Pet Sematary (1989) User Reviews

One of the Better King Stories

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 12 October 2010]

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.

"...sometimes, dead is better."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 16 November 2016]

Well you have to admit, this was a creepy story, even for Mr. King. Having one of your main protagonists turn out to be a three year old, knife wielding murderer is somewhat beyond the pale. But King wrote the screenplay based on his own novel, so I'm thinking it held pretty close to the original story. And it was pretty cool to see him show up as the Minister at the cemetery when Gage was buried, that doesn't happen too often.

I don't think I've ever seen Fred Gwynne outside of his TV work, so having him here as the Creed's next door neighbor was a nice touch. It turns out that Dale Midkiff and Denise Crosby portraying the Creeds are also primarily TV actors, which explains why I haven't caught them in any prior work. They were OK here but their performances didn't really have a stand out quality.

Some of the things that got to me didn't really have an impact on the story, but I thought I'd mention them. What's with that odd portrait in the Goldman's living room showing the kid dressed in green with the whip in his hand? That was pretty bizarre. And who names a cat 'Church'? For his trouble, Church didn't even get a screen credit, I really wanted to know who played the part.

But you know what might have been the most bizarre thing about the picture? How about ghost sister Zelda with the spinal meningitis - the role was actually played by a man!!!

An awesome premise, but it's not developed enough

[Chromium_5 · 6/10 · 18 March 2005]

The underlying idea in "Pet Sematary" seems to be that when people are brought back from the dead, they have all their brains, but no souls. Definitely a cool idea, but for some reason it is never expanded, explained, or even mentioned. Theology aside, even the science of what's going on is unclear. How come Timmy, when raised from the dead, staggers around like your run-of-the-mill zombie, while little Gage actually seems smarter and suddenly knows how to operate a telephone? It's all very sloppily done. In fact, the only explanation at all for why the cemetery does what it does is that the ground is "sour." Sorry, but that doesn't really cut it for me. If the movie had focused more on the mystery of the cemetery, it would have been a fantastic thriller. Unfortunately, it ditches the interesting stuff, and instead turns into a "Tales of the Crypt" episode about a crazy toddler with a knife.

Of course, there's still a lot to like about this movie. If it's main intention is to scare you, it certainly does it's job. The scene with Zelda is one of the scariest things I've ever seen, and the death of Gage is very upsetting and hard to watch. The mysterious Judd is arguably one of the coolest movie characters of all time (and to be honest, I was so upset when he died, I completely lost interest in the rest). And while at first it seems a bit odd for a zombie with half his head missing to be the comic relief, somehow it works. But even though it has its good parts, not nearly enough attention is given to the intriguing premise, and it ultimately turns into a cheesy spook story. Too bad, because it could have been a lot more.

Better than average Stephen King adaptation

[rolandddd · 7/10 · 1 July 2013]

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.

Sometimes, "READ" Is Better...

[cchase · 7/10 · 5 December 2008]

Making a book into a movie by following the story page-by-page is NEVER a good idea. When people read the book, they automatically start making their own "mental movie" of who the characters look like, the places they exist in, how the situations progress. And everybody's mind's-eye opus is different, which is why when the 'REAL' movie finally comes out, you're always going to have a ticked-off segment of the movie-going audience who are disappointed that it just doesn't measure up.

All a screenwriter and a director can hope to accomplish is whatever their own vision of the movie is, and hope that it comes as close as possible to what their audience is expecting to see.

There is no better case for this situation than the movies based on the novels of Stephen King. When filmmakers capture at least the essence of his stories, the results can be breathtaking and truly terrifying (CARRIE, 'SALEM'S LOT, THE DEAD ZONE), or they can be what fans consider to be a gawd-awful mess (Kubrick's version of THE SHINING; the miniseries for IT and THE TOMMYKNOCKERS).

Although it's not even close to being the perfect King adaptation, PET SEMATARY has so many moments of just skin-and-bone-deep unease that seemed to have bled onto the screen directly from the book, that you can pretty much forgive its shortcomings. For that, we have music video-turned-film director Mary Lambert to thank, (she also directed SIESTA, not exactly a horror movie, but another freaky-as-hell must-see you should put on your list), working from a screenplay by the 'Man-ster' Himself, and probably one of his better ones.

Since the majority of you know the story, I won't put you to sleep with too many of the details. Dr. Louis Creed (Dale Midkiff) has moved his family out to the perfect house in the country. Well, almost perfect, except for two nasty little details: the dangerously busy stretch of interstate highway out in front, and the large pet cemetery in the woods out back. Since Louis is a veterinarian and has a young toddler for a son...well, even if you haven't read the book, do the frickin' math. It IS a King story, after all, so no mystery where this is headed.

