MovieChat Forums > Pet Sematary (2019) Discussion > Better than the original

Better than the original


This remake is better than the original and 100 percent better than US as far as horror movies go. I wish they had killed the little kid instead of his older sister like the original but the ending in this one is great. Last 30 mins is the best first hour is a bit slow. Overall the make up effects, acting, and the tone is better then the original.

reply

Thanks for the spoiler, you dumb shit. I haven't seen either!

reply

Well dumb ass you came to a site for talking about movies if you didnt want to know anything maybe dont go to a site for people to talk about movies. Also I didnt say anything that is not in the trailer.

reply

He's not a dumbass for doing that. Often people give a cursory check on a movie's discussion board to see if it's worth seeing or not.

I don't care about spoilers, but it's common courtesy to not put them in the title. Yes, even if the trailer gives away too much.

reply

Happened to me too. The trailer spoiled it, but there are others who didn't see the trailer so some more consideration would be nice!

reply

The 1989 film isn't original, dumbass. It's an adaptation. Just like the 2019 film.

reply

The OP meant the original movie adaptation. I thought that was quite clear. Why so agressive?

reply

lmao if something is an adaptation, that means it's not original retard. That's like calling a movie an "original remake". That's how dumb you sound. Do you always use words that you don't even know the definition of? Everything that happens in the 1989 Pet Sematary already happens in the book. That means the 1989 film isn't original. Tards these days. Smh.

reply

Please allow me to explain. Original adaptation means the first adaptation, in other words, the first movie. The OP is comparing it to the first movie. I'm not sure why you are having difficulty seperating the book from the adaptations, but I will not fall back on the age old, and often used 'You're a retard' because I don't need to, you've made a pretty good fool of yourself here already.

reply

Ok. Let's go by your weird ass logic, if someone remakes The Terminator, would the remake be an "original remake"? It's the first Terminator remake so the remake would have to be an "original remake", right? 😂

What if I covered "Stairway to Heaven" and I made a death metal version of it, would it be an "original cover"? It's the first death metal version of "Stairway to Heaven" so the cover would have to be original, right?

The original Pet Sematary is a book. Not a movie. You are freaking retarded. Grab a dictionary. 😂

reply

LOL.

reply

Still no response?

Take your time.

reply

I can’t believe that you are arguing that a film can’t be referred to as “the original” when compared to a remake ... just because it’s based on a book.

Not only that, but you have the temerity to call someone else a “dumbass”?

LOLOLOLOL

reply

Of course you can compare an adaption film to a remake. Why? You are taking someone else's work and making your own version of it.

That is what you do when you're making a film adaptation of a book. Everything that happens in the Pet Sematary film already happens in the book. So how tf is the film original? Because of the format?

When retards laugh when they're the ones who have no arguments is the funniest part though. Don't be so hard on yourself.

reply

Oh dear God, I'll try once more.

We are talking about the original ADAPTATION. In other words, the first film. We all KNOW it was adapted from the BOOK, but we are not TALKING about the book, we are talking about the two films. Maybe it's the word 'original' that you're struggling with, so please think of it as FIRST. The FIRST adaptation, and the SECOND adaptation. We are not talking about original source material.

Honey, please seek professional help. You seem to have some serious issues which may make you a danger to others. Also, perhaps consider investing in a thesaurus, the overuse of the term 'retard' indicates that it would be money well spent, and you can share it with any little friends that you may have.

Before I go, I offer this paraphrase, although I may be guilty of this myself:

'Never argue with a retard, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference'.

I shall now bid you a fond farewell, thank you for your amusing insights, I had so much fun reading them. I sincerely hope that you can move on from this and become a useful member of society. However, if you feel the need to respond, please feel free, I look forward to it immensely. x

reply

[deleted]

At least your spelling's pretty good, which would suggest a reasonable education. Only one 'retard' in this one, well done you! That's progress! Carry on the good work sweetheart. I did have to look up 'sped' though, which seems to mean the same as retard, so that thesaurus is already paying dividends.

I am so intrigued now, please tell me a bit about yourself. Don't be shy.

reply

The first one is an original, doesn't matter if it's an adaptation, you dumbfuck

reply

"Adaptation" is when you take someone else's work to make your version of it. So yes, it does matter if the film is an adaptation. Therefore, the 1989 film is an adaptation, not an original film.

Now go act like a retard somewhere else. Ok sport? 👌

reply

Watched this last night and nearly fell asleep! what a boring a bland movie. The 89' is way better still..

reply

I thought both are equally as bland as the other. The only edge I see with the remake were the special effects, which should obviously be better due to the 30 year advancement of technology. The stories were damn identical aside from their endings and which child was chosen to become undead.

reply

The green screen effects were fucking awful, man. Watch the truck scene again or the background to the burial.

reply

Won't disagree with you there. What I was trying to say was that the newer version wins by default.

reply

Yes, you are right. It is better in pretty much every single way.

reply