Pet Sematary

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

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.

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?

In Stephen King's celebrated oeuvre, his 1983 novel Pet Sematary (the misspelling is intentional) is something of a curio. Although reasonably well received at the time, critics have never considered it worthy of the kind of attention lavished on work such as The Shining, The Stand, The Dark Tower series, It, Misery, or The Green Mile. Fans of King, however, have long championed it as one of his most emotionally devastating and philosophically complex works, whilst King himself considers it the scariest novel he's ever written. And although on the surface, the plot is as schlocky as they come, buried underneath is an examination of grief and how it can compromise one's ability to act rationally, whilst also looking at issues such as emotional trauma, guilt, the importance of family, and the question of what happens after we die.

Written by Jeff Buhler, from an initial script by Matt Greenberg, and directed by Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer, Pet Sematary comes in the midst of something of a resurgence for the Stephen King adaptation industry. However, for me, much like It (2017), Pet Sematary doesn't really work. It's certainly better that Mary Lambert's 1989 filmic adaptation, पालतू सेमेटरी (1989), but it pales in comparison to the novel. Granted, most films suffer when compared to a source text; even Stanley Kubrick's द शाइनिंग (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. Buhler also changes numerous aspects of the story; some of which work very well, but many don't, with a new ending, in particular, substituting cheap shock for the lingering sense of psychological hopelessness with which King's original so memorably concludes.

Louis Creed (Jason Clarke), a doctor from Boston, moves to the town of Ludlow, Maine with his wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), their eight-year-old daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence), three-year-old son Gage (Hugo Lavoie and Lucas Lavoie), and Ellie's beloved cat, Church. In the woods surrounding their house, Ellie finds a pet cemetery, but is cautioned against exploring further by their friendly neighbour, Jud Crandall (John Lithgow). Several weeks later, Louis and Jud find Church dead, and Jud, who has grown very close to Ellie and doesn't wish to see her suffer, takes Louis to an ancient Mi'kmaq burial ground behind the cemetery, instructing Louis to bury Church. The next day, Louis is stunned when Church returns home, although considerably more aggressive than before he died. Jud explains that anything buried in that place comes back to life, although very different from how it was, with local legend suggesting that returnees are possessed or controlled by some sort of malevolent spirit. A few days later, the Creed family suffers an unspeakable tragedy, and guessing what Louis plans to do, Jud tells him not to return to the burial ground. Louis, however, has no intention of heeding his warnings.

When the film version was first revealed, there was a lot of online grumbling about the big change - it's Ellie and not Gage who is killed in the film, and whom Louis decides to bring back (if this was supposed to be a twist, someone forgot to tell the marketing people, because it's right there in the trailer). However, King himself approved the change, and personally, I think it improves the story - as in the novel, it's Ellie with whom Louis and Rachel have portentous conversations about what happens after we die, and having her be the one killed establishes a more coherent thematic through-line.

Speaking of themes, much like the novel, the film is primarily focused on grief. I've always loved King's ability to "hide" serious themes behind what are ostensibly rote horror stories (he's so good at hiding them that literary academics don't believe they're even there, refusing to afford him a place on the canon). And yes, Pet Sematary does feature a sentient zombie child, but its core is the emotional trauma suffered by Louis and how his uncontrollable grief drives him to do something unspeakable. His heartache is such that his logic centre simply stops functioning; not only does he completely accept the fact that Ellie can be brought back, but he also ignores Louis's warnings that she will not be his Ellie. Like in the book, he's a man of science, who clashes with Rachel about what to tell Ellie regarding death - she wants to talk about an afterlife, he wants to focus on the finality of death as something natural and unavoidable. This is a smart choice by King, as Louis becomes the one who refuses to let death have the final word, with his conscious mind unable to accept the random tragedy that has befallen him, and whose entire purpose in life comes to be focused on the fact that Rachel was (at least in part) correct, that there is something after death.

Rachel's arc moves in the opposite direction to Louis's - she accepts the finality of Ellie's death, and reacts in horror when she learns what her husband has done. Her arc is rendered more complex insofar as she also suffers crippling guilt because of the death of her sister Zelda (Alyssa Brooke Levine) when they were still children, for which she blames herself. Whereas Louis's arc is more concerned with the question of what it takes for a rational man to abandon everything he knows to be unassailably true about the nature of existence, Rachel's looks at questions of survivor guilt and how one is supposed to come back from having one's life shattered (of course, it's the very fact that Rachel had this early-life trauma that gives her the tools with which to cope with Ellie's death).

For about two-thirds of the runtime, the film deals reasonably convincingly with these issues. Sure, it moves faster than the novel, but that's more to do with the nature of medium than anything else. Whereas Kubrick largely ignored the themes of alcoholism and abuse in The Shining, Kölsch and Widmyer go in the opposite direction - grief and guilt are really the only things on which they focus. At least up to the point when they seem to forget about them entirely, as the third act descends into a ridiculously campy series of murders, attempted murders, and all round violence.

The last half-hour or so is as superficial and immature as anything in any King adaptation, and the new "twist" ending not only doesn't work on its own terms, it completely undercuts both King's original themes, and how well the film itself had handled those themes earlier on, replacing King's bleakly poetic dénouement with something right out of "horror clichés for dummies". I've no problem with filmmakers altering the end of a literary adaptation; the finale of Frank Darabont's The Mist (2007), for example, is completely different from King's novel, but it replicates the spirit of the original. However, the whole point of the end of the novel is that Louis has learned nothing from his experience bringing Gage back. The tragedy is that, lost in madness and despair, he repeats his mistakes. The end of the film has none of this, with the final shot more of a silly "dun-dun-duuuun" moment.

Another problem is something common to many films - an overly idealised family; much more so than in the novel, the Creeds are a picture postcard family, where everybody just loves everybody else so much, dad is always cracking jokes, sister hates annoying little brother (but loves him really), and parents talk to their kids like they're already fully grown adults. Another problem is that Ellie doesn't just get hit by a truck, she's flattened by a tanker, but when Louis picks her body up, she's still whole, and when we see her in the coffin, there's literally not a mark on her. Why make the crash so spectacular when the body has to be intact for the rest of the movie?

The film also leaves out almost all of the backstory and mythology of the burial ground and the role of the Wendigo (an evil necromantic spirit spoken of in Algonquin folklore); Louis sees a picture of the Wendigo in a book, but it's unnamed, and later, he thinks he sees something in the distance of the fog-shrouded forest, but that's as close as we ever get to it.

As a novel, Pet Sematary is a study of grief and childhood trauma first, a horror narrative second. Investigating our psychological reaction to death, the book probes how far we might go to ensure a loved one never leaves us. As a film, Pet Sematary seems to be charting a similar course, until it abandons this tack in favour of a shock-for-shock's sake ending. Much like It: Chapter One, there is an over-reliance on predictable and silly jump scares, and ultimately, what could have been a mature and emotionally affecting story gives in to the worst excesses of the genre, betraying both itself and the original novel.

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.