There is no one to complain about; what I wanted, I got. Garbage is garbage. Nothing more. And yet, let the movie class "B", but after all, in the dump no, no, but find something curious. To ask questions of psychological justification is foolish. What only a person in a situation of meeting with the unknown and mysterious is not able to throw out the illogical and improbable. All right, let the grief-stricken father who lost his daughter lose his mind and memory of the resurrection of the slain cat, who was resurrected, to put it mildly, not the sweet Murzik he was before his first death. Suppose, I believe, that the father sincerely hopes that the daughter of a cat will not repeat the path of a lovable to a monster. The urge to embrace a dead 9-year-old daughter again can be dazzling. Let him! I will. I don’t believe he’s her father and she’s her daughter. The whole family looks like a company of work colleagues who spontaneously went on a picnic. There is no chemistry in family relationships. But the whole psychology is built on family secrets, hidden guilt in front of already departed relatives. What kind of sisters here, if a husband and wife, son and daughter look like a company of people who have relatively recently met. Moreover, the girl, apparently, was targeted to the second part of the picture, when the poor child has to turn her eyes in different directions, spew nauseating moans, scratch, bite, aim to throw knives and so on. In fact, you start to suspect this girl's ability to do this kind of damn thing from the start: a heavy look, an uncharming face. But to me, she's not a daughter. For a movie father, too. Casting on the principle of “which of the artists is now free and how to meet the budget” does its job. Not scary, not bitter, not family, not cemetery, not domestic, not animals, not cinema. .. I'm not complaining: I got what I was waiting for.
(approximately 39th minute of the film)
Cemetery of Pets
Do you remember Gage's amazing line from the original movie? Do you remember? A phrase that tore everything in its path, Gage wheezed and squealed, then uttered, “That’s not fair.” Only this scene, my dear fans of horror films, sends to the deepest knockout - this nasty remake of 2019.
By the way, do we have a remake or a cat circus on wheels? The first twenty or thirty minutes seems to be a remake. The family is moving into a new house. Church gets hit by a truck. Neighbor Jud talks about the pet cemetery (as it should), but the further into the forest, the more firewood.
In the second half, the directors (in all seriousness) send to hell a great novel by Stephen King and turn drama horror into a stupid toothless treshatina (with running through the woods and other nonsense). Why? I don't know, I don't understand. I guess I wanted to surprise everyone.
The most disgusting - Gage was pushed into the background, because in the foreground came (for some reason) Ellie. The directors have shifted their focus. Let's be honest. Is the movie better? Nope. Has the movie gotten creepier? Nope. I mentioned the drama above. You do not care about the heroes (and their mountain) from the high bell tower.
You don't really believe in family. There's no chemistry between actors. And the veteran Lithgow in the role of old Jada, with his hand on his heart, looked strange (as if not at his plate). In short, the original is much cooler than the remake in many ways, including the cast. I'll be quiet about the atmosphere.
There are two men in the director’s chair. Once again, two men (Kevin Colsh and Dennis Widmeier). They couldn't even make Church's cat sinister. No, seriously, what kind of fluffy (slightly fluffy), a-hee-hee. I'm gonna go complain to Stephen King. It's just another great remake.
One of the most terrible and at the same time disgusting films of my childhood, which more than once and not twice after came to mind and interfered with sleep. Nope. I'm not talking about the 2019 movie, of course, but the original 1989! Because that movie was shocking. It really shocked and made me think about life and death, about accepting the natural order of things. After learning about the release of the remake, I was immediately sure that it will traditionally be much worse, much worse. It turns out. The new picture is devoid of that terrifying charm and novelty. Devoid of soul, like many modern horror films. She has no particular style and looks gray and boring.
The plot repeats the original - a family of a father, mother and two children moves to a house near the freeway near the old Indian cemetery (King's trademark feature), the boy and the girl were changed places in this film, so that it was completely different. The girl’s favorite cat gets hit by a car and a loving, caring daddy decides to resurrect the animal on the advice of a similarly good neighbor, by burying a flattened fluffy in the same cemetery at night. The animal is resurrected, but it is not what it used to be.
To be honest, it is very difficult not to notice that something is wrong with the animal, because it looks like it was passed through a meat grinder, respectively, it is very strange that the father of the family decides on the subsequent use of this dubious method of returning from the dead. But the problem with the picture is not in the duplication of the plot. The film is still based on the book and there is nothing wrong with the idea of the remake. There's no atmosphericity that cuts to the bones of terror, no crazy and a little grotesque King's style. As for the main thing - horror, in principle, suspense is not bad and one or two boo-effects are present, however, for the whole film I shuddered only in one place, but for lovers of horror without soulfulness and depth, then fit at once.
The actors play on one note - it is difficult to believe that we have a loving strong family, which is why the heroes do not care. They will die, they will not die... in parallel. It is scary only for the baby, but it is purely female normal instinct.
The only thing I am grateful for this picture is that I wanted to revisit the original!
5 out of 10
I watched with a girl (the owner of an account on Kinopoisk). Indignant, I write a review, I would not like people to waste time on such a movie.
It all started as standard for me.
My trouble: let's watch the horror movie, here's the list is ' It' here' Pet Cemetery'...
Let’s take a look at the classics!
And then I see her talking about remakes.
What can I do? She didn’t look at the old ones, she doesn’t understand that I’m so turned on. I’m trying to explain that the remake probably sucks, that you need to watch a classic, that would be the third film yes & #39; Shining & #39; look... But I haven't seen this particular remake, what if it's good?
In general, she was not imbued with my admonitions, sat down to see the new 'Cemetery'.
***
What do I want to tell you, friends? This is a movie for teenagers who do not care about the great Stephen King and need gum for the evening under popcorn.
To make it simpler, each hero spoke aloud his life motivation and his occupation (' because of work, we rarely saw each other, so you changed your job and bought a house outside the city' ' you are so nervous because you cared for an inadequate disabled sister in childhood, but you should not blame yourself for her death (which I told me about for the first time today)' look, I am a doctor; look, here is my favorite cat; look, I am your grandfather-neighbor who knows everything here).
By 8-9 minutes, the number of stamps in the plot has already exceeded all imaginable values (dialogue on the road, a new town with typical houses, a large house by the forest & #39; Isn't it beautiful?', a cemetery with crooked crosses and graves, just sunshine - bang - fog and dull music).
Yeah, there's a lot of inappropriate music here. For fear. Like 'screamers' (the truck passed - scared, in the window flashed some shit). It looks very cheap.
The plot flies in full swing: just arrived in a new place - already nearby marching strange children and carrying the corpse of a dog. They do this 365 days a year, so it shouldn't be surprising what they did today. I guess. We sort things out - oh, the sister's photo came out, we'll be sad, think, flashback. Found a cemetery today, the cat will die tomorrow. Second day in the hospital? It's time to meet the plot-forming zombie prophet.
It became very sad when the main characters did not start creating events in the minute to 12. From the beginning of the film and beyond, they will simply participate in the consequences of what happens around them.
In the end, the whole story is led by the grandfather-neighbor. With him (an old stranger) easily agrees the adult man head of the family, able to buy a house and a piece of wood (with money), and even a respected doctor (with brains). Shall we bury the cat at night? Sure! Shall we go over the storm? Come on! A couple more miles in the swamp, okay? Okay! It's not convenient to dig a grave here, but you dig here, okay? Bazaroo Zero!
The scariest thing about the film is that adults think, behave and reason like teenagers. Because movies are for teenagers. Adults who have been raising their daughter together for 10 years cannot not talk about the moments when they will tell her about death. This is for the story, it will be said today for the first time. You can't have a big adult man just get lost and mumble at the sight of a dead cat, for example. An experienced doctor cannot make a mistake with the diagnosis of a dead cat, then see him alive and not run to pass him for experiments (he dragged him in a bag for half a day and buried him in the forest actually). The only thing he does is google his street and find information about Indian tribes. Googled mine, found a list of ATMs and grocery stores.
