Home news Film review: & # 39; Pet Sematary & # 39;

Film review: & # 39; Pet Sematary & # 39;

Film review: & # 39; Pet Sematary & # 39;

A new adaptation of the best novel by Stephen King


The Stephen King Renaissance continues! The author has probably not seen much of Hollywood's attention since the boom of King movies in the early & 80s. With the advances in making movies and stories in recent years, this is the perfect time for horror, in general, not to mention the undisputed King. To satisfy our hunger for his material until It: Chapter Two is released, we get a new film version of his classic novel Pet Sematary. Louis and Rachel Creed (Jason Clarke, Amy Seimetz) have left the fast-paced life of Boston behind. moving to rural Ludlow, Maine, with their two children, eight-year-old daughter Ellie (Jete Laurence) and toddler son Gage. Their new farm is beautiful and idyllic, despite the fact that they are on a two-lane road where semi-trucks regularly pass by. Another feature of the new Creeds property is an old animal cemetery (the board is misspelled) deep in the forest behind the house. On one of their first days in the new house, Rachel and Ellie see that some local children perform a kind of ritual procession to bury an animal. That same day they also meet their neighbor, Jud Crandall (John Lithgow), a born and raised resident of Ludlow. When the family cat, Church, is found dead by the highway, Jud shares one of the city's secrets with Louis. Beyond a high barrier of tree trunks and dirt on the edge of the animal cemetery is a piece of land where everything that is buried comes back to life, but they are not quite the same as before. Despite the problems they have with the resurrected church, Louis cannot resist the temptations of the graveyard if one of their children is killed by a truck. Dumbbell room is an effective cooling machine, but it takes time to get there. The first question is of course: how does it relate to the source novel, and secondly: how does it relate to the adaptation of 1989. The novel is one of King & # 39; s best, a deeply personal and disturbing story about the extremes that we will go. for family. The 1989 film is a good but not great adaptation, one that has gotten a bit of cult status, in the same vein as the original mini series of It, probably as the only filmed version to date. This Pet Sematary falls firmly in between the book and the original film. It is definitely more atmospheric than the 1989 version, with many very successful jump scares. In some respects it feels closer to the novel in spirit, even with the number of changes made to the story. I would like to comment on these changes, but most could be considered as spoilers, so my hands are tied. I will only say that they work within the limits of this film, without changing the core. An important and important change is the end, and it is one that sticks directly into your lower abdomen, spins around and lingers for a while after you leave the theater. The versions vary from OK to effective. Clarke continues his stretch of semi-boring walking through the fight. I don't think he's a bad actor, he simply never left an impression with any role, no matter how hard he tries. Lithgow, while one of the greatest actors of every generation, could have done more with the role of Jud. One of the striking pieces of the 1989 version is Fred Gwynne & # 39; s Jud, with his thick Maine accent. Lithgow doesn't even try the accent, and simply shuffles through his role to the infamous scene of Jud, where he finally wakes up. The effective roles go to the women. Seimetz gives an emotional performance like Rachel, a woman with a deep connection to death as a result of an childhood incident. Laurence has put a lot on her young shoulders by being one of the emotional pillars of the film. Unfortunately, once again I cannot tell much more about their roles and the changes they have made to the novel. A criticism I have is the time it takes Pet Sematary to reach the big climax. Or, more correctly, the amount of time it takes as if it takes to get there. I have always been a proponent of the slowburn film, a film that takes the time to tell the story, one that does not feel the need to hurry the procedure. Yet there is a slow combustion and there is a stop when crawling. This film only lasts forty hours, but it seems like it takes two hours. When it comes to recent King adjustments, Pet Sematary is not as good or scary as It: chapter one, but in many ways it's better than the previous one. So, if you can get through the slow middle part, you'll be rewarded with a killer ending.

The Stephen King Renaissance continues! The author has probably not seen much of Hollywood's attention since the boom of King movies in the early & 80s. With the advances in making movies and stories in recent years, this is the perfect time for horror, in general, not to mention the undisputed King. To satisfy our hunger for his material It: Chapter Two is released, we get a new movie version of his classic novel Pet Sematary.

