
|
Post by James on Jul 15, 2019 18:35:08 GMT
After seeing it, I pretty much agree with MBB except for Jason Clarke, who was good but not a million times better than Dale Midkiff. They were the about same.
|
|