Nothing that happens in the movie can happen. I do not mean the fantastic component, but the everyday. You don’t believe in what is happening and you just get mad. Therefore, actors are not sorry, to follow their actions (would be actions...) is not interesting. Horror is interesting to watch not only because of the rivers of blood and sharp fangs of monsters, you follow the characters overcoming evil, fear and fantastic situations.
There's no overcoming here, it's a movie about how a family of brainless chickens got on a butcher's table. Bam-bam-bam! Heads left, carcasses right, next!
In 2019, 30 years later, a remake of the old film adaptation of 1989 was released based on the famous novel by Stephen King & #39; Pet Cemetery'.
I remind you that the previous film adaptation of 1989, was a great success among the public. It was even attended by Stephen King himself (as minister).
But, to be honest, there are very few good adaptations of the novel by Stephen King, and many more unsuccessful ones.
The good ones are still there: The Shining, Dolores Claiborne, The Shawshank Escape. These are masterpieces. Even the new "It" was not bad.
What will happen in the new movie?
Sorry for the disappointment.
The new movie didn't go so well. Although Stephen King himself praised the remake ' Pet Cemetery' calling it a grown-up, adult movie. I still don't understand how?
If you could see the previous picture, the new one simply failed.
After watching the remake, I had a number of incomprehensible facts.
As a novelist, I find many differences with the original book. The book captures from the first to the last page and fascinates, and there are a lot of plot holes in the film. For example, children in masks, who were initially very intrigued. There was no explanation, and why were they only in the beginning?
Phrases taken from the book are already completely meaningless in dialogue. The picture is not interested from the first frame. The atmosphere of sadness and anxiety of the original disappears.
The creators radically change the plot somewhere in the middle of the film.
Acting (especially children's), does not cause delight. She looks more lazy. It seems that the best actor is the cat Church.
The film does not scare, it seems that it is built on cheap screeners, terrifying music and special effects. This is not enough for a good horror movie.
The ending of the film seems ridiculous, it feels like a completely different film, and it has the slightest relation to the book. The film did not surpass the original novel.
My opinion is that ' Pet Cemetery' is a failed film. Watching it or not is your choice, but I didn’t like the movie at all.
Unsuccessful movie reading is the first word thrown under your fingers on the keyboard. I confess that I did not master the viewing in one visit, I had to check the next day. The movie was a bit boring. I don’t even want to compare it with the 1989 film. These are two very different readings. However, there were scenes when the feeling of fear was exacerbated, not so much from the horrors as from the mystical mood. The scene where the daughter returned from the cemetery began to perform a dance in the room, throwing and smashing all the objects around. The behavior of parents, especially the father, is not very natural. From a realist doctor and skeptic, he instantly turns into a wild desire to resurrect his dead daughter at all costs. What about Grandpa? He behaved utterly unwisely from the very beginning, although, it would seem, with years and previous experience, he should have understood everything in advance. If we express the shortcomings in a few words, then perhaps the main thing for this genre of cinema – dynamics and emotionality – was missing. Or was it just me who thought the actors were just overplaying? . . .
However, this is a remake that is just interesting to compare with the first film. Nothing more. I could not capture the plot set by the director. I remember by analogy the example with the remake of “It” (“It”) – here still the creators tried that all fans are looking forward to the release of the second part. And “Pet Cemetery” 2019 – a sign of respect to the great master of horror. Stephen King, by the way, appreciated this remake, which means that the creators of the picture tried for good reason.
The film was watched a couple of weeks after reading the original story from Stephen King and remained upset.
I do not know whether it is correct to compare the original with the film at all, but otherwise I simply could not, keeping in my head fresh memories of the plot of the book and the feelings that it caused me.
I'll start with what really upset me, which is the story. At the beginning of the film, there was still hope in my heart that everything would be similar to the original, but I was in for a cruel upset. Give or take small inconsistencies are forgiven and acceptable if they are allowed due to, for example, limited time, but not the changes I saw in the film are just disappointing. I can rant and resent the fact that one of the minor characters was cut out of the film, which in the book has a significant enough role for the plot and development of the main characters. That's the first.
The second thing is that the film is simple and predictable, even if you don’t take into account the knowledge of the original. A low-quality script of a banal parody of horror. And the fact that important plot moments are shown very superficially, without affecting the frightening essence and features. Reading the book at many moments, the plot really pressed on the psyche and frightened, the film is deprived of this away.
The third nagging to one of the main points of the plot is the pet cemetery itself. Yes, the film tells about him, his appearance, his myths and secrets, but all this is done so simply and superficially and incompetently that I want to cry with disappointment. Seriously, if there was not enough screen time, then they would cut something else, but it would be better to convey the atmosphere of the cemetery! But no. It can scare only a very young child and that is far from the fact.
The characters are a separate story. I have no complaints about the actors, they really try. But here's the writer nobly screwed up as I think. Yes, while watching the film you can see faint hints about the features of their characters, but they are all so faint that at the end of watching you can not even remember what they stood out from the background of others.
The noted disadvantages in the plot for myself I can note a lot, but, perhaps, I will dwell on the above, which touched me the most.
Now for a little good: visual. Here's what, he's good. Moderately bright color scheme, pleasing to the eye and supporting the hysterical environment. Beautiful, well-designed locations, which are really nice to look at, costumes, makeup – everything is plausible.
The camera work is the same good, not eye-drawn transitions of cameras and competent exposure of people / objects / plants in the frame. If you turn off the dialogue and do not delve into the plot - the film is a look.
On this I can finish the description of pros and cons and go to the end.
A film can be liked only if you do not know the original, or do not compare with it at all, and consider the picture as a separate narrative, shot not by King, but took his story as an idea. The Pet Cemetery can be watched by an audience of any age, it is not at all intimidating. Sometimes it's just sad, because the subject of death is touched upon. I do not advise you to watch, but I do not advise you to choose. Personally, I was sorry for the time I spent watching it.
' Pet Cemetery' Stephen King is quite a cult work, but I never really liked this novel, and I never saw the first film adaptation of 1989. That’s why last year’s film adaptation I was looking at a fresh head, unobstructed by nostalgic memories. And with all this ' Pet Cemetery' 2019 I can not call a good movie.
For those who do not know what the book (and the film) tells about, in a nutshell, the plot goes something like this: a family moves to a country house, and just a few steps from their new home, an old Indian Pet Cemetery is discovered, the land on which has the mystical ability to bring the dead back to life. And the father of the family, Louis, soon becomes convinced of the possibilities of this damned place, when a domestic cat hit on the road returns to them the same night that he was buried.
So, what is the problem 'Cemetery'? Most importantly, the film is boring. This is probably the worst thing to say about any movie, especially horror movies. The film does not cause any vivid emotions, nor fear, nor empathy for the characters. There are a few atmospheric and creepy moments, yes, but there are too few to correct the overall dull narrative. At the same time, it does not leave the feeling that the film desperately lacks timekeeping. It seems that events develop too quickly, the relationship between the characters changes too quickly, and all the time it seems that some pieces of storytelling were cut out, which are the connecting bridges between the scenes. So it turns out that ' Cemetery', being in itself not the most fascinating film, also suffers from some understatement.
Of good - except that the above-mentioned atmospheric episodes that pump some kind of suspense. But, unfortunately, almost all such scenes were merged in trailers, so it is better not to watch any promotional materials, if you do not want to spoil the impression.
Verdict: ' Pet Cemetery' this is a film that is completely non-must-see. It does not cause any bright emotions, neither positive nor negative. If you are a fan of King’s work, then the picture is unlikely to please you, and if you just like horror movies, then ' Cemetery' nothing special will surprise you. Under the mood and nothing to do to look, but do not need.
