El doctor Luis Creed y su esposa Rachel, son trasladados de Boston a Maine con sus hijos. La pareja eventualmente descubre que hay un cementerio oculto en el bosque, cerca de su casa.El doctor Luis Creed y su esposa Rachel, son trasladados de Boston a Maine con sus hijos. La pareja eventualmente descubre que hay un cementerio oculto en el bosque, cerca de su casa.El doctor Luis Creed y su esposa Rachel, son trasladados de Boston a Maine con sus hijos. La pareja eventualmente descubre que hay un cementerio oculto en el bosque, cerca de su casa.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 1 premio ganado y 9 nominaciones en total
Alyssa Brooke Levine
- Zelda
- (as Alyssa Levine)
Naomi Frenette
- Upset Student
- (as Naomi Jean)
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
Okay, so overall I'd say the new Pet Sematary was... serviceable. There were some parts of it I really liked. The themes of death and grief are again explored really well, (perhaps better this time around actually) and the acting and effects are definitely much better (as you would expect). However, the movie felt strangely inert and disaffecting to me; like it lost its soul somewhere on the drawing room floor.
It seemed very perfunctory in that it jumped back and forth between being a shot for shot remake of the original that wasn't very compelling at all, to a sort of obviously telegraphed series of deviations where it would present the same set up to a memorable scene from the original (often in an almost overbearing kind of way) and then be like "gotcha" and switch things up with a quick smile and wink. The reliability of this formula actually grew annoying because it made the movie very predictable despite the changes (not to mention that these misdirections don't work at all anyway if you've seen any of the marketing).
The film was also much too fast paced, and would hardly give you time to sit and think about what the characters were saying or what was happening before hurrying on to the next thing. John Lithgow was surprisingly underused as well, and his part was poorly written. Being the great actor he is he's able to salvage it somewhat. Still, it's a shame because Jud in the book is a very interesting and likeable character, and his portrayal by Fred Gwyne in the original movie is iconic.
All that said, the movie still manages to be emotionally devastating, and the tragedy hits you hard. It's different enough that I'd definitely say it's worth seeing, and, oddly, the parts I enjoyed most and found to be the creepiest had to do with the changes they made and the new stuff they added.
Before it devolves into a slightly smarter than average slasher/gorefest, the final third of the movie has some very disturbing and unsettling stuff that you just don't see in mainstream horror movies like this. It has to do with the conversations between (SPOILER) Louis and Ellie after she comes back, and it seriously goes to some messed up places. The young actress who plays Ellie does a fantastic job. Also, the new ending is very different and it's actually a bit bonkers haha.
I probably lowered expectations a little too much by now, but I think most fans will enjoy it. In my opinion, it's about as good as 2017's It (except much darker), and it compliments the original movie well. They both succeed and fail in different ways, and neither really comes close to capturing the greatness of the book. I still think that I liked the original more because it takes it's time and tells King's story more fully.
Overall Rating: 7.3/10.
It seemed very perfunctory in that it jumped back and forth between being a shot for shot remake of the original that wasn't very compelling at all, to a sort of obviously telegraphed series of deviations where it would present the same set up to a memorable scene from the original (often in an almost overbearing kind of way) and then be like "gotcha" and switch things up with a quick smile and wink. The reliability of this formula actually grew annoying because it made the movie very predictable despite the changes (not to mention that these misdirections don't work at all anyway if you've seen any of the marketing).
The film was also much too fast paced, and would hardly give you time to sit and think about what the characters were saying or what was happening before hurrying on to the next thing. John Lithgow was surprisingly underused as well, and his part was poorly written. Being the great actor he is he's able to salvage it somewhat. Still, it's a shame because Jud in the book is a very interesting and likeable character, and his portrayal by Fred Gwyne in the original movie is iconic.
All that said, the movie still manages to be emotionally devastating, and the tragedy hits you hard. It's different enough that I'd definitely say it's worth seeing, and, oddly, the parts I enjoyed most and found to be the creepiest had to do with the changes they made and the new stuff they added.
Before it devolves into a slightly smarter than average slasher/gorefest, the final third of the movie has some very disturbing and unsettling stuff that you just don't see in mainstream horror movies like this. It has to do with the conversations between (SPOILER) Louis and Ellie after she comes back, and it seriously goes to some messed up places. The young actress who plays Ellie does a fantastic job. Also, the new ending is very different and it's actually a bit bonkers haha.
I probably lowered expectations a little too much by now, but I think most fans will enjoy it. In my opinion, it's about as good as 2017's It (except much darker), and it compliments the original movie well. They both succeed and fail in different ways, and neither really comes close to capturing the greatness of the book. I still think that I liked the original more because it takes it's time and tells King's story more fully.
Overall Rating: 7.3/10.
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.
Nothing special about it; jumpscares quiet jumpscares quiet and so forth
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?
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")
"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")
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.
¿Sabías que…?
- 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.
- ErroresFor 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.
- Citas
Jud Crandall: [from trailer] Sometimes, dead is better.
- Versiones alternativasParamount 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 Operación Overlord (2018), Paramount Pictures Australia decided to release the uncut version instead which also gained an MA15+ rating.
- ConexionesFeatured in Chris Stuckmann Movie Reviews: Pet Sematary (2019)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Pet Sematary?Con tecnología de Alexa
- Did Stephen King had a cameo in this movie?
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- Países de origen
- Sitios oficiales
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Pet Sematary
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 21,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 54,724,696
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 24,502,775
- 7 abr 2019
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 113,118,226
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 40 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta