Taking this film solely on adaptation bases and not comparing to the original film, this is an alright adaptation it has moments of tension, and good moments of horror in the first two acts. The acting is decent, and the final act really does pay off well, where you do really feel the tension suddenly building to a breaking point. I recommend people form their own view and watch this as more an adaptation than comparing with the original film.
Add a Review
-
Clive_W22 June 2019
-
In Stephen King's celebrated oeuvre, his 1983 novel Pet Sematary (the misspelling is intentional) is something of a curio. Although reasonably well received at the time, critics have never considered it worthy of the kind of attention lavished on work such as The Shining, The Stand, The Dark Tower series, It, Misery, or The Green Mile. Fans of King, however, have long championed it as one of his most emotionally devastating and philosophically complex works, whilst King himself considers it the scariest novel he's ever written. And although on the surface, the plot is as schlocky as they come, buried underneath is an examination of grief and how it can compromise one's ability to act rationally, whilst also looking at issues such as emotional trauma, guilt, the importance of family, and the question of what happens after we die.
Written by Jeff Buhler, from an initial script by Matt Greenberg, and directed by Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer, Pet Sematary comes in the midst of something of a resurgence for the Stephen King adaptation industry. However, for me, much like It (2017), Pet Sematary doesn't really work. It's certainly better that Mary Lambert's 1989 filmic adaptation, Pet Sematary (1989), but it pales in comparison to the novel. Granted, most films suffer when compared to a source text; even Stanley Kubrick's The Shining (1980), although a masterpiece as a standalone film, is a terrible adaptation of the novel. Pet Sematary, which relies far too heavily on jump scares, is especially disappointing in this sense insofar as it starts off very strongly, taking care to respectfully modernise the novel's themes and examine the characters' underlying emotions, before descending into absolute stupidity in the last act. Buhler also changes numerous aspects of the story; some of which work very well, but many don't, with a new ending, in particular, substituting cheap shock for the lingering sense of psychological hopelessness with which King's original so memorably concludes.
Louis Creed (Jason Clarke), a doctor from Boston, moves to the town of Ludlow, Maine with his wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), their eight-year-old daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence), three-year-old son Gage (Hugo Lavoie and Lucas Lavoie), and Ellie's beloved cat, Church. In the woods surrounding their house, Ellie finds a pet cemetery, but is cautioned against exploring further by their friendly neighbour, Jud Crandall (John Lithgow). Several weeks later, Louis and Jud find Church dead, and Jud, who has grown very close to Ellie and doesn't wish to see her suffer, takes Louis to an ancient Mi'kmaq burial ground behind the cemetery, instructing Louis to bury Church. The next day, Louis is stunned when Church returns home, although considerably more aggressive than before he died. Jud explains that anything buried in that place comes back to life, although very different from how it was, with local legend suggesting that returnees are possessed or controlled by some sort of malevolent spirit. A few days later, the Creed family suffers an unspeakable tragedy, and guessing what Louis plans to do, Jud tells him not to return to the burial ground. Louis, however, has no intention of heeding his warnings.
When the film version was first revealed, there was a lot of online grumbling about the big change - it's Ellie and not Gage who is killed in the film, and whom Louis decides to bring back (if this was supposed to be a twist, someone forgot to tell the marketing people, because it's right there in the trailer). However, King himself approved the change, and personally, I think it improves the story - as in the novel, it's Ellie with whom Louis and Rachel have portentous conversations about what happens after we die, and having her be the one killed establishes a more coherent thematic through-line.
Speaking of themes, much like the novel, the film is primarily focused on grief. I've always loved King's ability to "hide" serious themes behind what are ostensibly rote horror stories (he's so good at hiding them that literary academics don't believe they're even there, refusing to afford him a place on the canon). And yes, Pet Sematary does feature a sentient zombie child, but its core is the emotional trauma suffered by Louis and how his uncontrollable grief drives him to do something unspeakable. His heartache is such that his logic centre simply stops functioning; not only does he completely accept the fact that Ellie can be brought back, but he also ignores Louis's warnings that she will not be his Ellie. Like in the book, he's a man of science, who clashes with Rachel about what to tell Ellie regarding death - she wants to talk about an afterlife, he wants to focus on the finality of death as something natural and unavoidable. This is a smart choice by King, as Louis becomes the one who refuses to let death have the final word, with his conscious mind unable to accept the random tragedy that has befallen him, and whose entire purpose in life comes to be focused on the fact that Rachel was (at least in part) correct, that there is something after death.