It's not so much the destination that counts here, but the spooky stops along the way. Certain scenes that are so familiar from the book are brought to shivery, scream-inducing life here: Rachel Creed's (STAR TREK'S Denise Crosby) horrific memory of her terminally ill, crippled sister; Louis's encounters with the mortally injured jogger Victor Pascow (Brad Greenquist), both before and after his death; the trip into the "other" cemetery beyond the pet cemetery. And that third act...if it doesn't give you a few nightmares, maybe you should check your pulse.

Good performances by all here, especially the late Fred Gwynne as the well-intentioned neighbor, Jud Crandall, who gets the best line in the story that sums it all up: "Sometimes, dead is better."

About the only problem with the movie version is the casting of Louis's son, Gage (Miko Hughes). Knowing that it would be damn near impossible to get the kind of performance needed from a kid that age to seal the deal on this, Lambert and crew still did the best they could, and unfortunately, Hughes at the time was just too damn CUTE to "sell" his intended role as an evil, demon-possessed zombie. This takes you out of the movie whenever he shows up, though the scenes where he's featured are still masterfully staged, (especially Gwynne's death scene.)

Other than that, everything else is still about as good as it gets. CARRIE still holds the title for best King adaptation as far as I'm concerned; but SEMATARY is right up there in the Top Five.

Still, will anything adapted for the screen based on a King book be as terrifying as reading the story? Not BLOODY likely...for now.

one of King's creepiest, bone-curdling stories amid decent film-making

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 15 December 2005]

In the trivia section for Pet Sematary, it mentions that George Romero (director of two Stephen King stories, Creepshow and The Dark Half) was set to direct and then pulled out. One wonders what he would've brought to the film, as the director Mary Lambert, while not really a bad director, doesn't really bring that much imagination to this adaptation of King's novel, of which he wrote the screenplay. There are of course some very effective, grotesquely surreal scenes (mainly involving the sister Zelda, likely more of a creep-out for kids if they see the film), and the casting in some of the roles is dead-perfect. But something feels missing at times, some sort of style that could correspond with the unmistakably King-like atmosphere, which is in this case about as morbid as you're going to get without incestuous cannibals rising from the graves being thrown in (who knows if he'll save that for his final novel...)

As mentioned though, some of the casting is terrific, notably Miko Hughes as Gage Creed, the little boy who goes from being one of the cutest little kids this side of an 80's horror movie, to being a little monster (I say that as a compliment, of course, especially in scenes brandishing a certain scalpel). And there is also a juicy supporting role for Fred Gwynne of the Munsters, who plays this old, secretive man with the right notes of under-playing and doom in tone. And applause goes to whomever did the make-up on Andrew Hubatsek. But there are some other flaws though in the other casting; Dale Midkiff is good, not great, as the conflicted, disturbed father figure Creed, and his daughter Ellie is played by an actress that just didn't work for me at all.

In terms of setting up some chilling set-pieces, only a couple really stand-out: a certain plot-thickening moment (not to spoil, it does involve a cool Ramones song), and the first visit to the pet sematary (the bigger one), including the sort of mystical overtones King had in the Shining. For the most part it's a very polished directing job, though it could've been made even darker to correspond with the script. If thought out in logical terms (albeit in King terms) it is really one of his more effective works of the period. But it doesn't add up like it could, or should. Still, it makes for a nifty little midnight movie.

Sometimes, being dead is better.

[Lady_Targaryen · 7/10 · 4 September 2006]

Louis Creed, a doctor from Chicago, moves to a large house near a small town, since he is going to be giving classes in the University of Maine's. Along with him, is his wife Rachel and their two kids, Ellie and Gage,as well as Ellie's cat, Church. Soon, they met their new neighbor,and old man named Judd Crandall.Judd not only warns Louis and Rachel about the danger that is the highway that runs past their house(that is constantly a way used by big trucks) but also show to the family a pet cemetery that is located near their house. Judd starts to talk about the importance of the pet cemetery, but Rachel is against to talk about death and spirituality with her children, since she has traumas from her sister Zelda's death.

