Pet Sematary (2019)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Kevin Kölsch, Dennis Widmyer
Studios: Di Bonaventura Pictures, Paramount Pictures
Starring: Jason Clarke, John Lithgow, Amy Seimetz, Jeté Laurence
Tagline: Sometimes dead is better; They don't come back the same.
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, supernatural thriller, zombie, haunting, family drama, remake, Stephen King
Scare score: B-
Rating: B+/B

Plot overview: After moving from Boston to Maine, Louis Creed (Clarke) and his wife Rachel (Seimetz) are hoping for a more calm way of life so that they can slow things down while raising their two kids. Shortly after settling in, however, the family begins to be plagued by strange events, culminating in the death of their beloved pet cat, Church. The Creeds' new friend and neighbor, Jud Crandall (Lithgow), decides to help with their grieving, so he takes Louis beyond the local pet 'sematary' to a dark and ancient place to bury Church, who comes back home later that night, seemingly alive but fundamentally changed. When disaster strikes the family again shortly thereafter, the temptation to bring the dead back to life proves too strong for Louis, even though he knows that whatever comes back will not be the same as what was lost.

I waited a few weeks to see this movie in theaters, and I ended up having an afternoon showing all to myself. The projectionist even fast forwarded past all the previews so that I could get straight to the movie. Sometimes living in a small town has its perks for Horror Buff.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, but considering his prolific and unmatched impact on horror as we know it, the majority of Stephen King's body of work that was adapted to film fell victim to the era of production, that is to say so many of his books became movies cursed by the production quality of the '80s. I think The Shining is a stunning exception to this, but when you think about movies like Thinner (which is still fun) or especially Graveyard Shift, even Cujo and Christine to a lesser extent, I think it becomes more apparent. Anywho, nothing a remake can't fix... enter Pet Sematary.

The original movie from 1989 was one of the earliest horror movies I was continuously exposed to while growing up, and it has had a very lasting impression on me. It felt like it was always on TV, and some of my earliest memories of horror are from this film. I think one of the images that has scared me most throughout my life, all because of how young I was when I would see it on TV, was that of Rachel's sister and her case of spinal meningitis from hell. That being said, my interest was piqued when I learned that this new version was coming out.

My general thoughts are that this was a fun adaptation but not groundbreaking. It had a lot of familiar elements with some other scattered references to King's mythos (e.g. Derry sign while Rachel is in traffic), but it also made some bold choices to change the plot of the book and the original. Even though Horror Buff feels like a purist so much of the time, I didn't see the harm in freshening up the story with some of these new or altered bits of plot.

I really enjoyed the production quality and I thought the film was pretty lovely to watch, including all that beautiful Maine wilderness. I especially loved the creepy animal masks the local children would wear on their processions into the Pet Sematary when laying a lost loved one down; this was one of those eerie things just believable or fun enough that a small town might do and that would look as terrifying to outsiders like Rachel as it did to us as viewers— but that might be totally normal to locals who had observed the tradition for generations.

*SPOILER ALERT*

I also thought the acting was pretty solid throughout the movie, or at least in lazier scenes that it never got into that awful family drama aspect that we've seen in so many horror movies focused around the family unit. I recognized Clarke's face but I'm not too familiar with his other work; he could have fooled me that he's Australian! I didn't love him in the beginning but he grew on me during the film. Amy Seimetz (The Possession, Alien: Covenant) was given a sort of strange role with Rachel, who really misses out on most of the action. I liked her but I didn't feel especially moved by the re-exploration of her childhood trauma, which I felt she could have acted more strongly. She was great in her final scenes, however. I think one of the smartest plot change decisions this movie made was to kill and reanimate Ellie (Laurence) instead of Gage (Hugo and Lucas Lavoie). I thought the young Laurence has a great look about her and I wonder if we will see more of her, and it felt more natural to utilize a more mature actor—even though she's still a little kid—to play such a crucial role in the movie. I laughed out loud at the early scene when she comments how "cemetery" is spelt wrong on the sign at the pet sematary. ELLIE IS ALL OF US. Especially as her undead version, Laurence brought a lot of morbid fun to the movie— there was something mature about her contemplative nature upon realizing her own deadness and incompatibility with the natural world. I could have done without that demented ballet scene, though.

