I love the novel and think it is King's scariest. The first film adaptation is a favorite of mine as well, but mostly for camp factor. This looks pretty serious, so I am up for a new interpretation.
The first film isn't really campy at all. I revisited it for the October month and thought it still stands up quite well. Thanks to South Park I can't take Judd as seriously though. I keep thinking of the milkmaid story lol.
I think this looks great but help my fuck, how much of the story did they have to show in that new trailer? Jesus christ......
I stopped the trailer a minute in. Thanks Paramount. Next time just show the first 30 minutes instead. At least interest will be generated without the entire film being given away.
I guess they figure that, bewteen the book and previous film adaptation, we all know the story by now so just put it all out there. Hopefully they have some new twists to add that will surprise and delight true horror fans. HaHaHaHaHaHa........yeah, right.
So in the original film, the best acting performances were by (in ascending order): 3) Herman Munster 2) A stuffed cat 1) A 3 year old kid Wonder how the new film will stack up....
The Pet Sematary remake opens in theaters tonight. Figured I'd give it a bump now, since the thread was tough to find via search function. The last time the title was used was 2006, so it was buried a bit. No pun intended.
Got back from seeing it a little while ago. The first Pet Sematary is #80 on my Top 113 Horror Films list, despite some awful acting, but I went in with an open mind and really enjoyed the remake. I'm already reading that some people despise the ending, but it's... different. I won't give anything away. Here's a quick review: http://splattercritic.com/2019/04/pet-sematary-2019/
This cracked me up. I love Pet Sematary, but the acting is pretty bad. The new one has much better acting, especially the little girl. No one's going to win any awards, but they get the job done without embarrassing themselves.
Going to the theater tonight. Glad to hear that the acting is better, because the acting in the original is terrible. It feels like a shitty TV movie at times. Fred Gwynne is the only one who makes it watchable. I really hate Denise Crosby, so anything without her, is an improvement I don't hate the original, as it still has some effective scenes, but it's a chore to sit through these days, thanks to the acting. I hope Zelda is less cheesy in the remake, since her over the top scenes made me laugh even as a kid. Would be more fitting as a Deadite in Evil Dead 2 or Army of Darkness About 2.45 into this clip. "Never get out of bed agaaaaaaaain!!" Hilarious stuff
A lot of bad acting remarks about the original here. I mean I watched it pretty recently and thought it was rather good still. I mean it's nothing super special but it feels pretty similar to others of its type. Maybe it's because I view it as more of a cautionary children's tale.
Anyone watched the knock off yet? I started watching the trailer last night, but it was terrible, it's not asylum, uncork'd I believe, is also an English movie, it looked like flatliners except after they are brought back they keep seeing a cat? At that point I lost the will to live and turned it off!
Gee, #80, huh? I'd think it would be at least #72. (I've always chuckled at the "top 100" lists concept, as after the top three or four films, it's all kinda pointless, especially as you get lower on the list)
Well that was far superior to the 89 version. Better acting, character development and a darker and creepier tone. This is not one of those scene for scene remakes, as there are lots of new stuff in there. And damn, did the cat look pissed off, when he came back Loved the look of the burial grounds. As it kinda reminded me of something from an old Universal horror movie. Also the soundtrack was excellent during the scary parts. Really freaky. Good stuff!
I can't say I liked this much at all. I was bored for most of the running time. The first hour of the movie is a pretty dry and lifeless retread of the book and original film. All of the personality has been sucked out of these characters and the material, and you're basically just watching them go through the motions. Everyone speaks in monotone and nearly every line of dialogue is expository. It's missing a lot of the macabre touches from Lambert's film, such as the maid's suicide and the coffin popping open at the funeral. Not that I'd want this movie to lifelessly copy those scenes, but it could create some touches of it's own. It's not a spoiler to say that around the hour mark, this version does start to deviate a bit from the source material. That chunk of the movie was interesting, but by that point it's too little too late. I will say there might be some stuff in the final act that this movie does better than Lambert's film, but for the first hour of this movie there is not a frame that is better than Lambert's film. And I'm not even that in love with the original film (to be honest, Pet Sematary II is my favorite). There is undoubtedly a supernatural element to Lambert's film and the novel, but they do a great job balancing that with grounding it in the family. Here, there's a lot of stuff that seemed inspired by the recent trend of Insidious / The Conjuring. Or at least in the execution. A big example of this would be Zelda, specifically the scene where Spoiler Rachel contorts into Zelda, and also stuff like Spoiler Ellie morphing into Judd's wife to antagonize him. Honestly, it's scarier if they're just zombies. And again, the original film certainly has a bit of this tilt with Gage and dream sequences, but never goes overboard into full-blown haunted house movie. Also, Zelda and Pascow are wasted here, and feel like more of an obligation than anything. And not to mention that Ramones cover over the end credits... oomph! Atrocious! Even the Frankenweenie cover was better. Strangely enough, Shazam! also features Ramones over the end credits, which I had caught an IMAX screening of right before Pet Sematary. Not to mention it's a much better movie.
