The Curse of La Llorona (2019)

While I cannot blame Warner Bros. for wanting to cash in on the "cinematic universe" craze that's going on thanks to Marvel, I think they are reaching pretty far when it comes to 'The Conjuring' series of films. The original released back in 2013 and was a surprise hit and both critics and audiences loved it. Then a spin off series involving the creepy real-life Annabelle doll came a few years later. It was a movie of much lesser quality than what came before, but serviceable nonetheless. At this point is when the series began the building blocks of what is now called the 'Conjuring Universe' with a sequel to 'Conjuring', a prequel to 'Annabelle' which in itself was a prequel, then came 'The Nun' and now not only do we get 'La Llorona' but yet another 'Annabelle' prequel later this year. If this all sounds like a mess, that's because it really is with some great modern classics of the horror genre becoming sort of lost within some pretty mediocre films. Sadly, I think 'The Curse of La Llorona' is in the latter.

For those unaware, the story of the film is based upon an Mexican folk tale about a young woman who drowned her children and was then consumed by her sorrow and killed herself. Now the spirit, known as La Llorona walks the Earth taking children to replace her own. The film's story revolves around a social worker named Anna, who has recently become a widower and her current case brings the cursed spirit to her home in an attempt to take her two children. The story is pretty simple and straightforward, much like the movie itself. I would say that story-wise this is the weakest of this franchise and a lot of it consists of scenes done in the previous 'Conjuring' films. This is becoming the series' biggest issue and why it shouldn't have been set up as a Marvel-esque cinematic universe. The scenarios begin the same and usually end the same, only swapping out the monster, the time period, or what tools are required to defeat said monster. The film contains a scene in which a child is watching 'Scooby-Doo' on television and I feel that's a great summary of the 'Conjuring' films up to this point: episodic stories that all seem too familiar for their own good.

I do think the acting in the film is superior to some of the other films and the child characters are written well enough and don't come off as annoying, although one scene in which the little girl risks her life for a doll is not only cliche but seems so stupid especially when she's just seen that the demonic entity after her life will likely get her if she goes for it. The film does throw in a bit of humor that works and is used sparingly to ease some tension. This worked well for the first two 'Conjuring' films as well so it's nice to see it back though very briefly here. I think the biggest issue with 'The Curse of La Llorona' ultimately is that its just not scary. If you've seen the trailer of television spots then you'll know each and every scare that's coming and I didn't jump once the whole time. It just lacks the tension some of the previous films had and once the film was over I felt nothing sadly. It also seems to be in quite a hurry despite not containing any setups or post-credit sequences and because of this you feel like you're just getting a quick sugar high before crashing hard before you know it.

Overall, 'The Curse of La Llorona' is right next to 'The Nun' as the worst this series has to offer. It's boring, lacks tension or scares and its frantic pace gives the audience no chance to be truly invested. It is saved somewhat thanks to the good acting performances along with some humor and at least attempts to be scary without resorting to jump scares. However, I just can't really recommend the film for now but rather I'd suggest a rental at best.

4/10

Hellboy (2019)

'Hellboy' is directed by Neil Marshal and stars David Harbour, Ian McShane and Milla Jovovich and is a remake of the 2004 film directed by Guillermo Del Toro. This time around the story revolves around Hellboy and a secret society of monster hunters trying to take down an ancient witch, who seeks to destroy the human world with a devistating plague thus allowing the creatures of the night to roam free and rule the Earth.


This 2019 reboot of 'Hellboy' had a lot of potential with a great horror director, some decent early trailers and behind the scenes footage and the idea that it was going for a darker tone much like the comic books which is to be commended. However, what this reboot actually is causes the film to fall apart very quickly and results in a juvenile, shoddy mess that makes you really wish Del Toro was still onboard. With this being a new studio behind it, we sadly get none of the great cast from the first two films but instead we get a severe downgrade of acting talent. David Harbour from the Netflix series 'Stranger Things' is our new Hellboy and he's a far cry from Ron Pearlman. He spends most of the film complaining and only seems to progress or obtain what he needs by pure dumb luck. McShane plays Professor Broom well enough and it's always nice to see him perform but he too spends much of his time fighting with Hellboy with the cringiest dialogue that you'd expect from a sitcom.