Pretty much the whole time, I was expecting the infantile Gage to get killed, and as the first movie showed us, there is only so much you can do with a child that young coming back as some demonic zombie. I was even nervous that it would become special effect heavy to carry that all out, given how young Gage was. So as my stomach was all in knots anticipating the inevitable during the birthday party scene, it's fair to say I was really surprised with how that all ended up. Why wouldn't these people have built a giant fence along their property line? Forget the creepy cemetery and ancient Indian burial ground (*yawn*)— that highway was a nightmare! Admittedly, I jumped pretty hard the first time a truck sped by early on in the movie. After that, I really didn't think this movie was too scary. There was some classic suspense, and even just the right amount of gore between the flashback to Zelda's (Alyssa Levine) death, Ellie attacking Jud (Achilles tendon iconic to the original), and that particularly enjoyable early scene when Louis tries to save former college student and future ghost Victor Pascow (Obssa Ahmed) following an accident. I chuckled during Jud's death scene as we see demon zombie Church licking his little cat lips in anticipation— that was great.

Fun fact: Stephen King was inspired to write this book while working at the University of Maine (much like Louis) after his family cat was killed by a truck on a busy nearby road. He had to bury the cat and explain what had happened to his daughter when he started to wonder, what would happen if the cat could come back, only different?

Otherwise the horror here was kind of odd at times. I think it's almost more that I found myself too busy questioning the logic behind everything that I couldn't focus on what exactly was happening. Why does Victor get to haunt Louis? Especially when there is a special burial site to reanimate the dead, where does a random ghost come into play? Why in the world did Jud ever think that bringing Church back to life would be a good idea, especially given his story about his pet dog and the implications about his late wife? Are the dead simply brought back to life with a grudge, or is this more of a demonic possession happening? While the end of the movie is being considered shocking now, I felt the last couple of minutes were not wholly satisfying and that the movie even ended on a strange note. (Not to mention it breaks my first Cardinal Rule!)

I know the Indian burial ground trope is tired and has received its fair share of due criticism, but I enjoyed this movie's quick references and short sighting of the wendigo, a prevailing piece of Native American folklore that scared me a lot as a kid. I think this movie examines the breakdown of the nuclear family unit, exploring not only death but grief and loss in general. I wonder if there is commentary on the guilt so common in grief, and if that guilt can be extended to America's bloody colonial history. As Jud mentions, perhaps burying Church in the burial ground in the first place started a string of events that would ultimately lead to the Creeds' demise, or maybe the events were totally random. Is there an element of revenge here? Who are the demons returning in the dead's bodies, anyhow? Or am I overthinking it?

Final critique: This wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't the amazing remake you might anticipate after almost exactly 30 years (the original was released April 21, 1989). Then again, the actual material here is pretty specific, and I don't think there was much more you could have changed without losing the story, or without losing the audience who is first and foremost dedicated to King. Though not a terribly scary movie, the combination of jump scares, brief violence/ gore, and the generally dark mood of the film might mean some people will have to sit this one out. The moral dilemma here is enough to have you thinking about this movie for a while after. How far would you go if you had the power to reverse death? Or is it better to accept that the loved one you lost can never come back, at least not as their original self?

Halloween (2007)

Happy October. In the world of horror movies this is a pretty big month, so I'm going to try to make an effort to post pretty frequently. Unfortunately I won't be able to watch AMC's usually fantastic (but fading) Fear Fest—my favorite time of year —so I will have to rate whatever horror movies I can get my hands on. If you have access, I highly recommend Fear Fest, though what was once several weeks of terror, 24/7 has dwindled down to 2 weeks, and probably now less, filled with repeats of mainly mediocre thrillers. Regardless, watch it. It's a [trick or] treat.

Halloween may just be my favorite horror movie series, not to mention one of my top favorite movie franchises of all time. Growing up, I remember constantly watching as many of the films as I could whenever they were on TV. To this day I admit I'm still a little confused about the exact number of Halloween films total (I think we're at 10), but I can recommend almost all of them to horror movie watchers everywhere.

That being said, I've got a lot to say about this remake (sorry for not rating the original first), so hold on to your horror horses.

GENERAL INFO:

Director: Rob Zombie

Studios: The Weinstein Company, Alliance Films

Starring: Malcolm McDowell, Sheri Moon Zombie, Scout Taylor-Compton, Tyler Mane, Danielle Harris (!!)