As a fan of this terrible novel and film adaptation of 1989, it is difficult to objectively perceive the new creation. But I wonder what it looks like, what aftertaste will leave the film? And unfortunately, it was all bland. In the first film adaptation, I would strongly emphasize the feeling of love that reigns in the Creed family. The relationship between Louis and Rachel, their relationship with children, harmony and only. What is the scene of squeezing Louis and Gage before the trip of Rachel with the children to their parents? Characters are solid, with characters. The transition from this harmony to the terrible madness and hopelessness in connection with tragic events seemed very logical. You feel sad, you suffer with them. There was no connection between family members, actors who were trying to organize some kind of “visibility”, and only that. Completely undeveloped, and Pascoe's character is underrated. Pale, not charismatic, no, although in the first film adaptation he became a friend to Louis, no less than Jada, he became a guide between the world of the living and the dead, and definitely brought some spice to the film. The 89 film is philosophical, thoughtful, measured and creepy. All characters are not flawless, but integral. And the modern film adaptation is an attempt to shoot a horror film in haste, without working through the characters, history, love and tragedy. You can't do that with King. Unforgivable.
Box office success ' It' certainly could not but set off a chain reaction to the cinematic reinterpretation of the novels of one of the most famous and beloved writers of our time Stephen King. Despite the fact that 'It' and 'Cemetery' and other no less cult works of the master of horror were filmed, but the public’s interest in the most screened author to date, could not help but give a green light for the producers to the next film adaptation. And the logic here is undeniably simple, as long as the public is interested in the same best Stephen novels will adapt over and over again.
Original ' Pet Cemetery', released exactly thirty years ago, has long turned into a cult film. Tired of the hustle and bustle of the big city, Dr. Creed and his family settle in the countryside. Not far from the site where the ancient Indian tribe left, an old pet cemetery is discovered, where, according to legend, creatures buried there come to life with the will of the evil spirit Wendigo. Big starts with small, so trying to revive the cat, Dr. Creed only started a chain reaction of numerous problems & #39 that followed.
The further into the forest, the more wood can be broken, so from the point of view of the atmosphere, the picture seems to be stuffed with classic King’s attributes in the form of a small town and the myths and mysterious legends surrounding it. However, the authors fail to create this most complete atmosphere of fear. And although the scene of Amy returning from the dead, lying in bed with her father, is undoubtedly creepy. Or playing on nerves due to suddenly and loudly going into the frame of the trucks is also good, but these are only isolated glimpses that do not affect the overall picture of fear and horror. Therefore, the promised terrible atmosphere is not necessary to wait.
With all this baggage, don’t expect anything special from ' Pet Cemetery'. It turns out to be a genre and well-made picture, of which it is still difficult to find at the present time. In attempts to create an atmosphere of horror around a dramatic plot, the authors seem to be guided by quite effective methods from an old forest with a terribly painted fog and an ancient cemetery in an aura of mystery to disturbing music with feelings of something otherworldly. But it doesn’t work and doesn’t cause fear. Cinema at the same time is not remembered, leaving from one of the most successful novels of the master of horror only the name, which is used only as advertising no more.
From another European trip (there were times, granddaughters, when you could travel from Russia to Europe), a friend brought me ' Cemetery...' in Bulgarian. So the name was fixed: ' Tomb for pets'. That's not what I call it.
The book of the same name is my favorite from the work of the then not stupid graphomaniac, who issues 800-page opuses twice a year, from which water begins to pour onto the shelves of bookstores, and a very good horror writer Stephen King. I read it almost in one day, I still remember the horror of describing the scenes of trips to the cemetery and admiring the originality of the idea. The old film, which is now thirty years old, made very good, although greatly simplifies the idea of the book, but still causes great respect, there are practically no complaints about it. Yes, the plot is simplified, they say, died, returned with evil zombies, no mysticism with curses, but everything is done well, actors are selected, convincingly play, there are no problems with the motivation of the characters and the logic of the narrative. And here's the remake.
It is known that the more you wait, the greater the joy from fulfilled hopes, but, accordingly, the more severe the disappointment. This movie is a complete disappointment. Expectations were high, maybe. the authors will pay attention not just to the living dead, but also to those ideas that King laid in his book, but alas, this film is an unbridled fake from people who decided to profit on success ' It' Particularly visible weakness and, I would say, the plot helplessness of the film is manifested in those moments where the creators of it for some reason decided to retreat from the King’s narrative and play themselves in the creators of the genre. Let me remind you that the film was shot by completely unknown personalities, almost debutants in the cinema, that they did not succeed, and for some reason they did not adhere to the original. Pride? Ambitious? Sorry, they're not backed up.
The movie is clearly divided into two parts: while the action went strictly according to the book, it looked good, I even liked it. Although even then began to see the unsuccessful casting of the actor for the main role (God, this chin!) It is impossible to break off, because in profile he occupies almost the entire screen!, who played, in general, a tree. Gradually, the feeling that the hero is not in the image at all increased, and by the end reached apotheosis. He grieves equally for the dying politically correct Pascoe and with the same face arranges his daughter an educational program on the topic of death. The same goes for Rachel. King has both characters written out very well, especially her. She had psychological problems, but she wasn't a psychopath with a mood that changed by 180 in three minutes. Anyway, after about 30-40 minutes from the beginning of the film, writers and directors with experience of second-rate TV series that failed on TV decided that it was time to say their “weighty” word. King’s ideas in a row began to be thrown out, dialogues began to ungodly shrink, because of which the motivation of the main character immediately left the film, and logic followed it. Yes, yes, you remember what was in the book, in the 1989 film, the dialogue between Louis and Jud on the topic “Has anyone tried to bury a person there?” A lot was built on this in the plot, in fact, from here came the main warning, and from the story that came back from the tomb is not what was taken there, but something that, ineptly pretends to be your favorite cat. In this film all this is not, and it turns out that all the actions of Louis are committed not in spite of the ban under real threat, but really in anticipation of a positive rosy result. The sluggish warnings will only come from the politically correct ghost of Pascoe, but one can simply dismiss him. In short, this is the biggest hole in the plot. The film removes all the ideas about the inevitability of Louis’ actions, about the fact that he does not act voluntarily (after all, this was the case in the book, Jud admits that he himself does not know why he told everything about the cemetery, just the curse works so that he must pass the baton to the next). Here in the film it turns out that he is, in general, right, just something went wrong. You see, just the dead come back from the cemetery very angry, and judging by the dialogue, offended by living relatives.
There's more plot asides. They do, to be honest, cheap. The expectation is that the viewer will say: 'ooh, Nichoshi, the book was like this. and here it is quite the opposite!' Why not leave it like in the book? It is not bad, everything is perfectly painted, logical and clear, all the behavior of each hero is logical, organically integrated into the life of their family and woven with Rachel’s psychological difficulties. In the film, the writers of failed second-rate series are engaged in arbitrariness, or it is better to call “self-satisfaction”. Self-satisfaction, because apparently, in this way, they wanted to show “we are no worse at it.” As a result, we have unmotivated deviations from the text, driving the plot into complete absurdity.
I didn't like the camera work in conjunction with the special effects. Honestly, it's disgusting. In some places it is not even clear what is happening on the screen. Who is in front of us, who turns into whom and has already buried a cat, or just dig a hole. There will be screeners, and many, where without them! Remember there was one in the 1989 movie? Why do they need them at all, when the horror of the book is built purely on the atmosphere, the fear of the unknown and inevitability. The answer is: Scrimmers are easier to show.
The filmmakers tried to apologise to the audience and include some interesting scenes in the film. For example, I liked the scene of washing a corpse in the bathroom, which, by the way, is not in the old movie, but King has. In the book, it's a little different, where Louis washed Church and thought that he was washing not a cat, but a piece of meat in the sink. And by the way, yes, the cat in the movie is just great! I heard he died shortly after filming. This is the case.
And actually, my friends, the ending. This is truly the fruit of a mad, inflamed fantasy. In the final scene, it was not enough for the characters to wave their hand at the camera and shout ' bye! come more' so it would be a little funnier and not so sad.
Overall, I liked the film. The story of letting the dead go in peace, rather than disturbing their soul, much less their dead body, after death. The protagonist, Louis, didn't think so, which was in some ways his main mistake. The old cursed cemetery was capable of doing wonders. But miracles, as you know, do not happen. You can't fight against nature.