Milla Jovovich is as beautiful as ever, but dull as wood here. I really don't have anything against the poor woman but she is just not a good actress I'm sorry. This villain is not intimidating in the slightest and we rarely see her actually fight anyone. She seems so easily defeated at the hands of our heroes that she feels insignificant in her own movie. Speaking of insignificant, a lot of scenes in this movie go absolutely nowhere. They are either there for a cheap laugh, excessive gore, boring exposition or for seemingly no reason other than to pad out the running time. A scene that comes to mind immediately is when Hellboy confronts an old witch he fought named Baba Yaga. This character is in the movie for maybe five minutes total and provides directions that Hellboy could have figured out on his own. It was just to show off another creature that could have been creepy if you had Doug Jones returning but no.

And really the special effects are some of my biggest issues with 'Hellboy'. Things that could have been done with talented actors and good makeup artists are instead thrown into a computer and the result is some of the worst CGI I've seen this year. I've heard the budget for this film was low in comparison to the first two, but that's hardly an excuse. People with talent can take a penny and make something special out of it and this film is a waste of creative monsters although I will say that the makeup that is used are okay for the most part. The Hellboy makeup is nicely done along with the gross plague victim makeups. The other major issue I had was the tone and the overall 'harder' & 'edgier' mentality of the script. This is like a 13 year old boy wrote a fan fiction while trying to sound more mature by throwing in lots of 'F' words and over the top gore. The comic books and the Del Toro films were more about the fantastical nature of this world, while 2019's film is more about exploitation and vulgarity.

It took a bit longer in the year before I saw something that I truly despised, but here we are with 'Hellboy'. This film is a travesty that spits on everything that came before it, leaving a withered corpse and not even bothering to clean it up. It's the worst film I have seen this year with poor effects, cheesy acting, odd edits, boring story, boring villain, and excessive violence and language to overcompensate. I'd just stay home and watch the Del Toro films again.

4/10

Pet Sematary (2019)

'Pet Sematary' is a remake of the 1989 film of the same name and both are based upon the 1983 novel by Stephen King. The film follows the bare basics and attempts to take its own path and while jarring for King fans it is nice to see a remake try something different. However, in the end if one wants to take that path then I guess you should ask why even bother with a remake in the first place? Dr. Louis Creed (Jason Clarke), his wife, two children and their cat Church move to Ludlow, Maine in the hopes of starting a new life. Right away, things begin to slowly unravel once their young daughter Ellie (Jete Laurence) discovers the titular cemetery behind their home which seems to contain an ancient evil that seeks to tear the family apart.

The casting here is far better than the original film for the most part. Jason Clarke gives a lot more emotion and depth to Louis than Dale Midkiff and Amy Seimetz is a far better fit for Rachel over Denise Crosby. I also liked to see that this version shows the love between the two whereas in the original you feel that they are always cold and never intimate. Young Jete Laurence is the big stand out here (other than that damn creepy cat perhaps) as she gives one hell of an intense performance. She is sweet, innocent and loving when alive only to then switch to a maniacal, destructive and grotesque shell taken over by the Wendigo. I know why people would be upset at this drastic change from the book, but I feel that like Miko Hughes as Gage she proves the naysayers wrong and is a natural talent. The biggest drawback with the cast sadly has to be John Lithgow. The man is a great actor don't get me wrong but this version of Jud just doesn't have any of the warmth, personality or emotion of his novel counterpart.

The story has been significantly changed through a lot of the script, and not just the switching of the children's ultimate fates. The Zelda character is presented as little more than a couple of cheap jump scare sequences and even the makeup on her is pretty uninspired. The biggest thing missing here is motivation and I mean real motivation as to why exactly Jud would take Louis up to the burial ground knowing what will happen. For those who haven't read the novel, this is a slight spoiler but in King's book Jud's wife Norma is alive for a good chunk of it. She suffers a heart attack during Halloween and Louis saves her life. She eventually passes later on in the story but this is what gives Jud the motivation. He felt obligated as a way of repaying him for saving his wife and he also felt for young Ellie and didn't want to see her upset. Norma is sadly missing from both film adaptations (though she does make a sinister cameo here) and Jud briefly mentions the Wendigo enticing people to use the cemetery. Really, he just seems like a grumpy old man here and it really takes a lot of what little warmth the novel had. The film also seems to attempt at being as bleak as possible, having an even darker ending than the novel's which I didn't think was possible.

