Cemitério Maldito

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

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!

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.

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.

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.