Rachel's arc moves in the opposite direction to Louis's - she accepts the finality of Ellie's death, and reacts in horror when she learns what her husband has done. Her arc is rendered more complex insofar as she also suffers crippling guilt because of the death of her sister Zelda (Alyssa Brooke Levine) when they were still children, for which she blames herself. Whereas Louis's arc is more concerned with the question of what it takes for a rational man to abandon everything he knows to be unassailably true about the nature of existence, Rachel's looks at questions of survivor guilt and how one is supposed to come back from having one's life shattered (of course, it's the very fact that Rachel had this early-life trauma that gives her the tools with which to cope with Ellie's death).
For about two-thirds of the runtime, the film deals reasonably convincingly with these issues. Sure, it moves faster than the novel, but that's more to do with the nature of medium than anything else. Whereas Kubrick largely ignored the themes of alcoholism and abuse in The Shining, Kölsch and Widmyer go in the opposite direction - grief and guilt are really the only things on which they focus. At least up to the point when they seem to forget about them entirely, as the third act descends into a ridiculously campy series of murders, attempted murders, and all round violence.
The last half-hour or so is as superficial and immature as anything in any King adaptation, and the new "twist" ending not only doesn't work on its own terms, it completely undercuts both King's original themes, and how well the film itself had handled those themes earlier on, replacing King's bleakly poetic dénouement with something right out of "horror clichés for dummies". I've no problem with filmmakers altering the end of a literary adaptation; the finale of Frank Darabont's The Mist (2007), for example, is completely different from King's novel, but it replicates the spirit of the original. However, the whole point of the end of the novel is that Louis has learned nothing from his experience bringing Gage back. The tragedy is that, lost in madness and despair, he repeats his mistakes. The end of the film has none of this, with the final shot more of a silly "dun-dun-duuuun" moment.
Another problem is something common to many films - an overly idealised family; much more so than in the novel, the Creeds are a picture postcard family, where everybody just loves everybody else so much, dad is always cracking jokes, sister hates annoying little brother (but loves him really), and parents talk to their kids like they're already fully grown adults. Another problem is that Ellie doesn't just get hit by a truck, she's flattened by a tanker, but when Louis picks her body up, she's still whole, and when we see her in the coffin, there's literally not a mark on her. Why make the crash so spectacular when the body has to be intact for the rest of the movie?
The film also leaves out almost all of the backstory and mythology of the burial ground and the role of the Wendigo (an evil necromantic spirit spoken of in Algonquin folklore); Louis sees a picture of the Wendigo in a book, but it's unnamed, and later, he thinks he sees something in the distance of the fog-shrouded forest, but that's as close as we ever get to it.
As a novel, Pet Sematary is a study of grief and childhood trauma first, a horror narrative second. Investigating our psychological reaction to death, the book probes how far we might go to ensure a loved one never leaves us. As a film, Pet Sematary seems to be charting a similar course, until it abandons this tack in favour of a shock-for-shock's sake ending. Much like It: Chapter One, there is an over-reliance on predictable and silly jump scares, and ultimately, what could have been a mature and emotionally affecting story gives in to the worst excesses of the genre, betraying both itself and the original novel. -
petra_ste27 December 2019When horror fans mention their favorite Stephen King novels, most seem to choose "It" and "The Stand". For me, however, the answers are always "The Shining" and "Pet Sematary", which I maintain are King's masterpieces - his tightest, most brilliant works.
The elephant in the room is the previous 1989 version, which was disappointing with the exception of a fine supporting turn by the late Fred Gwynne as paternal neighbour Jud Crandall.
This version has, overall, better direction, production values and performances. Jason Clarke and Amy Seimetz as the distressed couple, in particular, are superior to the bland Dale Midkiff and Denise Crosby of the original. The exception is John Lithgow, who is nowhere as memorable as Gwynne in the role of Jud, although I blame the script more than the usually reliable Lithgow: the part is very underwritten here.
This is one of those "greatest hits" adaptations - (nearly) all the main beats from the novel are there (with one major change I won't spoil but, while not disastrous, does weaken the story), but they are rushed and never given enough time to breath.
Take the friendship between Louis and Jud, which is one of the emotional lynchpins of the novel; in this film they get *one* measly scene together before something happens to a certain cat, kickstarting the main plotline. The same goes for an agonizing choice the main character has to make; it's the dramatic core of the novel but in the film it takes like three minutes.
