Based on Stephen King's terrifying novel comes a film critics are calling a 'Creepy Masterpiece.'
After the Creed family relocates from Boston to rural Maine, they soon discover an ancient burial ground hidden deep in the woods near their new home. When tragedy strikes, the grief stricken father is driven by the cemetery's sinister power, setting off a perilious chain of events that unleashes an unfathomable evil with horrific consequences.
Some secrets are best left buried in this "Twisted and Bone Chilling" thrill ride.
I remember reading an article when I was a kid saying that Stephen King was so scared what he was writing about that he had to put the book away and leave it a couple of months before resumung the story. It gave him nightmares and he went thru a very dark patch because of it - he just needed to have some time out. When the original movie came out in 1989 I was terrified, I remember being so tense through out the film until the end and then thinking 'is that it I must of missed something' so got the book out and tried to read that to find out what the scary part was - I was left still unsure so when I saw the new 2019 was 'the stuff of nightmares.... it will make you jump out of your seat' I thought yes finally I get my answers.
Although it had good pacing and tried to be suspensful it just fell short. I was invested through out the movie, and even though at times, I caught my mind wandering, I was still keen to see what happened. As like most remakes - its the same but yet its different and this story was no different. It gave me more of a satisfied answer than the previous movies but it left me with new questions mainly why were the kids wearing animals masks when they were marching to the 'pet semetary'?
I found the casting was good - although on a personal note I was a little shaken at the daughter. Ellie is the spitting image of my seven year olds bff. She even has the same mannerisms. So when she returned zombiefied it was a little unsettling - it goes with out saying she will not be staying here for a while! I did enjoy the more sinnester version of her especially when her and her cat done some house cleaning. I found the make-up/special effects awesome especially with her lazy eye and I just loved that cat! However, I did not enjoy the side story of Rachel with her sister. The flash backs and hallucinations were just annoying. I found it actually detracted from the story and feel they could of invested more time into Juds back story instead of finding out some key elements in the deleted/extended scenes.
I did prefer the original ending which had me laugh when the cat jumped in the scene, even if that really did have some timing issues. The alternative ending was good just not as satisfing as the one they used. I also found the deleted/extended scenes should of been used in the movie - especially the 'she didn't come back the same one'. It explained so much more. Also, if you do buy the DVD watch Lithgow telling the take of Timmy Baterman he has one of the most amazing story telling voice.
The movie is good its just not as dark as it could of been. It does remind you that just because you can bring someone back from the dead - does not necessarily mean you should. A watchable movie with some good moments thrown in the mixture they were just not enough.
Random listing from 'Movies'...
In this third instalment of the 'Back to the Future' series, hero Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) must go back in time to the Wild West of 1885 to rescue his friend Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd), who he has discovered is due for a fatal showdown with one of bad guy Biff's nasty ancestors. Meanwhile, the good Doc has fallen in love with a newly arrived schoolteacher (Mary Steenburgen).
All trademarks, images and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective companies.
KIWIreviews is an independent entity, part of the ePLURIBUS.nz Network. This is a free public forum presenting user opinions on selected products, and as such the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinion of KIWIreviews.co.nz and are protected under New Zealand law by the "Honest Opinion" clause of the Defamation Act of 1992. KIWIreviews accepts no liability for statements made on this site, under the assumption that they are the true and honest opinions of the individual posters. In most cases, prices and dates stated are approximate and should be considered as only guidelines.
"Why do people pay to go up tall buildings and then put money in binoculars to look at things on the ground?"