TAKE ME OUT ~2019~ For Free Movie Download
TAKE ME OUT ~2019~ For Free Movie Download
DOWNLOAD: http://bit.ly/2UvaUCZ
WATCH: http://tinyurl.com/y3wp9h4n
Watch: TAKE ME OUT ~2019~ (2019) Mediafire TAKE ME OUT ~2019~ (2019) English Full Movie Download
Watch: TAKE ME OUT ~2019~ (2019) Streaming Full CLICK HERE To Watch TAKE ME OUT ~2019~ NOW!
GENRE: Drama
Not
bad, but not a patch on the book, and the new ending is awful In
Stephen King's celebrated oeuvre, his 1983 novel Pet Sematary (the
misspelling is intentional) is something of a curio. Although reasonably
well received at the time, critics have never considered it worthy of
the kind of attention lavished on work such as The Stand, The Dark Tower
series, It, or The Green Mile. Fans of King, however, have long
championed it as one of his most emotionally devastating works, whilst
King himself considers it the scariest novel he's ever written. And
although on the surface, the plot is as schlocky as they come, buried
underneath is an examination of grief and how it can compromise one's
ability to act rationally.
Written by Jeff Buhler, from an initial script by Matt Greenberg, and directed by Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer, much like It: Chapter One, Pet Sematary doesn't really work. It's certainly better that Mary Lambert's 1989 filmic adaptation, but it pales in comparison to the novel. Granted, most films suffer when compared to a source text; but Pet Sematary, which relies far too heavily on jump scares, is especially disappointing in this sense insofar as it starts off strongly before descending into absolute stupidity in the last act.
Dr. Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) and his wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), their eight-year-old daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence), three-year-old son Gage (Hugo and Lucas Lavoie), and Ellie's beloved cat, Church relocate from Boston to Ludlow, Maine. When Church is found dead, the Creeds' neighbour, Jud Crandall (John Lithgow), shows Louis an ancient burial ground in the forest, with the power to resurrect the dead. After burying Church, Louis is stunned when the cat returns, albeit far more aggressive than he used to be. However, when a horrific tragedy befalls the family, Jud warns Louis not to return to the site. Louis, however, has no intention of heeding that warning.
The big change in the film is that it's Ellie and not Gage who is killed, and whom Louis decides to bring back. However, King himself approved the change, and personally, I think it improves the story - as in the novel, it's Ellie with whom Louis and Rachel have portentous conversations about what happens after we die, and having her be the one killed establishes a more coherent thematic through-line.
Much like the novel, the film is primarily focused on grief; its core is the emotional trauma suffered by Louis and how his grief drives him to do something unspeakable. Like in the book, he's a man of science, who clashes with Rachel about what to tell Ellie regarding death - she wants to talk about an afterlife, he wants to focus on the finality of death as something natural. The irony, of course, is that Louis is the one who refuses to let death have the final word. Rachel's arc moves in the opposite direction to Louis's - she accepts the finality of Ellie's death. Her arc is rendered more complex insofar as she also suffers crippling guilt because of the death of her sister Zelda (Alyssa Brooke Levine) when they were children, for which she still blames herself.
For about two-thirds of the runtime, the film deals reasonably convincingly with these issues. At least up to the point when it seems to forget about them entirely, as the third act descends into a ridiculous series of murders and attempted murders.
The new "twist" ending not only doesn't work on its own terms, it completely undercuts both King's original themes, and how well the film itself had initially handled these themes. I've no problem with filmmakers altering the end of a literary adaptation; the finale of Frank Darabont's The Mist, for example, is completely different from King's novel, but it replicates the spirit of the original. However, the whole point of the end of the novel is that Louis learned nothing from his experience bringing Gage back. The tragedy is that, lost in madness and despair, he repeats his mistakes. The end of the film has none of this, with the final shot more of a silly "dun-dun-duuuun" moment.
The film also leaves out most of the mythology of the burial ground and the role of the Wendigo (an evil necromantic spirit spoken of in Algonquin folklore); Louis sees a picture of the Wendigo in a book, but it's unnamed, and later, he thinks he sees something in the distance of the fog-shrouded forest, but that's as close as we ever get to it.
As a novel, Pet Sematary is a study of grief first, a horror narrative second. Investigating our psychological reaction to death, the book probes how far we might go to ensure a loved one never leaves us. As a film, Pet Sematary seems to be charting a similar course, until it abandons this tack in favour of a shock-for-shock's sake ending. With an over-reliance on predictable and silly jump scares, what could have been a mature and emotionally affecting story gives in to the worst excesses of the genre, betraying both itself and the novel.
CAST: Brian Anthony Collins, Romeo Sanchez, Andrew Burdette, LINNÉA HEDBERG, Kayla Greyling, William S. MillerWritten by Jeff Buhler, from an initial script by Matt Greenberg, and directed by Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer, much like It: Chapter One, Pet Sematary doesn't really work. It's certainly better that Mary Lambert's 1989 filmic adaptation, but it pales in comparison to the novel. Granted, most films suffer when compared to a source text; but Pet Sematary, which relies far too heavily on jump scares, is especially disappointing in this sense insofar as it starts off strongly before descending into absolute stupidity in the last act.
Dr. Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) and his wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), their eight-year-old daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence), three-year-old son Gage (Hugo and Lucas Lavoie), and Ellie's beloved cat, Church relocate from Boston to Ludlow, Maine. When Church is found dead, the Creeds' neighbour, Jud Crandall (John Lithgow), shows Louis an ancient burial ground in the forest, with the power to resurrect the dead. After burying Church, Louis is stunned when the cat returns, albeit far more aggressive than he used to be. However, when a horrific tragedy befalls the family, Jud warns Louis not to return to the site. Louis, however, has no intention of heeding that warning.
The big change in the film is that it's Ellie and not Gage who is killed, and whom Louis decides to bring back. However, King himself approved the change, and personally, I think it improves the story - as in the novel, it's Ellie with whom Louis and Rachel have portentous conversations about what happens after we die, and having her be the one killed establishes a more coherent thematic through-line.
Much like the novel, the film is primarily focused on grief; its core is the emotional trauma suffered by Louis and how his grief drives him to do something unspeakable. Like in the book, he's a man of science, who clashes with Rachel about what to tell Ellie regarding death - she wants to talk about an afterlife, he wants to focus on the finality of death as something natural. The irony, of course, is that Louis is the one who refuses to let death have the final word. Rachel's arc moves in the opposite direction to Louis's - she accepts the finality of Ellie's death. Her arc is rendered more complex insofar as she also suffers crippling guilt because of the death of her sister Zelda (Alyssa Brooke Levine) when they were children, for which she still blames herself.
For about two-thirds of the runtime, the film deals reasonably convincingly with these issues. At least up to the point when it seems to forget about them entirely, as the third act descends into a ridiculous series of murders and attempted murders.
The new "twist" ending not only doesn't work on its own terms, it completely undercuts both King's original themes, and how well the film itself had initially handled these themes. I've no problem with filmmakers altering the end of a literary adaptation; the finale of Frank Darabont's The Mist, for example, is completely different from King's novel, but it replicates the spirit of the original. However, the whole point of the end of the novel is that Louis learned nothing from his experience bringing Gage back. The tragedy is that, lost in madness and despair, he repeats his mistakes. The end of the film has none of this, with the final shot more of a silly "dun-dun-duuuun" moment.
The film also leaves out most of the mythology of the burial ground and the role of the Wendigo (an evil necromantic spirit spoken of in Algonquin folklore); Louis sees a picture of the Wendigo in a book, but it's unnamed, and later, he thinks he sees something in the distance of the fog-shrouded forest, but that's as close as we ever get to it.
As a novel, Pet Sematary is a study of grief first, a horror narrative second. Investigating our psychological reaction to death, the book probes how far we might go to ensure a loved one never leaves us. As a film, Pet Sematary seems to be charting a similar course, until it abandons this tack in favour of a shock-for-shock's sake ending. With an over-reliance on predictable and silly jump scares, what could have been a mature and emotionally affecting story gives in to the worst excesses of the genre, betraying both itself and the novel.
Trailer: Take Me Out - Short Film Teaser [HD]
PRODUCTION: New York Film Academy, Fritz the Mann Films
SYNOPSIS: A window into the broken soul of Bruce, battling long-term depression and the culmination of events leading up to the tipping point of his bottled up shame, guilt, and self-destruction.
Komentar
Posting Komentar