The New PET SEMATARY: Something's Not Right

[JD Spydo]

Well yesterday I went to see the new edition of the 1989 horror classic PET SEMATARY. But truly I left the movie at it's conclusion really disappointed and confused . Because I still have such a crisp memory of how intricate and how well choreographed the original edition of this movie was. Compared to the one I saw yesterday I'll take the 1989 version of PET SEMATARY any day of the week. The cast of actors was far better in the original and it was also more in tuned with Stephen King's book of the same title.

I guess my rant boils down to the fact that art of making movies really hasn't improved that much from what I can tell. And with today's high technologies I feel it should be the other way around several times over. The guy that played Jud Crandall wasn't even 20% as good as Fred Gwyne was in the original. And even when you take the part of "Church" the cat they even messed that up pathetically >> the original if you recall was a beautiful, regal British Shorthair and the new one has an ordinary Tabby that looks like a stray I see often in back alleys of my own hometown :rolleyes: :confused:

The girl that played Ellie in the first movie was easily far better than the girl that played the role of Ellie in this new one The two actors that played Dr. Louis & Mrs Creed were far more classy and much better actors in the original 1989 edition rather than the actors that played those parts in the new movie. OK I'll condense my rant down to this>> You would think that quality would be exponentially better 30 years later but that wasn't the case at all. But it's not just that way with movies it's kind of that way with everything you encounter anymore. I do believe my days of spending money in movie theaters and ball stadiums is about to come to a complete and abrupt halt. What can I say?? I"m from MISSOURI>> You've got to "SHOW ME"

And I'm not being shown very much at all in the past few years unfortunately :confused:

[The Deacon]

Haven't seen it but I agree, JD, I have a hard time thinking of any recent remake that was better than the original and quite a few have been absolutely horrible. Still, while I've really forgotten both, I vagurely recall thinking that the original movie didn't really follow Stephen King's book all that well. Then again you can say the same for all the movies based on Tom Clancy and Thomas Harris books.

On a brighter note, if you have Netflix, or want to sign up for a free trial, I highly recommend The Highwaymen. Best thing I've watched in quite a while.

[Crux]

The Highwaymen was awesome.

[Nate]

Not surprised unfortunately.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3J0iwwsq-w

[Crux]

Not surprised unfortunately.

All the "people" reviews have said pretty much the same thing. I haven't seen either because I don't like fantasy horror as I am alone in the woods at night too often to have crud like that in my head.

[James Y]

Better technology doesn't always equal better movies. Especially when it comes to remakes. I saw the remakes of:

Dawn of the Dead
A Nightmare on Elm Street
Assault on Precinct 13
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Carrie
Halloween (Rob Zombie's version)
The Fog
And others...

Now, while I'm certain some younger people thought that some of the remakes were better, IMO, they were not. The remakes were more graphically gory and violent, but not better movies. And in my observation, the remakes took themselves way more seriously than the originals, without the interesting characters/personalities, the humor, etc. And the remakes often feel the need to explain or give a reason for everything, when explanations are not always necessary, such as the villain's/monster's childhood trauma or whatever, to explain his motivations. Or whatever. Newer movies (especially remakes) also tend to over-rely on CGI at the expense of mood and atmosphere.

The only 'remake' I can mention off-hand that I like better than the original is John Carpenter's The Thing, which I like over the also-excellent The Thing from Another World. And Carpenter's remake is now an old movie itself.

As far as Pet Sematary, I'm gonna give the remake a miss. I will be rewatching the original soon.

Jim

[Nate]

All the "people" reviews have said pretty much the same thing. I haven't seen either because I don't like fantasy horror as I am alone in the woods at night too often to have crud like that in my head.

Haha. I barely watch anything in the horror genre either, but the original takes me back to my youth. Bonus points for the Ramones track. :)

[JD Spydo]

Haven't seen it but I agree, JD, I have a hard time thinking of any recent remake that was better than the original and quite a few have been absolutely horrible. Still, while I've really forgotten both, I vagurely recall thinking that the original movie didn't really follow Stephen King's book all that well. Then again you can say the same for all the movies based on Tom Clancy and Thomas Harris books.