Although I generally enjoy King, I do find some of his novels (especially the latest ones) bloated and self-indulgent: they could often use some trimming. Not Pet Sematary though; the wretched pacing of this movie really made me appreciate how King took his time in the book to set up the characters and their emotional state.
Overall, not terrible but mediocre. Another missed opportunity for a dark but powerful novel.
5,5/10 -
goldfish-2723910 April 2019I really don't understand all the 10 star ratings which say this reboot is soooo scary. Besides the fact that they gave away the biggest twist in the trailer, the pace of the movie is slow and wooden. Clarke as Louis Creed is a chunk of talking wood throughout the film. The role of Pascow the ghost is pointless with his 3-5 minutes of screen time. The best part is John Lithgow only because he's John Lithgow. Ellie was good but scary...not so much. It's like they made a reboot of the 1989 version instead of writing a new script based on the book. The 1989 version at least creeped me out when I was a kid. This new one had me checking my phone to see how much longer I'd have to watch it. Plus the cliffhanger ending is formulaic and contrived. They'll never make a sequel. In my opinion, save your money and catch it on TNT in a year. You've seen the movie already anyway...
-
claudio_carvalho6 July 20191989 "Pet Sematary" is one of the creepiest horror films ever made based on Stephen King´s novel and screenplay. It may be considered a masterpiece of horror and cruelty.
"Pet Sematary (2019)" is not a bad horror movie since the storyline is creepy and the screenplay and the cast are good. However, it is absolutely unnecessary to remake a masterpiece with minor modifications, isn´t it? My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Cemitério Maldito" ("Damned Cemitery") -
Otkon21 April 2019....or very interesting. Yeah, they changed up a few things. But the joy of the novel and the original movie was that the resurrected child in question was a toddler. His death was all the more tragic by this fact. And when he comes back as a murderous imp, it is all most chilling because of how he just wanted "to play with you". The tweenage girl's post-mortem descent was so fast that it wasn't rewarding or fun.
Of course the new ending implies that the ghoulish trio (and cat) will just murder and bury new Gage in order to remake a happily now-undead family. But so what. I never really emotionally connected with this group to begin with. The father was a blank-faced dud. The mother must have been listed as generic blond actress on the casting sheet. Lithgow was the only redeemable presence. Not even the truly terrifying Zelda subplot worked this time around.
A wholly unnecessary and underdeveloped remake that should have stayed in the ground. -
dynamiteheaddy-433875 April 2019It's never boring and doesn't drag like a lot of modern horror films. The cast did a good job but this movie lacks the emotional impact of the original, they changed the ending too which I'm indifferent about. I didn't hate the ending but it was a bit lacklustre in comparison.
-
Cat meows - check Cat scratches you if you pull his hair - check Cat bites you if you forcefully push him down - check Cat brings bird home - check Cat sits random places you would not expect - check
The cat is just fine.
The family's behaviour does not even worth a word (the little boy was OK). -
christian-krag3 April 2019Good horror movie, but not perfect. the acting and the scenes were really good, but the film itself felt very rushed. and the plot does not follow the book. which is both good and bad. but oval it was an okay horror movie, but that did not live up to its potential.
-
n00bMLG28 April 2019The recent success of Stephen King adaptations must have inspired the creation of this film, I have not seen the 1989 version and I have only just now started reading the book, although I had knowledge of how the book ended. I was decently excited to see this film and it had some potential, but the final product is a serviceable but mediocre horror film that entertains but doesn't truly scare. The biggest issue with the movie is it's very hesitant to commit, the novel covers some very dark themes around the inevitability of death but the film only pokes the themes with a stick. Briefly introducing them in dialogue but not doing much else with them. The movie greatly suffers from being rushed, it never really takes its time to build up to characters or scares and just rushes its way from one plot point to another without giving any of them the time they need. What we end up with is a movie with decent acting, a few decent scares, a very messy third act and a stupid ending. Overall the film is mediocre but enjoyable, if you're a fan of the genre and just want a fun time at the movies it's worth a watch but it won't be one you remember, and it definitely doesn't live up to the legacy of the book.