During the first week of the family in the new house, Louis already has dead people to deal with: Victor Pascow, a student who has been fatally injured in an automobile accident, addresses his dying words to Louis personally, even though the two men are strangers. On the night following Pascow's death, Louis experiences what he believes is a very vivid dream in which he meets Pascow, who leads him to the pet cemetery and warns Louis to not "go beyond, no matter how much you feel you need to." Louis wakes up in bed the next morning convinced it was only a dream, until he discovers his feet and the bedsheets covered with dirt and pine needles. Anyway, he dismisses the dream. Many strange things starts to happen and Church, Ellie's cat, dies while walking on the highway. Louis stays worried in how he is going to talk about Church's death with Ellie, but Judd, sympathizing with him, Jud takes Louis to the pet cemetery, supposedly to bury Church. But instead of stopping there, Jud leads Louis farther on a frightening journey to "the real cemetery": an ancient burial ground that was once used by the Micmac ('...Indians...'). There Louis buries the cat on Jud's instruction, with Jud saying that animals buried there have come back to life. And that is where the real horror story begins...

I personally find this movie very good. It's not THE most horrifying of all, but it is one of the best horror movies I watched. The way Gage dies, is almost impossible to not stay in your memory, specially being a toddler. It's cool to see Stephen King's cameo as the minister of the funeral.

Of course, there are some script errors: How can a rich doctor with two small kids, goes to live in a place where there is a dangerous highway near his house? How Gage has no scratches or anything after being hit by a truck? Why Louis continues to resurrect every member of his family knowing they are all going to stay like monsters? Things like that doesn't make any sense, but I can understand that all horror's scripts needs to have some surreal ideas to work.

A good thing I saw in this movie, is the necessity to talk about death with the children, no matter what is your religion or if you are an atheist, and also that avoiding important subjects doesn't help anything. Because of Louis being afraid to be honest with Ellie, confronting her and saying that her cat wouldn't be back again, all the nightmare began.

The better version.

[tpkrause1 · 8/10 · 22 August 2019]

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!

Good Horror Film, The Book Was Better Though.

[drownsoda90 · 7/10 · 23 November 2006]

"Pet Sematary" is an adaptation from the Stephen King novel of the same title. The story follows the Creeds - an all American, middle-class family, who move into a house out in the country. The family consists of Louis and Rachel, and their two young children, Ellie and their toddler son, Gage. The house couldn't be better, and the family meets a strange but friendly old man, Jud, who lives across the road. He leads them down an old path into the woods one day where a pet graveyard lies - filled with a huge amount of animal graves. And just beyond there, lies a sacred Indian burial ground that seems to possess a strange power. When the family cat, Church, is killed, Louis sees it fit to bury him in the pet cemetery - and strangely enough, soon after, Church returns to life. But there's something evil about him now, he isn't the same cat he used to be. And when a tragic accident takes the life of young Gage, Louis decides to apply the same concept in hopes of reviving his dead son... unfortunately, he gets more than he bargained for.

Having read Stephen King's novel, I can say that the book is much better than the film. Not to say the movie is bad, because it isn't - the book is just a little bit better. The real strength in this film lies in it's story, which is both bizarre but extremely original, something that King's stories are typically known for. The script is very well adapted from the story, and while it minorly differs in some aspects, it's a pretty good page-to-screen transformation. There are a few plot holes here and there, nothing major though. Besides that, this movie is actually pretty scary, and it succeeds in it's intention to do so. There are some really disturbing scenes throughout the film, and I'd have to say that the flashback sequence of Rachel's sister Zelda is the number one. Honestly, that is one of the most disgusting, disturbing things I've ever seen in a horror film - it's not gory and bloody, it's just flat out sickening. One thing's for sure, that image won't leave your head anytime soon.

The performances in this film were all very up to par and I really had no problem there. This film is actually on the gory side, there are plenty of nasty little sequences to please all of the gore hounds out there, including the shocker of an ending. I really liked the way they ended the film, it was abrupt and somewhat inconclusive, but it worked better that way with all things considered.

Overall, "Pet Sematary" is a good horror movie that I'd recommend to those who are fans of either Stephen King or just fans of the genre in general. The story is the film's greatest asset and it's a creepy one too. One of the better Stephen King adaptations I'd say. 7/10.

It was actually alright! 7.5/10

[ABThomas · 14 July 2011]

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

Dead certainly would've been better in the case of this film.

[TomCat502 · 3/10 · 29 November 2010]

Once upon a time, Stephen King novels and short stories were adapted to the screen and told by top notch directors using A-list actors. Fine performances and good films were created.

Then they got greedy and every novel was rushed to the screen, made by any available director and portrayed by anyone they could afford.