On a brighter note, if you have Netflix, or want to sign up for a free trial, I highly recommend The Highwaymen. Best thing I've watched in quite a while.

Well Paul I totally agree with you that very few of the movies based on Stephen King's books are parallel with the original narrative of the book with the same title. But the first rendition of PET SEMATARY was far closer than this new one. I was tempted to check it out because Stephen King himself rated it highly :confused: But I guess one man's masterpiece is another man's disaster :rolleyes: >> I've been a fan of horror movies since I was a kid and even into adulthood ( which is debatable in my case :D )>> I even find the two Andy Warhol movies ( Dracula & Frankenstein) of the mid 70s were far better done than this new Pet Sematary movie was or about a hundred other horror movies made in the past 5 years or so Even the "Exorcist" of circa 1974 had better acting and far better special effects than did this new version of Pet Sematary>> and were closing in on 50 years on that one :rolleyes: They must have been working on a Rip-mart budget for sure. But I've seen a lot of "low budget" movies far exceed this one.
I've said before that some of the older actresses like Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Liz Taylor and even Jane Russell were far better than many of these newer screen bimbos ( the guys too :rolleyes: ) of our modern times>> for many of the women actors who arguably probably slept their way up the ranks :rolleyes:
Even Stephen King's masterpiece "The Shining" was eons better than many of these newer horror flicks>> or any of his other relatively newer stuff for that matter. Not to mention that the theater I seen it at wanted $6 dollars for a lousy hot dog and $4.50 for a 16 oz. Dasani bottled water :eek: and that was in a $5 matinee special :rolleyes:

Well Paul I guess we ought to be thankful that we grew up in a time when being an artisan and/or professional actually meant something. The guy they had to play Dr. Louis Creed looked like some mechanic at my local Midas Muffler shop>> but not a medical Doctor>> not even close. But that's just one flaw out of dozens I seen in this new version of a super horror classic. Other than Spyderco's great knives it's as though "QUALITY" in any field of endeavor or even the concept of it is now a thing of the past. GOD help us

[ThePeacent]

Better technology doesn't always equal better movies. Especially when it comes to remakes. I saw the remakes of:

Dawn of the Dead
A Nightmare on Elm Street
Assault on Precinct 13
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Carrie
Halloween (Rob Zombie's version)
The Fog

add to that,
Evil Dead
Total Recall
Funny Games
The Cabin In the Woods
The Hills Have Eyes
War Of The Worlds
The Day The Earth Stood Still

newer does not mean better, in Cinema and Films especially

[yablanowitz]

I've ranted before about the ongoing effort to replace skill with technology. Hollywood is a shining example of the results of that effort.

[JD Spydo]

I've ranted before about the ongoing effort to replace skill with technology. Hollywood is a shining example of the results of that effort.

Dude you've hit the nail squarely on the head >> I was even chatting with one of the people sitting behind me in the theater after the conclusion of the show. OH and keep in mind this is a new theater ( less than 1 year old) with all kinds of high tech amenities. The people behind me also seen the original when it came out in the late 80s and they even commented on how poor the picture quality was compared to the original movie ( Pet Sematary)>> as well as how poor the new Pet Sematary movie was compared to the original. When they showed the scene of the sick/twisted sister ( Zelda) it was just a bunch of snipits and was nothing really gorry or graphic nor did it make your skin crawl like the original. That's really pathetic when you think that 30 years ago they had better photographic quality and actors that knew their art far better than they do now :confused:

