A friendly family, father, mother, son, daughter and cat, move into their own separate house. The joy of the event is overshadowed by the death of a furry pet. In order not to upset his daughter, the father, on the advice of a neighbor, burys the body in an old Indian cemetery, where, according to rumors, the dead rise from the graves. The kitty comes to life, and the most “fun” begins.
Anyone who decides to film any Stephen King novel should understand that the main thing in his works is a delicate psychological portrait of the characters and a very clear presentation of cause and effect relationships. Fantastic and mystical elements are just the instrument, the way King shows these connections. Naturally, in the literature for this you can use at least seven hundred pages, the cinema is limited to timekeeping, and therefore when transferring the story from one format to another, all this is often lost.
The new Pet Cemetery is no exception. The main here are the horrors, which are not very successfully trying to scare, along the way for the tick playing psychology. The film itself resembles the cutting of episodes alternately shot by one of the two directors, devoid of any style and, it seems, interest.
Special attention is paid to the ending. There is nothing illegal in changing the original source finale if it is done qualitatively, thoughtfully, as David Koepp did in The Secret Window and Frank Darabont in The Mingle. Here, too, everything would look beautiful, if for this they did not lay such nonsense, which you will find only in very bad low-budget horror films, than this film, unfortunately, in fact turned out to be.
The grand success of the recent film adaptation of It, Stephen King King’s most monumental horror, has brought back the public’s interest in film versions of his works, especially if they are made with due respect for lithosnov. Unfortunately, earlier such an honor could be awarded to a few of his books (on exceptions such as "Carrie" and "The Shining" will not say) - when transferred to the screen, filmmakers lost a lot of important nuances, because King, being an excellent psychologist, very subtly worked out the situation, characters, their background and motivations. That's just the writers and directors all this was not very worried and as a result of terrible King's stories came out banal stamped horror stories. One of his best novels, Pet Cemetery, was already transferred to the screen in 1989 by the clipmaker Mary Lambert and, although the film was a box office success, was approved by the writer himself (apparently due to the fact that he personally wrote the script) and looked good, all the important subtleties again did not absorb. Could the authors of the new version, released on the eve of the release of the second series “It”? Spoiler: No.
The story is familiar to all King fans since childhood. Dr. Louis Creed, together with his wife, two children and a cat Church comes to the town of Ludlow, where he bought a cozy house with a forest plot. Upon arrival, it turns out that now they own not only part of the forest, but also a pet cemetery, where local children bury their deceased pets. Next, the Creeds get acquainted with the neighbor Jad, and he tells Louis an old secret - behind the windmill are the magical lands of the Indians, and if you bury any of the animals there, it will surely rise. The first will be the experiment shot down on Church road, but soon in the family of Louis there will be a tragedy and the temptation to return a loved one from the dead will be too great.
Initially, Paramount planned to involve director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (Unbreakable, 28 Weeks Later) and Guillermo Del Toro, who was very interested in the work. As a result, their place was taken by the directorial tandem of Kevin Colsh and Dennis Widmeier, who attracted the attention of criticism with their indie horror film “The Eyes of a Star”, filmed simply, but at the same time creepy. It is difficult to say whether the script initially did not provide for some selective tinder (the children are involved in the movie!), or whether the producers of the directors strongly controlled, but the movie came out minimally scary, bland and frankly boring. Of course, since 1983 (and it was then that the novel was written) many years have passed and films about the revived dead, so the plot scheme is obviously outdated. Kolsh and Widmeier had a great chance to revive it, since horror films that string terrible events on the back of a family tragedy have recently proved very effective and spectacular (see Reincarnation), but they, along with screenwriter Jeff Buchler, stubbornly did not go beyond the depressingly typical horror story about zombies and eventually made a number of serious mistakes.
Although the action seemed rhythmic at first, the story quickly turned into a dry schematic sequence of predictable events. In the second half, the authors decided to slightly compensate for the lack of originality with a couple of plot twists, but they did not look at all impressive (the fact that Ellie returned from the dead world instead of Gage is not a spoiler - all this we saw in the trailer). The dramatic component is again not worked out properly, and, although the actors play with dignity, they rather competently act out behavioral clichés than immerse the viewer in the painful state of parental grief. Psychological authenticity is powerfully limp on both legs along with logic, the atmosphere is conveyed by a standard set of “darkness, fog, bass and screamers”, attempts to scare a ragged hissing cat are ridiculous, and Ellie, reclining exclusively with banal lines, is no different from hundreds of other “devils” – except that interesting shots with children in masks initially promised fresh ideas, but their images were used only in one scene and it immediately became clear that they carry nothing in the plot. So the verdict will definitely not be in favor of the new maker, since from a perfectly terrible, bitter and painful parable about the tragic consequences of a person’s unwillingness to come to terms with the loss, the viewer receives an infantile and clichéd scarecrow about a lively little maniac with an uncouth cat on his pickup.
6 out of 10
Stephen King’s novel Pet Cemetery became one of the most important works of his career. Once the writer and his family really died cat, which was buried near the house. Further, the author’s imagination intervened in the process and based on the emotions he experienced, he created a creation that received several awards and was even filmed by director Mary Lambert. That old version, which got to the cinemas, was not highly appreciated by the public in contrast to the novel and now a fresh version of the Pet Cemetery has been released.
The film takes place in a small town. The main character is Dr. Louis Creed, who moves with his family to a new place of residence, but soon his cat Church is knocked down. And in order not to injure the children, Louis succumbs to the persuasion of his neighbor and burys Church at the Pet Cemetery. Or rather, where the foot of a simple mortal usually does not go, because games with mystical forces rarely end well.
Yes, Church is back, but he's acting weird, you can't play him like you used to. But in fact, the death and return of the cat is far from the worst that Louis and his family will have to go through. Soon they will face another shock, and who knows how it will end.
I can't say that this version of Pet Cemetery really struck me to the core. The movie is not bad, but nothing more. In some ways, it is predictable, and the edits made to the script do not bring anything global to the story. So King's novel is still unsurpassed. And if the recent “It” could compete with the book, then this version does not exactly compare with the printed “Pet Cemetery”.
Of course, not everything is bad here, and you will be scared where. Too bad it's not often. There was no mysterious atmosphere here either. Except that sinister silhouettes and tense music perform their effect perfectly.
Whether or not you watch Pet Cemetery is your business. If you do, do not expect anything surprising. The film is shot correctly, predictably and does not require anything special from you.
6 out of 10
The film was directed by a duet of Kevin Colsh and Dennis Widmeier, who together staged the film “Black Weekend”, the series “Scream” and several other little-known films.
Although the film is based on the work of Stephen King, but it is still independent and much changes or adds. A lot of people were really waiting for this film: fans of the book and fans of the film adaptation of the year 89. However, the “new” film adaptation did not come from the word at all. This is a banally boring film, with a lot of templates, stamps and clichés. The tape looks very long, despite the fact that its duration is slightly more than 1.5 hours.
The main problem of the picture was precisely timekeeping. Many important aspects of the plot in the film fly very quickly and without any logic (I have not read the book myself, so I will compare it with the old picture). For example, in the 89 film, we are shown the relationship between Jud and Louis, how chemistry happens between them and the Creed family. In the new film, Jud is just a mad old man who acts without any logic, giving viewers the opportunity to make a juicy facepalm. In fact, there are a lot of such nonsense.
The effect of the drama simply disappeared. Dialogue leaves much to be desired. There is no such thing as how to tell a person that his beloved animal has died. In the old film, Louis has been delving into himself all the time, trying to make the right choice. In the new tape everything is simple and concise, without going into such details.
The old film adaptation managed to accommodate not only a horror movie, but also a very serious drama about death as such. And if there were terrible moments, then you can close your eyes to those clichés, because everything was new to the viewer, and all the creepy images could be imprinted in memory (a little boy with a scalpel or Rachel’s sister, who, incidentally, was played by a disguised man, could catch up with creeps). The new tape is absolutely not scary. No chills, fear or feeling of danger during the viewing does not occur. Just reflexively shudder from the screamers, who twisted the sound to the maximum.
The ending of the film was very short due to lack of time. Just 5-10 minutes before the end, a lot of things happen. But by then, you don’t care, as long as the movie is over.
Not much to say about actors. One can only praise Jason Clarke and Amy Simetz. Unlike the film adaptation of '89, there is a feeling of their chemistry, you feel that they love each other and their family.
In addition, some masked children appear in the film, who adorn all the posters and trailers for the film. Who are they? Where are they from? Why do they appear only at the beginning and everyone forgets about them? scriptwriters do not give any answers.
If we talk about the fact that you need to view a mandatory acquaintance with the book, then we can give an example of another film adaptation - "It" 2017. Without reading the book, I enjoyed watching that movie. The script gave an opportunity for all viewers to give the story that was described in the book without any problems.
“Pet Cemetery” is very boring, uninteresting, stupid, clichéd, horror, of which there are a lot now. He doesn't scare the word at all. In fact, the film is simply disappointing. Fused in trailers plot, weak dialogue, lack of atmosphere, empty characters. All these factors make this film very, very weak. How many did not try, but could not find at least some plus of this tape.