What did not like: the first is that the creators, besides the main story, as a bonus, inserted elements of cheap horror films into the film. I mean, incomprehensible sounds, whispers, voices. I think it was unnecessary. The second point is the link to the story of my mother’s childhood. More precisely, not even childhood, but her psychological trauma, in connection with the events of many years ago. Maybe, of course, it was in the book, but I personally do not remember, and not particularly important it, just it was completely unnecessary in the film.
The movie looks good. For those unfamiliar with King's story, you should like it. Of course, you will also like those who love this genre. The genre, by the way, is not just a horror movie, but a mystical horror movie, almost a thriller, so to speak. That’s what was great about the movie, it was the atmosphere. All this mystery emanating from the resurrected, coupled with ever-increasing pressure and tension, gave a stunning atmosphere that really frightened, not for nothing Stephen King himself once said that this is his only work that scared him. All the horror of this town, this old Native American cemetery, was beautifully captured through the screen. And the tape is dynamic, events begin to develop immediately, without prefaces and muzzles, and quickly gain momentum, and now you are already involved in this action and together with the hero go through the storm to the terrible forest, to the old burial place.
One of the things I really enjoyed was Jason Clarke's game, although maybe it's not the game. I have a certain antipathy for this actor, since the moment when he flatly failed the role of John Connor in Terminator: Genesis. So in his films, he can't convince me of his acting. Even some disappointment felt at the moment when he learned that he would play the main role in this horror story.
I don’t know why many people thought that the creators of the film greatly changed the book Stephen King. Not at all! Yes, something was omitted, something was rethought, but the plot, the characters and the key idea are preserved. Who says you have to follow the book? This is a movie, so the authors are entitled to their point of view. Basically, there is no desire to search for or poke around for shoals and discrepancies with the original story. What immediately catches the eye is the integrity of the picture. Dialogue, hero behavior, lack of stupid computer graphics. Everything is harmonious and logical. Although I read the book for a long time, I remember very well the description of a hill made of boulder and roots, which is the border between our world and the cemetery. And in this film adaptation, the emphasis on this point is very great. Unobtrusive and textured. In general, the gloomy atmosphere in the corporate style of King here is conveyed in full, as I wrote above, it is recommended to look in the dark, so more eerie. The story itself is short and the plot develops quickly. Thank you to the directors for sticking to that line. It looks like one breath.
I highly recommend it! A good atmospheric horror film based on the book of the great classic of the horror genre. The bright and juicy picture only added to the desire to watch this film, which has the usual average timekeeping, does not bother and does not tire. It is a good sight for evening and even better night viewing.
7 out of 10
This picture is another vivid example of a prolonged genre crisis. Even against the backdrop of a rare adaptation of '89, the modern reimagining looks faded. But then King himself was responsible for the script, who was still able, albeit with great difficulty, to convey the crumbs of meaning and atmosphericity of his paper offspring. The fresh version for some reason “hit” in meaningless scenario alterations, which often did not affect the overall rhythm of what was happening. About semantic load safely forgotten, all the efforts, and I hope they were, went to useless attempts to scare the viewer. The idea is as stupid as possible, because most viewers were already prepared and knew what they were looking at the big screen for – not for the sake of the screamers, blood, or the dead, no, we were all scared by the prospect of losing a loved one. The original made it to goosebumps, because this pack, hidden somewhere deep, makes itself felt only under the guise of experiences, but it is worth reminding us of the fragility of human existence, how it becomes prohibitively creepy.
If we talk about the living dead, then here the picture has big problems. Only the cat does not cause complaints, his acting talents were obvious, but the bipeds frankly failed. For comparison, the ancient version gave the most sinister little dead, seriously, the boy coped with his role just stunning. Apparently, the “freshman” did not find a talented boy, so the viewer will be presented with a plot surprise that will turn this whole zombie theme into a primitive slasher with some mystical inserts.
What is most surprising is the lack of motivation. Grandfather demonstrates the possibilities of the cemetery, aki avid guide. Dad is not very grieving, quite consciously, does terrible things. “Something sinister” stubbornly intimidates the mother with sophisticated flashbacks. It's just, well, for the plot, I guess. That is, there is no otherworldly force that forces, there were only some ghostly sensations; no struggle of reason. Absolutely all the script details lie individually, not giving the viewer a chance to see at least a hint of the overall picture.
All this negligence was urgently demanded by the denouement - surprisingly stupid, but quite within the framework of the modern understanding of the horror genre. Don't waste your time!!!
Film adaptations of Stephen King’s novels are not always worthy of the original. Directors are trying to recreate the subtle style of the author, invite to the main roles of celebrities, but they rarely get something sensible. The most successful creator of films based on the works of Stephen King is Frank Darabont. It's hard to argue with that. However, Darabont himself can not remove absolutely everything that the producers want, and there is no need for it. As Andy Muschietti showed with the recent 'It', the main thing is to find your way, and then King will bloom before the eyes of the audience with unexpected colors. Now it’s time to rethink the iconic ' Pet Cemetery' but the result has been controversial.
The film is based on the story of a doctor Louis Creed, who, along with his wife, son and daughter, moves to the American wilderness to forget about the horrors of working in a hated city hospital. But here, Louis does not have to relax, because a busy highway passes by his house, and the local student campus is just a seedling for all sorts of injuries. But in fact, the problem lies not on the track, although it is the source of great trouble.
Seeing the downed cat Church near the road, Creed, on the instruction of an elderly neighbor, decides to bury him away from the well-known places, namely, on an old Indian sanctuary, where powers beyond the control of reason live. Church returns home the next morning, but something is wrong with him. The dead should not roam the earth again and no one knows what will happen next, because opening the box with Pandora’s tidbit, it is not easy to close it.
The cult plot of King was slightly changed by the authors. They weren’t going to pervert the writer’s ideas, but their film wasn’t as dramatic as it could be. In the first film adaptation ' Pet Cemetery' there was an ominous atmosphere and tension. I didn't notice that here. There is no special motivation for the main character when he decided to return the cat from the dead. Of course his daughter loved him, but we didn’t see enough enthusiasm in Jason Clark to play with the dark forces. It just goes with the script and nothing more.
There is no particular logic in the actions of the neighbor played by John Lithgow. He just encourages the main character to action, although he knows well what trouble may lurk in the near future. No explanation of his actions helps. Everything looks very complicated and controversial.
Setting aside all the claims, the new ' Pet Cemetery' looks like a typical horror movie that you watch and forget. And I am sad that such an attitude took place in relation to the cult ' Pet Cemetery'. We deserve more.
Dreary "G" or "How to destroy the literary source".
I did not want to write a review of this masterpiece, but emotions do their job. As someone who has read Stephen King’s original Pet Cemetery, I can say that from the original source there is only the title, the names of the main characters and just a terrible reproduction of individual episodes from the book, which are still very far from the original.
Dr. Louis Creed, along with his wife Rachel, daughter Ellie, and son Gage, move into a new home that turns out to be located near a sinister pet cemetery. It is here, after the initial credits, that all the problems of the film begin, one of which is its short timekeeping (short because for an hour and a half of screen time, it is difficult to clearly convey the original story) and a terrible narrative, because the events that the author paid much attention to in the book are allotted only a few minutes, and some are simply mentioned in slip, such as the story of Timmy Butterman. In the book, there is a whole chapter, when reading which becomes creepy and scary, from what the pet cemetery can do to the human soul, and here only his name is mentioned when reading an article on the Internet and fades from memory. Or, for example, the friendship of the protagonist and his family with an elderly neighbor Jude and his wife Norma. If their relationship is built gradually in the original source, they go through certain difficulties together, conduct trusting conversations, then Jude is just a crazy old man, and his wife's Norma is not here at all, she is only as described above, also mentioned casually, just as Louis Creed's nightmares in which Victor Pascoe came to him, Luis' relationship with the parents of his wife Rachel, Rachel's emotional anguish about the death of her sister and the subsequent emotional trauma that haunted her and much more, all this the authors simply do not pay attention, just like such an important conclusion to the plot does not say this.
There is nothing to say about acting here either. The actors are all just playing on autopilot. They do not cause any emotions except irritation. Everything is very sluggish and monotonous, this is all that can be stated on this point.
