Pet Sematary

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.

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.

1989 "Pet Sematary" is one of the creepiest horror films ever made based on Stephen King´s novel and screenplay. It may be considered a masterpiece of horror and cruelty.

"Pet Sematary (2019)" is not a bad horror movie since the storyline is creepy and the screenplay and the cast are good. However, it is absolutely unnecessary to remake a masterpiece with minor modifications, isn´t it? My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Cemitério Maldito" ("Damned Cemitery")

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'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 :) ;)