As a horror movie fan, Pet Semetary is perfectly servicable. It's production is a little disjointed in places and it lacks the polish we've seen from recent hits such as Hereditary or Us, but as a standard horror movie it stands it's ground and delivers what most will be going to see; some jumps scares, a little gore, and a glimpse into one of Stephen Kings most notorious novels without having to read 480 pages.
As someone who only recently read the book however, this was a little disappointing to say the least. This movie does a pretty horrendous job of conveying the basic themes and story from the original novel in an orderly manner, even skimming over some of the areas that would have worked great for a screen adaptation. (Where was my late night beer talks between Jud and Louis, dammit!) It's rare for me to say, but I think this movie could have done with an extra 30 - 40 minutes of runtime to just bring down the pace and allow for some extra development. Pet Sematary shines best as a moody, dread-filled slow burn that slowly catches up to the new inhabitants of Ludlow before they even have time to realise they are ensnared. It's deep rooted messages about death, the afterlife, losing love for those we know are dying and desperately trying to hold onto our loved ones deserved much more time and care. With movies like Hereditary tackling similarly heavy themes with such quality and grace, it really is a shame to see Pet Semetary get relegated to this level of delivery.
TL;DR as a stock horror movie, it'll serve you well, but as a fan of the book, it might be better to bury this one in the Micmac burial ground and hope it comes back better in the future.
--- SPOILERS BELOW HERE ---
Small complaints as a Book Reader:
Why did they mishandle Jud's characterisation so badly? In the book he is described as loving, warm and a father figure to Louis. Here he is just a vessel for explaining the burial ground and then drugged and murdered. It hurts more that they got John Lithgow, an absolutely amazing casting choice for Jud, and wasted him. Not even an "Ayuh"? For shame.
Ellies love for Church is completely downplayed and understated, making the burying of the cat scene lose so much heft. Ellies awareness that the cat has changed adds to the creepy factor of the burial ground and it's power, but here it just scratches her and she asks for her door to be closed so he can't get in.
Rachels backstory with Zelda is explained, but all the superfluous details that make that backstory so gutwrenching and powerful are clipped. There is no explanation of how Zelda became hated by the family, how the idea of the "model death patient" is a total misconception and in death many of us go unceremoniously, unloved by our families because of the monster our affliction turns us into.
Ah well, I guess I shouldn't read the books of things right before seeing them :P
Like watching the book in 2x speed then going into another dimension.
Not enough blood.
Jump scare trucks!
I liked Rachael and Gage.
Church had 4 different cat actors lol.
Interesting choices, but not my bag. U can watch it if u want.
It's like they killed the book, buried it in jump scares, and this is what came back. Sometimes read is better.
Jason Clarke? Really? Please Hollywood, stop hiring this guy... he's awful.
This is what happens when you bury an 80's film in sacred dirt...now we must kill it
Worst ending. Really. I prefer the 1989 version.
I haven't read the book.
I thought this was amazing. I felt the friendship between Jud and Ellie was a little peculiar but I guess that kind of thing does happen sometimes. Gage was gorgeous and adorable. I feel like the mum had it really hard, with her sister and then her daughter.
My biggest critique would be that I felt towards the end the violence became a bit gratuitous.
I'm just sad for the little boy.
A pretty lifeless not-so-scary horror movie.
The original wasn't anything superb, but I was surprised by how bad this one was. That doesn't happen too often.
This movie was just ok. I like the original better. I didn’t like the actors at all...Jason Clarke.... really?? Couldn’t get better? Also the actress playing Ellie had a permanent grimace face... no character development.... could have been better but wasn’t.
“Sometimes dead Is better.” Sometimes never is better. Honestly, I fell asleep twice and I wasn’t even tired. Don’t waste your time.
At least this wasn't a shot for shot remake.
The problem with remaking this is most horrors have been based on this story, so everything that happens is cliche.
great actors, but it's so slow, that even near the end I was still waiting for it to get started.
big ugly head trauma at the start would have been great 20 years ago. I'm against poor CG effects, but they could have enhanced the prosthetics so they wouldn't stick out from the head by an inch. there's some dodgy looking greenscreen shots too
I will start by saying that I am not sure why other reviewers seem to hate this so passionately.
I found this to be a better production than the previous movie.
The casting was spot on for me, especially Ellie, my main concern was whether Jud could live up to Fred Gwynne's portrayal but casting John Lithgow did the trick.