P.S.
If you try to retell the plot of this film, the story may be more interesting than the film itself, because there are interesting seeds from which good fruits could grow. The doctor with his wife, two children and a cat, whom they love very much, moves from the big city to the backwoods with a picturesque forest. They bought a large plot of land, and there was a creepy place where people bury pets. This place has a long history and terrible power. Then there are the oddities of blood and death. With nightmares from a past life and a little conflict in the family. Dad is a doctor and a scientist, he does not believe in higher powers, and he is against telling children about life after death, and his wife is for not telling children about all the harsher life truths.
How do you show people that you love a cat? It’s very simple – let them talk about it. Preferably more than once. Because anyone has the brain to say something, but to show something in the language of cinema – through the behavior of people, for example – is more difficult. The house is not far from the highway, and on both sides there is a dense forest. On this road often drive cars, including tractors with tanks. Should parents pay attention and think about the safety of their children? Of course I do. In real life, and in a good movie, but not in a weak movie. Such moments, which can be called shortcomings, prevent you from believing in events on the screen, and even more so, they cross out the experience for the actors.
As for all mysticism and horror, they are furnished very lazy. Only a story from the past, about the sister of the wife of the main character, works successfully. But it takes up little space and the whole movie can't save. Life after death and conflicts between people, unfortunately, do not work as scary elements. At best, they can only cause a semblance of disgust. But not intrigue.
I want to highlight one single side of the film, which can be called a plus without any questions - the technical part. Makeup, red paint and dirt look natural, sometimes even frightening. The film is good, even, without a trembling camera. Acting work arouses some interest, but the script and directing prevent them from being alive and natural. They are not to be praised, they are to be praised.
Any horror film is helped by good music, and here it was to be expected, because it is responsible for Christopher Young, the author of the music tracks “Hell Rebel” and “Sinister”, for example. But there's nothing interesting. Sluggish background compositions that do not decorate or exacerbate the events of the film.
As a result, as a description of the film, “Creativity Cemetery” would suit, because there is a good place for the events of the horror story, and a few curious ideas that could and should have shot.
Great sacrifice in the name of love ... and a little spoiler
And no, the title of my review has nothing to do with the plot of the new film.
You know, my friends, I've never seen a remake that was so dedicated to the original. The duo of young directors Kevin Colsh and Dennis Widmeier did everything so that against the background of their creation, the 1989 film looked like an absolute masterpiece. And even for those who do not take the 1989 film to heart (although I personally find it one of the best adaptations of King and always ready to justify their words).
Only a sacrifice in the name of love can explain the fact that Kolsh and Widmeier cut the story of King much more than Mary Lambert, throwing out such important moments as Louis’ friendship with old Jud, his conflict with the family of his wife, the story of Timmy Butterman and the entire line of Wendigo; only a sacrifice in the name of love can explain the choice for the role of Louis Jason Clark, next to whom Dale Meadkiff from the first film, whom many scolded for a weak game, seems to be Jack Nicholson; only a victim in the name of love can explain the visual references to the original, which only the most primitive one can be justified in the name of love.
In fact, other methods of intimidation are used by directors very reluctantly. Someone is constantly pouncing on someone, trucks are rushing with rumbles - it seems as if you are in the company of two high-aged pranksters who are crawling out of their skin trying to scare you. Why the laws of drama, contrast, dissonance? No, we must immediately show the viewer that right now he should be stra-a-a-a-a-ashno! Here's Colsh and Widmeier, and they show you, first a house burning in the night and a bloody porch, then time winds back, and we see the family come to a new place in the backwoods. Around there is a significant gloom, in the house too (in place of the heroes, I would care that children can earn rickets), and the first boo-effect with a truck does not keep itself waiting.
However, the creators themselves signed in creative impotence, saying that “a killer baby can not be made scary” – translated as something like “we do not have enough eggs for this”. (Although the writers and directors had eight eggs, eight more than Mary Lambert and four times more than Stephen King.) Not to mention the fact that King and Lambert did not have the current CGI technology, with which it is cheap to create a zombie child - children's toys. So their killer will be Little Dead Girl, an awesomely scary and awesomely original image used in just a few hundred pieces. So now the truck hits not the son, but the daughter. And this is not the spoiler that the title of this article warns about - it was leaked in the second trailer.
And actors. There are no questions for Jud in the performance of the venerable John Lithgow, except that this is not King's Jud, so skillfully embodied by Fred Gwynne. There was a steel rod in that Jada, a native manz, who had passed fire, water and copper pipes in his long life and was ready to kick his ass if necessary (remember how brave he is when he finds that a little zombie has already entered his house). The new Jud is a feeble and rather sloppy old man, besides very faint-hearted and easily becoming a puppet of the cursed place. Amy Symetz - Rachel - quite good, for Gage to say much, as his role is reduced almost to extra, but the young Jete Laurence can be called a ray of light in this dark (literally) realm - her Ellie turned out charming and direct. Her death really makes it to the liver, and you really believe in Louis' desire to get her back. As for Pascoe, he turned out to be a pale shadow of the original, the gift that this time he was played by a Negro, and not a white-haired Swede. And the cat, of course, or rather, five cats - five wonderful Maine Coons, who certainly did not hit the mud in the mud and deserve to become stars of this not too successful in the rest of the film.
But let the film is not too successful - but what a sacrifice in the name of love!
(Maybe I’m too romantic and this is just another mediocre remake?)
6 out of 10
A review without spoilers on the well-known very popular story, which is not enough that many read, but also film adaptations were. Therefore, below, rather impressions of the film, was the film adaptation successful, or was it boring?
Late, I went to the Cemetery of the Animals - at the end of the rental. But I read a lot of reviews and everything was touched: the plot, they say, predictable, no intrigue. So it's suddenly for a film adaptation of a book that many have read. But come on, let’s talk about the 2019 movie. I will not compare it with the old film adaptation (to be honest, I do not remember it almost), so from a clean slate.
In general, the Pet Cemetery 2019 is suddenly a very good atmospheric horror movie for me. And it's atmospheric. The directors and the cameraman managed to systematically immerse the viewer in the film, capturing his attention 100%. Including thanks partly to the “standard-banal” scenes of tension, but in this film they are performed very skillfully and literally “correctly”: the right length and with the right effect. Not always this liner - under the screener, but it escalates the situation perfectly. Pet Cemetery is actually a scary movie. Not disgusting, but terrible, so well the atmosphere is inscribed in the plot, which is so clear to everyone how it ends: even without reading the book and despite watching the film, you probably heard the essence of this work.
Despite all my dislike for James Clark (I don’t like him, I don’t like him), the actors played in the film more than decently. Amy Simetz is more than convincing in her fears, which are revealed in the plot. In general, what I liked about the film was the general atmosphere of oppression and fear, which is somehow perfectly transmitted from the screen to the audience. For a long time I do not remember horror films that would so abduct the viewer, no matter if it is a solo project or a series of the Astral type.
Anyway. I liked it. I think I’ll watch this movie at home in a couple of years. And then I'll hardly fall asleep. The ending is known in advance and everything is predictable. The process of achieving this ending came out very interesting and exciting, scary. What else is a horror movie? If you don’t know the ending...
Stephen King’s novel of the same name, first published in 1983, made an incredibly powerful impression on me when I read it. Admittedly, cliché 'king of horror' King was credited with more than justifiable – telling each of his stories, the writer finds tools that allow him to make the story incredibly creepy and at the same time so interesting that it is simply impossible to break away from the work. I completely disagree with the prevailing opinion that this kind of reading is not literature – creating within its genre framework, Stephen King conducts a skillful work on the characters, working through their images so that they are perceived as living people. Why such a long preamble? To make it clear: a fresh film adaptation ' Pet Cemetery' I was waiting long before the premiere, and, as a sophisticated viewer, was ready for the fact that the experience it will bring with it ambiguous.
If you make the verdict briefly, the movie succeeded – it turned out to be scary, interesting and ambiguous, and it was precisely such mixed feelings that the book itself left behind, which, by the way, cannot be said about the first film adaptation, concocted on the threshold of the 90s in such a clumsy way that I did not like the word at all.
Let us not stir up the past, but turn to the present. It is quite difficult to say anything about the fresh film adaptation, without issuing its plot twists (which are more than reserved even for fans of the original source) and still try.
The first ten or fifteen minutes made me feel annoyed – according to my humble understanding, none of the characters (of which, by the way, there are not so many here) did not correspond to their original book. However, when the action began to gain momentum, I was forced to admit that I was wrong: Jason Clarke, who played the role of Louis, felt the role very well – at first he was restrained, but where it was necessary to show crazy emotions. He was equally able to show the primordial fear, the pain of loss and the insane obsession that drove his character in the second half of the picture. Unremarkable Amy Saymetz also did not stand aside and showed her acting skills, especially remember the scene of her return home, preceding the climax and denouement. Even children, oddly enough, looked organic, but in the role of Jud Crendell I would like to see someone more expressive – in the performance of John Lithgow, he turned out to be a rather passable character who just performs his function and nothing more.
