Friedhof der Kuscheltiere

The irony was, when I first watched 'Pet Sematery' I actually couldn't spell 'cemetery' therefore I didn't pick up the deliberate typo in the title! Anyway, it's another eighties Stephen King book-to-film adaptation and, as any horror fan knows, these can be hit and miss. Mainly miss. However, what we have here is a creepy little film which actually stands the test of time.

As with most 'King' films, it's set in (or around) Maine where an unusually-happy family moves into a new house... by a road! Yes, the road is a major player in 'Pet Sematery' as it's not long before a truck claims the life of the family's pet cat, Church. Luckily, their well-meaning neighbour, Judd, takes pity on the family and comes up with a novel way of sparing the children the grief of losing a treasured pet - it involves resurrecting it beyond the 'Pet Sematery.'

Now, 'Pet Sematery' is a great film. There's lots to enjoy here - it's creepy, well-acted and has plenty of memorable scenes - it's definitely worth a watch. However, it's also not without faults. I haven't read the book, so I can only assume it goes into far greater details as to all the characters' backstories. Here, everyone seems to have a deep backstory which could probably have its own film made about it. Yet all of these tales are only partially touched upon and it's like this story should have been almost a mini-series to really do them all justice.

I say the film is 'well-acted,' but whether you consider Fred Gwynne's portrayal of neighbour, 'Judd,' to be good, or just weird is entirely up to you. Personally, I love his performance and the way he seems to speak will certainly stay with you long after the credits have rolled. In fact, if you're a fan of 'South Park' then you'll start to get a lot of references in the cartoon as his character does tend to pop up here and there to explain various supernatural happenings.

So, if you can ignore the slightly 'unused' elements of the story which don't really go anywhere, you'll actually get quite a fun and novel (at the time - I still haven't bothered with the remake) horror film. There's quite a lot in it that actually borders on 'disturbing imagery' rather than horror, but when practical effects/make-up are used, they're nicely nasty - if you know what I mean.

If you can really watch this film and not enjoy Fred Gwynne's performance then I'll be surprised (and also try not to laugh at a - slightly out-of-place - 'pratfall' that comes about three quarters of the way through the film when someone seems to bang his head on some furniture out of nowhere - Frank Drebin would be proud of that one!

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!

Supernatural terror for a curse caused by a cemetery against a happy family. The Creed family formed by the father , a successful doctor named Louis Creed (Dale Midkiff) , mother (Denise Crosby) and two sons has moved to a little community, at Maine place , but shortly after they move , their son is murdered by a great truck that thunder pass near his newly purchased rural home . The father learns by a neighbor (Fred Gwynne) that there is a graveyard where you can bury your loved ones , and then he plans come back to life his kid ; as he attempts to revive his three-years-old little boy with the magical resurrecting qualities of an Indian burial ground . He takes his son to this location, and he is brought back to life . It seems all is well again, until the son kills a person. Now, he has to find out a manner to stop his child before he murders other people . Louis is shocked to discover that danger and horror lurks .

The big success at box-office ¨Pet Sematary¨ was written by Stephen King , who sometimes writes under pseudonym Richard Bachman and based on horror master bestselling novel of the same title . The Paramount Pictures took the production with interesting script by Stephen King. Casting is frankly decent, Dale Midkiff as grief-stricken daddy , Denise Crosby as affecting mummy , but the honor acting goes to Fred Gwynne as untrusted neighbor . And of course , brief performance of Stephen King , an usual cameo , as church minister . The film displays adequate musical score fitting to terror and suspense by Elliot Goldenthal . The motion picture is professionally directed by Mary Lambert though seem doesn't improve in the transition from page to screen and fails the visualising of complex narrative plot by means of confuse flashbacks . She also realized the following (1992) , much worse than original, with Edward Furlong , Anthony Edwards and Clancy Brown , causing similar terror and same kind of gore as the previous movie . The result is better than previous Stephen King adaptation, the mediocre, Running man . King movies rendition are converting as prolific as his novels, from ¨Creepshow¨ along with ¨Cats's eye¨, ¨Silver bullet¨,¨Maximum overdrive¨ unique directed by King and various TV take on as ¨Rose red, The storm of the century,The stand,Golden years and Langoliers¨ have been numerous his adaptations. Rating : Passable and acceptable ,well worth watching for Stephen King fonds.

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.

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.