Samitério de Animais

Uma rotina sem conceito que provavelmente vai agradar aos adolescentes pouco críticos com pipocas (contém sustos e gore), mas que vai dececionar ou irritar os fãs do livro e os fãs do género que pensam. O filme tem momentos fortes (a filha abraçando a mãe) e, às vezes, alguns visuais agradáveis (o cemitério), mas também é altamente estúpido, na sua maioria, carece da visão de direção de «Quero dar ao livro distintivo uma interpretação cinematográfica adequadamente interessante». Os atores são bons, a harmonia familiar e a atmosfera inicial de cenário frio funcionam bem, mas mais tarde, no filme, começam a acontecer coisas individuais que o derrubam. (17/04/2019)

If any of Stephen King’s books are made into a movie, usually, the result cannot be bad. Except, maybe, when the filming is made by a bungler, the result can be quite a screw-up. What sometimes happens is that an average movie is made from a quality theme, but that depends on the abilities of the makers – or the lack thereof. Pet Sematary, for example, was not filmed for the first time, but I cannot say that there is anything different or unique about it. I think that it is a standard horror movie, which does not even make you scared, because the thought of fear is somewhat turned upside down. Also, it is kind of boring and without the last half an hour, I would probably rate it with even less stars. (08/01/2020)

I haven't read the book, and I wasn't too impressed with the 80s movie, so I'm pleasantly surprised here. For the first time in a while, a mainstream horror film that doesn't try to be weird and controversial, but is very audience friendly (there are jump-scares and even blood), so as pure horror entertainment everything is on point here, as it should be. The actors are decent and there are thankfully no illogical missteps, visually it's an inoffensive standard and the horror scenes are effective. The finale is nicely atmospheric and uncompromising and the denouement is certainly a surprise. I'm satisfied. 80%. (07/04/2019)

I received the source material a few months before viewing it and out of the growing stack of Stephen King's books that I have read, this is definitely one of the scariest, if not the scariest, and certainly the most unpleasant, disturbing, and inducing of lingering nightmares. The adaptation logically shortens or simplifies many storylines, which is not a problem as long as it manages to take all the motifs far enough and lets the main characters get where they belong. In this spirit, I easily accept both the change of the central twist and the subsequent shortcuts in favor of tension. However, what I can't accept is the last approximately ten minutes, which, although effectively scary and frightening, are exactly the way the book never was. There a hint or a few glances, actions, and sentences were enough, and this gave rise to the ending, which I consider to be one of the best endings I have ever read. Unfortunately, the adaptation takes the opposite, more action-oriented path, but perhaps because I understand that the film medium is completely different from the literary one, especially in this genre, I am being more lenient in my rating. The mood that settled in my soul for months after reading, namely Jud's message about male hearts that are simply stonier, is also present here, although the viewer must actively seek it out. (06/07/2019)

I'm not an uncritical King fan, yet I gave the new version of Pet Sematary a chance. Sadly, King adaptations will probably never get out from under their shadows again. It's still all about there being one better film for every twenty crap ones, and really only rarely is there a work worthy of the viewer's remembering. That's how I fondly remember Carrie and Misery. A lot of the other films were bad. (31/12/2019)

I can't say I was directly expecting it, but Pet Sematary is a great honest-to-goodness horror film. It takes the essentials from King's premise, and isn't afraid to play with them in such a way that the result is surprising even to someone who knows it, yet the outcome remains 100% King. During a few scenes there was a completely sepulchral silence in a reasonably full theater, which I think says it all. I cared about the characters and as time went on I became uncertain of almost everything and enjoyed it immensely. Jason Clarke fits the role perfectly and I enjoyed him as much as John Lithgow, the music by horror expert Christopher Young is also good, you hardly notice it while watching but it's worth a separate listen. I'm just supremely satisfied, despite the fact that I was looking forward to the Frankenstein madness of the book and got something completely different (but just as good). It all culminated in an extremely tense finale in a misty graveyard... and the ending! It wasn't a Stephen King ending, it was a Richard Bachman ending! (13/04/2019)