Louis and Rachel Creed (Jason Clarke, Amy Seimetz) have left the fast-paced life of Boston to move to rural Ludlow, Maine, with their two children, eight-year-old daughter Ellie (Jete Laurence) and toddler son Gage. Their new farm is beautiful and idyllic, despite the fact that they are on a dual carriageway where semi-trucks regularly pass by.

Another feature of the new ownership of the Creeds is an old animal cemetery (his board misspelled) deep in the forest behind the house. On one of their first days in the new house, Rachel and Ellie see that some local children perform a kind of ritual procession to bury an animal. That same day they also meet their neighbor, Jud Crandall (John Lithgow), a born and raised resident of Ludlow.

When the family cat, Church, is found dead by the highway, Jud shares one of the city's secrets with Louis. Beyond a high barrier of tree trunks and dirt on the edge of the animal cemetery is a piece of land where everything that is buried comes back to life, but they are not quite the same as before. Despite the problems they have with the resurrected church, Louis cannot resist the temptation of the graveyard if one of their children is killed by a truck.

Pet Sematary is an effective cooling machine, but it takes time to get there. The first question is of course: how does it relate to the source novel, with the second: how does it relate to the adaptation of 1989?

The novel is one of King & # 39; s best, a deeply personal and disturbing story about the extremes that we will use for the family. The 1989 film is a good but not great adaptation, one that has been given a little cult status, in the same line as the original The mini series, probably the only filmed version to date.

This one Pet Sematary falls firmly between the book and the original film. It is definitely more atmospheric than the 1989 version, with many very successful jump scares. In some respects it feels closer to the novel in spirit, even with the number of changes made to the story.

I would like to comment on these changes, but most can be considered as spoilers, so my hands are tied. I will only say that they work within the limits of this film, without changing the core. An important and important change is the end, and it is one that sticks directly into your lower abdomen, spins around and lingers for a while after you leave the theater.

The versions vary from OK to effective. Clarke continues his stretch of semi-boring walking through the fight. I don't think he's a bad actor, he simply never left an impression with any role, no matter how hard he tries. Lithgow, while one of the greatest actors of every generation, could have done more with the role of Jud. One of the striking pieces of the 1989 version is Fred Gwynne & # 39; s Jud, with his thick Maine accent. Lithgow doesn't even try the accent, and simply shuffles through his role to the infamous scene of Jud, where he finally wakes up.

The effective roles go to the women. Seimetz gives an emotional performance like Rachel, a woman with a deep connection to death as a result of an childhood incident. Laurence has put a lot on her young shoulders by being one of the emotional pillars of the film. Unfortunately again I cannot say too much anymore about their roles and the changes they have made to the novel.

A criticism I have is the length of time Pet Sematary to reach the great climax. Or, more correctly, the amount of time feels as it costs to get there. I have always been a proponent of the slowburn film, a film that takes the time to tell the story, one that does not feel the need to hurry the procedure. Yet there is a slow combustion and there is a stop when crawling. This film only lasts an hour, but it feels like it is running for two hours.

When it comes to recent King adjustments, Pet Sematary is not as good or scary as It: Chapter One, but it is better than the previous adjustment in many ways. So, if you can get through the slow middle part, you'll be rewarded with a killer ending.

Warn me

.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Must Read

Reinvent the Monkees :: Music :: The Monkees :: Paste

When Peter Tork died last month, he recalled that he, Michael Nesmith, and Mickey Dolenz were not the only young...

оплеванная Лера Кудрявцева ответила Алле Пугачевой :: Шоу-бизнес :: Дни.ру

Телеведущая не стала скрывать, что расстроилась из-за критики Аллы Пугачевой. Лера Кудрявцева заметила, что она вынуждена работать в рамках формата. Звезда решила ответить Примадонне ее же фразой:...

Jussie Smollett is fine after having committed alleged hate crimes

Jussie Smollett is doing "pretty well" after his alleged Chicago joke and hopes to be publicly relieved "as soon as all the information comes...

Without General Haftar nothing works | TIME ONLINE

The advance of General Chalifa Haftar began in the east of Libya, in the Cyrenaica - and apparently his local successes moved him, too...