Plot. Here, as mentioned above, we have an adaptation of the literary source. However, it is “slightly” revised relative to the original and this film does not benefit. Those plot twists, some of which the creators spoilered us in the trailer (apparently wanted to show the audience that they bring to the original “fresh breath”) do not cause the “wow” effect, and those that the authors give us at the end of the third act make us just facepalm. There is no other way to say it.
About the atmosphere, camera work and soundtrack also nothing to say. There are no positives. The dramatic component of the film should make the main character empathize when his daughter dies, but no. Jason Clarke is crooked, we are not really shown how his character suffers, how he thinks about opening the grave of his daughter and taking her to the pet cemetery, we are not shown how Jude tries to dissuade him from this terrible act. We do not show how the wife of the main character suffers from visions and mental anguish, how she rushes home in a fit of panic and anxiety in the hope of preventing the horror that her husband committed in a fit of despair, all this is given two minutes of timekeeping (and many more things are not shown to us, and after all this is all the author outlined in his book) the story loses important parts of its puzzle and all this does not allow her to assemble as it should.
Summing up, we can say that before us the usual, ordinary horror, which uses the loud title of the book, the praise of the author, in order to raise money at the box office. Apparently, the creators were inspired by the success of the film "It" and quickly decided to saw down the film, hoping to attract people to theaters who liked the previous adaptation of Stephen King. It is a pity that he is one of the most screened writers of our time, so few worthy screen adaptations.
Modest atmospheric film, which is incredibly far from the selfless criticism of the middle class and its inherent pragmatism, which staged in his book of the same name Stephen King. In this film, there is no hint of Indian cemeteries, returning us to those pages of US history that the Americans themselves do not like to stir. There is no fixation of the moral fall of the main character - in the film he is depicted as the most ordinary man in the street, a nervous representative of the middle class. And as for his wife, so it seems that the authors did not strain at all when working on her image.
Therefore, if you compare the film with the good old 'The Dark Half' or with 'The Shining', then the new picture has no special chances.
But something else happened in this tape. Every moment that is directly related to the encounter with the supernatural came out tense and tough. The cat looks very cool - every moment with his participation turns out to be spectacular, tense and natural. Despite the apparent simplicity, it was not so easy to organize technically.
It is also necessary to highlight how organically looked in the tape 12-year-old Jete Laurence. A girl who, according to filmography, can compete with experienced actresses, takes all the attention of the viewer from the very beginning and does not slow down.
To sum up, without wasting words, we have a bad and unnecessary remake. Despite the fact that the correct position is to treat each film as an independent work, in this case I insist on comparing this film with its predecessor, for two reasons: firstly, the film of the 1989 year itself is very good, complete and not outdated in any way, so that its reshoot was necessary or in any way justified, and secondly, in this correlation clearly visible shortcomings and vices of the new picture as opposed to the old, and therefore the entire subsequent evaluation of the structure and components of the remake will be built in comparison with the film of the last century.
The first problem of the film is system-forming - it is, ' Pet Cemetery' the sample of the 2019 year is not just a remake, but also a re-adaptation, with a changed plot, approach, even concept, and it would be, at least, curious to see a rethinking of the familiar plot, clothed in horror, subject to the fantasies of modern minds, as it was, I apologize for the inappropriate reference, with ' Evil dead' but all the changes made, as a rule, and the most debatable in its history. The exposition of the temple of the Indians and the gloomy grandeur of its paranormal power suffered greatly - now, instead of a half-forgotten wasteland, which is difficult to reach and which slowly incites fear by the implicitness of its sinister purpose through the oppressive silence of that place and the spiral patterns laid out with stones, we have a sterile and artificial gloomy thicket, in which, wrapped in tons of fog, under the continuous throughout the timekeeping of the film, an ambient tirelessly whispers, and someone even having his own terrible power. This, of course, is subjective, but the local cemetery is not able to make any impression, it is too secondary, too attached to modern patterns of horror films, too unnaturally executed, having no chance to at least come close to frightening the viewer with its alienity to the familiar world, being simply an unnatural scenery. The same can be said about the cat, which, however, performs its role as an unnatural creature, but many times less convincing than it was done 30 years ago. It is funny that, having lost a lot of its frightening effect, the cat has become much more important for the plot, which is true for other structural moments of the film. But about that later, as the second main problem of the picture was the main character, Louis. I can’t say that Jason Clarke, who plays him, is a bad actor, but the character was already ruined by the plot, and the specific appearance inherent in Clark, as if made an emphasis on it. How to say that Louis in this film is not that insensitive, he is completely devoid of reflection, he does not care about everything that happens in the film – if Louis from the old tape experienced almost tangible horror, seeing a disfigured ghost, fell to the ground and asked for a monstrous vision to leave him, then Clark’s character is not interested in wasting time on some emotional response on this occasion. It gets ridiculous when Louis of the 1989 model at the peak of his catharsis and mental confusion ignores the ghost, Jason Clark almost does not greet him by the hand, as with a friend on the street. The actor himself, again, is not to blame, he screams and sheds tears very textured when the plot allows him to be a bit of a person, but the overall cumbersomeness of the resulting character is such that it made me remember where I had already seen it, and it turned out to be John Connor from the ugly part & #39; Terminator', again I apologize for the reference. As a result of these two parts, combined by directing, this film is already rolling into mediocrity. It's just uninteresting, if not boring - the second-rate omens of evil and the soulless hero ignoring them, and so almost an hour that the remake follows the original plot - something that should have been slowly whipping up horror, and what was achieved in a film 30 years ago, looks just mediocre here. By the last third, the film finally moves to the climax, here the main differences from the first film are manifested and it is already more difficult to talk about how successful it turned out or not - the complicated behavior of death is interesting, which looks much more interesting in terms of the beloved person returned to life, terrible words are put into his mouth, and it itself reflects a hundred times stronger than the main character, but the above-mentioned shortcomings of the work do not disappear anywhere.
In fact, it is possible to sum up what has already been done before – it is a bad remake, it not only does not bring qualitatively new impressions, but also does not cope with compliance with the standards set by the original. It can also be mentioned that while Louis’s character has become emotionally flawed, his wife, Rachel, on the contrary, has proved to be the brightest link in the production through the emotions she expresses, including because special attention was paid to her fear of death, but here the plot has big problems, because he over-speculates on her psychological trauma, which in the end of the film itself is not necessary for anything, and the viewer is also puzzled, because it becomes elementary unclear whether these phenomena occur to her, hallucinations, why they are so intrusive and why this does not manifest itself in a terrible element, only in the film, but only frightening itself. The piece has good scenes, like a couples episode with a daughter's dance, or allusions with a bed in Jud's house, but these are all minor merits. Well, the masked children appearing on the poster and in the trailers, as expected, are just useless scenery, meaning nothing that can be said about the film itself. It’s a shame, because I personally hoped for at least multiple screamers and constant tension, but you look at this, especially in the context of a much more successful example of the past, and you understand how the horror genre has degraded.
Pet Cemetery is the most terrible book Stephen King wrote in his entire life, according to the writer himself. That is why the film based on the novel was so expected around the world. Unfortunately, when fans of the original are waiting for the movie, it is almost impossible to please them. That's what happened.
It is worth noting that the film adaptation of the horror King has undergone significant changes in the plot plan. It is impossible to describe them in detail - they will be cruel spoilers. But let’s leave it to the writers. We, film fans, are interested in something else: how much adjustments to the original plot are justified by the notorious common sense and internal logic of the work. These questions can be answered in the affirmative. At least for the most part.
True fans of the original book, as well as pseudo-fans who wanted to break the hype & #39; on the next allegedly terrible film based on the book, could not reconcile with the retraining of psychological horror into horror slasher with slight hints of psychologicalism. And then you either take the film as it is, or you start to gall at the resulting creation. However, this does not mean that I have no complaints about the film.
In my opinion, there is an important circumstance in the logic of the narrative that does not allow you to fully enjoy this film. The viewer is not well shown the Force possessed by the old Mykman burial. It is this very Force or the Deity behind it that multiplies the psychological problems of the heroes, literally driving them crazy. Because of these ' trifles ' the film is perceived only as a good creativity based on motives, but certainly not as a full-fledged film adaptation. Sadly. Prerequisites for this at ' Pet cemetery' sample of 2018 were available.