There are thankfully, notable exceptions(Stand by Me, Misery, The Green Mile) but most renderings have been terrible.

And here we are. Mary Lambert created several stylish music videos for Madonna, but I'm afraid her direction on Pet Semetary shows her inexperience.

Dale Midkiff, familiar for his appearances in cinematic and episodic television, mumbles and drawls his way through a very poorly drawn character.

Denise Crosby, the wife/mother, is a favorite of mine from Star Trek - The Next Generation (Tasha Yar). Perhaps she's a contract Paramount player and took this after her STTNG stint. She certainly does try to deliver, but it's not very effective within the confines of this slopfest.

Fred Gwynne is fine as the on screen narrator and is enjoyable until the end.

The child actors aren't all that effective. Even the cat leaves me cold.

The ending is just silly, and most everything leading up to it is dumb. Child's Play meets Psycho crossed with Night of the Living Dead.

Somebody made this and it was rejected by Tales From the Crypt. However, instead of leaving it dead in the ground, this film's production team dug it up and placed it in the pet semetary.

The rotten junk that crawled out is what we're forced to view.

3/10.

A very enjoyable mess

[bowmanblue · 8/10 · 16 April 2020]

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!

What you own always comes home to you.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 25 February 2020]

Stephen King adapted his own bestseller for the big screen with this so-so familial horror film that does manage to get some things right, even if it's not altogether a success. Certainly the premise would hit home for any parent: outliving your children, especially if the child in question dies in such a horrific way as is depicted here.

The Creeds are a young family who move to rural Maine, into a home facing a highway where semis roar at top speed in either direction at all times. Now, this family is led to ruin basically because the dad (Dale Midkiff) and mom (Denise Crosby) are afraid to teach their children about death as a fact of life, and who wimp out to begin with when faced with the concept of death. Their adorable son (three year old Miko Hughes) is mowed down by one of these semis, and the dad has learned that there is a Micmac Indian burial ground within walking distance that has terrible powers of resurrection.

The main characters behave like fools, but we wouldn't have many horror stories without people like this, now would we? The fact that they're not as sympathetic as they could be is one debit, the miscasting of Midkiff and Crosby is another. He in particular is so terrible at times that his performances only serves to induce laughter. A shame, really, because there IS an overall sombre quality to this tale, and an atmosphere of gloom right from the beginning. (Elliot Goldenthals' score plays no small part in the mood.) There are also some enjoyably gnarly makeup effects by Lance Anderson, and the supporting cast sparks some life into the proceedings. Fred Gwynne is a standout as the savvy aged neighbour who realizes what a mistake he's made in telling the dad about the Indian burial ground. (Characters mess about with such places all the time in horror films, and they always pay a heavy price; it's one of the standard plot set-ups in the genre.) Brad Greenquist is also memorable as the mangled spirit who attempts to prevent the dad from doing the wrong thing. And who doesn't feel creeped out by the Zelda character, actually played by a man (Andrew Hubatsek)?

As of this writing, this viewer has not yet seen the 2019 adaptation, so he can't comment on the matter of whether it is a better or worse adaptation of Kings' novel. But with this film, it's a classic example of decent material that doesn't reach its full potential. The finale does have some suspense, and overall uneasiness, but it's hard to be all that emotionally involved. At least this ends on a good note: usage of the Ramones tune "Pet Sematary".

Seven out of 10.

One of Stephen King's Worst

[view_and_review · 3/10 · 24 June 2014]

If this wasn't the worst Stephen King movie I don't know what is. I know it's not all Stephen King's fault, but he did write the novel and the screenplay so he takes the lion share of the blame. This movie was meandering along until one critical moment. There was the OMG moment that made the entire movie bad. I was going to suffice with giving a general review but because of that one moment I now have to mention everything wrong with this movie.

What was that moment? When mush-for-brains Dr. Louis Creed allowed his son to wander onto a highway and get hit by a truck. Didn't he nearly get hit when you first moved to the new town? How in the world did you turn your back on your two year old son long enough for him to wander clear onto a highway? Really???? OK, so now I'm going to town with all the stuff I didn't like.

1.) The acting. I see that Dale Midkiff went to the same acting school as Keanu Reeves. All of the acting was poor with the exception of Miko Hughes-and I was just impressed he could speak so well for a toddler. I'm used to toddlers babbling even on screen.

2.) Jud. Jud introduces Louis to the Indian burial grounds only to reveal to him later that he once used it to bury his dog and his dog was never the same. Well, Judd, if you frikkin knew that why would you have Louis bury the cat there? Oh yeah, you figured that Ellie couldn't handle the loss of her cat. What a flimsy excuse.

