Cimitero vivente

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!

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.

Pet Sematary is a late-eighties adaptation of Stephen King's horror novel, and King himself wrote the screenplay for the film. The film follows the Creed family, recently moved from Chicago to a small town called Ludlow, Maine. The main plot concerns an ancient Micmac Indian burial ground close by, which has the power to make the dead living again, albeit as horrible zombies.

In my opinion, Stephen King movies usually works very well as mini-series because the characters are more fleshed out and their inner lives are explored more thoroughly. There's no time for this here though, so the characters feels a bit hollow and we don't get to know them all that well.

Relative unknown Dale Midkiff and Denise Crosby lead the pretty anonymous cast, the best acting performance of the movie is Fred Gwynne as old-timer Jud Crandall.

Overall, this plays pretty much like a standard horror flick, more or less, with average acting but with a better-than-average script and it builds tension well. Top marks to the makeup department though, for making the zombies look pretty good.

I originally saw this in my mid teens, and made a mental note myself that it 'wasn't that good' - which in turn made me forget it.

I read the book for the 1st time 2 weeks back and LOVED IT!, so I thought I'd give the movie a try again to see how it fared.

I am 36 now and i thought It was actually pretty good!

Still quite spooky for its age, (especially on your own at night) stayed pretty close to the book too! I actually thought the scary characters in the film were more scary than they were in the book.

One of Kings better film adaptations (apart from stand by me & the green mile)

Definitely worth a watch for horror fans!

7.5 out of 10

One of the reasons Kubrick's The Shining is considered a masterpiece is because he intuitively knew what and what would not work from the original novel in cinematic form. Apparently this upset Stephen King a bit, but frankly, Kubrick knew what he was doing. I think the problem with Pet Sematary is that the director really tries to be true to this huge paperback work of fiction in less than two hours. So the mistake here seems to be biting off more than one can chew instead of cutting it into manageable bites.

That being said, I personally like Pet Sematary and I think that it's decent as a cozy horror flick. Zelda and Victor Pascal terrified me as a twelve year old. The first time i ever stayed up all night by myself was when I read the book. I think this 1989 flick has an undercurrent of 70s charm to it, it has a touch of that nostalgic supernatural feel.