Pet Sematary

I'm one of those rare freaks who love remakes. I don't like this one. I don't understand how wrong they could go with Kings brilliant story line. Genius was served to them on a platter. I thought maybe part of the reason it was awful was a low budget (not saying there aren't many good, even great low budget films). But I did the math, and with inflation, they had virtually the same budget as the original. So why it looks like a youtuber filmed it, I don't know. Just a bad cinematographer I guess.

The amateurish filming could have been overlooked if they had made decent casting choices.I thought that would have been difficult because Fred Gwynne gave one of those untouchable performances as Judd. Obviously it wasn't difficult because it seems they picked John Lithgow randomly out of a phone book. I can't that guy seriously after Third Rock From the Sun.

There was no depth to the father and he looked like someone had hit him in the face with a shovel. He looked like a boxer not an MD. Really there was not much depth to any of the characters, which made it hard to like them. To me this misses much of the point of King's book and the original film. The horror isn't really about a spooky graveyard. It's about the horror of what this family is going through with the death of their child and the unthinkable things the father did to cope. It's about the lengths one will go to for the ones they love.

Victor wasn't scary. Victor and his creep factor really was a pillar in the original. I guess no one realized that and just picked some random guy.

I really think the casting department needs to do a walk of shame.

The writers need a kick up the butt too. I was cringing at the dialogue in the scenes that were transplanted from the first movie. Well, obviously I did a lot of cringing during this film

The Ellie thing could have been brilliant, but that fell flat on its face too. She wasn't scary. In the original Gage gave me the willies, but then again toddlers are terrifying.

I'm a big fan of The Ramones, and LOVE the song they did for the original. Starcrawler did a great cover..... Bad remake, good cover :) ;)

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?

Taking this film solely on adaptation bases and not comparing to the original film, this is an alright adaptation it has moments of tension, and good moments of horror in the first two acts. The acting is decent, and the final act really does pay off well, where you do really feel the tension suddenly building to a breaking point. I recommend people form their own view and watch this as more an adaptation than comparing with the original film.

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

Nothing special about it; jumpscares quiet jumpscares quiet and so forth