Today I’m trying something a little different, as I compare 1989’s Pet Sematary to the 2019 remake. For what it’s worth, there is a clear winner.
Stephen King was a staple of my childhood. Once I reached middle school, I started cycling through his books voraciously, nightmares and 1000+ page counts be damned. Hollywood has always had a complicated relationship with King’s material, but it’s fair to say that they can’t keep away. Other than Shakespeare, can you think of any author that has had more of his work adapted for film than King? It’s a strange reality about these adaptations that how faithfully they recreate King’s vision tends to have no correlation to their relative quality. Carrie and It: Chapter One hew closely to the source material, and thrive because of it. The Shining and The Running Man range from taking thematic liberties to becoming unrecognizable from the written text, and also thrive. I read Pet Sematary a million years ago, and both versions are pretty faithful to King’s original story. The remake makes some modest updates, and both understandably shy away from some of the vulgarity of King’s pint-sized demon, but these are largely straight adaptations. The results, however, are far from equitable.
The best part about 1989’s Pet Sematary is simply how Stephen King-y it is. For as prolific a writer as King is, he traffics in a particular and unmistakable vibe almost exclusively. Familiarity with that vibe is halfway why I think I enjoyed my summer vacation to Maine so much (despite the notable lack of ghosts, demon-possessed cars and/or tommyknockers). It largely comes down to the pre-horror part of the story, where the characters exhibit a warm regard for each other and operate with a sort of breezy yet conservative tone specific to the Northeastern United States. In this case, our primary focus is on the Creed family, comprised of Louis, a doctor, his wife Rachel and their young children, Ellie and Gage. Recent transplants to Maine, natch, they quickly develop a bond with Jud, the retired widower who lives next door. Jud is played by iconic character actor Fred Gwynne, in the most memorable role of the film, bringing an easy charm that helps to forgive his slightly hammy performance. I won’t spell out the plot for you, but it’s unlikely that I can effectively compare the films without some serious spoilers, so take that as a warning to tread lightly going forward. For anyone looking for an escape hatch, I absolutely recommend the 1989 version of the film despite a middling reputation and a somewhat dated aesthetic. Your mileage may vary depending on your reverence for Mr. King, however.
SPOILERS AHEAD
The 2019 Pet Sematary remake has a slightly better reputation, at least from a critical perspective. Both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes have the film scoring higher than the original. Personally, I found it to be pointless rehash that failed to capture any of the spark that made the original enjoyable. The biggest issue with the film is chemistry. Generally when we talk chemistry in cinema, it is of the sexual sort – does this leading lady seem like she’d actually be into the romantic advances of that leading man, that sort of thing. All kinds of actors can have chemistry, however, and one of the most important kinds is that of fictional families. Nothing takes me out of a story more than a family that has zero sense of shared history or can’t muster the semblance of genuine affection for each other. The modern version of the Creeds certainly falls into that category. Daughter Ellie is a charming and promising actor, but that only serves to put her fictional parents’ robotic performances in sharper relief. John Lithgow, no doubt the finest actor in either movie, plays Jud as such a dour, uncharismatic stiff that he is the polar opposite of Gwynne. Whether its the acting, the writing, or the direction, I had no desire to spend any time with this version of these characters. When the horror came, I was happy to be distracted with something, but I was hardly invested in the outcome.
That brings me to the two major changes to the story. The first involves Rachel’s history with an older sister that suffered from spinal meningitis, one of the terrible highlights of the 1989 film. Almost any recollection you come across of the original film will mention how scary the Zelda scenes were. The gruesome portrayal of Zelda, combined with the palpable guilt of poor Rachel, clearly stuck with a generation of moviegoers. In the remake, Zelda’s death was the literal fault of Rachel, not just in her psychologically tormented mind, due to some nonsense with a dumb waiter. It is indicative of how little the filmmakers think of their audience that they took the very clear subtext of King’s story and dumbed it down for us. The second, bigger change, fares better. Switching the returning Creed child from Gage to Ellie serves the film pretty well. First, as I mentioned, Jete Laurence is the only person in this film who gives any kind of life to her performance, so giving her character more to do is a smart idea. Second, the original was pretty hamstrung by little zombie Gage, relying on the pitter-patter of his feet and disembodied giggling to deliver most of the scares. With eleven-year-old Ellie, you at least have someone who is verbal and able to participate in rudimentary action set pieces. Her post-death voice is even pretty reminiscent of Christian Bale’s Batman, and everybody seems to love those movies.
Unfortunately for this year’s Pet Sematary, that one wise choice couldn’t do anything to save a movie that was already irredeemably boring. And so, there’s really nothing left to do except to finally close out on the type of hacky movie critic pun that this remake calls for. Perhaps this is one Pet that should have never been resurrected.
Nailed it.
Comentários