Perhaps there is no writer more filmed and most beloved by filmmakers than Stephen King, whose work has always been of particular interest to numerous studios and filmmakers. Which is even more noticeable in the last few years. When the resounding success of the updated “It” made the writer’s work even more popular, and also contributed to the launch of almost a dozen (or even more) of his works in the format of films and TV series. One of these appeals to the work of the author was this film directed by Kevin Colsch and Dennis Widmeier.
The plot of this film revolves around Dr. Louis Creed, who moves with his family to a rural house of an ordinary provincial town. One day, he finds his daughter’s cat dead and, on the advice of a neighbor, burys it in a local pet cemetery. Soon the dead cat returns unharmed, but almost immediately it becomes clear that this is not the cute cat that his daughter loved.
The authors of this tape initially faced a difficult task. On the one hand, the cult literary work of Stephen King. On the other hand, the previous film adaptation of the director Mary Harron, which fans of the writer’s work still consider one of the best adaptations of his work. Perhaps for this reason, the authors of the tape did not blindly copy the content of both the original source and the original tape. I decided to adapt both sources to my creative vision.
Similar to Mary Harron’s previous film, the creators of this film dropped some of the story branches and greatly simplified the story. But at the same time, in my opinion, much more deeply explored the topic of death and what awaits us after death on the screen. Not least due to the immersion in the past of the main characters and well-written relationships between them. That way, while still preserving the main message of the tape about how important it is to come to terms with the loss of a loved one and continue to live. Even experiencing unbearable mental pain, but sincerely believing that leaving this world, a person goes to a much better place.
There are some differences with the original sources that I personally liked. Especially the final plot twist, which, though, goes against the mythology of the cemetery from the book. However, it brings a certain degree of surprise to the story and lays a very interesting groundwork for a possible continuation and further deepening into its mythology.
In my opinion, the directorial duo Kevin Kolsh and Dennis Widmeier did not shake up, who also decided not to repeat their predecessors and showed their author’s approach to the material. If the original film Mary Harron for the most part was based on an atmosphere of continuous tension and a sense of growing anxiety, then this film by the directorial duo Kevin Colsh and Dennis Widmeier relies on a combination of elements of mystical drama and ordinary screenmer. On the one hand, developing a dramatic layer of the picture with a mediative manner of narration. On the other hand, flavoring all this with traditional BU-moments, which, despite their secondary in this tape, work and work properly.
The lead actor Jason Clarke did a great job on the screen. Clark is certainly one of the few actors who are equally well given images of cheerful and kind people, broken personalities and even cruel and repulsive scoundrels. What he showed again in this film. It is extremely natural and convincing to demonstrate the brokenness of your character and how much he changes as a result of events on the screen. Frankly I was not impressed by Amy Simetz, who got a potentially interesting character. But the actress herself played it extremely dry. Not surprised and John Lithgow , who even played well on the screen. But he did not bring anything new and his own to the image of Jed. Zete Laurence at all pleasantly surprised. Despite his young age, he perfectly played “both sides of the personality” of his heroine on the screen and made it extremely convincing.
7 out of 10
Pet Cemetery is not a bad horror film, which in my opinion was extremely unfairly criticized by fans of Stephen King. It is commendable that the creators of the film did not blindly copy the contents of either Stephen King’s book or the previous adaptation of Mary Harron. Instead, in their own way, the author adapted both primary sources on the screen, as well as supplementing them with their not bad ideas. Of course, the film is not a masterpiece. However, not a bad representative of the genre of horror film, watching which is not a pity to spend almost 100 hours of your time and more than a worthy appeal to the work of the writer – for sure.
New ' Pet Cemetery' – a film adaptation, which I initially did not have high hopes, but just expected to see atmospheric horror in the spirit of the book and the original film of 1989. And I can say that, in this regard, the remake did not disappoint me much, so I would like to start my review with the main and, perhaps, the only plus of the film.
The atmosphere keeps in a light strain from the very beginning thanks to the gloomy style, the conversations of the characters about death and the frequent hum of trucks passing along the track, indicating to the viewer the possibility of their unexpected appearance in the frame. Complementing this picture is the incident in the hospital and the memories of the main character’s wife about her late sister. You can also include a cat who returned from a funeral at a local cemetery. In the remake, Church does look shabby and seems creepy, which I think wasn't in the 1989 film. In fact, on the cat, all the advantages of this film end.
My main complaint is directed to the script, because of which the characters absolutely do not want to empathize, due to the unjustification of their actions and the lack of an adequate explanation of their motivation in some scenes, and at the same time the film ceases to scare. It seems that the actors play well, and everything is filmed qualitatively, but poorly written dialogues and the plot itself spoil the whole picture.
How is a good horror movie, whether Stephen King had a hand in it or not, different from a bad one? There are two mechanisms in a good horror movie. The first is that the heroes, no matter how events unfold, are powerless before the course of action. They can resist evil, but they cannot escape the chain of events of their own free will. They will either die or fight. There is no moment in history where they have the opportunity to take a step back. All the events and reactions of the characters to these events seem natural and logical. Therefore, making a really strong horror movie is a very difficult task. But the second mechanism complicates it even more. That’s the difference between a good horror movie and a grinding one. The spectator, no matter how sober a materialist he may be, becomes attached to what he sees and hears, and begins to associate himself with the heroes, to think how he would act in their place, and, worst of all, he realizes that he would do the same, that is, there is no salvation. That’s where ' it could have happened to me' and that’s the secret to success in the genre. Technique - that is, sounds, sharp editing, stamps - secondary. It just adds to the chain of events.
' Pet Cemetery' is a bad horror movie. Heroes, including the avid materialist-atheist father of the family, even faced with the supernatural, continues, like a lunatic butterfly, to fly into the heat of his own will. That is, after a certain point of no return, when the evil has already self-identified, the characters of the picture begin to behave recklessly, do not pick themselves up. Like helpless fish thrown ashore, they watch with their mouths open. The scene with the death of Ellie is the quintessence of this far-fetched recklessness. To all filmmakers, if your characters do not fight evil, do not take precautions in the midst of events, do not attempt to escape from the dead place - your film will fail. No matter how the actors play, no matter what dead and ghosts you shove into the video.
Let's face it, Stephen King will never die. No, of course, as a person he will die, although, I hope, not soon, but his title "Masters of horror" will live forever in the existing 76 adaptations of his work. More and more immortal works are coming (for example, “It: Part Two”), and no matter how one treats the quality of his books, the fame is well deserved. Many film adaptations also stand the test of time thanks to unforgettable plots and characters forced to adapt to the changing mystical environment. One of them was the nightmare of our childhood - "Pet Cemetery", the fear of which lay in the transcendental plane; somewhere beyond the bounds of bored horror receptions. Well, driven by a thirst for easy profit, the producers decided to revive (ha!) such a monumental creation. The result, to put it mildly, is controversial: in the remake there will be a place for both boring and strong moments.
Basically, the plot remained true to the source material, except for a key deviation (it was demonstrated in the trailer, by the way, which, in my opinion, kills the intrigue at the root). So, Dr. Louis Creed moves with his wife, children and even a cat to a small town in Maine. Not far from their new home is hidden a local landmark - a pet cemetery. And behind it lies another cemetery - an Indian cemetery, which is infamous. When the cat in the family dies, the good neighbor Jud asks Louis to bury the cat in the Indian cemetery. The next day, suddenly, the cat comes back.
The Cemetery tries to ask more mystery than the atmosphere of horror. In general, this version of “Cemetery” is quite a convincing film about death, but, unfortunately, before it is primarily too literal scenario. As a novel and probably even a separate motif of the 89th film, "CDM" explores a person's attitude toward loss and how grief defines personality. Louis obviously wants his family's love as well as their respect. At the same time, the hero is as selfish as possible: I think, like all of us, because if we had the opportunity to return all our loved ones from the other world and not face the terrible loss and loneliness before death, everyone would use it.
