Stephen King has built up a rather strange and occasionally entertaining relationship with cinema. To the point where his name might as well be its own sub-genre. His stories which have been adapted to the big screen have mostly fallen into the "so bad it's funny" kind of execution like Children of the Corn and The Tommyknockers, while few others have successfully been elevated into iconic screen gems such as The Shawshank Redemption and The Shining (the Stanley Kubrick film and not the mini-series). Pet Sematary 2019 seems to fall somewhere in the middle. There are occasional moments in this new adaptation that cause me to suspect that a great deal of the film was removed by Studio executives who only wanted to make a quick buck off of the name recognition, while the filmmakers had intended something much more profound. Even so, while I cannot say I found it particularly scary for the most part, I did find it pretty shocking at times. If only because it did genuinely throw me for a loop that I was not expecting and delivered a little bit of a new perspective on the story. Even so, it was still just adequate at best. Still chilling and enjoyable in its own way, but not as profound as I suspect it could have been.
Based on the book by Stephen King (which I have not read) and previously adapted into a feature film back in 1989 (which I have seen), the story follows a doctor named Louis (Jason Clarke), his wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), their two children and pet Cat as they move into a new house in rural Maine. Upon arriving they meet their new neighbor Jud (John Lithgow) and discover a secluded Cemetary for pets who have passed away. The misspelling of the word in the title refers to the children who wrote the sign at the entrance. After some time has passed, Louis discovers that their poor cat has been killed in an accident and resolves to bury him in the titular Cemetary. However, to prevent the child from dealing with the loss of the family pet, Jud decides to take Louis past the Cemetary to an even more secluded part of the woods to bury the Cat. Soon afterward, the Cat returns from the dead, though not quite the same as before. Despite the strange secret looming over Louis's head, he decides to just move on as if all is as it was. That is until tragedy strikes again with another death in the family. Stricken by grief, Louis must now decide if he is to use that strange magical burial ground again, or if he should accept that...sometimes...dead is better.
As I have stated before, I have not read the book this movie was based on. However, I have seen the original film adaptation. Therefore, the best comparisons I can make in this review is how it holds up to the first adaptation. Both films deliver a decent atmosphere filled with chills and occasional laughs. They both feature sympathetic and layered characters, explore a profound and relatable fear (in this case parental grief), and deliver appropriately tragic endings. The significant difference between the two films is in their execution of said ending as well as their build-up to them. Which, to explain any further, I must go into SPOILER territory.
If you wish to avoid SPOILERS, then please skip any paragraph featuring the SPOILERS prompt, and that is written in RED.
SPOILERS:
Okay, so in both films, the tragedy is that the child is accidentally hit by a Truck on the road and is killed. Overwhelmed by grief and unable to deal with it, Louis digs up his dead child and reburies him in the magical graveyard causing his child to rise from the dead. Except their kid is no longer the sweet and innocent child Louis knew before. Something murderous and evil has returned in their place. In the original adaptation from 1989, the family only had one child. A baby boy named Gage no more than two years old. In the 2019 version, the family has a baby boy and an older nine-year-old daughter named Ellie (Jeté Laurence), and it is she who gets killed in the freak accident. While the originals undead baby boy was a little chilling in its own way, it was, at least in my opinion, a little too silly. Because the boy was never really scary on account of his minimal ability to emote. Granted, it was not entirely the boy's fault given his age, but still. In the 2019 version, this change makes the scenes with the child more terrifying, primarily due to Jeté Laurence's incredible performance. This kid outshines everyone else in the whole cast with her conviction and tour de force performance. This kid had better get more roles after this because she is terrific.
For those of you who skipped the last paragraph, the short version is that one film has a much better child actor than the other.
Speaking of the acting, the cast, especially Jason Clarke and the kid mentioned above, do a remarkable job with their roles. Needless to say, John Lithgow especially is a welcome old favorite of mine. While he may not be as memorable as Fred Gwynne, who played the same role in the 1989 film, Lithgow succeeds in making this version of the character his own and delivers his usual professional power. I hope to keep seeing more of him presently.
The visuals, sound design, and special effects are a big step up from the previous film. Even when some of them don't seem to go anywhere. As I mentioned at the beginning of this review, the film feels incomplete. As if there was a major plot point or story element that was cut out at the last minute by unwelcome input coming from upstairs. Of course, there is no way of confirming this, but it is my personal suspicion.
While I can confidently say that I enjoyed my time with this movie, I must admit that I was not as impressed as I would have liked to be. The acting is good, the visuals are appropriately chilling and well updated, and there are parts of the story that did genuinely catch me off guard, but I was rarely ever terrified. For a movie based on, supposedly, the scariest Stephen King story, that's saying a lot.
Is this movie worth seeing?
Maybe.
Is it worth seeing in theaters?
Maybe.
Why?
It's a decent improvement that offers little if any new takes on this classic story. Fans of Stephen King's work will likely get a decent kick out of it, but for everyone else, if you didn't like the first adaptation, you're not likely going to get anything out of this. Except for a genuinely fantastic performance from a talented child actor.
Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment