Search
Langmate-Chat with Japanese
Social Networking and Lifestyle
App
Langmate−matching app that matches Japanese people and foreigners that use Facebook ■ The best...
Tu Dien Anh Viet Offline
Education and Reference
App
The leading and offline English Vietnamese English Dictionary is now available on Appstore for FREE!...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Damon, Bale and fast cars (1 more)
Epic technical film making - cinematography, editing and sound - Oscar bait
A linear story on a circular track - but beautifully done.
Despite the love affair cinema has had with cars over the years, the sport of motor racing on film has been patchy. Too often the drama on the track has been deluged with melodrama off the track, as in John Frankenheimer's "Grand Prix" from 1966. While recent efforts such as Ron Howard's "Rush" have brought modern filming techniques to better convey the speed and excitement, it is Steve McQueen's "Le Mans" from 1971 that had previously set the bar for realism in the sport. But even there, there were a few off-track love stories to interweave into the action.
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Parasite (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Hello there! It’s been six weeks since my last post – Covid 19 related restriction issues sent me to a very odd place mentally and it has taken me a while to snap out of it enough to have the energy and will to keep writing these reviews. But what better way to recomense than with the history making Best Picture film from earlier in this strange year of 2020, before all the things that changed our way of thinking began?
The hype surrounding this movie in January was immense, for a film coming from Korea out of the blue, with an image and plot that didn’t fit into any of the normal marketing boxes. Every review ranged from this is incredible to… just see it for yourself. Nothing could have been more intriguing. I was certainly hooked on the idea, although by the time the Oscars came around I still hadn’t managed to see it at the cinema.
I found it fascinating that the academy had chosen 2020 as the year to change the dodgy sounding “Best Foreign Language film” to “Best International film”. It was about time, really, to acknowledge the us and them philosophy of world cinema didn’t really wash. And as the sublime Roma had paved the way for non English films to be considered again in all the main categories as serious contenders, I just had a feeling this was the year Oscar would make a statement with this film.
And so it turned out to be. It was a strong year. At the time I was a huge Joker advocate, having not yet seen 1917 either. Looking back now, I think, although not as perfect as Roma the year before, Parasite certainly deserves the praise and accolades it garnered from all around the world. Although any of those 3 films (Parasite, 1917 and Joker) would have been obvious winners in any other less competitive year.
So what is it about Parasite that raises it above the masses? Well, for a start it looks both beautiful and awe inspiring in every shot. Each image is designed and framed expertly to create a montage of mood and form that holds the multi-layered storytelling in place. Rarely have I seen such a well balanced and crisp visual design for a film, of any kind. Even with the subtitles off there is plenty to engage the eye and mind here. But it’s real secret is how it draws you in to believing you are watching one kind of satirical drama for about 40 minutes and then punches you in the solar plexus with the revelation that it has mutated into something darker, weirder and more entertaining on every level.
The “twist” when it comes along is so well placed and unexpected, even if you are told to expect one, that it entirely transforms your experience. You have been engaging with social issues and a basic satire on the rich vs the poor, where true power is a good wifi signal, and then, blam, you are watching a modern horror story with truly disturbing ramifications. I found this gear shift riveting and striking in a way that I can’t remember from a film in a long time.
But, looking back on it after several months, is that tonal shift really a strength? Some criticism, however minor in the scheme of things, did point this out, that what we get with Parasite is an unfocused and confused mix of genres that doesn’t entirely cohere. I mean, I see that, but have to disagree, simply because the writing at every point is too intelligent and sharp to give a damn about staying still and balanced on just one idea. Parasite is an exercise in energetic chaos that juggles many balls, all as interesting as one another, without dropping any of them.
Poverty, class, elitism, generational gaps, vanity, work ethics and morality, roles within a family unit, loyalty, weakness, revenge and bitterness are all themes here, and many more. Start going down the alley of one conversation that Parasite starts and end up somewhere entirely different in just a few sentences. And that is why it is worth seeing, several times. And that is why it works and was rewarded.
Is it a film I will be keen to see over again as the years pass? Yes and no. I’d probably be most interested to see it with someone who hasn’t seen it, to see their reaction. But I’m much less likely to give it multiple watches than the previous mentioned Joker and 1917, or indeed Roma, which I just can’t help comparing it to, even though they have virtually nothing in common, as I wish it had been Roma that made history at the awards rather than this. Of course, it is personal taste at that level of quality, but I believe Roma to be the better film.
If nothing else, however, Parasite marks the graduation of Bong Joon Ho, from a quirky filmmaker, whose interesting but not quite great near misses include The Host, Snowpiercer and Okja – all entertaining but flawed – to an auteur of considerable skill. Will the elements of his mind and vision ever align this well again. I hope so. I’ll be looking out for it, as will the rest of the world now.
The hype surrounding this movie in January was immense, for a film coming from Korea out of the blue, with an image and plot that didn’t fit into any of the normal marketing boxes. Every review ranged from this is incredible to… just see it for yourself. Nothing could have been more intriguing. I was certainly hooked on the idea, although by the time the Oscars came around I still hadn’t managed to see it at the cinema.
I found it fascinating that the academy had chosen 2020 as the year to change the dodgy sounding “Best Foreign Language film” to “Best International film”. It was about time, really, to acknowledge the us and them philosophy of world cinema didn’t really wash. And as the sublime Roma had paved the way for non English films to be considered again in all the main categories as serious contenders, I just had a feeling this was the year Oscar would make a statement with this film.
And so it turned out to be. It was a strong year. At the time I was a huge Joker advocate, having not yet seen 1917 either. Looking back now, I think, although not as perfect as Roma the year before, Parasite certainly deserves the praise and accolades it garnered from all around the world. Although any of those 3 films (Parasite, 1917 and Joker) would have been obvious winners in any other less competitive year.
So what is it about Parasite that raises it above the masses? Well, for a start it looks both beautiful and awe inspiring in every shot. Each image is designed and framed expertly to create a montage of mood and form that holds the multi-layered storytelling in place. Rarely have I seen such a well balanced and crisp visual design for a film, of any kind. Even with the subtitles off there is plenty to engage the eye and mind here. But it’s real secret is how it draws you in to believing you are watching one kind of satirical drama for about 40 minutes and then punches you in the solar plexus with the revelation that it has mutated into something darker, weirder and more entertaining on every level.
The “twist” when it comes along is so well placed and unexpected, even if you are told to expect one, that it entirely transforms your experience. You have been engaging with social issues and a basic satire on the rich vs the poor, where true power is a good wifi signal, and then, blam, you are watching a modern horror story with truly disturbing ramifications. I found this gear shift riveting and striking in a way that I can’t remember from a film in a long time.
But, looking back on it after several months, is that tonal shift really a strength? Some criticism, however minor in the scheme of things, did point this out, that what we get with Parasite is an unfocused and confused mix of genres that doesn’t entirely cohere. I mean, I see that, but have to disagree, simply because the writing at every point is too intelligent and sharp to give a damn about staying still and balanced on just one idea. Parasite is an exercise in energetic chaos that juggles many balls, all as interesting as one another, without dropping any of them.
Poverty, class, elitism, generational gaps, vanity, work ethics and morality, roles within a family unit, loyalty, weakness, revenge and bitterness are all themes here, and many more. Start going down the alley of one conversation that Parasite starts and end up somewhere entirely different in just a few sentences. And that is why it is worth seeing, several times. And that is why it works and was rewarded.
Is it a film I will be keen to see over again as the years pass? Yes and no. I’d probably be most interested to see it with someone who hasn’t seen it, to see their reaction. But I’m much less likely to give it multiple watches than the previous mentioned Joker and 1917, or indeed Roma, which I just can’t help comparing it to, even though they have virtually nothing in common, as I wish it had been Roma that made history at the awards rather than this. Of course, it is personal taste at that level of quality, but I believe Roma to be the better film.
If nothing else, however, Parasite marks the graduation of Bong Joon Ho, from a quirky filmmaker, whose interesting but not quite great near misses include The Host, Snowpiercer and Okja – all entertaining but flawed – to an auteur of considerable skill. Will the elements of his mind and vision ever align this well again. I hope so. I’ll be looking out for it, as will the rest of the world now.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
I watched Roma exactly a week ago today. And although I knew 20 minutes in that I loved it, and at the end that I really loved it, I have taken that time to let it settle within me in before coming to write about it. Some films are so good that you have to do that: let it sink into you fully, before doing anything so trivial as judging and comparing them. Roma is incomparable! I have never seen anything like it, or felt as deeply moved by a film in a long time.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
Hadley (567 KP) rated Pet Sematary in Books
Jul 31, 2019
Realistic horror scenes (1 more)
Great writing
Overuse of some words (1 more)
Some contradictions
Louis Creed, the main character of Stephen King's 'Pet Sematary,' wants a good life for his family. He's starting his first term as a newly appointed doctor for the University of Maine. Louis' family moved from Chicago to Maine for this very job, which consists of his young daughter, Ellie, his wife, Rachel, his infant son, Gage, and Ellie's black cat, Church (which is short for Winston Churchill). This cat quickly becomes the topic of conversation when the Creeds' new neighbor, Jud Crandall, warns them about the road in front of their house: " 'I'd get him fixed, ' Crandall said, crushing his smoke between his thumb and forefinger. 'A fixed cat don't tend to wander as much. But if it's all the time crossing back and forth, its luck will run out, and it'll end up there with the Ryder kids' coon and little Timmy Dessler's cocker spaniel and Missus Bradleigh's parakeet. Not that the parakeet got run over in the road, you understand. It just went feet up one day.' "
When Louis becomes curious about a trail behind his new home that leads into the woods, Jud gladly introduces the Creed family to the infamous 'Pet Sematary.' A place where children, for years, have buried their pets when they die. This place, and the death of Church, form the starting basis of King's amazing novel.
Louis' life suddenly changes after the death of a University student named Victor Pascow, and gets even worse when Louis starts to have dreams about him. One night, even the ghost of Pascow shows up at Louis' house: " He stood there with his head bashed in behind the left temple. The blood had dried on his face in maroon stripes like Indian warpaint. His collarbone jutted whitely. He was grinning. 'Come on, Doctor,' Pascow said. 'We got places to go.' " Louis ends up following Pascow to the pet sematary where he tells him: " 'I come as a friend,' Pascow said--- but was friend actually the word Pascow had used? Louis thought not. It was as if Pascow had spoken in a foreign language which Louis could understand through some dream magic... and friend was as close as to whatever word Pascow had actually used that Louis's struggling mind could come. ' Your destruction and the destruction of all you love is very near, Doctor.' He was close enough for Louis to be able to smell death on him. "
Later on, Louis feels Pascow's premonition might be coming true when he finds that Church has been killed by a passing vehicle. Jud, who happened to find Church, tells him to follow him so that they can bury the cat, but Jud doesn't stop at the pet sematary as expected, instead he goes past a deadfall barrier and continues on to a place he calls the Micmac Burial Ground, a burial ground that was made by the Micmac Indians. Through this entire scene, Louis experiences paranormal-type things, including the maniacal laughter of a disembodied voice. Jud warns Louis to not pay any attention to anything he experiences here: " 'You might see St. Elmo's fire- - - what the sailors call foo-lights. It makes funny shapes, but it's nothing. If you should see some of those shapes and they bother you, just look the other way. You may hear sounds like voices, but they are the loons down south toward Prospect. The sound carries. It's funny.' "
Now, the real story begins when Church returns to the house after his burial, where Louis finds dried blood on the cat's face and small pieces of plastic from the garbage bag his body had been in. Breathing and eating, the cat has certainly come back to life, but Louis notices that Church isn't the same as he was before; while Louis is in a hot bath, Church takes a seat on the toilet, where we witness him swaying back and forth, from this point on, Louis starts to regret following Jud to the Micmac burial ground.
Ellie, Louis' daughter, begins to suspect that something is different about Church, but she shrugs it off and doesn't necessarily question it:
" 'Daddy?' Ellie said in a low, subdued voice.
'What, Ellie? '
'Church smells funny.'
'Does he?' Louis asked, his voice carefully neutral.
'Yes!' Ellie said, distressed. 'Yes, he does! He never smelled funny before! He smells like... he smells like ka-ka!'
'Well, maybe he rolled in something bad, honey,' Louis said. 'Whatever that bad smell is, he'll lost it.'
'I certainly hope so,' Ellie said in a comical dowager's voice. She walked off. " King spends a majority of 'Pet Sematary' addressing everyone's fear of death; he discusses parents' fear of explaining death to their children for the first time, and even makes readers face the real nightmare of losing a child.
And the realism that King writes about is what makes him the great writer that he is today. King writes about the death of a child, but also makes Louis into a very real character that any parent could relate to. While many books touch on this subject, none can touch on grief like King does: " It was well for Louis- - - well for all three of the remaining family members--- that Steve had shown up as promptly as he had, because Louis was at least temporarily unable to make any kind of decision, even one so minor as giving his wife a shot to mute her deep grief. Louis hadn't even noticed that Rachel had apparently meant to go to the morning viewing in her housecoat, which she had misbuttoned. Her hair was uncombed, unwashed, tangled. Her eyes, blank brown orbits, bulged from sockets so sunken that they had almost become the eyes of a living skull. Her flesh was doughy. It hung from her face. She sat at the breakfast table that morning, munching unbuttered toast and talking in disjointed phrases that made no sense at all. At one point she had said abruptly, 'About that Winnebago you want to buy, Lou---' Louis had last spoken about buying a Winnebago in 1981. "
Yet, this isn't a book about grief, but a horror book about grief, which King masterfully put together. He molds the darkness of losing a child with the horror of making zombies, but King makes the story seem so realistic that any parent would go to the lengths that Louis did - - -and Jud, for that matter - - - even with the dire consequences at stake: " You're slanting all the evidence in favor of the conclusion you want to produce, his [Louis] mind protested. At least tell yourself the goddamned truth about the change in Church. Even if you want to disqualify the animals--- the mice and the birds--- what about the way he is? Muddled... that's the best word of all, that sums it up. The day we were out with the kite. You remember how Gage was that day? How vibrant and alive he was, reacting to everything? Wouldn't it be better to remember him that way? Do you want to resurrect a zombie from a grade-B horror picture? Or even something so prosaic as a retarded little boy? A boy who eats with his fingers and stares blankly at images on the TV screen and who will never learn to write his own name? What did Jud say about his dog? 'It was like washing a piece of meat.' Is that what you want? A piece of breathing meat? And even if you're able to be satisfied with that, how do you explain the return of your son from the dead to your wife? To your daughter? To Steve Masterton? To the world? What happens the first time Missy Dandridge pulls into the driveway and sees Gage riding his trike in the yard? Can't you hear her screams, Louis? Can't you see her harrowing her face with her fingernails? What do you say to the reporters? What do you say when a film crew from 'Real People' turns up on your doorstep, wanting to shoot film of your resurrected son? "
Pet Sematary is an emotional thrill ride, with Louis as a very relatable character, and the writing makes this a must-read book for all readers. With one of my favorite descriptive parts taking place in the 'Little God Swamp' that exists just outside of the Micmac Burial Ground when King describes the legendary Wendigo:
" The mist stained to a dull slate- gray for a moment, but this diffuse, ill-defined watermark was better than sixty feet high. It was no shade, no insubstantial ghost; he could feel the displaced air of its passage, could hear the mammoth thud of its feet coming down, the suck of mud as it moved on. For a moment he believed he saw twin yellow- orange sparks high above him. Sparks like eyes. "
The novel is so well-written that it reads easily, and King's descriptions put the reader right inside of the book.
With a few inconsistencies here and there, and overuse of some words, Pet Sematary is a very enjoyable book for lovers of the horror genre. I highly recommend this book!
When Louis becomes curious about a trail behind his new home that leads into the woods, Jud gladly introduces the Creed family to the infamous 'Pet Sematary.' A place where children, for years, have buried their pets when they die. This place, and the death of Church, form the starting basis of King's amazing novel.
Louis' life suddenly changes after the death of a University student named Victor Pascow, and gets even worse when Louis starts to have dreams about him. One night, even the ghost of Pascow shows up at Louis' house: " He stood there with his head bashed in behind the left temple. The blood had dried on his face in maroon stripes like Indian warpaint. His collarbone jutted whitely. He was grinning. 'Come on, Doctor,' Pascow said. 'We got places to go.' " Louis ends up following Pascow to the pet sematary where he tells him: " 'I come as a friend,' Pascow said--- but was friend actually the word Pascow had used? Louis thought not. It was as if Pascow had spoken in a foreign language which Louis could understand through some dream magic... and friend was as close as to whatever word Pascow had actually used that Louis's struggling mind could come. ' Your destruction and the destruction of all you love is very near, Doctor.' He was close enough for Louis to be able to smell death on him. "
Later on, Louis feels Pascow's premonition might be coming true when he finds that Church has been killed by a passing vehicle. Jud, who happened to find Church, tells him to follow him so that they can bury the cat, but Jud doesn't stop at the pet sematary as expected, instead he goes past a deadfall barrier and continues on to a place he calls the Micmac Burial Ground, a burial ground that was made by the Micmac Indians. Through this entire scene, Louis experiences paranormal-type things, including the maniacal laughter of a disembodied voice. Jud warns Louis to not pay any attention to anything he experiences here: " 'You might see St. Elmo's fire- - - what the sailors call foo-lights. It makes funny shapes, but it's nothing. If you should see some of those shapes and they bother you, just look the other way. You may hear sounds like voices, but they are the loons down south toward Prospect. The sound carries. It's funny.' "
Now, the real story begins when Church returns to the house after his burial, where Louis finds dried blood on the cat's face and small pieces of plastic from the garbage bag his body had been in. Breathing and eating, the cat has certainly come back to life, but Louis notices that Church isn't the same as he was before; while Louis is in a hot bath, Church takes a seat on the toilet, where we witness him swaying back and forth, from this point on, Louis starts to regret following Jud to the Micmac burial ground.
Ellie, Louis' daughter, begins to suspect that something is different about Church, but she shrugs it off and doesn't necessarily question it:
" 'Daddy?' Ellie said in a low, subdued voice.
'What, Ellie? '
'Church smells funny.'
'Does he?' Louis asked, his voice carefully neutral.
'Yes!' Ellie said, distressed. 'Yes, he does! He never smelled funny before! He smells like... he smells like ka-ka!'
'Well, maybe he rolled in something bad, honey,' Louis said. 'Whatever that bad smell is, he'll lost it.'
'I certainly hope so,' Ellie said in a comical dowager's voice. She walked off. " King spends a majority of 'Pet Sematary' addressing everyone's fear of death; he discusses parents' fear of explaining death to their children for the first time, and even makes readers face the real nightmare of losing a child.
And the realism that King writes about is what makes him the great writer that he is today. King writes about the death of a child, but also makes Louis into a very real character that any parent could relate to. While many books touch on this subject, none can touch on grief like King does: " It was well for Louis- - - well for all three of the remaining family members--- that Steve had shown up as promptly as he had, because Louis was at least temporarily unable to make any kind of decision, even one so minor as giving his wife a shot to mute her deep grief. Louis hadn't even noticed that Rachel had apparently meant to go to the morning viewing in her housecoat, which she had misbuttoned. Her hair was uncombed, unwashed, tangled. Her eyes, blank brown orbits, bulged from sockets so sunken that they had almost become the eyes of a living skull. Her flesh was doughy. It hung from her face. She sat at the breakfast table that morning, munching unbuttered toast and talking in disjointed phrases that made no sense at all. At one point she had said abruptly, 'About that Winnebago you want to buy, Lou---' Louis had last spoken about buying a Winnebago in 1981. "
Yet, this isn't a book about grief, but a horror book about grief, which King masterfully put together. He molds the darkness of losing a child with the horror of making zombies, but King makes the story seem so realistic that any parent would go to the lengths that Louis did - - -and Jud, for that matter - - - even with the dire consequences at stake: " You're slanting all the evidence in favor of the conclusion you want to produce, his [Louis] mind protested. At least tell yourself the goddamned truth about the change in Church. Even if you want to disqualify the animals--- the mice and the birds--- what about the way he is? Muddled... that's the best word of all, that sums it up. The day we were out with the kite. You remember how Gage was that day? How vibrant and alive he was, reacting to everything? Wouldn't it be better to remember him that way? Do you want to resurrect a zombie from a grade-B horror picture? Or even something so prosaic as a retarded little boy? A boy who eats with his fingers and stares blankly at images on the TV screen and who will never learn to write his own name? What did Jud say about his dog? 'It was like washing a piece of meat.' Is that what you want? A piece of breathing meat? And even if you're able to be satisfied with that, how do you explain the return of your son from the dead to your wife? To your daughter? To Steve Masterton? To the world? What happens the first time Missy Dandridge pulls into the driveway and sees Gage riding his trike in the yard? Can't you hear her screams, Louis? Can't you see her harrowing her face with her fingernails? What do you say to the reporters? What do you say when a film crew from 'Real People' turns up on your doorstep, wanting to shoot film of your resurrected son? "
Pet Sematary is an emotional thrill ride, with Louis as a very relatable character, and the writing makes this a must-read book for all readers. With one of my favorite descriptive parts taking place in the 'Little God Swamp' that exists just outside of the Micmac Burial Ground when King describes the legendary Wendigo:
" The mist stained to a dull slate- gray for a moment, but this diffuse, ill-defined watermark was better than sixty feet high. It was no shade, no insubstantial ghost; he could feel the displaced air of its passage, could hear the mammoth thud of its feet coming down, the suck of mud as it moved on. For a moment he believed he saw twin yellow- orange sparks high above him. Sparks like eyes. "
The novel is so well-written that it reads easily, and King's descriptions put the reader right inside of the book.
With a few inconsistencies here and there, and overuse of some words, Pet Sematary is a very enjoyable book for lovers of the horror genre. I highly recommend this book!