However, such an interesting interpretation turns out to be stunned and lost amid rampant clichés. Directors and screenwriters did not know how to do without screenwriters and did not understand the abyss of an existential nightmare. In terms of horror elements, KDM 2019 is an incredibly predictable film. The effect here is achieved not by whipping up fear, but by a short fright. It seems that one material was simply replaced by another: it looks so inconsistent.
The script also contains too many moments when characters do things that are completely contrary to their character. Some actions of the characters simply would not make sense in the real world, but are necessary to promote the plot. Characters often just say the action out loud, as the story simply has no other, more elegant way to convey the information to the audience. This destroys the illusion and does not allow you to identify with the universe of the film.
Even the best thing, like the idea of an old and good neighbor who has lived in these places all his life, does not work. John Lithgow inherited this role, even trying his best, but his character is not particularly memorable. In general, the new version of "Cemetery" does not particularly develop the characters - a big mistake for a horror film, which should psychologically affect the viewer. Instead, he focuses on philosophy, which looks formal here.
30 years after the original, the remake came out more disturbing than frightening, which more emphasizes the strengths of the first film. The legitimate debates about death in script format, and perhaps the most mystical of all, lead to the disappointing conclusion that death itself is essential in life, ironically enough. Such a context, of course, takes time to get the horror game right, which makes Cemetery look a bit slow and dull. Perhaps the darkest story Stephen has ever written is playing the right rhythms in this case: the effect of watching is more disturbing and disturbing than captivating attention, which, of course, will not suit every viewer – yet sometimes it takes a more gripping plot, deeper characters and even some carelessness to have something to remember. Against the background of the grayness and monotony of the “Cemetery” stands out only a particularly depressing finale, allowing you to ask yourself the question: is life worth losing... and living again?
6 out of 10
A lot has been said and written about the film adaptation of King's works - some films turn out to be masterpieces, some direct opposite of them. And some, such as “Pet Cemetery” or “It” are awarded the fact that they are filmed years later, changing the plot of significant details. In the case of Cemetery, it is the death of a member of the Creed family – the 1989 film followed what was written in the book, and the 2019 film chose a different “victim.” The finale is not the same as it was 30 years ago.
I think that given the success of “It” in 2017, the creators of “Cemetery” also decided to bring novelty to their script, hoping that the viewer would react positively to this. For me, change has a right to life if it is justified. For another victim, I liked the correction, but the appearance of the procession of children in masks in the forest often turned out to be too far-fetched and unfinished. Strange kids (like in the movie "Wallet or Life") go after each other, OK. But the director did not bother to explain why they are wearing masks, why they behave so strangely and stare at those who noticed them. The conclusion is that the scene was added in order to bring darkness and fog to the forests surrounding the home of the Creed family.
Moderately tense and creepy, the film is able to attract the attention of the viewer with juicy colors and a good game of Jason Clarke, who turned into a comatose, moving like in a fog after the sad events that occurred in his family. Computer graphics could be implemented to a higher degree, since the burial place, once owned by Indians, looks too theatrical and not naturalistic.
Given the fact that the book was already getting life on film, the creators should think about working on the adaptation of any other work of Stephen King. Although I do not deny that it is always interesting to look at a fresh product, taking into account the changed technologies in a big movie. The main thing is to be interesting to watch.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
Memories from the original film remained nominal, so the new version "Pet Cemetery" was born, perhaps at the most optimal time - when "Astrals" or "Spells" drain the viewer of the cyclicity of the same content, and new ideas in the genre presented more space.
Of course, the blade to this tape was prepared by fans of the original, sharpening their teeth for some creative deviations of the directors, or for the untouchability of the original, but for new viewers this project should work. In principle, the action begins from the very beginning, the beloved cat goes to the light of another, and then a series of events that forces you to use the “land of rejuvenation” more productively, but alas, with even more harmful consequences.
Most importantly, this film has an atmosphere, so when you remember the original, it is remembered primarily for its sinister atmosphere, and in the new version it is present, no matter how it was. It is also worth noting that the authors did not succumb to a more favorable position and commercial temptation and did not throw the project to the PG-13 rating, the film fully works out its “R” status, and for this principledness to the authors and thank you.
As a result, a good horror, which was significantly modified by the authors, but left the former essence - you should not bury where your pets are not supposed to be. If you are a loyal fan of the original - your position will be fair, but if you are not familiar with it - then this film is likely to be received positively by you.
6 out of 10
Before us is another creation based on the (very remote) work of Stephen King.
For me, reading the original, the comparison of this very mediocre crafts with a book will be inevitable. Because I can’t understand how this rather heavy drama (with a pinch of mysticism) about the loss of a child, the director managed to turn into a crumpled horror film that will not scare anyone older than Gage from the film itself.
1. Atmosphere.
It often happens that even a fairly average horror (one that for once) for me draws its atmosphere. Unfortunately, I didn't see anything here. Throughout the film, we see only the hero’s house and part of the forest with the cemetery, which does not seem as creepy as it could be in this film. Of course, in the original it was not a terrible place - rather a place of sadness, but the boulder inspired irrational fear or at least anxiety because of its height. Here the boulder seemed to me frankly low - Ellie would easily climb over it herself, not like her father.
2. Characters.
Just disgusting in their inconclusiveness. Incomplete, ill-conceived images, or insecure play of actors.
The wife does not look like a woman with a severe mental trauma of childhood, which influenced her fear of death to the point of denying the latter. She looks (sorry) like an abrasion, which her sister imagines about and without.
The good-natured neighbor, who became the main character's friend and second father in the book, here turned into some kind of snake-tempter, with whom Louis did not really communicate. And it is not clear why he suddenly decided to show his secret to Dr. Creed.
The protagonist is terrible. It would have been better if he had landed in the woods instead of a cat, the Creed family would have had much less problems. I did not feel in this character and drops of fatherly love for their movie children, crazy and reckless. In the book, he was a loving man who had suffered such a terrible tragedy that it had somewhat disturbed his sanity - he knew it was wrong to do so, but the pain of loss was much worse than what he had done. The hero of this film is not sorry, and it is not clear why he chooses this path.
It’s hard for me to evaluate the children’s acting in this film. Ellie is neither the first nor the last of the Infernal Babys', but clearly not the most successful. Although the director for the sake of an older heroine even remade the main plot in his own way, changing Ellie and Gage places, which caused discontent among many even before the release of the film.
3. Submission.
I didn’t like the way the story was told. He's ragged, slurred. Footage and situations from the lives of the characters were presented clumped, so that the viewer was not familiar with the story (for example, did not watch the 1989 film), they were not clear. Therefore, in general, the narrative sags, and some moments (like Sister Zelda and student Pascoe) seem unreasonable and raise questions like '. '.
4. Final.
Different from the original. Apparently, the creators wanted to move away from the tragedy and sense of doom of the original, replacing it with another. But he did not become the highlight of the picture. Instead of fear, it causes confusion.
5. Trailer.
Separately, I wanted to mention the trailer for the film, which discouraged all waiting viewers, as it actually contained the entire plot. I expected the film itself to tell the trailer story in more detail, filling in the gaps between the main events of the characters' relationships or fitting screeners. But expectations were not met.
If you do not want to spend an hour and a half on a vague story, but want to know briefly what the film is about - you can limit yourself to a trailer for him.
In 1992, the film Pet Cemetery 2 was released. This picture has almost nothing to do with the novel, and, accordingly, with the 1989 film of the same director.
The 2019 film adaptation has similarities with both the original source and the film of the eighties. It can be considered a film adaptation based on the book, unlike the 1992 film, which uses only two motives.
But, as you know, "screening based on motives" - the definition is not specific, so the results happen very interesting.
The 2019 film adaptation is a confirmation of the above.
Having preserved most of King’s characters, the starting points of the disaster, the scene and its causes, as well as dispensing with a happy ending, the creators made very significant changes to the plot.
And these changes, oddly enough, bring the picture closer to the 1992 film, which, as already mentioned, has very little in common with the novel.