Next, I want to say about Churchill – that’s who really turned out in this film hurrah. Returned from the dead cat so shone on the screen that I want to allocate for him a separate nomination for the Oscar (or rather those craftsmen who bothered to show it in all its glory). Church here looks really scary, looking at him, you really believe that the cat was buried, and then an unknown force somehow brought him back to life. At the same time, during the viewing, there is no feeling that you are being fooled by computer graphics somewhere. With the cat, by the way, is directly associated with several good scrimmers, which in the film just bulk. Contrary to expectations, this is only good for him - all the "frighteners" are implemented qualitatively and tastefully, I think that many of them will tickle the nerves of even the most stress-resistant viewers. But to say that the atmosphere turned out to be five, alas, it is impossible – most of the film it was in place, but sometimes lost somewhere, including due to ragged editing, especially in the first half of the picture.
As for the form, let’s talk about the content. Some unambiguous judgments are much more difficult to make here. The script is very different from the original story. Did it benefit the movie? In general, I am not inclined to welcome such bold liberties in the adaptations of literary works, since this usually does not turn out to be anything good for the final product, but this film is a bright exception to this. The creators really deserve praise, because they managed to offer an alternative version of the famous story, filled with their delicious chips. The turning point falls approximately in the middle of the timekeeping – it becomes obvious that the creators decided not just to film the book, but to offer its fresh rethinking, and it immediately becomes clear that the fantasy of the writers will go a little further than just changing the places of the terms. But the most important thing, as it seems to me, is that none of the innovations contradict the essence of the original and perfectly convey its spirit, only slightly shifting the accents, thereby making the action much more dynamic.
Ending. What can I say about her? She's ruthless, as she should have been. Frankly speaking, when I watched, there was hope somewhere in me that some of the heroes would be able to avoid their fate. It’s a horror movie by Stephen King.
Having praised the film, I will make it clear: the movie turned out not bad, but not perfect. Does it show anything new in its genre? The answer is: unequivocally no. The film is able to scare and does it well, but in its arsenal there are only well-known techniques that have long become classic, and many have become obsolete. Does the story go beyond the faded genre? Hardly – the tape touches on philosophical questions about life and death, but does it casually without the explicit intention to talk at length about deep things.
What do we have in mind? Pretty good adaptation of one of the most powerful novels of Stephen King. The most picky readers will clearly not like a large number of innovations. The less conservative ones are likely to appreciate the writers’ courage and work with the source. I do not recommend skipping anyone who is attracted to horrors and mysticism, but I warn you that no one will flirt with you - they will be scared so much that they will have to be especially impressionable, then urgently look for ways to switch your mental process to something else, not so terrible and depressing.
No matter what authoritative opinion you hear, no one except you will be able to determine how this film will suit you, and therefore: we watch, think and discuss.
I will immediately throw aside the creep on the topic of the original source and about the remake, because we are here about a specific product - this movie of 2019. The writers of the script could afford any liberties, so they came up with something new. I didn't find anything wrong or outrageously unacceptable in these stories. I also take into account in my assessment the fundamental impossibility of one hundred percent conveying on the screen the spirit of the original book Stephen King, so that insignificant changes or spinoffs are only good. And in general, the horror genre has long exhausted itself, so new attempts to rethink old ideas can only be welcomed.
It is superfluous to talk about any moral component for the film of this genre. At the same time, I note quite traditional and correct views of parents on personal relationships and the upbringing of children. It is only strange that the years of life together did not accustom both to somewhat polar views on mysticism and did not force them to agree on a “general line” in child education on this part. I mean, it's a family of strangers.
The whole story with the cat was played very well.
The girl is 50-50 in her incomprehensible instability and poorly understood limits of her new abilities. The rest simply did not have time to turn around in full, but, given the plot trend, everything is clear with them too.
Quite well conveyed some stupor poor father as a result of his family tragedy. Also, the whole story with the grim memories of his wife coming to life at times was not bad.
A separate room is the grandfather-neighbor, he is interesting in every sense. I think that his inconsistency went only to the benefit of the plot, but unfortunately, there was a strong logical sagging in it: if you knew about the possible consequences, then why? Also a big murky spot on the whole story lay his behind-the-scenes story with his own wife. Well, let it, it only adds reasons to discuss the plot after watching, and it was worth it.
A little too much with a dead Negro, who, like the devil from a snuffbox, jumped out here and there. Clearly redundant and inappropriate. Neither logically nor mentally he had nothing to do with the magic cemetery, and suddenly this.
The weak point I consider the assumption on the screen clearly comedic moment with a girl in bed, which is why the whole hall laughed amicably (according to reviews of friends, a similar situation was repeated at other sessions).
Also inappropriate seemed the very beginning of the picture with suddenly disturbing music and meaningless for the viewer semantic run ahead (as if shots from future scenes; this is an insignificant claim to directing the editing).
The closer to the end of the film, the speed of “transformation” of the characters became more and more galloping, while in the beginning it took a significant part of the night: after all, it was necessary to get to the place on a very difficult path and quite far. Does it matter? For a film of this genre – no. But it still caught my eye.
It would also be strange to consider how suddenly the wife behaved with her husband in the cemetery. However, it fits perfectly into the overall idea of this story. As a result, we can assume that the ground has already been created for the continuation of history in the form of Pet Cemetery - 2, with an already formed hearth of self-replicating creatures. Let's wait and see.
It is a pity that such a potentially powerful charge with a group of dressed children was not used in any other way. For the trailer, it helped a lot, and for the film itself – came out like steam whistle.
... And sex again without taking off your pants! It seems that this strangeness has already begun to take root on the screens.
Conclusion. For its genre, the film is just great, and I'm surprised it has such a low rating. I would bet 8 for what he was not very scary, and sometimes even funny, but I will not restrain myself and a little higher – to 9.
The main idea of King’s idea is preserved and not fundamentally spoiled. In addition, the film leaves a “pleasant aftertaste” in the form of indicated intrigue with the boy.
Critics: If you want to do well, do it yourself, known truth. And here we are talking about trying to work with classics, which is always difficult and knowingly thankless on behalf of picky snobs.
For fans of the genre to watch boldly, fans of the undisturbed Stephen King – do with your favorite book what you usually do with it.
9 out of 10
Before you know it, everyone will come back from Hell.
Death, an unexpected phenomenon that exists invisibly nearby always, and as soon as there is a gap in space that does not miss a moment to break through, and only when you lose something that is really expensive and unimaginably time-bound, only then you can look at the world through the gap that has formed, but also you can cross the line and where the mind is just a sound that sounds nearby. The new adaptation of the novel by Stephen King "Cemetery of Pets" is a horror that extends a hand out of darkness to sooner or later take you with him.
It is worth talking about a new cemetery, recently the works of the master have again gained mass spirituality, and the painting “Cemetery of Pets” has become a real gift for connoisseurs of horror and thought. The new work is so imbued with the gravity of darkness that the eye is not able to see any lumen of joy here, this is a tough and truly terrible movie, where the emphasis is not on the plot demonstration, which was perfectly demonstrated in the magnificent It>, here the atmosphericity created due to musical oppression, and the visual cemetery tone keeps in suspense, among other things, I note that, unlike the first film adaptation released in the distant 1989, if we do not take into account the limited possibility of the presented cycle, then King really lost his life.
The film “Cemetery of Pets” certainly has a genre component, due to the peculiar presentation of the director himself, while the film pays homage to the classics of horror, it is felt even when you look, while despite the modernity around. King’s spirit and his imagination take their true form here.
And life is like a moment, in an eternal cycle, where everything that happens to you helps, after going through this, to find something more, no matter how terrible everything seems around, much more terrible when what is dear to you at once ceases to exist, and where once a familiar gaze looked at you, now emptiness is hidden by darkness, and there will come a time when darkness will be near you, and then you will not be here, as once there were others. But only you can prevent what is impossible to correct, because what is lost will return completely different.
10 out of 10
As a viewer who had not yet seen the first film adaptation of 1989, I went to this film, ready for absolutely anything, but the development of the plot surprised me. If the original work of Stephen King is not much different from this version, then in the place of the author I would give this creation a different name by which you can get a clearer idea of the content. Although they say that a book is not judged by its cover, but still ...
So, this film focuses on the horrific events that befell a typical American family, exhausted by everyday care, work and childcare. As is often the case, the nightmare awaits Louis and his family in the most inopportune place - a new house and its surroundings. In the spirit of King, the film is replete with monsters, one of which, one might say, appears in an episodic but spectacular role. And although the meticulous viewer will definitely want to throw a couple of reproaches towards references to "Curse", the compositional script is spelled out well. Particular attention should be paid to the character of John Lithgow - Jada, who becomes the one who opens Louis and the audience's eyes to the mysteries of the universe, still unexplored by people, and which are unlikely to be studied.
Added special effects create a good mystical atmosphere of an ominous cemetery, especially with a mysterious fog and dried trees, but most importantly, the non-childish rating really justifies itself. Unlike "Curses of the nun" there is no humor, but there are moments after which the impressionable audience provided nightmares. This, of course, is not "The hills have eyes", but a pair of repulsive horns on the screen will necessarily flash. And not just human. The dark cat depicted on the foreign poster and in the film will be responsible for a fair share of fear. But the main thing is Ellie.
