Skip to main content

Sometimes the Book is Better


Stephen King has said that of all his books, Pet Sematary is the one he finds the most frightening, which is particularly heavy coming from a man whose horror stories have become a genre unto themselves. Watching the new 2019 film adaptation directed by Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer, I can see why. It’s a great Monkey’s Paw kind of story bursting at the seams with creepy ideas and implications connected to real world fears. So why isn’t this movie as fittingly bone-chilling?
Doctor Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) moves his wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence), toddler son Gage, and the family cat Church from Boston to the town of Ludlow, Maine where he has a job at the state university. In the woods on their vast new premises is an old and unnerving pet cemetery. When Church is hit by a speeding vehicle, the Creeds’ neighbour Jud (John Lithgow) takes Louis deep into the woods to bury him at an ancient burial ground and the next morning the cat has come back to life. But Church’s nature is now harsher and violent, and his resurrection sets the Creeds on a much darker, irreparable path.    
Like many of King’s stories, the plot has a way of hooking you on its central idea and iconography. Just the image of a makeshift pet cemetery is pretty haunting even without supernatural forces at work. The same is true of the children who make it a ritual to bury their pets in a grim procession wearing animal masks -which never comes into play in any significant way but it sets a good atmosphere. The central premise works too, and is interesting enough that even though from the moment Church comes back you know where the story is headed, your curiosity is still piqued. However while each development after that has the sliver of something compelling or scary to it, this film doesn’t execute them well, and in fact turns most of them generic. The movie’s story differs from the book in some pretty major regards and the result is some choices, particularly in the third act, that are made primarily for some cheap scares and have no meaning to them. The story also has a couple quintessentially King subplots about characters being haunted by ghosts and traumatic memories that are pretty decent and foreboding on their own, but don’t actually amount to anything.
Pet Sematary also isn’t terribly scary. While it does have some pretty good suspense in moments, understands as well as Netflix’s Haunting of Hill House the terror of dumb waiters, and creates a genuinely frightening mood in the Mi’kmaq graveyard, most of the horror is presented through predictable jump scares and a little bit of gore. There’s nothing atypical in the direction or editing, the camera-work or lighting, any of which easily could have been manipulated to render frightful sequences effective. As can be imagined, the undead plays a major role in the story, but there’s nothing new or engaging done with their presence. And this movie tries, it really tries to make the regenerated Church creepy and menacing, but it doesn’t work, not even as an omen. Because without any effects-work or graphic detail, he just looks like a ragged and gnarly house cat -a little aggressive sure, but cute at times. I think the key problem is that to my understanding, the novel is more about the horror behind the idea of resurrection itself than it is about being stalked by an undead evil. As such, the fear it evokes is more lasting and the ending much darker, though I’m sure the filmmakers believe theirs is.
Jason Clarke gives more of a sustained effort in this film than he did in his pathetic last horror movie Winchester, but it’s still not that great a performance, let down perhaps by lacklustre direction. Amy Seimetz is certainly a little better, and John Lithgow is as expected, the best part of the movie. Jeté Laurence however plays Ellie, probably the key role of the film, no different than any other version of this stock character. The characters themselves are pretty dull to begin with though, with only Rachel getting much of curious psychological examination. Indeed, I get the impression all of their characters have more interesting book counterparts, with Louis Creed being perhaps of the tormented Jack Torrance variety.
Pet Sematary has a lot of the right pieces to work with to make good horror movie, and you can see one at times peering out from the shadows of this film. But chances are you’re seeing it in a cinema that’s still showing Us, which is so much better at sowing lasting impressions and cultivating deep and meaningful scares that it would be unfair to compare the two. I’ll only say that Pet Sematary may frighten you in the instant, but won’t linger in your mind much beyond a cursory idea in the hours following a viewing.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more