For in both films there is an application for a much more interesting development of the plot than in the work of King.
Stephen King wrote a novel about the possibility of raising the dead.
The negative consequences of the actions of the heroes appear immediately after the return of the resurrected relatives. The book, as in the film of 89, is not intended to describe the living of the resurrected and resurrected under one roof. An exception is the story of Timmy Butterman in the novel, but even here life with this creature is not described. It is only indicated by the narrator.
The 1992 film reveals an attempt to delay the consequences of the act: the stepson who committed stupidity shares with the main character his impressions of life in the same house with his dead stepfather.
When watching the 2019 film adaptation, it seems that the directors borrowed this idea in the second Lambert film. Again there is an application to describe the shared life of the hero with the result of his action. And this is why the plot was so significantly changed. The creators, apparently, found that the resurrected eldest daughter is more interesting in this version than the son, who in the novel is still almost unable to speak.
The big question is, does this two-time idea look good?
And here it should be noted: an interesting application (more interesting than that of the writer) again remained only an application.
In both cases, the creators lacked the talent to jump above Stephen King.
The novel “Pet Cemetery” by Stephen King I consider one of the best in the writer’s portfolio. It was probably the first book I read in one sitting, and I wondered what would happen next. There are scary moments in the novel, but there are few of them, mostly the book takes the atmosphere, a sense of uncertainty, you are worried about the main character with all your heart and, of course, stand up for him and understand that you would do the same – otherwise you simply could not. The book is very strong, the story is very emotional. And after the successful film adaptation of It in 2017, I believed in a new film adaptation (the last was in 1989) of this beautiful novel. It didn’t go as well as you might expect; you could see it from the trailers.
“Pet Cemetery” is a typical horror of recent years in the spirit of some “Annabel”. But it doesn't scare you. Even there are almost no screamers, and those that are – I wouldn’t call them predictable and, even, calm. There's no soul in this movie. It feels like they made a movie just to make it. The story is carried by moments from the book and all events do not cause absolutely no emotions. In a book where you were rooting for the main character, your heart hurt with him; here you don’t care, the narrative doesn’t allow you to feel the moment, you don’t have time to empathize with the hero. If in the movie “It” you felt like one of the heroes, you did not watch the movie, you were in the movie, then here you watch another horror. If the 2017 It movie is a few goals better than the book, it’s the opposite – the book is much better than the movie. Read the book, don’t watch the movie. It's empty. He's soulless. This is another horror without fiction. Events rush and now is the end of the film. And you didn't feel the atmosphere, didn't empathize with the characters. What is better than the book is the ending.
If you like horror movies, you won’t find anything wrong here. This film is also not for thriller lovers, not for those who are looking for a double bottom in films. "Pet Cemetery" is just a mid-range movie at the level of "The Curse of the Nun." And this is doubly hurtful, because the original work was frightening, emotional, leaving a ground for reflection, for fantasies. The film is just a soulless bag of bones.
While watching this movie, I didn’t know how to treat it or what to count. It would seem that the refill of old films is considered a remake, but if you turn to the original, it can clearly be said that this is not a remake, but a new vision of this work of the excellent horror writer Stephen King.
The plot of the film, as in the original, revolves around the Creed family, whose members have their own problem and their own experiences.
And just like in the original, it all starts with the funeral of a cute cat, it seems to be a breed of Maikun, Church, but goes on slightly different. As for the plot, it is as always beautiful and when compared with the original, that is, those moments that make you look at the story from a different angle.
The cast was chosen wisely, each actor knew what and how to play. The main character, played by Jason Clark, is quite emotional, and as an actor perfectly conveyed all the emotions that the main character experienced, you begin to understand what he feels and empathize with him.
A beautiful neighbor of a grandfather with a secret, played by John Lithgow, who is very simple, but on the other hand very understanding person and if not for him, it would not have happened.
Amy Saymetz, who played the wife of the main character, did not quite cope with the role given to her, although if you look from a different angle, it is just fine, here at your discretion.
And our rising star, Jete Laurence, and not so rising, but I was lucky to meet her for the first time, just perfectly coped with the role, it even resembles the game of Jodell Ferland, how a sweet and beautiful girl can hide a huge evil.
A huge thank you to the director Kevin Colsch and Dennis Widmaier for taking up the shooting of this work and presented everything completely differently.
My assessment of the film is 9 out of 10 and that there are some shortcomings that you can learn by watching this film.
P.S. This review is just my opinion, which I do not impose on anyone, just watch it so that you have your impressions.
The plot was turned and tortured as soon as possible, without consequences it does not do.
Those who have read the book “Pet Cemetery” probably found a huge number of discrepancies with the book, and if in the past films shot by King the changes were only beneficial, in the end making the films cult, then this is a completely different case.
Let’s move on to the main thing: the absence of secondary characters entails the loss of interesting dialogue, in my opinion, important for the plot, the indirect rather passive presence of Rachel’s parents deprives us of a whole line of relationships between Irvine and Louis, isn’t this what the drama of the film is based on?
The relationship between the characters in the film: The main character at the snap of his fingers becomes a friend of Jud, and instead of their repeated gatherings with a can of beer, we have only one minute dinner with a glass of wine, half of which is occupied by Ellie’s dances. What, in this case, their friendship is based on, and when they managed to become friends is unknown.
Phrases taken from the book, losing meaning given the circumcision and reversal of the plot.
No less important part in the plot are the stories of Jud about his first experience of interaction with the cemetery, and no less important is the story of the soldier, these two stories as a whole reveal the whole essence of the cemetery, its impact and struggle with this influence, as a result of these stories, confidence in his actions of the main character should disappear, there is some doubt in his previously conceived act, but no, instead of filming these moments, we get the same short thirty-second story in three words about these events.
Atmosphere: An attempt to create the atmosphere of this book and convey it ends with typical clichés based on the full moon, fog, and forest taken from every possible angle.
I also want to emphasize the ending of the film, which seems ridiculous in view of the above and given the real ending of this book.
When watching the film, it seems that it has the slightest relation to the book, due to which it becomes only a second-rate horror film.
Small things that may be interesting and seem cranky are episodes associated with Zelda, and not let down the acting. I didn't see any more.
The film as a whole is a waste of time, not worth watching.
4 out of 10
I will not hesitate to start with the actors who played the main roles :
Jason Clark in the role of the head of the family - with the role coped perfectly, the emotions of the character played well, even wanted to empathize a little with the main character.
Amy Sejmets as wife - The role of a girl with a serious emotional state fell to Amy's liking. Throughout the film, the facial expressions and emotions of the character were transmitted almost perfectly, except for some moments where the actress clearly faked.
John Lithgow as Chad's neighbor - The actor himself is simply incredibly talented, Chad in his performance is the only character for whose fate I, shaking with excitement, worried.
In short, the actor is a small child, so she should not be expected beyond acting. The character stood a lot with ' Stone' the face, somewhere overplayed, somewhere a little underplayed. But anyway - she's a child and in the future it's 'stone' will go.
The environment and the atmosphere in general:
All the scenery was selected with a twist. I especially liked the cemetery itself, and more specifically the atmosphere that was there when the main characters stood on this damned land. It is a feeling of rot and death around you during the hikes to the cemetery, dampness and a feeling of helplessness in the house of the main characters.
Plot:
The plot was slightly changed, but the main essence remained the same. The ending was also reworked and different from the original picture, but the film did not get any worse, even a little better. But at the same time, the plot was dry in the original film, and remained. The motivation of the characters is not clear, their actions are very different from the actions that the average person would commit if he were in the place of the Creed family.
This dryness of the plot is the main ailment of the picture, which spoiled my entire impression of the film. Yes, some of the "Gags" & #39 were from King himself when writing the book, but many stupid things were done directly in the plot of the Remake.
Result:
The remake, as it is logical to assume, is an old candy in the face of the original film, but wrapped in a slightly changed plot and better graphics and atmosphere.
Throughout the film, I did not have a feeling of fear or discomfort, the actors, although well played their role, but because of the ill-conceived plot, I did not want to empathize with them.
Score: Strong 6/10 due to ill-conceived plot