Q: MINOR SPOILER

Underrated little Stephen King shocker. It's not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination--even if the limp performances of Dale Midkiff and Denise Crosby were better, there'd still be the mismanaged mystical story elements to contend with. The old Micmac burial ground, Rachel's terminally ill sister, and the Jacob-Marley-an Victor Pascow never really come together into anything coherent, and the film in places feels confused and overstuffed. But few horror movies really are perfect, and what this one may lack in other areas it makes up for in its willingness to shock. 'Pet Sematary' may actually be one of the cruelest horror films in recent memory, with its murderous zombie baby and its insanely insensitive portrayal of Zelda. It's politically incorrect, it's tasteless, it's gratuitous--and yet it makes us squirm with revulsion in a way 'safer' horror movies never can. Add to that one of Fred Gwynne's best performances and Mary Lambert's witty direction, and you have an intensely satisfying scary movie--even with the hokey ending. Highly recommended for genre fans. 7.5 out of 10.
A: positive
Q: ***Possible Plot Spoilers***

I adore Dennis Hopper. I question why he accepted the role of a police detective in 2000's The Spreading Ground. This movie flat out sucks and I'm about to tell you why.

This is about a small town which is about to get a contract for a sports arena. One hitch: there's a killer on the loose and that is bad for business. The Mayor makes a deal with the Irish Mob to find the killer and make sure he never makes it to court. Det. Ed Delongpre has other plans. He wants this guy caught too, but he's on the level and believes in the system. He wants to see the system do it's job.

That could have been pretty good. It could have been riveting. It was horrible. First, they label this guy a Serial Killer. Err no. There are specific criteria and none of it fits here. The bad guy has killed 5 kids the first day, and I think it was 2 the second day. This entire movie spans like a 48 hour time period.... Hardly Serial Killer action. I don't care what warped motives they give him in the end, Serial Killers do their deed over a long time span. They do not just all of a sudden kill 7 kids in two days. That's a Spree.

Ok that irritant aside, the acting was atrocious. The only name here was Hopper, and he's the only one who came even close to pulling off his part. Unfortunately, he's kinda type-cast to me and I think he does psycho parts much, much better. This just wasn't a good vehicle for Hopper. It didn't allow him to do what he does best, which is to act all creepy. It's not that he did bad, it's that I've seen him do so much better.

The Irish Mob guy, Johnny Gault (Tom McCamus - Long Day's Journey Into Night), who is in charge of their investigation is just over the top stiff. Contradiction? Not really. He is trying to play the cold, hard kinda guy and he does that to the point that the character is just wooden. Boring to the max. He didn't scare me. He didn't inspire any emotion at all except boredom. I cannot tell you how many times I checked to see how much longer it was til the end of this movie.

The other thing about this is that it had the feel of a made-for-TV movie. You know what I mean. The poor production values, low budget, re-use of scenes to save costs. Just eh. Yanno? But, I feel like comparing this to those is an insult to those.

Derek Vanlint was both the Director and Cinematographer on this project. He bit off more than he could chew. I can't help feeling that Hopper must have took this role as a personal favor to a friend. That's the only rational I can come up with. This was Vanlint's first job as Director, third as cinematographer. Hopefully this was a learning experience for him.

I won't ruin the ending in case you do decide to torture yourself with this one, but I do want to say that they all dropped the ball here...even Hopper. In a scene that should have been emotionally gut-wrenching for the detective, it was just..well.. blah. I didn't see any of the angst at all that would accompany the total gear-change this guy made. Very disappointing.

This 100 grueling minutes long and Rated R for violence and language. No kid under 13 is going to have any interest whatsoever in watching this, so no worries there. It's not suitable for anyone anyway. heh.

Skip this one. You'll thank me later.
A: negative
Q: Nikolai Gogol's story "Viy" has been filmed again and released to home video in the US via Faith Films.

The original story concerns a priest who has to watch over the body of a witch with only his faith to protect him. Greatly expanded and set in America, though clearly filmed in Russia (the houses,clothing and furnishing are all wrong despite the English signs), this is an odd film that doesn't really work.Part of it is the weird setting that tries very hard to be backwoods America but clearly isn't.There are also some weird, intentionally oblique moments as the main character being a reporter at the start and a priest a short time later. I'm not sure why they did that, even after watching the making of piece on the DVD) The other problem is the dubbing which is beyond awful. Its done in such away that everyone speaks when their lips are not on camera- or if they are the voices don't even remotely match the lip flaps. I don't know if its Faith Films fault or that of the producers who made the film hoping to dump into the West (revealed in the making of piece).

The film isn't very good. As I've said it has all sorts of technical issues that just make this an odd ball curio. Despite some really good looking horror images the film never works as a horror film. As film to engender faith its much too confused in this retelling to amount to make anyone feel anyone closer to god.

Given the choice I'd give it a pass, even at a bargain bin price. My advice would be to find the 1960's version of the tale called Viy which will bring both some shivers and some understanding about a belief in god.
A: negative
Q: It's frequently said that movies can never equal the original book. Well, in this case, not only the movie is not "as good" as the book, but is an insult to the book. I'd rather see Milan Kundera's novel turned on fire than into this "something," which the director probably calls "adaptation."

All the beautiful philosophy that asks "is it better to carry a heavy load on your shoulders, or cope with the unbearable lightness of being?" is put aside, and instead, all the movie deals with is Daniel Day Lewis' (I cannot say Tomas) sexual adventures with his dumb wife, his mistress, and his other mistresses. Francois Truffaut already said it: bad directors make bad movies. Don't waste your time and money. Read the book instead, it's really worth it.
A: negative