Cimetière vivant

Pet Sematary is a late-eighties adaptation of Stephen King's horror novel, and King himself wrote the screenplay for the film. The film follows the Creed family, recently moved from Chicago to a small town called Ludlow, Maine. The main plot concerns an ancient Micmac Indian burial ground close by, which has the power to make the dead living again, albeit as horrible zombies.

In my opinion, Stephen King movies usually works very well as mini-series because the characters are more fleshed out and their inner lives are explored more thoroughly. There's no time for this here though, so the characters feels a bit hollow and we don't get to know them all that well.

Relative unknown Dale Midkiff and Denise Crosby lead the pretty anonymous cast, the best acting performance of the movie is Fred Gwynne as old-timer Jud Crandall.

Overall, this plays pretty much like a standard horror flick, more or less, with average acting but with a better-than-average script and it builds tension well. Top marks to the makeup department though, for making the zombies look pretty good.

Dale Midkiff and Denise Crosby move to Maine with their two small children and cat in a big house on a highway with lots of truck traffic. Close at hand...is a pet cemetery where all the dogs and cats killed on the road are buried. Neighbor Fred Gwynne shows another cemetery with incredible powers just beyond...the power to reanimate the dead. Trouble is the dead are nothing like they once were. Although I have not read the book by Stephen King, he did write the screenplay and must have remained relatively faithful to his own work. The film has many flaws but is also worthwhile. Coincidence and some muddled flashbacks from the past help make the script somewhat erratic and implausible. The acting in the leads is OK, but in the second half really deteriorates. Fred Gwynne is literally and figuratively a cut above the rest. He gives a heartfelt performance as a man run down with time and over-burdened with knowledge he should or would not have. Brad Greenquist is also good in his role as a ghost. His character also causes some believability factors. Director Mary Lambert does do some things rather nicely. There are some well-shot scenes of the cemeteries. The peril of the trucks is made very real, and she also relies heavily on human emotion that is universal. At its heart, Pet Semetary is about loss, coping with loss, and grief, and what are some of the effects of not coping with those things well. The film has many suspenseful moments, and although the ending became a bit tiresome - still manages to keeps its mood and message throughout. Author Stephen King has an interesting cameo as a preacher!

One of the reasons Kubrick's The Shining is considered a masterpiece is because he intuitively knew what and what would not work from the original novel in cinematic form. Apparently this upset Stephen King a bit, but frankly, Kubrick knew what he was doing. I think the problem with Pet Sematary is that the director really tries to be true to this huge paperback work of fiction in less than two hours. So the mistake here seems to be biting off more than one can chew instead of cutting it into manageable bites.

That being said, I personally like Pet Sematary and I think that it's decent as a cozy horror flick. Zelda and Victor Pascal terrified me as a twelve year old. The first time i ever stayed up all night by myself was when I read the book. I think this 1989 flick has an undercurrent of 70s charm to it, it has a touch of that nostalgic supernatural feel.

A doctor (Dale Midkiff) and his family move to a new home, dangerously close to a busy highway. After the death of the family cat, the doctor's neighbor lets him in on a secret: there is a sacred Indian burial ground where buried pets come back to life. The obvious question is: does it work on people?

Not to say this is a bad film (it's not), but the thing about this one is that its reputation and cultural impact have overshadowed the film itself. We all know that burying things in the sacred ground will bring them back to life, and that's without even having to see this film.

There is much good to say about this one: an amazing talent in Gage Creed, the little boy. Some nice violence and gore (including an Achilles tendon slice). One of the most painful things I've seen on film, when the doctor falls out of bed (I admit I winced a bit).

Mike Mayo points out that this is something of a variation on "The Monkey's Paw", and we agree it's a praiseworthy version. He says the film "lasts 30 seconds too long", and I see his point, but cannot comment on that here. Howard Maxford is considerably more critical (as usual -- he is the most negative horror critic I know) and says it is "over-extended" and could have made a good half hour of television.

Stephen King has made some good films and some bad ones (how much this is his fault or the fault of the directors is debatable). This falls firmly in the good category. Not among his very best ("Shawshank Redemption" is number one), but still worth a few watches.

I originally saw this in my mid teens, and made a mental note myself that it 'wasn't that good' - which in turn made me forget it.

I read the book for the 1st time 2 weeks back and LOVED IT!, so I thought I'd give the movie a try again to see how it fared.

I am 36 now and i thought It was actually pretty good!

Still quite spooky for its age, (especially on your own at night) stayed pretty close to the book too! I actually thought the scary characters in the film were more scary than they were in the book.

One of Kings better film adaptations (apart from stand by me & the green mile)

Definitely worth a watch for horror fans!

7.5 out of 10