Pet Sematary

In the trivia section for Pet Sematary, it mentions that George Romero (director of two Stephen King stories, Creepshow and The Dark Half) was set to direct and then pulled out. One wonders what he would've brought to the film, as the director Mary Lambert, while not really a bad director, doesn't really bring that much imagination to this adaptation of King's novel, of which he wrote the screenplay. There are of course some very effective, grotesquely surreal scenes (mainly involving the sister Zelda, likely more of a creep-out for kids if they see the film), and the casting in some of the roles is dead-perfect. But something feels missing at times, some sort of style that could correspond with the unmistakably King-like atmosphere, which is in this case about as morbid as you're going to get without incestuous cannibals rising from the graves being thrown in (who knows if he'll save that for his final novel...)

As mentioned though, some of the casting is terrific, notably Miko Hughes as Gage Creed, the little boy who goes from being one of the cutest little kids this side of an 80's horror movie, to being a little monster (I say that as a compliment, of course, especially in scenes brandishing a certain scalpel). And there is also a juicy supporting role for Fred Gwynne of the Munsters, who plays this old, secretive man with the right notes of under-playing and doom in tone. And applause goes to whomever did the make-up on Andrew Hubatsek. But there are some other flaws though in the other casting; Dale Midkiff is good, not great, as the conflicted, disturbed father figure Creed, and his daughter Ellie is played by an actress that just didn't work for me at all.

In terms of setting up some chilling set-pieces, only a couple really stand-out: a certain plot-thickening moment (not to spoil, it does involve a cool Ramones song), and the first visit to the pet sematary (the bigger one), including the sort of mystical overtones King had in the Shining. For the most part it's a very polished directing job, though it could've been made even darker to correspond with the script. If thought out in logical terms (albeit in King terms) it is really one of his more effective works of the period. But it doesn't add up like it could, or should. Still, it makes for a nifty little midnight movie.

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.

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

It's older, and maybe stylistically a bit dated, but it's the better version of the two, imo.

First, it doesn't mess with the story, which is great because you don't need to mess with the story. The book is good. Aside from the obvious (no spoilers) character switch, it was structurally better. Like the book, it's not a scary-right-off-the-bat horror story, like a slasher movie would be, kill scene at the top. Rather, it's structured more like a campfire story. It starts pretty normal and then, piece-by-piece, the horror builds. This is not very common for horror these days, but I don't think it is non-existant. More experimental films have been using it - Midsomer or Hereditary, for example, or Aronofsky movies. Wish either of those filmmakers would have tackled the remake, gone Kubrick and pushed King "artfully" as opposed to "pop," but I digress. King said this was the first the he really wrote which disturbed him due to the major 180-degree plot point mid-way, and this movie has a strong sense of that devastation. The best horror is often about family.

Second, the cast is better in this version, probably more due to the directing than the actual actors. Mary Lambert let the actors tell the story, Kevin Kolsch, like they do these days, told the story with camera work, editing, and modern horror tropes - the unnecessary masks and the juxtaposition of "cute innocence" (ballet dancing) with "evil," for example. Jason Clarke and John Lithgow didn't get to flex. Dale Midkiff was a BABE and we had enough time with him to see the progression of his character. Fred Gwynne is unbeatable. And Denise Crosby, who bravely chose an often unflattering portrayal of Rachel, is hard to forget. The Zelda stuff, although less developed than the new, overdeveloped stuff in the new film, is just scarier. Her hardness early on really works against her crumbling development later - it's a hard choice for an actress' popularity but better storytelling. (Denise Crosby is an interesting actress - I think only one season in Next Generation? And still unforgettable. She makes an impact in whatever she's in, but again I digress.)

As an English teacher, I'd say read the book! Then watch the movies and choose your favorite version, and let us know what you think! Happy watching!

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.