It's been a long while since I saw the original movie and even longer since reading the book, so my memory of them is somewhat hazy but it did not make me care or be snobbish about what direction the adaption took. I enjoyed this film for what was unfolding in front of my eyes. No spoilers but the final third is where it really kicks in and makes me give this movie a solid 7/10
Pro Tip : watch this movie at 1.5x speed and it makes a great comedy.
Hollywood just needs to stop making Stephen King books into movies. Because they clearly don't get him. This is just a Blumhouse kind of film, no paper-thin characters, no real intense gore, no atmosphere or dread. The switch in the twist of the story would work if the film felt like a fully fleshed out character drama that delved into horror territory but it doesn't. Everyone seems to be phoning it in other than Jeté Laurence who plays Ellie. It's a waste of John Lithgow. I had such high hopes but this film fails. And now I'm worried about IT Chapter 2.
I'll guess it suck hard like the awful IT Remake.
I was open minded knowing it was different than the original. It’s not something I would watch again and again. The film was perfectly creepy though and messed up.
A solid horror movie. Not a whole lot of depth here. Jeté Laurence is very good, especially in the second half. I liked the different ending.
"Don't bury me in that place..."
Sometimes, originals are better. One thing that differs from the original is the ending and it's the one part I liked.
Watching it the second time for the new series and Halloween season…not as bad as I remembered. It’s actually a pretty decent film for horror fans. Not the best King adaptation not the worst. My biggest complaint is no Ramones music in the film :joy: Come on now! Isn’t anything sacred?
Remake of the original almost as good but hard to watch the remake after knowing how the original played out other than that was a good movie and was filmed well
Slow paced and irrational character actions. Maybe Stephen King's book is better?
Was ok on first watch when you want to find out what happens in the end. But a second watch, even after a one-year gap, was too tedious.
Not bad, but not a patch on the book, and the new ending is awful
Much like It: Chapter One, Pet Sematary doesn't really work. It's certainly better that Mary Lambert's 1989 filmic adaptation, for which King himself wrote the script, but it pales in comparison to the novel. Granted, most films suffer when compared to a source text; even Stanley Kubrick's The Shining (1980), although a masterpiece as a standalone film, is a terrible adaptation of the novel. Pet Sematary, which relies far too heavily on jump scares, is especially disappointing in this sense insofar as it starts off very strongly, taking care to respectfully modernise the novel's themes and examine the characters' underlying emotions, before descending into absolute stupidity in the last act. King was fully on board with the film, but numerous aspects of the story have been changed; some of these changes work very well, but many don't, with a new ending, in particular, substituting cheap shock for the lingering sense of psychological and esoteric hopelessness with which King's original so memorably concludes.
For my complete review, please visit: https://boxd.it/GucKX
Liked it better than the original, it’s definitely better acted and better made overall.
I wasn’t expecting the changes but I think they worked out well.
Regardless of which version you prefer, go listen to Funeral Derangements (and watch the video too!)
Not my cuppa T, seems to be 95% jump scare and 5% plot. This one just didn’t do it for me. Also I just couldn’t connect or invest any emotion in the characters,for instance when the little girl dies I didn’t really have any emotional reaction. I think I need to watch the original and see how it holds up to that but this one is a thumbs down from me. It’s a shame because I’d heard good things about this film…
This movie doesn't feel like something special, just like a commercial movie. But it has some good aspects, an interesting story, a good production and (in my opinion) a good ending. it will entertain you.
It took a few steps forward from the original but it took several significant steps back. John Lithgow is a good character actor generally, but his performance robbed this film of the charm of it's predecessor.
I couldn’t watch this all the way through...characters doesn’t fit like the book. It’s like they buried the book in the sematary and this is the outcome. Norma would’ve been a delightful character to keep. You don’t get how Jud is so important to the story. WHYYY DID THEY KILL ELLIE AND NOT GAGE?!?! I DONT UNDERSTAND!
Either read the book or watch the 1989 version
Waste of my time! The remake should be better.
Reading all the negative comments... Everyone is such a stick in the mud! I like how first half = homage to the original and then the 2nd half is just balls to the walls with an all new story. Creepy and very twisted. Must see, especially if you liked the original
I thought the show wasn't too bad, I didnt read the book but i've watched the original one and i do prefer the original one. The lil brother they found Hugo Lavoie actually do look like Miko Hughes from the original movie, good effort but Hughes was a better actor as a kid XD Overall, it's just an average movie in comparison to the original...