One other thing I'd like to touch on is the abysmal marketing, the second trailer has to be one of the worst movie trailers I've ever seen, the trailer touches on every major plotline in the movie and spoils basically everything but the ending, it even spoiled the one twist they changed from the book. If that wasn't bad enough they released a third trailer a week before the film came out, and the opening shot of the trailer had major spoilers for the movie. This kind of marketing has sadly become a common practice with a lot of films and it really needs to stop, a film sometimes gets upwards of 3 trailers before it releases, what's the point in seeing the movie if the trailer has all the best moments and ruins all the surprises? -
neushane7 May 2019I won't repeat what the majority have already as far as the plot and actor's performances. The movie was great and I enjoyed it throughout. I never leave reviews but created my account just to justify this movie as a good film to see. Whoever had their blindfolds on and left 1/10 ratings really should stop watching movies or try to evaluate books and movie adaptations. Just go see it...you won't be disappointed.
-
Okay, so overall I'd say the new Pet Sematary was... serviceable. There were some parts of it I really liked. The themes of death and grief are again explored really well, (perhaps better this time around actually) and the acting and effects are definitely much better (as you would expect). However, the movie felt strangely inert and disaffecting to me; like it lost its soul somewhere on the drawing room floor.
It seemed very perfunctory in that it jumped back and forth between being a shot for shot remake of the original that wasn't very compelling at all, to a sort of obviously telegraphed series of deviations where it would present the same set up to a memorable scene from the original (often in an almost overbearing kind of way) and then be like "gotcha" and switch things up with a quick smile and wink. The reliability of this formula actually grew annoying because it made the movie very predictable despite the changes (not to mention that these misdirections don't work at all anyway if you've seen any of the marketing).
The film was also much too fast paced, and would hardly give you time to sit and think about what the characters were saying or what was happening before hurrying on to the next thing. John Lithgow was surprisingly underused as well, and his part was poorly written. Being the great actor he is he's able to salvage it somewhat. Still, it's a shame because Jud in the book is a very interesting and likeable character, and his portrayal by Fred Gwyne in the original movie is iconic.
All that said, the movie still manages to be emotionally devastating, and the tragedy hits you hard. It's different enough that I'd definitely say it's worth seeing, and, oddly, the parts I enjoyed most and found to be the creepiest had to do with the changes they made and the new stuff they added.
Before it devolves into a slightly smarter than average slasher/gorefest, the final third of the movie has some very disturbing and unsettling stuff that you just don't see in mainstream horror movies like this. It has to do with the conversations between (SPOILER) Louis and Ellie after she comes back, and it seriously goes to some messed up places. The young actress who plays Ellie does a fantastic job. Also, the new ending is very different and it's actually a bit bonkers haha.
I probably lowered expectations a little too much by now, but I think most fans will enjoy it. In my opinion, it's about as good as 2017's It (except much darker), and it compliments the original movie well. They both succeed and fail in different ways, and neither really comes close to capturing the greatness of the book. I still think that I liked the original more because it takes it's time and tells King's story more fully.
Overall Rating: 7.3/10. -
sonic_blue-533806 April 2019I was excited for this remake the second I heard it was coming out! I figured with today's movie tech it could be more like the original story, even more so than the first 1989 movie. The story was changed so much to stand out as an artistic original for the directors, that it became a glorified zombie movie (eye roll). I read the book and watched the original movie, so I had high expectations for this to be even better than those! But it was a huge let down. I hated the switch in characters, the daughter brought a whole new dynamic to the story and that alone changed the entire feeling for the movie in my opinion. Plus she was older so you're not as heart wrenched at the tragedy of her death, and I hated that when she came back she had memories of her life and just spoke in a lower voice to show her "changed" behaviour. I wasn't really a fan of her acting, had she played the Ellie from the original storyline, I think I would have liked her. I also hated Jason Clark's portrayal of Louis Creed, he was kind of rude and standoff-ish and had zero emotion towards anything in this movie. The original Louis is loving, heartfelt, and affectionate. In this movie he just made you feel like he didn't care about anything. In the book and first movie Louis' grieving is so intense for his child after he dies that you're actually scared for why he's going to do. And when the child does come back; he comes back different. NOT zombie like but actually something worse. I was not impressed with the new version of the zombie being able to talk and converse with Louis and definitely thought the dancing and trashing the place was unnecessary and quite dumb. And I hated Louis' relationship with Judd; he treats him like some kind of old relative you just want to die already. The original friendship is so much more, Judd shares way more info about the burial ground and gives more history to its powers and consequences. This movie left out a lot, and left a lot to be desired. I also didn't like the role of Victor Pascal, he had a bigger part to play in the book and in this movie was just sort of thrown in to show they used a guy named Victor. And lastly, the ending was absolutely TERRIBLE! It was literally just quick deaths, and then scene jumps to zombies standing around in dirty clothes. The girl trying to bury everyone to bring them back to life was ridiculous, it made zero sense and had nothing to do with the original story. I found this to be a cheap attempt for the directors to try and make it their own and add a twist, but it totally bombed and became just another zombie film like every other movie out there. This story is terrifying, and meant to be sad enough to make you go crazy after being witness to the worst tragedy any parent could ever face. Crazy enough to want to dig up your dead child and bury them in an evil burial ground so that they could come back from death. And then being absolutely petrified with fear when the person you wanted back is no longer there and something else stands in its place. Instead you get no character chemistry, changed plot and storyline, and a generic run-of-the-mill zombie wannabe movie.