The film is very nicely shot, with the green of the trees and the dark blue of the night coming through very beautifully. For the film's more horror focused scenes the lighting tends to come out a bit gray and bland but for the most part, I thought the film looked great. The film's music is also nice, coming from Christopher Young who provided the scores to the horror classic 'Hellraiser' and its sequel. He also provided the music to 'Spider-Man 3' which took on a more horror like tone so the man knows the genre well. His score here is soft and slow paced which gives off that very eerie feeling while you watch it. Even during the more intense moments, he manages to keep a subtle but effective sound. It's not one of his best I think, but it's a very effective one. Also, be sure to stick around for the end credits to hear a nice remake of the Ramones song 'Pet Sematary' which is a nice reference to the end of the '89 original. For a movie that is trying to take its own path, a lot of the production design feels straight from the book down to even the smallest details. Fans of King's work will love seeing the various Easter eggs and references to his other novels.


'Pet Sematary' is one of the better remakes you'll find out there. The performances are for the most part superior to the original, it retains the overall creepy feeling of the book and it looks and sounds appropriately spooky. It's biggest problems is that like the original it still leaves out a lot that I feel is important to the overall tale and some of the film's changes feel frivolous at best. I still highly recommend it if you're a fan of Stephen King or are looking for a good horror flick to watch on a Saturday night. Just don't go in with an overly ambitious expectation and I feel that you will enjoy it from beginning to end, even with its many cuts and bruises.

8.5

Pet Sematary Two (1992)

'Pet Semarary Two' was released four years later with director Mary Lambert returning to helm the sequel. The story this time revolves around a young boy named Jeff (Edward Furlong) whose mother is killed in a horrific accident while on the set of a new horror move. Afterwards, Jeff moves with his father to his mother's hometown: Ludlow, Maine and the setting of the original story. He befriends a shy boy named Drew, whose stepfather regularly abuses and is a police officer in town. Distraught and desperate after Drew's dog is killed by his stepfather, Jeff soon learns of the infamous Micmac burial ground and its sinister powers.

I'm going to say it right off the bat: this film is infamously hated by many fans of King's work and considered a severely inferior follow-up. I am also not going to lie and say that they're wrong, but perhaps a bit too harsh. 'Pet Sematary Two' is the definition of a guilty pleasure, going for straight-up gore and over-the-top wackiness as many horror sequels tend to do. While it is a cult classic for its entertainment value, it lacks any of the original film or novel's themes of grief and consequence. Instead, the story simply copies the bare basics of the original while leaving out any interesting or likeable characters. Jeff is completely emotionless apart from the opening sequence, Drew is sympathetic but cliche as the bullied heavy kid. Clancy Brown as the stepfather Gus is really the only one who makes it out okay but he seems to be playing the Kurgan from 'Highlander' all over again but overall he is the highlight of the film.

The biggest problem with 'Pet Sematary Two' is that the story simply doesn't progress from the last one, and in many cases it takes some steps back. The film quickly glosses over the events of the first film and mentions the titular cemetery and what it can do and that's it. Nobody seems to remember anything about the Creed's or Jud Crandall and they don't even really discuss the Native American background of the burial ground. Instead, the film uses the bare bones of King's novel and weaves a cliche 'Frankenstein' rip-off with no originality behind it. And yet, with all of those problems...I still enjoy watching it on those late weekends at home. It's drive-in schlock, with plenty of gore and gross out to satisfy but you have to go in knowing what you're getting.

 Is 'Pet Sematary Two' pointless? Yes. Is it uninspired and lazy? Yes. But do I still recommend it? Well, yes and no. If you want a silly horror sequel that's never boring and the cinematic equivalant of a fast food burger then sure check it out. It's far from being one of the worst films based on King's work nor is it as bad as some may tell you, but its also the textbook example of everything wrong with doing a sequel. Pointless but harmless really.

5/10

Fun Fact: A workprint of the film, containing more story and gore sequences cut by the MPAA is currently floating around the internet. However, it is a poor quality VHS rip and is difficult to find in its entirety.

Fun Fact #2: The original idea for 'Pet Sematary Two' would have focused on Ellie Creed as an adult.