Dr. Louis Creed and his wife, Rachel, relocate from Boston to rural Maine with their two young children. The couple soon discover a mysterious burial ground hidden deep in the woods near the... Read allDr. Louis Creed and his wife, Rachel, relocate from Boston to rural Maine with their two young children. The couple soon discover a mysterious burial ground hidden deep in the woods near their new home.Dr. Louis Creed and his wife, Rachel, relocate from Boston to rural Maine with their two young children. The couple soon discover a mysterious burial ground hidden deep in the woods near their new home.
- Directors
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 1 win & 9 nominations total
Alyssa Brooke Levine
- Zelda
- (as Alyssa Levine)
Naomi Frenette
- Upset Student
- (as Naomi Jean)
- Directors
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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
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
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?
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.
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.
Most Stephen King adaptations have been fantastic and there are so very very many of them. He still has dozens of great books awaiting a movie adaptation, so why do we keep getting these second rate remakes of existing adaptations?
I loved the 1989 original, it was an incredibly constructed genuinely great film so I was skeptical upon hearing about a remake. As usual, my fears were very justified.
Starring the ultra bland Jason Clarke this goes down different roads than both the book and the original, it teases following the source material multiple times then suddenly goes in a different direction. I didn't appreciate this at all, throughout the entire film I was waiting for it give me a reason for it's existence. It never did.
John Lithgow is a great actor and can consider me a fan, but for this role he's no Fred Gwynne. Fred Gwynne put in an iconic cult performance, Lithgow I'm sorry to say simply couldn't compare and his accent was terrible.
The movie is another example of needless senseless remakes/reboots that simply aren't needed. There are countless tales just begging to get the big screen treatment, so why do we keep getting force fed the same ones? And why are they consistently worse than the last?
Pet Sematary brings absolutely nothing of value to the table, it's an inferior adaptation just sparkly thanks to the higher budget. I'd rather watch the highly disappointing Pet Sematary 2 (1992) than this again.
Didn't need to happen, shouldn't exist.
The Good:
Church <3
The Bad:
Totally unnecessary
Jason Clarke
Bland and lifeless
I loved the 1989 original, it was an incredibly constructed genuinely great film so I was skeptical upon hearing about a remake. As usual, my fears were very justified.
Starring the ultra bland Jason Clarke this goes down different roads than both the book and the original, it teases following the source material multiple times then suddenly goes in a different direction. I didn't appreciate this at all, throughout the entire film I was waiting for it give me a reason for it's existence. It never did.
John Lithgow is a great actor and can consider me a fan, but for this role he's no Fred Gwynne. Fred Gwynne put in an iconic cult performance, Lithgow I'm sorry to say simply couldn't compare and his accent was terrible.
The movie is another example of needless senseless remakes/reboots that simply aren't needed. There are countless tales just begging to get the big screen treatment, so why do we keep getting force fed the same ones? And why are they consistently worse than the last?
Pet Sematary brings absolutely nothing of value to the table, it's an inferior adaptation just sparkly thanks to the higher budget. I'd rather watch the highly disappointing Pet Sematary 2 (1992) than this again.
Didn't need to happen, shouldn't exist.
The Good:
Church <3
The Bad:
Totally unnecessary
Jason Clarke
Bland and lifeless
Just How Dark Is 'Pet Sematary'?
Just How Dark Is 'Pet Sematary'?
Pet Sematary stars Jason Clarke and Amy Seimetz discuss their re-telling of the Stephen King classic alongside directors Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer.
Did you know
- TriviaDuring Ellie's birthday party, Jud can be heard in the background saying, "There was a big Saint Bernard... killed four people". This is an obvious reference to Cujo (1983), another movie based on a Stephen King novel.
- GoofsFor the Halloween scenes, the outside foliage is seen clearly in full green, spring bloom, this would not be the case for late October (Autumn) in Maine/New England.
- Quotes
Jud Crandall: [from trailer] Sometimes, dead is better.
- Alternate versionsParamount Pictures Australia submitted a 98 minute version of Pet Sematary which gained an MA15+ rating. Presumably this version was pre-cut in an attempt to gain a lower M rating. As with Overlord (2018), Paramount Pictures Australia decided to release the uncut version instead which also gained an MA15+ rating.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Chris Stuckmann Movie Reviews: Pet Sematary (2019)
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- Cementerio maldito
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $21,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $54,724,696
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $24,502,775
- Apr 7, 2019
- Gross worldwide
- $113,118,226
- Runtime
- 1h 40m(100 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content