-
bmurphycgtx5 April 2019This movie surpassed all my expectations. I have read the book or seen the original movie, but I enjoyed many of King's other works. I had a hard time believing zombie pets could be scary, but this movie proved me wrong. It was far scarier that the 2017 remake of "IT", though a little less entertaining. My only complaint is: I wish the myth of what is beyond the pet cemetery was explored more in depth. I found myself wanting to know what other horrors lurked in the dark forest. Overall, it was great movie. The acting was good and the plot was decent. Its worth going to see if you liked IT.
-
nathanjamesemerson6 April 2019Just to clarify this right off the bat. This movie is NOT a remake. It is another film adaption based on the 1983 novel by the master of horror, Stephen King. I get sick and tired of people saying 'another useless remake' etc etc. But this film is not. The same as with IT : Chapter One from 2017.
Now that is out of the way....
Jason Clarke and Amy Seimetz are amazing in there roles of Louis and Rachel Creed. And Jete Laurence who plays there young daughter Ellie also puts on an amazing performance for someone at her young age. John Lithgow also stars and nothing needs to be said about him, as he is great in everything.
It's a shame the morons behind the marketing spoiled one of the biggest changes in the movie trailers. Whoever gave them the go ahead to release such a spoiler filled trailer should be fired. The movie is set up perfectly to have that come as a major suprise, and it would have been if the idiots didn't spoil it. If I were the directors I would have been furious.
And speaking of changes, the changes do work in the film. If you are a fan of the novel or of the first adaption from 1989, don't go in expecting it to be the similar to either.
The film is bleak and dark which of course is what the subject matter is about. Life, love and death are the themes. The film has some jump scares but nothing too jarring or constant. The film is not too graphic, as what others will lead you to believe.
I really enjoyed this film. I still prefer the first film adaption a little bit more as I have watched it probably around 100 times since it came out in 1989. But I assure you, I will be watching this adaption many many more times over the years and I can't wait to buy it on both DVD and Blu Ray -
conyo15 June 2019If you see so many 10s being given, you instantly *know* the movie is not that good (good movies defend themselves). Here, paid cronies attacked again :( Unfortunately, movie is pretty bland. Typical jump scares, irritating child characters. John Lithgow is a class of his own, but the rest of the cast underwhelms. If you have nothing else to do, your Netflix account just froze up, and there's no good books around - sure, watch it. Otherwise, there's so many better things to do/read/watch instead of this.
-
Councillor300412 April 2019Let me begin my review by clarifying that I can absolutely understand the polarizing opinions on this remake of "Pet Sematary" and even support most of the arguments mentioned about why this is supposedly a bad horror film, but I couldn't stop loving this experience anyway. As a huge fan and frequent defender of Stephen King's original novel, I have been looking forward to Dennis Widmyer and Kevin Kölsch's take on this classic horror story for quite some time, especially since I can't pretend being a huge fan of the first cinematic adaptation of "Pet Sematary" from 1989.
First, let's begin with the casting. Nobody could possibly replace Fred Gwynne, who was quite frankly the best part about the first film. But if someone else has to portray Jud - and since Gwynne sadly passed away, there was no other way around it - then John Lithgow has to be the perfect choice for this character. And Lithgow did a marvelous job, there can't be any doubt about that. Meanwhile, Jason Clarke was chosen for the protagonist, and just like with Lithgow, I couldn't possibly think of a better choice. Clarke was exactly the actor I always imagined would be perfect for playing Louis in a movie adaptation, and here he is allowed to present each side of his versatile acting. Amy Seimetz and child actress Jeté Laurence also do a good job with their respective characters. Next, the eerie atmosphere does feel a little off from time to time, but I could forgive this film for that. There was a little unnecessary jump scare now and then, but it was certainly bearable and didn't ruin the entire experience.
