Pet Sematary

If any of Stephen King’s books are made into a movie, usually, the result cannot be bad. Except, maybe, when the filming is made by a bungler, the result can be quite a screw-up. What sometimes happens is that an average movie is made from a quality theme, but that depends on the abilities of the makers – or the lack thereof. Pet Sematary, for example, was not filmed for the first time, but I cannot say that there is anything different or unique about it. I think that it is a standard horror movie, which does not even make you scared, because the thought of fear is somewhat turned upside down. Also, it is kind of boring and without the last half an hour, I would probably rate it with even less stars. (01/08/2020)

I haven't read the book, and I wasn't too impressed with the 80s movie, so I'm pleasantly surprised here. For the first time in a while, a mainstream horror film that doesn't try to be weird and controversial, but is very audience friendly (there are jump-scares and even blood), so as pure horror entertainment everything is on point here, as it should be. The actors are decent and there are thankfully no illogical missteps, visually it's an inoffensive standard and the horror scenes are effective. The finale is nicely atmospheric and uncompromising and the denouement is certainly a surprise. I'm satisfied. 80%. (04/07/2019)

A complete disgrace and a total misunderstanding of Stephen King's novel. The 1989 adaptation by Mary Lambert may be campy, but it’s absolutely captivating in its execution. I usually enjoy John Lithgow, but his portrayal of Judd was dreadful. The final nail in the coffin was the horrid girl-cover version of "Pet Sematary" by the Ramones. Film rating: 0/10. Level of frustration: 10/10. I didn’t think it was possible to make something worse than Pet Sematary II, but here we are. (05/01/2020)

A routine flick without a clear-cut concept that might amuse some non-discerning popcorn-eating teenagers (it contains both jump scares and gore), Pet Sematary will disappoint or anger fans of the original book, as well as thinking fans of the genre. It has some powerful moments (the mom being hugged by her daughter) and nice visuals (the burying ground), but it is also lethally dumb and, what’s more, it lacks any kind of director’s vision along the lines of “I want to preserve the original character of the book by making it into an equally interesting film adaptation”. The cast is alright, the familial ties and the initial atmosphere of the chilling locations work, but all of that is undermined by the further development of the movie. (04/17/2019)

This is an uninteresting and badly made King adaptation, which perhaps no one wished for anyway, as its existence is unjustified when compared with the honorable thirty-year-old version by Mary Lambert. This movie has no penmanship, no energy. The makers of this did not manage to come up with anything interesting, on the contrary, in the parts where they tried to deviate slightly from the book and introduce something new, the movie begins to be so stupid and tawdry to such an unbearable degree that it is just a smack in the face. The movie therefore fails to evoke any sort of emotion in the audience, there are no surprises, just nothing. Finally, the final smack in the face will come during the end credits, when a cover version of "Pet Sematary" from the original movie starts playing, as if the makers put an underlying message that it is just cool to make a tedious and sexless remake of what used to be good years ago today and we should just put up with it. However, I am not going to. (08/27/2019)