Mary Parker at examiner.com has a great article titled, "Female-Directed Horror: Pet Sematary (1989)." (HERE)
The director of Pet Sematary was Mary Lambert, and she offered up one scary movie!
Parker writes, "Of all the Stephen King adaptations, this. . . seems to be the one that no one talks about." Isn't that the truth? Parker offers some reasons why she thinks this is less discussed than other King movies, including it's focus on bad things happening to children. "one thing is for sure: this film is scary." OH YEAH!
I think Pet Sematary is a great movie. I am glad to see it getting some credit as a first rate horror movie. And, I also find it faithful to the tone of the novel. It is unrelentingly dark. In fact, think about it, it takes the deepest hope of Christianity -- resurrection -- and gives it a dark twist. What if coming back wasn't such a great thing!
Parker says,
"Many people thought the film wouldn’t be as hard-hitting as the novel because it was directed by a woman, but, as Stephen King said, “I can’t imagine it being any more horrific than it already is.”Wait, one more quote. . . because it's just that good! Parker is so enthusiastic about Pet Sematary, and Lambert's direction, she says,
"what makes Lambert such a great director for horror: she doesn’t flinch. Even when someone is getting a scalpel to the eye, she doesn’t cut away."Ahhh, I love it!
I enjoy the movie, but it's awfully cheesy in certain places. All the stuff with the ghostly Pascow, for example. And the acting is mostly awful except for Edward Herrmann (who is admittedly terrific).
ReplyDeleteBut it's definitely scary, and probably does deserve a bit more attention than it gets.
One movie that certainly does NOT deserve attention is the sequel, which was also directed by Lambert. It's got a great, campy performance by Clancy Brown, but otherwise it's a terrible film.
Let this be lesson to any who would stereotype a woman, even if it's other women.
ReplyDeleteNow if you'll excuse me, I have a cold and lonely couch to sleep on tonight.
It's a good film and a correct adaptation but the novel let me so impressed, one of the first I read by King and my favourite, that the film was a bit disapoint? deception? ehem... I don't know the word in english
ReplyDeleteI'd say "disappointed" is the word you're looking for.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the movie just can't touch the novel at all.
Fred Gwynne was amazing in this film... you can't say he was bad or cheesy or antyhing...
ReplyDelete