And continuing the theme of the characters, I can’t help but praise the choice of actors who have very successfully adapted to their roles. At Zhete Laurence shivering angry smile, Amy Simetz and popular in the 2010s Jason Clark in one scene almost broke me to tears with his emotions, and John Lithgow ... this is John Lithgow, incomparable and inimitable. I can’t say that the roles were played masterpiecely, but well, that’s for sure. In the end, the main thing is that the actors did not forget in the process of filming that they are filmed not in drama, but in horror.
Being a sophisticated viewer with a long experience, I can not say that “Pet Cemetery” is one of the most creepy films of all time, but in the list of recommendations for fans of the genre it is definitely worth bringing.
7 out of 10
The film does not have the best ratings on Movie Search and on imdb. But I liked it as usual. The film has its pros and cons.
I liked the plot. He's picking up momentum from the start and keeping it almost to the very end. Although the film is only 1 hour and 30 minutes, it does not feel fast. Only the final was swift.
The characters turned out to be great every single one. Everyone was exposed. They play just as well. Especially pleased with the girl who played well, which is rare for child actors. Especially after the main character of the film 'Dumbo', I expected the worst.
Of the best characters in the film, I can mention the grandfather, who is just very good, and the father of the family, who is just beginning to slide to the end.
Since this is a horror movie, you should also note the screamers. They're here and they're good. Not everyone, of course, scared me, but from one moment I was hysterical.
The atmosphere can also be noted. It starts somewhere in the middle, but in the end it falls off.
I mentioned this disadvantage above, but here I will give him a separate item. The main disadvantage of the film is its finale. The film ends abruptly and without explaining many things.
As a result, a movie is as good as a horror movie, as good as a movie, it is average. It has a couple of scary moments, great makeup, atmosphere and good characters, but it all breaks down about a bad third act, which is maximally unlogical and abruptly ends.
I recommend watching the film, even if you are not a fan of this genre. Nothing new, but you can see it once.
I want to share my opinion on the film “Pet Cemetery”
Pet Cemetery is a novel by American writer, king of horror, Stephen King; written in the genre of postmodern, Gothic literature and first published in 1983. The book mainly deals with the subject of death. King uses fear of child loss and necrophobia. The first film based on the novel of the same name was released in 1989, directed by Mary Lambert. Stephen King himself is often cold to the adaptations of his books. He said of the 89 film: I think Dale Midkiff is cruel in some places and Denise Crosby is cold. I don't feel like this couple at the center of the story has the warmth to seriously confront the supernatural. And I like that contrast. He is the one who makes a horror movie a horror movie. Let’s see what he says about the new attempt to bring the book to the big screen.
Before I went to the movies, I decided to refresh my memory and revisit the old movie, and I mean, it's as tense and creepy as ever. As for the new film, to my surprise, it didn’t disappoint me. The first hour of the film is a complete copy of the old picture, but due to the dynamics of the plot, the film does not seem protracted and slightly sleepy, as it was with the old film, although the new one is only 6 minutes shorter. As I said, the right formula for a quality horror movie is good picture + background music. The final part of the film is very different from the picture of 89, it is faster and more intense. The ending is made in the tradition of Stephen King’s stories, who reads that will understand, and so you will see. The disadvantages in the film are also present. I didn’t like the actors the most. Zhete Laurence, who plays the role of Ellie's daughter, well, from the first shots do not believe her. And the famous head of the family Jason Clark does not inspire confidence. Nor do I understand the inclusion of a mythical creature in the film 'vendigo' Why? For what? The value of this information is zero.
It is worth paying attention to ' Pet Cemetery' especially if you are a fan of Stephen King. Most likely, the directors wanted to make some money under the noise of the success of the film ' It'. And as a result, it turned out to be a good movie, it is a pity that it is not a masterpiece.
8 out of 10
For several months I knew that this work was coming out, and I realized that I definitely wanted to go to the movies.
I feel very good about Stephen King’s work, I read a lot of his works, including Pet Cemetery, which is why I wanted to see the film. Yes, this is a remake, but do not immediately put a stigma and make any negative conclusions.
Before watching the movie, I didn’t look at user reviews and ratings, being sure that the movie was a success, and I was right. Yes, it is not perfect, but after all, every film has its flaws, and this work is paid even closer attention, because it is a remake. There is not a single person who has not compared the films of 1989 and 2019, I will not bypass this majority. Some say that the original Pet Cemetery is better, and this opinion prevails, perhaps it is better somewhere, but as for “fear”, the new film clearly wins.
As a person who has reviewed not all, but more horror films, I can say that this work is different from all films of this genre, undoubtedly these differences are exceptionally positive.
Although I can’t say that the film is super scary, but I can say with certainty that it is creepy.
The plot of the film is different from the original film, as well as from the book on which it was shot. I can’t say with certainty that I liked all the plot changes, but the overall picture was quite watchable. The main details remained unchanged: a house on the edge of a terrible forest, a road along which trucks suddenly rush, and, of course, a pet cemetery. In this adaptation, more screen time was given to Sister Rachel and, in my opinion, it added horror to the picture.
If we talk about the ending, which is completely different from the film of the same name in 1989, from the book, then, as I regret, it turned a horror film into a black comedy, because some moments, indeed, made me laugh.
I won’t dwell on the cast of this piece for long, it’s not perfect, but I think Jason Clarke, John Lithgow, and Amy Seimetz have done the job. I want to pay special attention to the young Jeta Laurence, who played at a height, compared to other participants in the film.
In general, I believe that the film is still a success, and I advise you to see this picture, if not in the movies, then at home in the company of friends (it will not be so scary).
8 out of 10
I went to this film, I dare not lie, with the highest expectations. But I was waiting for suspense for the whole movie. I haven’t been disappointed in movies in a long time.
The outrageously similar wife of the hero the whole film whined and walked with the expression of the lunatic sufferer, do not need to remember, often absolutely out of topic, her sister. It is strange that she was married and a mother. Here you expect contrast, conflict, collision of azure existence with the antipode, as the genre cliché dictates, but no.
Jason Clarke gave mediocre play, not conveying emotions - both positive and negative.
John Lithgow, a respected actor, seemed to “fall under the smoke” of this absurd “drama” and – also – did not tickle a single string.
With children, the demand is not great, although, watching Stranger things, Game of Thrones, etc., you understand that Melpomena does not discriminate against actors on the basis of age.
By the way, it was Jete Laurence who played better than all of them combined, at least somehow giving the viewer hope for ' Stevenking' the light at the end of the boring tunnel of this tractor, filmed by two directors! Yes, and the cat also shone in the background of all this “self-activity”. Who frightened, so it is definitely him, unlike this throttled ghost, now and then, as from the toilet broadcast about the inadmissibility of crossing the border.
In short, if you do not want to talk about wasted time and money, do not recommend going to see it ' creations'.
“Pet Cemetery 39 is my favorite book by Stephen King.” My number one read regularly. I love the 1989 film and have watched it 10 times. So I just can't write about a new movie without mentioning the original sources. I didn’t read any reviews, interviews or any other material about the new picture because I wanted to see it with a fresh and unbiased look. I am writing a review in hot pursuit, so I ask you to apologize in advance if it is a little confused. And yes, I will avoid spoilers as much as possible, but there are some things I just can’t help but say.
' Pet Cemetery' 1989 stands out to me among other horror films for not just scaring me to death, but even making me cry. Until now, I watched horror movies absolutely calmly, and the death of the characters in no way touched me, but ' Cemetery' quite deeply settled in my mind and made me replay the thought that my loved ones would someday die. I was 8 or 9 years old and my grandmother was gone by then, so death wasn’t a revelation for me, but somehow it got a little bit clingy. And if you move away from my personal cockroaches in my head, there's plenty of creepy stuff in this movie. My hands still sweat when they show scenes with Sister Rachel.
But let's get back to the remake. And here it is important to say: 'Forget everything you remember from the book or from the old movie!!' Just forget to put your memories out of your head, because if you’re waiting for an accurate remake or what’s new ' Cemetery' will follow King’s piece step by step, you’ll be disappointed. New 'Cemetery' Other. Just different. And I don't know if it's good or bad. To be honest, I have not yet understood whether I liked it or not in general (because the color of the review is gray), but there are moments that have come, and there are those that caused a sour mine.
There's a lot of change in this movie. And so radical image that I would even call it an experiment to create a remake. The other question is how well they did. From the moment I realized that 'something went wrong' or rather, that 'the book was different', it became more interesting to watch. And the further the plot developed and the twists became 'cooler' the more heated my interest, because after a certain moment it was already unclear what to expect. So for the bold attempt and for the ending, by the way, endorsed by King, the creators want to say thank you. The guys played with the audience expectations, and quite skillfully. You seem to sit there and know what's going to happen, but you don't, and you know nothing. And this applies not only to the key moments, but also small scenes that are most likely remembered only by fans, such as the details of the events in the house of Jud.
