Pet Sematary: Bloodlines

Pet Sematary: Bloodlines (2023)

Henry Thomas, David Duchovny, Samantha Mathis, Pam Grier... What a waste of a good cast. Jackson White was also good as a young Jud, kind of reminded me of a young Matt Dillon.

But none of them can save this prequel. It adds almost nothing to the original story and it just drags slowly and aimlessly. It tells the story of Timmy, who came back from the war - the story Jud tells briefly in the original movie - but everything seems to be a bit off and it's pretty pointless.

Better watch the original classic or even the remake which actually wasn't bad.

4/10 Skip it.

Pet Sematary: Bloodlines managed to impress me, despite its lacklustre reception among the general public and its direct-to-tv or streaming release.

Make no mistake however, Pet Sematary: Bloodlines maintains an honest Stephen King vibe reminiscent of 80s-90s classics like "Stand by Me," "IT," or even a slight ambiance of the original Pet Sematary.

Adapting a story with established foundations is always a challenge, requiring a delicate balance of relevance, novelty, and faithfulness to the source material. In this regard, Pet Sematary: Bloodlines hits the mark rather admirably.

While not a masterpiece, the film deserves recognition for several reasons. The cinematography feels both vintage and fresh. Additionally, the cast includes well-known but somewhat forgotten actors like David Duchovny (X-Files, Californication) and Henry Thomas, (E. T, Legends of the Fall) evoking a sense of nostalgia reminiscent of films from that era.

The acting is solid overall, with Natalie Alyn Lind impressing me immensely and Jackson White delivering commendable performances. Although White's portrayal didn't captivate me as much, he still stood out as unique and likable character.

However, Pet Sematary: Bloodlines does fall short in some key areas. The kills are relatively tame, the suspense feels subdued, and the characters, while possessing personality, lack significant depth. Additionally, the ending feels rushed and somewhat cheap, detracting some chemistry and memorability from the overall viewing experience.

Despite these flaws, Pet Sematary: Bloodlines exceeded my expectations. While it may not offer many surprises due to its familiar story and lack of surprises, it still holds up as a solid stand-alone film. Surprisingly, I wouldn't hesitate to re-watch the film, as it provided me with a thoroughly entertaining experience.

6/10.

I approached this movie with some trepidation. Being a life long Stephen King fan, his movies had suffered badly from appalling, cash in sequels. A Return To Salem's Lot is a classic example.

But taken on it's own merits, I actually enjoyed this. It was generally well acted, the story was interesting, if not original. I disagree that the characters were unlikeable, I found my self really rooting for the people. I liked the pace that the story unfolded, revealing the history and background in satisfying doses. Also, it did not focus on the "Semetary" too much. Although building on the Pet Sematary mythos, it does stand as separate to the main franchise. SO if you view it with this in mind, I think you will enjoy.

This film is just bad. Pretty much in every way. They must have either ran out of budget or had to cut run time because this movie is utter nonsense. I kind of, maybe get what they were trying to do, but it's so poorly crafted and executed it's not worth watching.

Here are things that suck:

1. The plot doesn't make sense and really has nothing to do with the original Pet Sematery.

2. There's no one to root for and no one to care about. Live or die, I literally do not care what happens to any characters.

3. There's no point and the core premise is so confusing I really don't know why this was made.

4. The final act they just gave up. I don't know why characters are doing what they're doing. Nor do I care.

Bad filmmaking 101 - 2.2/10.

This film attempts to tell the historical excerpt story from King's Pet Sematary novel, and hits across the face with it like a wet fish. For starters, it was so completely unconvincing of the timeline, I refused to believe this was telling the story it thinks it is. It also fails to bring a single bit of atmosphere or eerie King style nuance from the story itself. The characters were all flat, wooden, boring, or caricturally miscast and some were all of the above. Haven't really seen anything interesting from Dave D since Californication come to think of it, so not sure this was all the director's fault.. but still. It did tell the story at least, but I was dragged with it and never really got on board.