Simetierre

If you see so many 10s being given, you instantly *know* the movie is not that good (good movies defend themselves). Here, paid cronies attacked again :( Unfortunately, movie is pretty bland. Typical jump scares, irritating child characters. John Lithgow is a class of his own, but the rest of the cast underwhelms. If you have nothing else to do, your Netflix account just froze up, and there's no good books around - sure, watch it. Otherwise, there's so many better things to do/read/watch instead of this.

The recent success of Stephen King adaptations must have inspired the creation of this film, I have not seen the 1989 version and I have only just now started reading the book, although I had knowledge of how the book ended. I was decently excited to see this film and it had some potential, but the final product is a serviceable but mediocre horror film that entertains but doesn't truly scare. The biggest issue with the movie is it's very hesitant to commit, the novel covers some very dark themes around the inevitability of death but the film only pokes the themes with a stick. Briefly introducing them in dialogue but not doing much else with them. The movie greatly suffers from being rushed, it never really takes its time to build up to characters or scares and just rushes its way from one plot point to another without giving any of them the time they need. What we end up with is a movie with decent acting, a few decent scares, a very messy third act and a stupid ending. Overall the film is mediocre but enjoyable, if you're a fan of the genre and just want a fun time at the movies it's worth a watch but it won't be one you remember, and it definitely doesn't live up to the legacy of the book.

One other thing I'd like to touch on is the abysmal marketing, the second trailer has to be one of the worst movie trailers I've ever seen, the trailer touches on every major plotline in the movie and spoils basically everything but the ending, it even spoiled the one twist they changed from the book. If that wasn't bad enough they released a third trailer a week before the film came out, and the opening shot of the trailer had major spoilers for the movie. This kind of marketing has sadly become a common practice with a lot of films and it really needs to stop, a film sometimes gets upwards of 3 trailers before it releases, what's the point in seeing the movie if the trailer has all the best moments and ruins all the surprises?

I wanted to restrain myself from having some high expectations about this movie but I couldn't. The book was one of my favorites as a child. Comparing the original story line, the movie did not change that much the course of events. However, they applied the classic old horror movie recipe - jump-scares and dramatic music (in scenes when it was clearly not the case) - and transformed the whole product into some cheap stuff. The way the movie was filmed and put together as an artistic product makes me think of the Discovery TV shows that were showing reconstitutions of murders and strange events --> cheap and almost schematic. It's a pity, the story remains one of great value, but anything else, not so much. PS : The cat was, indeed, truly beautiful and good chosen.

When horror fans mention their favorite Stephen King novels, most seem to choose "It" and "The Stand". For me, however, the answers are always "The Shining" and "Pet Sematary", which I maintain are King's masterpieces - his tightest, most brilliant works.

The elephant in the room is the previous 1989 version, which was disappointing with the exception of a fine supporting turn by the late Fred Gwynne as paternal neighbour Jud Crandall.

This version has, overall, better direction, production values and performances. Jason Clarke and Amy Seimetz as the distressed couple, in particular, are superior to the bland Dale Midkiff and Denise Crosby of the original. The exception is John Lithgow, who is nowhere as memorable as Gwynne in the role of Jud, although I blame the script more than the usually reliable Lithgow: the part is very underwritten here.

This is one of those "greatest hits" adaptations - (nearly) all the main beats from the novel are there (with one major change I won't spoil but, while not disastrous, does weaken the story), but they are rushed and never given enough time to breath.

Take the friendship between Louis and Jud, which is one of the emotional lynchpins of the novel; in this film they get *one* measly scene together before something happens to a certain cat, kickstarting the main plotline. The same goes for an agonizing choice the main character has to make; it's the dramatic core of the novel but in the film it takes like three minutes.

Although I generally enjoy King, I do find some of his novels (especially the latest ones) bloated and self-indulgent: they could often use some trimming. Not Pet Sematary though; the wretched pacing of this movie really made me appreciate how King took his time in the book to set up the characters and their emotional state.

Overall, not terrible but mediocre. Another missed opportunity for a dark but powerful novel.

5,5/10

I had big expectations for the new adaptation of Pet Sematary, most of which were crushed within the first 20 minutes. There were some nastier moments that I did enjoy and John Lithgow gave a solid performance, but the heart of Stephen King's classic story stays dead in the ground. The remake of IT was a huge hit and got all the elements right, it felt fresh, had a great cast and just the right amount of nostalgia. Pet Sematary is the opposite, it feels tired, generic and most of the actors stumble through their scenes appearing just as bored as we are watching them. Stick to the book.