Of course, many people won't like it. I’m more than sure that the story corrections will be the main reason for the dissatisfaction of fans. For example, I was offended for the fate of Victor Pascoe in this film, which seems to be, but which is not, although in the plot he plays an important role. The line with Rachel's sister isn't that good either, in my opinion. And speaking of the downsides, I didn’t like the actors. Whether it's because I've revisited the old picture a bunch of times and got used to those actors, but the new ones left me indifferent. Especially the main character. I saw in him neither sorrow nor despair, which should be the main motivators of his decisions and actions.
Honestly, the old version gives the impression of a deeper and better quality. After all, this is a story about how difficult and painful it is to lose loved ones; how impossible it is to accept the loss. Both the book and the 1989 film are filled with pain and hopelessness. The new version is more of a horror story about the cemetery. The grain of philosophy is lost here. New ' Cemetery' not bad; it's a bold and interesting interpretation, but personally I need time to digest and understand my impressions.
I don't like new adaptations of old stories. They (stories) are good in themselves, they were created in a time when things were not yet put on the conveyor, they have some piece of soul in them, and therefore there is no need to wise and redo anything. I don’t think I’m going to make any changes.
Perhaps it was the departure from the canons (a truly colossal such a tramp) that was the main reason for my easy rejection of this creation. Yes, the stories and King are different, and sometimes the film adaptations are many times more worthy of the originals, but heck, for me personally, “Cemetery” was one of the best books of the King, and the film crew take and twist everything in the world: they shifted the center of the story from the younger child to the older one (which, in my opinion, did not make any sense, the film did not benefit from this), to the maximum reduced everything that could be cut in the introductory part, it turned out like “well, like a house (this all plays no role in the plot, but it does not even play a role in the cemetery),” (it would not even remember it in the cemetery). There is no representation of the characters in sight (yes, by the way, in the course of the plot, it will also not be possible to understand their characters, images, attitude to each other), and the matter here, in my opinion, is not only in the acting game - just somehow do not allow them to reveal themselves. It is understandable: we have come here not to deal with someone’s personal injuries, but a tough action to watch where the characters are nothing more than cannon fodder for a bored lover of bloody slaughter.
Speaking of injuries. One of the advantages of the new “Cemetery” is that they worked out the “two sisters line”, the Rachel-Zelda chain, although it is not central to the narrative. True, it seems that the mood of the film crew halfway over and they dropped this line, but we have half the story in the story, very, by the way, interesting, pay attention, and we go on.
Now a little more about the “interesting solutions.” The creators decided to improvise and put on the screen a gang of occultists in masks (causing nervous laughs in the hall). Well, about the feasibility of adding them... they pretty well decorated the poster and looked organic in the trailer. And I was waiting for the whole film for an intimidating denouement or some incredibly original approach (as they say, the barn burned down - gory and a hut, redo it like that).
As for the “hard action”, it should be said that here the creators broke away completely. A lot of effects, blood, high tension (a little), chasing with screams and screams and “boo” around the corner (following high tension), well, everything is standard in general. It is a pity, of course: buried, so to speak, the atmosphere “in the sour earth”...
To sum up, the devil isn’t as scary as it’s being painted, the movie isn’t really bad enough to walk out of the room without seeing it through... not much worse than any other adaptations. For once it may even be good, but to a good level somehow does not reach and does not retain the atmosphere.
The film “Pet Cemetery” 2019 in the context of a separate work
This picture is not about animals, but about animals of the genus and species Homo Sapiens. It is not for nothing that we are endowed with reason, because that is why we have the ability to make assumptions, to adhere to theories, to believe in fictional images. Everyone certainly knows that someday there will be death – a normal phenomenon of nature and the inevitable fate of every living creature (and what if it is possible to change this?), but only we can reason on this topic, we are human.
In the film, there is a clash of two views on life after death: the skeptical scientific, and the mystical esoteric. How to tell a child about death, and should it be discussed at all? The main character is an experienced doctor, I am sure that there is nothing wrong with this, exceptional biology, and the daughter can calmly tell about it. His wife has a different opinion. She believes in the wandering of souls among the world of the living after the death of the bodily shell. And she has every right to do that (why?). The film will tell you.
How far can the power of our imagination, mixed with guilt and the desire to make things right, take us? As much as all previous beliefs and reason can collapse without a trace.
I watched the movie in the theater and assessed it based on all of the above. That's why I liked it.
In addition, during the viewing I was afraid, worried, empathized, surprised. I felt it. So this picture found an echo in me, a response, and this is the work of the actors, and the soundtrack, and shooting, everything that happens on the screen in the aggregate. For me, it's an indicator of good work. Despite the fact that I do not like this genre for its bombast and excessive unrealism, in the Pet Cemetery I saw something more than just an attempt to scare the viewer.
7 out of 10
And remake again. No, there's nothing wrong with remakes if the authors raise interesting questions and technically improve the film. However, humanity knows many examples when “works” appear, which one wants to see already during viewing.
The new version of the cult book of Stephen King is difficult to write in the “great film adaptation”, but in the “nightmare” also can not be attributed.
About your attitude to the book and past film adaptation
The work of Stephen King is very warm. “Escape from Shawshank”, “Christina”, “Authentic student” are my favorite books. But with the Pet Cemetery, I somehow did not work out. I picked up the book several times and threw it all the time, and King couldn't get me hooked on the story. As for the film, I watched it at a conscious age, so I was able to appreciate the eerie atmosphere of the tape, but technically the film looks weak, and sometimes I was so bored. The film, like the book, passed me by. After the film adaptation of the film “It” I thought that the authors may have been able to bring something new, but it turned out ambiguous.
Pet Cemetery (2019)
The plot of the film has not changed, so we will do without retelling the description. I will immediately note the pros and cons of the picture.
The authors managed to create a more eerie atmosphere, each screener in the film works like a clock.
The camera work and the choice of locations for shooting did not disappoint. Well, technically (progress in place is not worth it) the film is made cool. The moment when Jason Clarke’s character moves from his home to a dark forest in his visions is very cool. And the composer does not eat his bread in vain.
The actors, in my opinion, do not give anything supernatural, but they play well and are suitable for their roles.
The script is perhaps the most vulnerable spot of the tape. It is hard to believe that in the 10s people before moving do not Google and do not make inquiries about the place where they move. And moreover, by the time of moving, they know exactly everything about their site and what they are entitled to according to the documents. The fact that the heroes did not know about strange rituals, the cemetery and other mysticism is something else as one could believe in the 89th year, but not in 2019.
The fact that the hero in the middle of the night went with the old man to bury the cat is also strained and such a moment could at least somehow beat.
And, of course, Jason Clarke's reaction to a cat is funnier than "Ha-ha-Ha. What a story Mark?" in one very famous painting.
If the authors worked through such controversial moments, it would turn out to be a really cool movie. And in the end, it was a "typical representative of the genre" for the viewer and "guilty pleasure" for me, because I got a strange pleasure from the film.
I have known Stephen King for 15 years. I know all his works well, except for the Dark Tower cycle, so the new Cemetery was looking forward to. I was looking forward to it.
For those who haven’t read the book or seen the first movie, a remake might be a good one. Many will object to a tight budget and free retelling. You guys are filming King - what's the free story? There is not enough budget to show all the events of the novel and at the same time to keep up – why start? I didn't like anything.
The discrepancies, not with the book, but with the first film, begin with the 15th minute of timekeeping. The motives of the main characters are explained by some general phrases that must be thought out, although even in the first film they are voiced well. Where's Timmy Baterman's story? Where are the quotes from the original? There's only one that's been badly redesigned. For some reason, they changed the names of the heroes, Church and Victor Pascoe did not scare at all and came out unsuccessful. The whole meaning of King’s novel in this movie is lost after the episode with the oil locomotive. Honestly, after that moment, I decided out of sheer stubbornness to examine this thrash.
Episodes are reversed, altered or not (Luis's conflict with Rachel's father at the funeral is not shown; there is no explanation that this is Indian land that affects people). There are children in masks.
This film did not scare at all, but left a grudge for King’s work and for the 1989 film. I bet only for the very first shots of the fire and the porch, when I didn't know what kind of thrash will come next,
Throughout the entire timekeeping, the new version of the legendary novel by Stephen King is surrounded by a suffocating ambre of mothball genre tricks that would have been appropriate in the adaptation of thirty years ago, but look ridiculous and beaten in an ambitious (allegedly!) production of the 21st century. Absurd and only annoying screamers ridiculous devils jump out at the viewer from the very first episodes, which, according to the creators, is an unconditional attribute of any successful horror production.
And it would be forgiven, combine all this condo production tools with careful and thoughtful adaptation of the literary source. In fact, the frapping and morally drying text of the novel by the efforts of the screenwriters is transformed into an incredibly template and incredibly boring story, which, swaying painfully long in the last half hour with some rabid fury and hastily tries to tie in a tight knot ridiculously hanging plot ends. Where, according to the idea, from the screen should ooze insane and all-consuming pain, suffering, despair, fear, doubts and crazy crap, we are stuffed with stamped, uninteresting and devoid of any originality event illogical mud. Well, how can this story resonate in me, if the painful and destructive transformation of the main characters boils down to just a couple of hastily-sumbure scenes, and all the emotional and parental hell through which the characters pass is not fully lived, but simply spoken. These replicas, which are designed to patch countless behavioral holes, do not allow you to fully penetrate and miss such a frightening and creepy story.
