New Pet Sematary was awful

I was largely unimpressed too. Like the first movie, it failed to capture the heavy sense of grief, loss and grim price of escaping these that the book so vividly depicted.

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.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.
1/10
-------------------------------------
You can read comments of other movies in my blog.

Just saw this. It's terrible. The acting is bad and it's not scary. The story is essentially a rushed version the original save for the daughter being the one that dies. The only new stuff is in the last twenty minutes or so and it's so brief it's pretty much pointless.

It was alright. I thought Church was the star of the show. Ellie being brought back worked ok and better than Gage in the first flick. Lithgow a but dull as Jud maybe because Fred Gwynne us so great in the 1989 version. The entire family coming back except for Gage looks set for a comedy sequel. Something like The Coneheads where they start to make a new life for themselves in the suburbs. Strange family with one normal-ish kid who try to fit in and do but sometimes don't with quite often hilarious results.

I’m sorry I know to each their own, but has anyone watched the original recently? It feels like a tv made movie and not the good kind.

That's not really true. I can only think of one great one that he spoke out against. Some others that he has lauded are genuinely good.

It just seems that these days he's doing some of the promotional work for the studios and says he likes everything new that's coming out.

Go back and look up some of the things he's had to say about those screen adaptations. I'm not exaggerating when I say that his highest praise has generally gone to the most awful ones. He hasn't been doing that sort of promotional work just recently, he's done it throughout his career.

The actual best adaptations of his work he's usually praised at the time, and then gone back later on to damn with left-handed compliments or just pan outright.

I'll admit I don't keep up with him much these days--I haven't read a new novel by him in a while--but during his peak, it was commonplace. You'd have almost thought he was taking studio payola to give favorable comments on their various screen treatments of his books.

He praised Kubrick's Shining to the skies back in the day, then started with the snark a couple of years later, after the movie fanfare had died down a bit. I'll agree he's had only good things to say about Carrie and Stand By Me and Shawshank, but then again, he'd have to be nuts to pan those.