Fewer jump scares than your run of the mill movie, found it creepy enough. Enjoyable.
The setting is quite unfortunate. The interpretations leave much to be desired. Totally dispensable
A lifeless remake that wastes a terrifying concept.
How amazing would it be if Ari Aster was the director, but oh well. John Lithgow was the savind grace while Jason Clarke is trying his absolute best, bless him.
The cinematography was bland, the setting felt phoney, the child acting was terrible, and the amount of times the same exact loud truck driving by jumpscare happened was ridiculous.
Sometimes dead is better.
A chilling supernatural thriller, Stephen King’s Pet Semetary is adapted for the silver screen once again. When the Creed family moves into their new country home they discover a pet cemetery on the property, and unbeknownst to them there’s an evil spirit in the woods that has designs on them. Jason Clarke leads the cast and gives a fairly solid performance. And the writers do an interesting job at making this adaption different than the 1989 version and at adding new elements. Also, the cinematography and set designs set a dark and foreboding mood. Yet the scares are rather tame, and the suspense is often undercut. Pet Semetary is creepy and is good for a few scares, but it’s not as powerful or frightening as the original (or the book).
much better than the original
Nothing special. Standard modern styled slow builder. Every mundane trick in the book is used. I thought the end was terrible. The best thing about the movie was the look of the woods in some scenes. Please make some original horror movies Hollywood.
After the original this version is a bullsh*t... :(
A great story by a legendary writer adjusted as a plain, stereotypical, lifeless and badly acted American horror movie. "Horror" is a relative term....
Not nearly as good as thr original. Just a lot of "hype."
i liked it. scary, mythic and interesting interpretation. but the ending? wtf....
Not a bad remake. Wort a watch. Very much along the lines of the original. So don't expect much different if you have watched the original.
someone else already said it but this film was lifeless. it was just scenes happening that had some resemblance to the original but because the actors were so dull and the story just had no atmosphere it just did nothing for me. Jud was my favourite character in the original and in this was just a shambles. I never went into this expecting it to be as good as the original but was ready and excited to see a refreshed and inventive re-hash. What I got was just a carbon copy of nearly all horror films out there.
Fair play the 'twist' got me and the ending sequence was OKAY and somewhat entertaining! But as for the rest I don't think I'll want to remember a single scene. Such a shame was really looking forward to this!
I was looking forward to finally be watching this one, it turns out I thought it was very mediocre. I liked the theme, I liked the last act but before that it felt so, well dull. As soon as I knew what would be happening with the cat, I knew what would happen next, I just guessed the wrong kid. (I haven't read the book and after this film I'm not interested in it either).
The film looks good, but that is to be expected with a decent budget, the best shot for me was that row of kids at the beginning with those masks. I wish they were more in it. I wish they would've gone on a pet killing spree and bury them all.
I should've watched the trailer. Anyway, it was alright because the last 20 minutes were entertaining enough to kinda save it.
It's wasn't really that bad. Watchable.
Not the best but still much better than the Nun. Worth watching.
Obviously this version of "Pet Sematary" can't be as as surprising as the original because it's been done before. Although this isn't a straight copy and paste of the original with better actors, slight things are changed but you always know whats coming. Still a decent horror film, it is a little disappointing to see a Stephen King novel like Pet Sematary adapted twice now and only have two decent films to show for it.
I think they did the same thing that happened to game of thrones: took the basic concept, strayed completely from the book, and made a decent thing for the screens. The book is still a lot better though!
The only things I can say is that it’s an up from the original, It’s got a fine casting, some good effects and the ending could of been better and liked the twist.
An efficient adaptation of the novel, veering closer to the written page than the 1989 film. However, while it is a well made film, it's not as good as I had hoped. The twist is good, the atmosphere as bleak as King's work, but the film never truly came alive. Perhaps I should bury it in the hope the zombiefied version is an improvement.
Shout by iSpySciFiBlockedParent2019-05-11T13:16:11Z
You better skip this one. This movie never gets going. There are no twists, no surprises, literally no opportunity for anyone to give out spoilers for this one...even if you didn't read the Stephen King novel it's based on! This is a very dull attempt for some slow-burn horror, and honestly, it never frightens you!