And many elements of the film are not sufficiently disclosed and inserted for greater effect: for example, children in eerie masks appear in a short and rather passable scene, and the line with a gloomy ghost seems absolutely superfluous and leading to nowhere, as a result of rewriting the source text of King.
It feels like the creators buried their castrated and reworked script in the cemetery of King’s film adaptations, as a result of which they brought to life an excessively bloody, cruel, furious, but absolutely soulless, amorphous and faded picture, which is banal both in the production plan and in the actor’s, and simply helpless in its suspense-hypostasy (the new ending is completely pessimistic and criminally contradicts the basic postulate of the story).
P.S. The cat and his three stunt doubles outplayed everyone!
Verdict: Kulik scolds this swamp!
For all the ambiguity of Stephen King’s work, it is foolish to deny that he had a huge impact on popular culture. A writer with a sharp mind, alcohol and drug addiction gave us a hundred vivid images. Not all of his books are successful. They're full of cliches, cliches, but everybody reads them anyway. One such book was ' Pet Cemetery'.
In my opinion, the original book is fatally boring. It has a good atmosphere, a really frightening idea and a few cult apt quotes, but basically the book is very slow. 70 percent in it is a description of the life of another American family. The climax fits in the last 30 pages. And the epilogue is absent as a class, the book ends with an open ending.
The screening of the period of the 80-90s I did not like because of archaic. In 2016, she looked ridiculous. A product of its own time.
But in our time, the work of King is experiencing a kind of renaissance. Kasovo-successful 'It' R-rated proved that King is still loved, and opened the way for new film adaptations. One of these adaptations was ' Pet Cemetery' a sample of 2019, which we watched just yesterday. And I think this film adaptation is the best, both the original film and the source.
Screenwriters and directors apparently understood that the original book is deadly boring, and thoroughly diluted it with events, while leaving a common backbone.
The book wasn’t scary, but a dark idea. The death of a beloved pet or, God forbid, a child, is one of the most terrible things a person can experience. And if the death of a child does not threaten me (no child - no problem), then the feeling of loss from the loss of a pet is familiar to me, and I am very close to this topic. According to the lore of the picture, the very damned place that raises the dead, just feeds on the feeling of sorrow and loss.
The film adaptation developed this idea. First, in the family of heroes now two children - a small boy and an older girl. It is easier to empathize with a 9-year-old child than a small carapace. And not because the latter is not sorry. It’s just that an adult child already has self-awareness, critical thinking, and the ability to build complex sentences gives him more participation in the script. I will not spoil the plot to people who are not familiar with the franchise, but for those who read the novel, there will not be so many differences. So let’s go through them: 1 The family now has two children, not one.
2) the old man's wife is dead at the beginning of the story. In the book it was frankly superfluous.
3) the final film adaptation, although also open, but unambiguous.
4) a very good solution. The film added a group of children in eerie masks of animals participating in the funeral processions of animals - with banners, crosses and other ritual paraphernalia. They are put on all the posters of the picture, but in the film they are from the strength of 5 minutes. But the image was very bright.
Otherwise, the movie is a typical horror movie. It shows the life of an American family, which after a series of fateful events everything goes... badly, in general, they begin to live. The actors are all unknown to me, but play well, do not annoy.
Regarding the age rating. The film is kind of 18+, but a bloody extravaganza in the spirit of ' It' don't wait. The dismemberment and murders in the film are very careful. Fortunately, he is frightened not by this, but by the atmosphere and speculation on the feelings of loss. Although, I'd argue about the scare. Either I grew up spoiling all sorts of did spaces, suspended animation and boar, jumping out of the bushes in the swamp in 'stalker' or horrors have now forgotten how to make really terrible.
In any case, Rebut ' Graveyard' turned out to be a good horror with a pleasant picture, normal acting, respect for the original and with the development of the ideas of the book. There were no obvious logical holes, the plot is extremely integral and concise. At least I found fault with the editing of the picture - the scenes change too sharply, but these are details.
The picture can be recommended to all lovers of good horror and creativity of the Maestro. On the big screen in this genre rarely comes out something worthy, and the franchise ' Spells' has long since rolled. It's not a peak lady, is it?
Frankly speaking, the exclamations of my rather sophisticated in literary delights friend “It’s King!” set me up in an optimistic way: “Pet Cemetery”, therefore, a worthwhile horror movie – it’s King, his mother. It was pronounced sublimely and almost with a breath, and I used to trust my friend, despite the fact that the filmed “The Dark Tower” that I remembered not only did not strike my mind, but also seemed a pathetic parody of good fiction. But one thing is fiction, which I confess, do not really like, another horror – which, however, have never been my favorites, but recently pulled on the black. You know, hiding your heels from monsters under a blanket and being afraid to go to the bathroom at night. I remembered reading “Weight Losing” and “Carrie” and decided that the film will be worthwhile, we have to go.
Now for the movie itself. Neither popcorn nor soda was my brain clouded, I will try to be objective.
For me, the film was supposedly divided into two halves: the first, when I liked everything and I trembled and, frankly afraid, closed my eyes on the front row (slightly peeping where without it). The second part is when the whole plot rolled into a clumsy and template horror movie for 14-year-olds, in which all the actions of the main characters are predictable and obscenely cliched. This diametric difference struck me so much that I was already frightened and planned to arrive home by taxi, so as not to walk in my dimly lit area and not tremble with every rustle. Not here it was: a slight roll of the plot and now painfully want to just leave the cinema. It was no longer scary, it was fresh.
The thing is, a good guy from America buys his family a new house. It is clear that for any American, buying a house is a trifling affair. No one is interested in the location of the house, the neighborhood, the neighbors. Careless owner is not even aware that on his land there is a strange cemetery for pets from all around. It's okay, right? I bet this would never have happened to a Russian man, because our uncle would have sniffed everything, down to the granddaughters of the neighbor of the fourth house on the right by the river. Here, the family enters the house, equips it with love, but has no idea what is happening outside. It's scary, it's all. The head of the family timidly appeared at work a couple of times in the frame and these topics somehow quieted down, focusing on mystical visions and omens. It is clear that the owner of the house and his wife have iron nerves: not looking at all the nightmares, visions and outright hallucinations that haunt them, they continue to pretend that everything is normal, at first not sharing experiences with each other. Here, too, a natural question arose: well, how not to bear the husband all the brain about what bothers you? It is not a question of what set of pots to buy in the kitchen, it is mental health, which with each of them deteriorates. But everyone is silent and happy.
In parallel, a strange grandfather enters the canvas of the narrative (well, you must agree, such a grandfather should be in all films about evil spirits). The grandfather who behaves, to put it mildly, wildly, but he is seated at a common table, he drinks wine, laughs with everyone, becomes almost a part of the family, and then throws out such a trout, and all: ah, a wonderful man, how could he! Amazing American hospitality coupled with trust. We do not have that on the threshold would not be allowed, could beat for his ravings and obsession.
And in all this, mystical and unpleasant things begin to happen with the members of this strange family, which inevitably led to a terrible tragedy. It was interesting until that moment. I wondered what would happen next, because, as you know, it is scary to watch ordinary things soaked in mysticism, rather than popping up ghouls and clowns. Ordinary human life in the power of fateful circumstances and coincidences is fascinating, it becomes creepy, what consequences can lead to the wrong choice. How deep human grief can be, how irreparable and crushing losses.
But all this is crossed out by cliché and clarion, where again the stumbling block becomes otherworldly forces, transformed into a banal and merciless murder of everyone around and blah blah blah blah. This banalism has long been filled with shame.
I really liked Jason Clarke in the role of Louis Creed, a hundred percent hit, exactly this role was written for him. I’ve seen Jason in other films a lot, and somehow personally for me he was always on the second roles, some kind of unpleasant to the eye. Whether the characters are like the Terminator, or the moon in Capricorn, who knows me. But here before the final nonsense, he managed to reveal himself as a dramatic actor. I can’t say that he played so beautifully that his knees were squeezing and his mouth couldn’t close in amazement. But he was extremely organic as a father: loving, caring, desperate, worried, worried, torn apart from what was happening. He became the central character without pulling a blanket at all. Even with snot, tears and drooling at the verge of the circumstances of life, he looked dignified and impressive, and this is something. His partner was an absolutely colorless actress who never caught the strings of my soul, despite the fact that she had a history with flashbacks. Maybe Clark just left her standing in the shadows.