Tagline: Evil Has A Destiny; Evil, Unmasked

MPAA Rating: R

Genre: horror, slasher, stalker, psychopath, serial killer, masked murderer

Scare score:  B+

Rating: A-

Plot overview: In this version, one Halloween night, 10-year-old Michael Mysers (Daeg Faerch) acts on his psychopathic desires and brutally murders the school bully, his sister's boyfriend, and his whole family except for his loving mother (Moon Zombie) and innocent baby sister. Claiming to be unaware of these crimes, Michael is nonetheless placed into a mental health institution where he is put under the careful watch of Dr. Samuel Loomis (McDowell). As his mental state steadily deteriorates, Michael's mother commits suicide, Loomis abandons the case, and Michael is considered hopeless. 15 years later, Michael (Mane) has grown into a very large and still dangerous inmate. On a particularly gory night approaching Halloween, Michael escapes and makes his way back to his home to find his baby sister and complete what he began so many years ago. Meanwhile, in Haddonfield, Illinois, Laurie Strode (Taylor-Compton) is a typical senior in high school. Typical, that is, until Halloween night comes around and she finds herself the target of "the boogeyman," the masked Michael Meyers himself. Before the night is through, Laurie must do anything she can to save her own life, including trying to end his.

I remember seeing this movie in theaters and enjoying it, even to the point where I was laughing with delight during some of the murder scenes and my friends refused to talk to me afterwards. It was a pleasure to see a Halloween film in theaters, especially one that mainly stayed true to the original series in plot, script, and even soundtrack. Let's start at the beginning.

I appreciate Zombie's attempt to give a clearer backstory to Michael, helping the audience almost to sympathize with him (Zombie would) while still showing his clearly ruthless, psychopathic side. Regardless of what we personally think, this film forces us to question: Nature or nurture?, not only in terms of Michael, but perhaps in the cases of actual serial killers. Zombie slightly overdoes the anything-but-healthy home environment that the young Michael comes from, what with a kind hearted stripper for a mother; an abusive, chauvinistic, recently handicapped, alcoholic stepfather-boyfriend-jerk figure; and a sexed-up, taunting, sleazy sister. The movie is [overly] chock-full of cursing, sexual references, and nudity— though I suppose that's where the horror movie might be headed today.

The soundtrack of this movie is pretty fantastic. While half of it seems straight out of Dazed and Confused (setting the '70s mood right from the start), there is also a modern feeling about the majority of the film; still, who could do without John Carpenter's haunting original musical theme?  Moreover, the inclusion of "Mr. Sandman" is a beautiful touch, taking careful viewers back to the original series.

I am so happy, as I was when I saw this in theaters, that Zombie kept many secondary characters the same as they were in the original. Laurie's friends always cracked me up, and while in this remake they are modernized and even more sexed-up (remember, premarital sex = death), the astute viewer will note, for example, things such as Lynda's constant usage of the word "totally," a beautiful homage to the original film's script and characterization. Also, what a treat it is to see Danielle Harris (from several of the original films) come back to the series all grown up. For all this and "Sandman," I would love to say thank you thank you thank you to Rob Zombie.

The whole mask motif is another way that Zombie attempts to add depth to our unstoppable killer, who, in his silence and behind a plain, emotionless face mask, is often left without emotions. Open a psychology textbook and you will see the whole development of young Michael feeling more comfortable "hidden" behind his masks gives the audience a clearer understanding of his psychosis as well as his choice of costume for the rest of the film. I did enjoy that the mask he wears when escaping from the mental hospital as it seems to resemble a jack-o-lantern. Very Halloween slasher-chic. Furthermore, the introduction of his iconic mask is done pretty nicely earlier in the film on the night that he kills his family.

Let's talk about the iconic mask. It's okay in this remake. It's not the best mask we've seen, but it certainly isn't the worst one either (think H20). I found myself able to accept how it was dirty, worn, cracked, and almost veiny. Still, I think it showed too much emotion for Michael, as compared to the original film. This wasn't helped by how much more sadistic Michael is made in this movie— lots of new, ingenious ways to kill people, and what was with him letting seemingly everybody keep crawling away? Since when did Michael Myers do that? I guess Zombie wanted to further demonstrate how Michael enjoys watching his prey suffer, but I can't say this is the true nature of the Michael we have come to know and love (in a terrified way, of course). Unfortunately, for all the time we are left watching Michael watch his victim's slowly crawl away (some even survive…), we have to deal with the fact that Michael's mask sometimes makes him look too contemplative or even confused, especially when he does that little cocked-neck thing. On a whole, the mask is still great.

More on Michael. He is pretty creepy in this film. I love how he lingers and lurks: outside windows, across the street, in dark hallways, and especially behind doors. I think some of the scariest scenes in horror movies are when we know the killer is just feet away from the next victim, waiting there, but the characters know nothing. Showing the killer in the background of a shot is one of the most thrilling tactics a horror movie can do. Very well done.

Unfortunately, I did not love Dr. Loomis in this movie. Throughout the original series I think Donald Pleasance does a pretty great job (minus the whiney "No! No! Noo!"s at the end of Halloween 4).  In this film, McDowell sheds a more negative light on Loomis, though this is certainly intentional on behalf of the creative team as we see the 'good' Doctor is also corrupted in his own ways: failed marriages, failure with Michael, receiving "blood money" from publishing a book about his work with Michael, etc. I think all the lines are there, but unfortunately McDowell just does not deliver.  

18-year-old Scout Taylor-Compton is pretty great as Laurie Strode. We watch as the young, virginal Laurie turns into a terrified and powerless yet willful female protagonist who must learn to fight back and perhaps even kill in order to survive. Obviously Zombie also wanted to explore more of her psyche, the interesting and no doubt scarring effects such an ordeal must have on its survivors…  I hate to admit I haven't seen the 2009 sequel, but I have heard that this film further explores not only Michael's, but also Laurie's mind after the events of this first film are over.

There was an interesting recurring theme I couldn't help but notice throughout this film that I wonder if Zombie was trying to stress. Michael Myers is an unstoppable killing machine, a masked catastrophe waiting to happen every year come October 31st, and although in some films we see him as a poor, even trapped soul ("Uncle!"), we can know no more about him. Since we know Zombie was exploring his background, psyche, and psychosis further in this film, I couldn't help but ignore the theme of homophobia. Michael grows up in a home where his abusive step-father-figure insinuates he's gay, his overly promiscuous sister taunts his sexuality, and only his mother is there to comfort him. At school he meets a similar fate, with the bullies constantly calling him gay through their own derogatory terms. Michael's vulnerability in the homophobic society he lives in is certainly a key factor in his ultimately snapping, as he first beats the bully to death (speak softly and carry a big stick), and then moves on to the members of his family who mocked him (and then some). Even as an adult, Michael's sexuality and potency are mocked first by the graveyard shift hospital guards, and then again by the extremely masculine trucker at the truck stop (none of whom meets a happy ending). When Michael is not killing, and especially when we see him as a patient, he does seem to be a confused, even gentle soul. Perhaps the stick, aluminum bat, and of course the iconic butcher knife each becomes the phallic source that allows him to demonstrate his own power over those who get in his way. Or perhaps Horror Buff is overanalyzing the situation and contexts.

*SPOILER ALERT*

I enjoy the more widespread panic and general killings in the original film, but the subtle terror (only known to the immediate victims, Loomis, Laurie, and the children—who are awesome child actors, by the way—is also moving. This film has a beautiful motif of contrast: The brutality of the inside hiding from the seemingly calm outside. Not only do we see this through the mask theme (Michael hiding his rage behind his mask), but until the very end of the film we fail to see any terror outside of the walls of any house or hospital. There are several terrific scenes in which, in the midst of sheer panic and murder inside a house, a character tries to escape outside, but Michael drags them back in and the door is slammed shut, leaving the viewer in the cold, quiet darkness of the street. The resulting inside vs. outside theme is brilliant. 

I can't say I'm happy about this film breaking one of my cardinal rules. The whole "rape hospital patients who can't defend themselves" thing was done in Kill Bill and it was disturbing then. I hate to say I think Zombie merely threw it in to this film for the sake of sexual brutality, perhaps to show the wickedness of the two male perpetrators who Michael proceeds to kill. We do not know what happens to the female patient, but I for one do not think Michael kills her. Furthermore I hold a personal vendetta against this film for breaking my cardinal rule, because I once promised a room full of friends that there would be no rape in any horror movie we watched, so as soon as this scene passed they had had enough, leaving the room (and probably horror movies in general) behind them.

Fun fact: Co-writer of the original film, Debra Hill, was born in Haddonfield, New Jersey, thus giving the Halloween franchise its classic location of Haddonfield, Illinois.  

Final critique: As far as remakes go, this one did its job and then some. There was great gore throughout the movie, even to the point that Horror Buff had to cringe (I will never look at aluminum baseball bats the same way again). The deaths are realistic, as far as I can only imagine certain deaths might go (twitching, etc), and this shows great progress since the cheap-o fake deaths of the '70s/'80s. With a scary and sturdy plot already set, Zombie was wise to not make any major changes but instead to add background to the story we have all come to know. The acting is great all around, except for Dr. Loomis, which I found to be a great let down as he is such a key figure in his Van Helsing-esque position. Overall, those who are squeamish or easily frightened should stay away. Stick to the original series for a good scare, and only once your stomach is stronger should you attempt to watch this remake (even then, consider keeping the lights on, windows closed, and friends close). Coming pretty highly recommended, this film was an excellent start to The Horror Blog's "Halloween" season.