|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 9, 2019 3:11:24 GMT
The 1989 version is vastly superior imo.
The first half of the 2019 movie does some stuff better than the 1989 movie but it does almost nothing interesting or creative with it after that point and the main death scene is overdone to the point of being unintentionally hilarious.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 9, 2019 4:48:35 GMT
Neither adaptation lives up to the book. But I'll take the original for Fred Gwynne abd Miko Hughes. And for the remake wasting a second chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on May 9, 2019 5:08:56 GMT
Haven’t read the book. The original had better atmosphere but the new one has much superior acting. Guess the old one a little bit higher for the atmosphere, score, and Ramones song. But seriously Jason Clarke is way better than whoever it was that starred in the original
|
|
|
|
Post by femalefan on May 9, 2019 6:48:11 GMT
The original.
|
|
|
|
Post by poes on May 9, 2019 16:14:19 GMT
Original. new one thinks Kings book is about zombies . gimne a break!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dramatic Look Gopher on May 9, 2019 16:28:55 GMT
1989 version, by far.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcush on May 9, 2019 21:35:54 GMT
1989 is much better in my book.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jul 3, 2019 20:42:11 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. |
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Jul 3, 2019 20:44:53 GMT
It honestly baffles me as to how anyone could prefer the 1989 film.
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Jul 3, 2019 21:06:16 GMT
It honestly baffles me as to how anyone could prefer the 1989 film. Thank you!!!! I think the remake works better, but everyone i’ve said that too said I was crazy lol. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 3, 2019 21:56:25 GMT
It honestly baffles me as to how anyone could prefer the 1989 film. The remake suffers from a problem many horror movies suffer from these days - it's visually ugly and lacks any real emotion. The movie is depressing even before the child dies, which takes away from the effect imo. In the 1989 movie I actually sympathize with the characters and the movie is actually scary, unlike the remake. There are a couple things that the remake does better, such as it gets more into how the characters feel about death than the original. The original still does this, just not quite as effectively. John Lithgow leaves no impression on me in the remake, whereas Fred Gwynn is perfection. He really brings everything together in the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 3, 2019 22:10:03 GMT
Didn't see the remake but was surprised it gave away so much in the trailers.
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Jul 4, 2019 0:11:16 GMT
It honestly baffles me as to how anyone could prefer the 1989 film. The remake suffers from a problem many horror movies suffer from these days - it's visually ugly and lacks any real emotion. The movie is depressing even before the child dies, which takes away from the effect imo. In the 1989 movie I actually sympathize with the characters and the movie is actually scary, unlike the remake. There are a couple things that the remake does better, such as it gets more into how the characters feel about death than the original. The original still does this, just not quite as effectively. John Lithgow leaves no impression on me in the remake, whereas Fred Gwynn is perfection. He really brings everything together in the original. John Lithgow was my only problem with the remake. He was already kinda creepy in the beginning so why they trusted him to begin with was just strange. I wasn’t even too bothered that they killed the little girl instead of the boy. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 4, 2019 0:18:58 GMT
The remake suffers from a problem many horror movies suffer from these days - it's visually ugly and lacks any real emotion. The movie is depressing even before the child dies, which takes away from the effect imo. In the 1989 movie I actually sympathize with the characters and the movie is actually scary, unlike the remake. There are a couple things that the remake does better, such as it gets more into how the characters feel about death than the original. The original still does this, just not quite as effectively. John Lithgow leaves no impression on me in the remake, whereas Fred Gwynn is perfection. He really brings everything together in the original. John Lithgow was my only problem with the remake. He was already kinda creepy in the beginning so why they trusted him to begin with was just strange. I wasn’t even too bothered that they killed the little girl instead of the boy.That isn't a big problem for me. It is the way in which the scene is directed that is a huge problem. In the original I felt the horror and sadness of being a parent watching your child die. My reaction to the scene in the remake is indifference. It isn't that they changed the gender of the child, it is that they changed the age.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 4, 2019 0:47:27 GMT
The remake suffers from a problem many horror movies suffer from these days - it's visually ugly and lacks any real emotion. The movie is depressing even before the child dies, which takes away from the effect imo. In the 1989 movie I actually sympathize with the characters and the movie is actually scary, unlike the remake. There are a couple things that the remake does better, such as it gets more into how the characters feel about death than the original. The original still does this, just not quite as effectively. John Lithgow leaves no impression on me in the remake, whereas Fred Gwynn is perfection. He really brings everything together in the original. John Lithgow was my only problem with the remake. He was already kinda creepy in the beginning so why they trusted him to begin with was just strange. I wasn’t even too bothered that they killed the little girl instead of the boy. Another big issue I have is that the movie has a constant feeling of dread from the opening scene. The reason I find the original much more effective is because the cinematography is much more natural. The Pet Sematary scene in the original is almost sweet and innocnet in a way which makes what comes later all the more frightening. Another issue is that nobody would bury their child in a place that looks like Mordor from LOTR. The minimalist burial ground in the original is far more creepy because it is much more subtle.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Jul 15, 2019 21:09:16 GMT
89, hands down. The remake tried but didn’t quite succeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Jul 15, 2019 21:11:07 GMT
1989
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Jul 15, 2019 23:33:22 GMT
89 - 9/10
19 - 1/10
The 80s win.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2019 23:53:04 GMT
I'm not sure how it's even a question. 89' by a country mile.
|
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Jul 16, 2019 2:15:13 GMT
the 1989 movie isn't that good (rushed pace and the lead actor is horrible) but at least it has some real atmosphere, a haunting score by Elliont Goldenthal (even if it sounds a bit too similar to the Amityville Horror theme) and some real Maine locations which add to it. Also the Ramones were robbed of a Best Original Song nomination
while Clarke and Seimetz are better than the actors in the original film, the rst of the movie is so bland and generic it's ridiculous
guess we'll have to wait another 30 years to hopefully finally get a really good version
|
|
