|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Jul 7, 2021 0:55:59 GMT
The fact that most people seem to genuinely believe the 1989 film is better is mind-blowing to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcush on Jul 7, 2021 0:59:15 GMT
The fact that most people seem to genuinely believe the 1989 film is better is mind-blowing to me. Opinions, am I right?
|
|
|
|
Post by jcush on Jul 7, 2021 0:59:36 GMT
1989 easily.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Jul 7, 2021 1:00:53 GMT
One of the worst big-budget movies ever made in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 7, 2021 1:02:52 GMT
1989 - 7/10
2019 - 3.5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by jcush on Jul 7, 2021 1:04:25 GMT
One of the worst big-budget movies ever made in my opinion. I actually didn't care for it the first time I saw it, but rewatched it a few years later and thought it was pretty good. I found the newer version pretty dull.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 7, 2021 1:05:48 GMT
One of the worst big-budget movies ever made in my opinion. I actually didn't care for it the first time I saw it, but rewatched it a few years later and thought it was pretty good. I found the newer version pretty dull. The remake is similar to watching paint dry and less scary than watching paint dry. Fuck that movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by James on Jul 7, 2021 1:06:44 GMT
To each his own, but the original is still way better to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 7, 2021 1:11:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jcush on Jul 7, 2021 1:33:33 GMT
I love the episodes where that dude randomly shows up haha
|
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Jul 7, 2021 1:35:14 GMT
neither are very good. But I will give a slight edge to 1989 for having actual Maine locations, Fred Gwynne, and at least a few creepy parts. The 2019 should have easily blown the 1989 version out of the water but it somehow ended up being worse
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 7, 2021 1:37:39 GMT
neither are very good. But I will give a slight edge to 1989 for having actual Maine locations, Fred Gwynne, and at least a few creepy parts. The 2019 should have easily blown the 1989 version out of the water but it somehow ended up being worse I like the 1989 movie, but part of the reason I hate the 2019 version is because it shouldn't have been difficult to make a better adaptation of the book. Instead they went the opposite route and strayed even further from the book and just becomes another generic forgettable modern horror movie. It is lazy beyond belief.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 7, 2021 1:42:40 GMT
I love the episodes where that dude randomly shows up haha "You don't wanna go down that road"
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Jul 7, 2021 1:45:26 GMT
Remake. I thought overall it was a better movie. I thought the book and original movie SUCKED ASS!! I always thought Pet Sematary was King’s worst book. Heck Pet Sematary 2 is better than the original too.
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Jul 7, 2021 1:47:22 GMT
The fact that most people seem to genuinely believe the 1989 film is better is mind-blowing to me. No I agree. I don’t get it either. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 7, 2021 1:52:36 GMT
The fact that most people seem to genuinely believe the 1989 film is better is mind-blowing to me. No I agree. I don’t get it either. One thing I can tell you I dislike is how brooding the remake is. I mean the part where they go to the burial ground feels like they entered Mordor. I like the realistic and low-key atmosphere of their walk to the burial ground in the 1989 movie. The actual look of the burial ground is also extremely creepy in the 1989 movie. I find the original to be a tragic and intensely creepy movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcush on Jul 7, 2021 1:53:49 GMT
I love the episodes where that dude randomly shows up haha "You don't wanna go down that road" The pasteurized joke killed me when I saw this episode. Especially his delivery of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 7, 2021 1:55:50 GMT
"You don't wanna go down that road" The pasteurized joke killed me when I saw this episode. Especially his delivery of it. It took me a second to get the joke. Past her eyes. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Jul 7, 2021 2:30:39 GMT
neither are very good. But I will give a slight edge to 1989 for having actual Maine locations, Fred Gwynne, and at least a few creepy parts. The 2019 should have easily blown the 1989 version out of the water but it somehow ended up being worse I like the 1989 movie, but part of the reason I hate the 2019 version is because it shouldn't have been difficult to make a better adaptation of the book. Instead they went the opposite route and strayed even further from the book and just becomes another generic forgettable modern horror movie. It is lazy beyond belief. I agree. The remake would have been a good opportunity to improve or expand on certain aspects of the book that the 1989 version didn't do, but it failed to do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jul 7, 2021 15:23:45 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. |
|
