Cemitério Maldito

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

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")

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.

Nothing special about it; jumpscares quiet jumpscares quiet and so forth

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.