The main little heroine with cute huge eyes gave everything for her age. In the first part of the story I liked, she very agile and vividly portrayed her heroine. And in all this it becomes interesting: what will happen next, what? An ominous house, music, disturbing memories - all this is not good. Who will torture them, who, what will happen? And juicy, gloomy angles, convincing facial expressions and replicas - all this sets up such an alarming and painful manner. And it breaks down. Like a sickle, you know what. Begins template and banal black, because of which I do not like horror as a genre. Because for a long time no one can come up with anything worthwhile, or maybe my stock of horrors is terrific, sorry for the tautology, scanty. But I still shudder to remember Omen like 2006 and baptize myself, knowing that I would never watch it for any rugs. Okay, for a million dollars, maybe I will. And here's a story that only scares a schoolboy, and he has to be mentally unstable after fighting behind garages.
Who doesn’t know the “Great and Terrible” Uncle King? The name of the writer for several decades - N1 in the literary genre of horror. Yes, undoubtedly, for many years of creativity he wrote a huge number of works. The number of adaptations of his plots is also counted in dozens, among which were true masterpieces and real failures. The novel "Cemetery of Pets" is rightfully considered one of the most creepy (even according to the author himself). Its first film adaptation, the sample of 1989 (we will not recall the extremely unsuccessful sequel 1992, he is not particularly worthy of mention), to one degree or another can even be called “cult”, because even now, 30 years after the release, it does not cease to fulfill its main goal – it is really frightening. Here is something in the horrors of those “shaky” years, something so kind that forced then and makes to this day in horror to press into the chair, wiping on the armrests sweaty palms and looking at the screen with dilated pupils. But... this is a completely different story, now we are talking about the film fresh, just released.
And it all started with a cat... The main plot component of the new film is not much different from the novel-source and its first adaptation, except for some details, which I will not talk about, so as not to spoiler. By and large, the bundle is the same: the doctor (in the person of Jason Clark) with his wife and two children and a cat in addition move to a new house, away from the big city. The house is adjoined by a huge area covered with forest, where, after a while, an old cemetery is discovered, where for a long time residents bury their favorite pets. According to the law of the genre, a large and mysterious forest is not so simple and harmless, hiding also a place of an ancient powerful force capable of resurrecting the dead. Next – blah blah blah blah... beloved cat named Church dies under the wheels of the truck, parents do not want to tell the truth about his death to their daughter, who loved the cat very much. The situation is saved by an old neighbor Jad (played by an excellent actor John Lithgow), advising the hero Clark to bury the corpse in one very creepy and frightening place ... By the way, in the scene of dating Jada and the cat Church (when the family invited a neighbor to visit) smiled the following fact. The cat is named Church - in honor of Winston Churchill, and the actor John Lithgow played the famous politician in the notorious British TV series The Crown. In general, in this film to the game Litgow I have the least complaints, it is only a pity that the role was prescribed a little crooked - the old man turned out to be too white and fluffy, very much this image lacked such a feature as "talking, but secretive at the same time", when the hero, although he tells a lot of things, but something mysteriously does not say. It's not enough. But the script is still decent, there is no dispute.
In general, with regard to acting, the caste as a whole, in my opinion, played about 4-. As at one time at the stage of the news about the casting for the leading roles caused doubt Jason Clark, so in the end he looked the most unconvincing. Well, whatever you want to do, I didn't see in his face any dramatic change between a convinced materialist and a heartbroken man who did believe in the ancient supernatural powers of that place. I didn’t see it in the eyes of the actor.
The performer of the role of his wife, actress Aimee Simetz , I had not previously met in other roles (if I saw it, I did not remember), so there were a little less claims to her, like I coped, like I didn’t even overplay much (although Rachel’s 1989 “sample” looked more organic anyway). The children played well, but it was better. Without spoilers: the scene in the bathroom for some reason resembled a slightly similar episode from season 1 of the series "Strain" from del Toro. It was one of the few moments when it really snuck into a goose bump! And yes... I can not help but note that the boy for the role of the baby Gage picked up well very similar to the same in the film of 1989.
Next, I can't keep my mouth shut. Church I'm sorry, dear creators of KJ-2019, but you have a miscast with a cat.
Even though the old film used a doll for a good half of the episodes, the kitten looked much more frightening than the current one. Yes, in some places the heavy look of the underside at Church-2019 and gives some kind of devilish thing, but it does not look like a dead person ever. That's a big downside.
There are a number of claims to the scenario in the new reading of the old story, the most significant of which was the fact of deceived expectations. Sharp and unexpected “fints with ears” the narrative does not present. The plot is straightforward and without turning away from the laid novel-source rail moves inexorably forward, not foreshadowing something from the category “Wow!”.
Visually and musically, the film is not particularly picky. Filmed at a fairly good level, forest, swamp, cemetery, fog - everything really looks good. The melodies of the authorship of Christopher Young are unobtrusive, moderately disturbing, and are quite combined with what is happening on the screen. But... in combination with everything else (weak script and average acting) I was categorically lacking in this film Atmospheres. The first part of the picture seems to set a kind of semi-mystical mood inherent in the plots of the King of Horrors, but when the action passes the equator, all this so vitally necessary for horror atmosphere of mystical mystery seems to dissipate in space, although according to all the laws of the genre, should, on the contrary, become more concentrated closer to the climax. And to scare the hell out of it!
As a result, we can say that as a single work (if there is a viewer who is not familiar with either the novel of King or the film of 89), a new reading of the plot about the Creed family has the right to exist. However, if you start to draw parallels and comparisons, the scales inevitably lean not in favor of the picture of the sample 2019. The main reasons are too many plot cliches and cliches, while an allegedly completely new reading was announced. And the fact that Uncle King praised the new film adaptation, in this case – not an indicator, not more than a marketing move. You can go to the movies, but don’t put too many expectations on the movie. There have been much worse films based on the plots of King's books, and "KDJ-2019" still a level slightly above average turned out.
"Why was it filmed?" - my first thoughts after going to the movie "Pet Cemetery"...
If you’re familiar with Stephen King’s work, you know that reading isn’t for everyone. His works are versatile, deep and can not carry a single genre. The most famous stories like “It”, “Green Mile”, “The Shining”, “Escape from Shawshank” – all these works have long received their adaptation. The directors of these paintings invested in them not only “original”, but also something of their own. Only thanks to this detail, these films are recognizable and loved by the ordinary viewer!
What about "Cemetery of domestic animals"? The people who created the film, just spit on this novel. The whole film is built on the “filmholes” and the famous moments “Scary and Loud!” Obviously, if the horror is not scary, then no one will go to it! But in our case, this is not scary, but unnerving.
You have no idea how angry I am at the fact that the main points of the plot were simply missed. Memories of her sister, death in the family, the reincarnation of the main characters - this is the mechanism of history. “But why should we waste time on psychology? Let's add another 10 long moments! We are creating a horror!
This film is a fake, which falls into the collection of failed horror films of our time.
4 out of 10
Only because of the beautiful locations and decent acting of a little girl.
' Pet Cemetery' is a remake of the 1989 cult horror film of the same name. The question of fees he decided by definition. What about the confession?
The very essence of the picture is its main problem. Let me say it again: the movie is a remake. A large number of viewers note the cliche, predictability, sometimes the stupidity of the characters, inconsistencies. What I'm going to ask is, was the original brilliant? The novelty is slightly less than completely repeats the original. With all the drawbacks in particular. There is only one significant departure from the old 'Cemetery'. I was not prepared for it (in a good way), it was painfully unexpected and sad. What am I talking about? In 1989, it seemed like something progressive and unusual. Now the value of it is under question.
What's good? The cemetery itself and the trail to it. The footage is very beautiful: darkness, graves, clouds, thunderstorm, low fog, bare trees, penumbra. At least put on the album cover of a band playing atmospheric black metal or doom metal! The famous scene with the truck became many times more spectacular and tense. The cat is great. Surprisingly good staging of fights, each looked exciting. I liked the references to the trifles of the original, for example, when the viewer expects that 'enemy' leaning out from under the bed, at the peak of tense music will cut Jada's Achilles (as in the original), Jud at this very peak sharply pushes away potentially 'dangerous' bed.
What's wrong? Well, the plot absurdities of the type of silent trucks, the strange fearlessness of the characters I will not paint, so as not to pour water, because they, as I mentioned, inherent in the original. It's bad that Louis's relationship with his wife's parents is cut out. The story of the dead man who appeared to Louis (but the dead man looks convincing, not caricatured) is cut off so much that the meaning in him is lost. The final is highly controversial. I haven't decided how to treat him yet.
Actors. The midkiff in the old movie was a terrible log. Jason Clarke looks much better in the lead role. Amy Seymetz plays normally, but nothing more. John Lithgow completely loses to Fred Guinn from the original.
It seems that the creators are just big fans of the old ' Pet Cemetery'. And for themselves decided to remove the remake in their own way. If you do not perceive the film as something avant-garde or having great claims, then a fan of the old film, I think, will enjoy watching.
7.5 out of 10
The dead must remain dead, and Stephen King's books stand on the shelf.
My first encounter with King’s horrors was in the town of Salem. The battered theme of vampires turned into a very scary novel “The Lot”. The original fear that saturated the pages of the novel grew with each chapter. I would never have thought that words on paper could be frightening. Then there were “Talisman”, “Confrontation”, “Tominokers” and finally “Petrel Cemetery”.