What probably made so many people angry was the excessive number of changes from the original novel, and they sure were difficult to swallow if you loved the novel. But I've been thinking a lot about those changes since I watched the film, and the more time has passed, the more did I actually appreciate the creativity and originality which went into the changes made for this reimagination of the story. For many people, a remake seems to have no chance of being anything but a failure - either it isn't a close adaptation to the book or the original film, in which case it is called disrespectful, or it IS a close adaptation, in which case it is often called unnecessary and redundant. I find it important that some signals of creativity flow into the process of remaking a film or adapting a book, as long as it still makes sense and doesn't completely avoid the characteristics previously set by the author. And that's exactly how I feel about this remake of "Pet Sematary": it updates everything to a modern scenario and still maintains the most important aspects and elements of the original, while simultaneously setting itself apart and creating its own voice. That process is always going to be polarizing and rather unpopular, and I can definitely understand everyone who thinks this way and doesn't appreciate this adaptation of "Pet Sematary" in some kind of way, but I definitely loved it way more than I initially thought I would. The rather low average rating on IMDb (currently sitting at 6.2 and probably only going to sink even further in future) doesn't reflect the actual quality of this film. -
wigoqv8 April 2019Ok, first when I saw the trailer of this movie I honestly thought it wasn't gonna beat the original. But turns out I was just a little bit wrong. Now I might understand why some people think it's worse than the original, But I think it delivers more entertainment than the original. (Btw I really love John lithgow) it's probably one of the more cheesy remakes I've watched. But it's still worth a watch... 6/10
-
I have never in my life seen a worse sequel to a movie than this pile. There is not one good thing to be said about it. Fredd Gwynn is probably spinning in his grave. Do yourself a favor and skip this one. I was actually angry that I watched it at the end.
-
sarangan-883-4086691 April 2019I would say it's one of the best horror film I've seen in recent times! It was scary and it keeps you on edge of the seat through out the movie! Loved it! Just a bit annoyed coz they didn't follow the book.
-
CatPssy5 April 2019This movie sucked, plain and simple. There is ZERO character development. Victor, Zelda are HORRIBLE represented here, with either too little or too much of them. The editing was horrible, we go from a scene where Ellie asks Jud to come meet her cat, to him having dinner with the whole family, like seriously they're missing a scene where Louis meets Jud, they have no chemistry and no real relationship. I'm all for trying new things than the book, but other than the names, EVERYTHING is different. I'm shocked they cat wasn't made a dog. This should not be called Pet Semetary, and should not claim to be based on the book, it's insulting to the book. I'd give this 0 stars if I could.
-
krouch-5481728 April 2019Everything about this movie was just like the original. Very good cast but it didn't have me very scared. Would recommend people go see.
-
Fella_shibby27 June 2019As I had mentioned in my review of the original film that the toddler attacking scene looked more comedic like Chucky's.
One of the best improvement is the casting n the acting of Jason Clarke is much much better than the actor from the original. This film is much more darker than the original n the ending creepier.
Things they omitted : Timmy....... Bed-ridden Zelda...... Jud's pet dog...... Jud's face...... But they kept the iconic scene of Jud's Achilles tendon. -
magdacazacu19 April 2019I wanted to restrain myself from having some high expectations about this movie but I couldn't. The book was one of my favorites as a child. Comparing the original story line, the movie did not change that much the course of events. However, they applied the classic old horror movie recipe - jump-scares and dramatic music (in scenes when it was clearly not the case) - and transformed the whole product into some cheap stuff. The way the movie was filmed and put together as an artistic product makes me think of the Discovery TV shows that were showing reconstitutions of murders and strange events --> cheap and almost schematic. It's a pity, the story remains one of great value, but anything else, not so much. PS : The cat was, indeed, truly beautiful and good chosen.
-
z-fox6 April 2019As a 26 year old that enjoys horror movies, and loved IT, this movie troubled me and left me feeling quite uncomfortable. The acting was excellent from all involved, especially the little girl. The acting from the girl made me very uncomfortable and afterwards, I just kept thinking about it and the implications of the story and just kept feeling more and more troubled. If you enjoy horror, I believe you'll enjoy this movie.