This is an uninteresting and badly made King adaptation, which perhaps no one wished for anyway, as its existence is unjustified when compared with the honorable thirty-year-old version by Mary Lambert. This movie has no penmanship, no energy. The makers of this did not manage to come up with anything interesting, on the contrary, in the parts where they tried to deviate slightly from the book and introduce something new, the movie begins to be so stupid and tawdry to such an unbearable degree that it is just a smack in the face. The movie therefore fails to evoke any sort of emotion in the audience, there are no surprises, just nothing. Finally, the final smack in the face will come during the end credits, when a cover version of "Pet Sematary" from the original movie starts playing, as if the makers put an underlying message that it is just cool to make a tedious and sexless remake of what used to be good years ago today and we should just put up with it. However, I am not going to. (27/08/2019)

Samitério de Animais é um desfile congelado no século passado e rotineiramente encenado de dispositivos envelhecidos que os cineastas usam numa tentativa vã de assustar o espetador, desde o gato de aspeto sinistro até ao cortejo fúnebre das crianças com máscaras de carnaval. Comparado com o livro modelo de King, é um filme de terror psicologicamente muito plano e esparso, sofrendo de uma ausência de suspense, preso nos pesadelos recorrentes dos seus heróis, pelos motivos simples da vida após a morte e pelos sustos obrigatórios de quarta categoria, realizados sem qualquer sinal de engenho. Difere apenas minimamente da adaptação anterior, com trinta anos - as mudanças esporádicas no enredo sugerem que os cineastas estavam pelo menos a tentar não fazer uma cópia completa, mas com isso (e com o quadro de alta qualidade e os atores contemporâneos) é infelizmente onde a modernização termina. (04/04/2019)

It's like someone has been reading my reviews of contemporary horror films for the last five years. And didn't much care for me. Who are these people I'm supposed to be worried about? What are they into? Why should I care about their hardships? Is it really that hard to make a horror movie set in the woods and actually shoot it in the woods? Does it really not bother anyone that the night exteriors look like a digitally rejuvenated Russian studio fairy tale from the 80s? Don't tell me it never once occurred to any of the filmmakers that a camera with a high frame rate looks absolutely dreadful in a horror movie. I know you like how fast and easy it can refocus, how many colors it captures, and how monumental the resolution is, but watch that shot of Jason Clarke running to get his daughter after the collision with the truck, for example. And then watch it again. And then shoot yourself. Do it! Personally, I'm not much of a King fan, but at the same time I know he hates his characters and thinks they're jerks. But even he seems to be struggling to show the motivations behind their seemingly moronic decisions. Here, the characters are constantly acting like they've pressed a self-destruct button. Apparently there are some literary explanations to the reasons for their behavior. They still can't be divined from the film. The reason is that it's awfully poorly shot, dreadfully written, and the people there don't really know how to act. But, hey, it’s got jump scares! Yay. They're great, there's about 200 of them, and when a frog croaks in the silence, your hair falls out. A fast-moving truck only makes a sound within a one-meter radius, and besides, if you discover the key to how they work, you've got it made, because it always means the scene is suggesting something's going to pop out from one side, but then it pops out from another! Heavens preserve us! (09/07/2019)

I decided to watch both film versions made twenty years apart in one afternoon. The comparison didn’t turn out very well for the remake. I found the children's funeral "procession" amusing. Knowing Americans, something like that would be an incentive for another Salem, it smacked too much of pagan rituals that have no place in the most democratic country on the planet. Black Pascow looked as if he had been attacked by an angry Wolverine. I’m not a huge fan of Jason Clarke. John Lithgow, whom I do like, got too little screen time as Jude. I couldn't even enjoy any potential atmosphere, because the creators bet on the dumbest jump scares and the final cover by Starcrawler was a bad joke. (30/07/2019)

The American film Pet Sematary is a great film for summer cinema, but it's nothing that should make a horror fan sit up and take notice. It's a job well done, but most of it was done by the crew of the original 1989 film. The new crew simply copied most of it and didn't add much of anything new. In this regard, this remake seems all the more pointless to me. I’d really prefer to watch the original Pet Sematary in the theatre again. (14/08/2019)

Audiovisually, a decent and quite atmospheric King film that dutifully follows the rules of the current horror mainstream and, apart from a few jump scares, contains no significant or distinctive (gore) scenes. However, the visual stylings of the cemetery itself and the excellent John Lithgow make for a satisfying one-off spectacle. (20/09/2020)