Not trying to beat a broken drum but again the actors that played Dr. & Mrs Louis Creed seemed like some low budget extras or someone they got that did local community volunteer acting gig at a local high school. None of the actors including the child actors compared at all to the 1989 original cast. The guy that played Dr. Louis Creed really reminded me of one of the mechanics at one of the local car repair shops. Seriously that guy that played Louis Creed even looked a lot like the guys from Waste Management who pick up my trash once a week :rolleyes: . The selection of the actors was so low budget that I seriously doubt if anyone will remember any of them even a year from now :rolleyes:

Again I will at least admit that there were scenes that had horrific shock factor and really caught you by surprise but none of it was of a high enough picture quality where you could fully make out the location or which character you were dealing with. YAB is 1000% correct that they are depending on technology to try to replace the true art of theater or the skills of the producers and directors. I've actually found some of the old "Chucky" ( Child's Play) movies to even be more entertaining than this new Pet Sematary movie>> at least Chucky made me laugh a lot :rolleyes: I've seen early 1960s Twilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock TV shows that I enjoyed far better than this new Pet Sematary movie. And that's a sad commentary to say the least when you consider that a lot of that was close to 60 years ago

[StuntZombie]

I was really excited for the new Pet Sematary, but ultimately left the theater feeling disappointed. After the "IT" remake, I had such high hopes, and ultimately, it just fell flat for me. I don't know that I can fault the actors, especially not Jete Laurence. She really nailed the role as Ellie, both alive and not so alive. I think it was mostly an issue of material and direction for the rest of the actors. Ultimately, the whole flick felt rushed compared to the original. I think I've come to expect remakes of movies based on novels to delve deeper into the book's material, and it seemed like this one stuck closer to the surface than the original did.

[JD Spydo]

I was really excited for the new Pet Sematary, but ultimately left the theater feeling disappointed. After the "IT" remake, I had such high hopes, and ultimately, it just fell flat for me. I don't know that I can fault the actors, especially not Jete Laurence. She really nailed the role as Ellie, both alive and not so alive. I think it was mostly an issue of material and direction for the rest of the actors. Ultimately, the whole flick felt rushed compared to the original. I think I've come to expect remakes of movies based on novels to delve deeper into the book's material, and it seemed like this one stuck closer to the surface than the original did.

OH I'll agree with you on that one SZ Yeah out of all of them that girl ( Jete Laurence) did do a respectable job for a kid actor. My main overall critique was with the main cast of adults>> the people that played the adults were sorry compared to the original cast. If you remember the first Pet Sematary back in 1989 depending on how old you are>> although with the availability of about any movie that's ever been made that probably isn't even a factor the more I think about it. But look at Denise Crosby ( Mrs Creed) and the guy that played Dr. Louis Creed ( Dale Midkiff) in the first edition of Pet Sematary. Now that guy looked the part>> he looked like a typical doctor. But these people that played the Creeds and that sorry excuse for an actor that played Jud Crandall were all totally abysmal in my humble opinion.

In the first movie it was Fred Gwyne of Herman Munster fame that played Judd and he did an excellent job in the first movie>> he added an eerie aspect to the movie that few actors could do. But this beer joint castaway that played Judd in the newer movie is someone you would expect to be changing your oil at Jiffy Lube :rolleyes: :D And the guy that played Dr. Louis Creed didn't look any more like a Doctor than Jethro Bodine of the Beverly Hillbillies. And the gal that played his wife was a complete dud compared to Denise Crosby in the first edition. I'll give you a high five on the little girl ( Jete Laurence)>> but even at that she didn't hold a candle compared to "Blaze Berdahl who played Ellie in the first one>> but I'll give you that one that Jete Laurence didn't do bad relatively speaking compared to the rest of that sorry cast they assembled. I swear those actors must have come from some job temp agency :rolleyes:

And the guy that played the twisted sister Zelda in the first movie ( yeah it was a guy who played Zelda in the first edition :rolleyes: )>> well he did 5 times better than the actor that played Zelda in this new one. No the more I'm thinking about it the new Pet Sematary was truly a major letdown in many respects. How Stephen King himself could hype this movie is beyond me :confused: