Pet Sematary (remake)

El Duda

The critics seemed to go mad for the IT remake despite the fact that it was just another jump scare film.

I'm not holding my breath on this one. The trailer gives too much away.

Mrcaramelchoc

there is too much happening in the trailer.i dont think it will top the old one.having said that the original one wasnt brilliant either.ill go to it though.

branie2

I'm reading the novel at the moment, and it's very good so far.

El Duda

"Who makes Jason Clarke a star?"

The Enbalmer

branie2 wrote:

I'm reading the novel at the moment, and it's very good so far.

It's garbage..just like 99% of the rubbish Stephen King churns out.

El Duda

I read IT recently...

When it's good it's really good but there is so much crap in there. At its worst it is the ramblings of a coked up lunatic.

The Enbalmer

El Duda wrote: »

I read IT recently...

When it's good it's really good but there is so much crap in there. At its worst it is the ramblings of a coked up lunatic.

Let's have this right..IT concenrs the activities of a supernatural or extraterrestrial entity that has lived in the sewers(!) for thousands of years.


After 600 pages of complete bolloxology the said alien is destroyed with an asthma inhaler by a bunch of loser kids.


Salems Lot is memorable for one thing only: The ludicrous line about an "evil house attracting evil men".


King is a charlatan..he could'nt write Fcuck on a dusty blind.

Telecaster58

El Duda wrote: »

The critics seemed to go mad for the IT remake despite the fact that it was just another jump scare film.

I'm not holding my breath on this one. The trailer gives too much away.

I read that review in the IT. The only thing I agreed with was that the young girl in it was really good.
The film was a bit ponderous with a couple of jump scares and a narrative that was very contrived. The last 20 minutes wasn't bad but by that time I was past caring.

The Enbalmer

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Let's have this right..IT concenrs the activities of a supernatural or extraterrestrial entity that has lived in the sewers(!) for thousands of years.


After 600 pages of complete bolloxology the said alien is destroyed with an asthma inhaler by a bunch of loser kids.


Salems Lot is memorable for one thing only: The ludicrous line about an "evil house attracting evil men".


King is a charlatan..he could'nt write Fcuck on a dusty blind.

He has churned out a lot of crap and is highly overrated. But amongst the crap there are a few gems like The Shining and Needful Things, both brilliant stories

branie2

The film was very good; very different from the novel, but I enjoyed it all the same.

cena

I have never seen the original movie or read the book. It was a good movie. Acting was great

s7ryf3925pivug

I was jealous of the guy that walked out.

Acting was good alright. Otherwise it’s just a bad film. For about the first half, I was entertained by it, in a laugh at the stupid film kinda way. Then it got gross and was no fun. Cheap shots that disgusted rather than thrilled or frightened.

My wife said she was glad we went to the cinema to watch it, because that way there was no sense of our home being violated from having it on here.

Fr Tod Umptious

Heckler wrote: »

As i mentioned earlier such a grim premise. The book was one of Kings finest in terms of scary. I read it as a young teen and was terrified. The joys of having a mother working in a bookshop at the time who had no idea what she was bring home.

I saw the original movie many times in my late teens/early twenties.

About a decade later I read the book.

Even though I knew the polt and the whole thing, the book scared the living daylights out of me.

gmisk

Konnor Lemon Mink wrote: »

I was jealous of the guy that walked out.

Acting was good alright. Otherwise it’s just a bad film. For about the first half, I was entertained by it, in a laugh at the stupid film kinda way. Then it got gross and was no fun. Cheap shots that disgusted rather than thrilled or frightened.

My wife said she was glad we went to the cinema to watch it, because that way there was no sense of our home being violated from having it on here.

Saw it tonight....such a crushing disappointment, the book is excellent from what I remember but not a slave to it by any means.
I thought the acting was poor bar the wife and John Lithgow. I also thought the cgi was distractingly bad, I didn't find it scary at all and to be honest by the end I was just bored.

Also Starring LeVar Burton

One of my all-time favourite novels and while I've never been overwhelmed by the '80s adaptation, at the very least it was entertaining and felt like they put in a decent effort.

Needless to say I had high hopes for this newest adaptation, with the recent take on another Stephen King classic, It, being exceptionally good and considering how cinematography has come along in comparison to when the '80s one was made.

Sadly, the first half of the film was just boring, with terrible dialogue and Jason Clarke felt like he was phoning in his performance, while John Lithgow was criminally underutilized when they could have beefed up Judd's character a bit rather than just use him as an exposition mouthpiece.

The second half of the film felt a bit more polished and I liked some of the changes it made, but ultimately it just didn't add anything special, which is a shame because I do think the novel is one of King's best works and this film just doesn't do it any justice.

p to the e

I felt it was weak acting, bad direction and, in parts, pretty damn corny. And why didn't anybody give the cat a good bath and a brush?

I haven't read the novel or seen the original adaptation. Did the young boy have "the shin" as he could see dead black lad?

Also the part where Jason Clarke is telling the toddler to not open the car door for anybody got a great laugh in my screen.

Fysh

For how simple the plot was (and how shallow the characters were) it sure sh*ted on long enough. It's a pity too, because the sound design was good and there were some nice visuals at times, but all of it was let down by shallow characters and a fixation on crap jumpscares.

I thought it was a real pity that

the conversations with the resurrected daughter (where she realises she's dead and has been brought back) didn't lead anywhere more interesting than "so now I must eat you because demonic whatnot". Yes, I know that's also in the book but if they changed which kid got killed they could've at least explored something new with it...

TerrorFirmer

Really disappointed in this. Despite having a healthy budget for a film of this type, good cast, and the benefits of modern film-making, manages to be completely inferior to the original film, which in itself was only ever a sort of respectably watchable affair.

It's such an incredibly simple premise and so promising, but this film just somehow gets it all wrong. It just plods along with no real earned suspence or emotional connections, pretty wooden dialogue that's plain dreadful in spots, and limps towards a predictable and unsatisfying conclusion.

DareGod

I put this on last night. Jesus, I had to turn it off after 45 minutes. It was atrocious. And I'm not usually difficult to please when it comes to horrors.