I put off reading what I had heard of the horror hidden between the lines of the work. The fears were justified. After half of what I had read, I looked apprehensively at my cat murmuring in the corner. Glowing green eyes gave rise to bad thoughts. Then I found out that King had the idea for an affair after the death of Smaki, the pet of Naomi’s daughter. The writer’s youngest son, Owen, could also have been hit by a car. Stephen brought into the book the psychology of fear, parental love and unwillingness to put up with the irreversibility of death. For King, it was a difficult novel, which he published only under the pressure of circumstances.
But I don't know what circumstances made him agree to the 2nd film adaptation. As much as the author shook over the 1st film, so condescending he reacted to the current one. Bloody scenes and unexpected horror stories try to hide the emptiness of the content. The authors at the beginning placed so many “guns” that their subsequent shots in the plot could not see only blind. At the same time, a great moment with children in animal masks was awarded one scene and a place on the poster.
The viewer was given a twisted scenario, distracting from brain activity with boo-effects. Yeah, they got better 30 years later. However, the plasticine makeup from the 1st film was replaced by a wooden play by the talkative daughter of the hero, who wanted to appear scary. Even the silent boy from Omen looked better. The inner demons of the girl’s mother frighten only those who have not seen the Exorcist. The only one who inspires trust is the father of a strange family.
The film is frightening with unexpected visual moments, but it is absolutely not the fear that makes its way to the bone. A banal horror story based on a psychologically terrible book. Some films should remain "dead" and not appear on screens.
5 out of 10
It's great. Magic. Perfect. Atmospheric! This is about the streams of water, greedily swallowing the sidewalk to the house. It was looking at the heel of storm drains, with regret passed his eyes along their border - the water flowed exactly past. True, it is still chic and atmospheric. I immediately wanted to put a camera, and take a meditative shot to music, say, Chopin. What, art house.
As for the sabzh: well, it turned out to be a well-made horror attraction. Actually, this is the main thing you need to know. Everything in the arsenal of the horror genre was stuffed in an hour and a half, shaken, splashed little King on top, and wrapped in a package under a familiar name. Delicious? Basically, yes. I was afraid of the exact copy of the old film, and therefore questioned the expediency of going to the movies. But curiosity took its toll. . .
Fortunately, the copier didn't work. The film is about something about its own, but it is not even ' based on ' - the authors flew to the moon, refusing to accept the original source in principle for something existing. The story itself, especially at the beginning, correctly plays the role ' yawn wide'. Before the scene with the truck (the coolest, by the way), the temporite will pretend to be a tumbler and desperately promise '. Here we go. From a rather trivial sandbox of provincial horror new 'Pet Sematary' unexpectedly stepped into the territory of neighbors in the genre. Somewhere near ran Leatherface, and the younger daughter of the heroes is a little like him. Except for the cool guys with shotguns, bravura walking in the way of shooting dead people.
For what I really want to beat the authors of the film: Paxcoe. From the most eerie image, frightening, but from that very lively made a comic piece of meat, with an unforgettable storyline. Just a man. Just standing with makeup on. Fse.
However, the film obviously has a strong technical component, saving a slightly banal script in itself. Operator, sound, low post, tower. It's good, it's good for the eye. Again, the scene with the truck for, actually, chamber horror is amazing! For these advantages, the film wants to shake hands and say: you are cool, I did not regret watching you, gave money, walked in the rain and swam in the sidewalk.
I’m not going to watch you again.
Mary Lambert's version is more drama than horror. In her presentation, the material turned out to be emotional and heavy, well remembered and with beautifully revealed images.
So, the long-awaited remake of the film adaptation of the novel of the same name by Stephen King came out. It should be noted that people who criticize the film for its non-canonical nature, it seems, did not follow the news about the film, because the authors almost immediately warned that the plot will be different from the original story and scolding them for it makes no sense.
Let’s look at every aspect of the film.
1. Narrative - 1/5
What are we waiting for when we go to a film based on the cult thriller of a famous author? The correct answer is an interesting and twisted plot, a couple of unexpected plot twists and, of course, a consistent general narrative. In fact, the viewer receives: a precipitous and superfluous story arc (about the sister of the wife of the main character), which played absolutely no role in the overall story; stupid actions of the main characters, some of which do not lend themselves to any logic; simple and in the aggregate uninteresting plot;
2. Atmosphere - 2/5
On the screen, we see basically only two locations: a forest with its mystical swamp and two houses (one belongs to the main characters, the second to their neighbor). One time we showed a couple of other places, but nothing like that. Not thickly... But maybe these places are so saturated that you don’t need any more? No way! The mystical swamp is an ordinary swamp, where sometimes a monster howls very frighteningly (which by the way will not be shown in the film). That is, the monster is only needed to scream and scare the main character. The swamp itself looks pretty creepy. At such moments it became uncomfortable, but then everything spoiled one moment. The road through the swamp leads to some stone elevation that looks like a location stolen from another movie. It does not fit into the overall interior.
3. Screamers - 2/5
Scrimmers (from the English word scream - scream; Scrimmer - a scene first with a quiet sound, and then with a sharp loud, designed to scare the viewer), where without them in the horror, and even with an age rating of 18+? But it's not smooth here either. There are a couple of scary moments in the film, but according to the authors, there should be more of them. What's the problem? They're too tight. Stimulating music begins to play, you squeeze into a chair and prepare to have a heart attack, but... It's been 2 minutes, you're tired of becoming one with the chair - the moment is lost. Also, the authors of the film, it seems, believe that if the viewer shows something nasty, it will scare him, but in fact it rejects.
4. Characters - 3/5
As I wrote above, some characters are completely devoid of logical thinking. But it is rather a lack of narrative. The characters themselves look alive, you believe that there really is this Dr. Louis (Jason Clarke) with his family, that these are not just dolls (worth giving credit to acting, although in my opinion Jason Clarke is more suited to the roles of villains). At some point, you really empathize with the characters until they do something stupid again.
We were all waiting for an interesting thriller with elements of horror, but we got a typical “thresh horror” that is not even as frightening as we would like, because of the drawn-out screamers.
“Cemetery of Pets” is a disgusting adaptation of Stephen King’s novel. It is an uninteresting plot with the same uninteresting characters, no acting and atmosphere that is absolutely not frightening and not interesting.
Now, in detail...
1. Scenario
I don’t even know how to describe it.
I'll start with the story. And that's a failure in all respects. He's just not interesting. What we learn from the promos, trailers and synopsis is what he tells about a family in which a cat dies and is buried in a mysterious cemetery. Then another family member dies, leading to a series of mysterious events. But one way or another, almost everything is stupid in it: the backstory of the heroes, turns, and most importantly, it is an absolutely delusional and idiotic ending to the whole story. Also, in the whole plot component, there is a huge problem with logic and explanation of what is happening, I will tell you right away - you will not wait for it.
The characters in the film are stupid idiots... classic horror idiots. They go there without knowing why, do something without thinking or thinking. And the behavior of the heroes is absolutely unjustified.
Also, the characters are not prescribed in any way, which makes them absolutely unpleasant to the viewer.
Overall, the script is terrible! It doesn't have any pros. It's just leaked.
2. Acting jobs
It's very bad here, too. The only plus of this item and almost the only one in the tape is Jason Clarke, who plays in the film of a hero named “Louis”. Yes, it is clear that he plays an idiot, but still plays well enough, as a result of which the viewer will even partially empathize with him.
But the rest have the feeling that they do not know how to play at all, in particular a child (Jete Laurence), who looked like an emotionless log in the frame. Another actor who wasn’t particularly annoying was John Lithgow. But it is a common standard of such projects and does not produce any impressions.
And in the end, the acting work here is simply no, except for Jason Clark, who less coped with his task.
3. Atmosphere
How it could be done badly here, I honestly don’t understand. If you leak the script, the actors picked up almost none, so make a normal, frightening atmosphere.
Alas, there's also a huge failure. The entourage here is not frightening. For all 2 hours there were only 2-3 screamers, from which you could flinch a little, which is very small, if you already do the attraction. Basically, when watching, I was not that I was not afraid, and I was almost laughed at by the stupidity of situations and actions of the characters.
In short, it's a blistering failure.
4. Installation
Yeah, I'm the kind of person who's trying to find the slightest plus in a terrible tape. Editing is one of the very good parts of the film. It is very pleasant to watch such shots, which smoothly change one location to another. I really haven't seen this in a movie in a long time. Except in the clips a couple of times.
In general, the picture is very good.
In summary:
It's very bad. That's terrible! Absolutely uninteresting, stupid, illogical and idiotic horror-attraction in terms of working out the script, which really scares 3 times in 2 hours, and even then “scares” – this is still strongly said. In terms of acting, everything is not so good here. Jason Clarke played well and the rest were either bad or not. The entourage in the picture does not work. He can't immerse himself in that story, and he can't scare you, which is his main job. And, of course, the second and last plus among the huge mountain of shortcomings is an excellent installation.
I didn’t like this film, and I won’t recommend it for viewing. Even those who like such attractions, consider buying a ticket, because a couple of screamers for a two-hour timekeeping is really not enough.
5 out of 10