3.) Rachel and her sister that died from spinal meningitis. What in the universe did that have to do with anything?

4.) Gage. What kind of name is Gage? I thought that his dad had an affinity for shotguns or wire.

5.) Postmortem Gage. Boy did he remind me of Chucky. Undead or not, possessed or not; he was still a 25 pound toddler. No 25 pound scalpel wielding toddler can slice and dice people with that efficiency. Furthermore, the scene with Louis fighting his undead son was just laughable. He was literally holding the kid while the kid is hacking him to pieces with a scalpel. Come on man!

6.) Dr. Louis Creed. After your cat was acting creepy. After the warnings from Jud. After your son butchered two people and nearly butchered you. You still go back to the Indian burial ground as though somehow this time things will be different. You are a moron.

7.) Dr. Louis Creed again. I still can't get over how you let your son wander onto the highway. That was deplorable.

That's it. I've said my piece. I was very disappointed with this movie, it definitely wasn't one of Stephen King's finer moments. But I guess you can't win them all.

Sticks to the book, but loses A LOT

[BroadswordCallinDannyBoy · 6/10 · 23 August 2006]

Louis Creed and his family move into a new house in Maine when Louis gets a job as a doctor in a local school. They meet a kindly old man, Judd, living across the street from them, who tells them about a burial ground where kids bury their pets. However, when the family cat is hit by a truck, Louis doesn't want his daughter pained about the death of the cat she loves and Judd knows this, so he tales Louis beyond the 'Pet Sematary' to an old American Indian burial ground and miraculously the cat is revived, but it is not the same old friendly cat... and things get really bad when Louis baby boy is accidentally killed. He knows that reviving him won't bring the same boy back, but is it better than not having a son at all?

From the first scene right up to the last, this film sticks right with the book with literally no deviation. Not a surprise, since Stephen King himself wrote the screenplay and oversaw production. That makes a for a faithful adaptation that is pretty compelling, but those who read the book will see just how much better it is. Many anecdotes, supporting characters, and scenes have been chopped off. The overall tone is less tense and the dramatic elements seriously down played. While that pretty much comes standard with most book-to-screen adaptations, it is always annoying when the book is so freakin' good!

But overall this is a decent adaptation that still keeps certain strengths of its source. 6/10

Rated R: violence/gore.

Creepy story , nasty deeds and morbid scenes by the master Stephen King

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 10 April 2011]

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.

On the Road Again...

[BaronBl00d · 20 November 2004]

Dale Midkiff and Denise Crosby move to Maine with their two small children and cat in a big house on a highway with lots of truck traffic. Close at hand...is a pet cemetery where all the dogs and cats killed on the road are buried. Neighbor Fred Gwynne shows another cemetery with incredible powers just beyond...the power to reanimate the dead. Trouble is the dead are nothing like they once were. Although I have not read the book by Stephen King, he did write the screenplay and must have remained relatively faithful to his own work. The film has many flaws but is also worthwhile. Coincidence and some muddled flashbacks from the past help make the script somewhat erratic and implausible. The acting in the leads is OK, but in the second half really deteriorates. Fred Gwynne is literally and figuratively a cut above the rest. He gives a heartfelt performance as a man run down with time and over-burdened with knowledge he should or would not have. Brad Greenquist is also good in his role as a ghost. His character also causes some believability factors. Director Mary Lambert does do some things rather nicely. There are some well-shot scenes of the cemeteries. The peril of the trucks is made very real, and she also relies heavily on human emotion that is universal. At its heart, Pet Semetary is about loss, coping with loss, and grief, and what are some of the effects of not coping with those things well. The film has many suspenseful moments, and although the ending became a bit tiresome - still manages to keeps its mood and message throughout. Author Stephen King has an interesting cameo as a preacher!

Half creepy classic horror movie, half cheesy stupid fun

[jg_1977 · 7/10 · 16 October 2018]

Pet Sematary is one of those movies on the cusp of greatness, where if you made a few changes it would surely be considered a classic along with the likes of Carrie and The Shining. The general story is terrific and chock full of potential, a once happy family suffers a tragedy that drives the husband to insanity and he turns to the sinister pet "sematary" behind their property. The issues this movie has are far more fixable. First things first, get rid of Dale Midkiff. His performance in the first half is stiff and stilted that gives way to a schlocky portrayal of insanity in the second half. Had this film been better cast, the emotional weight it was hoping for would have been much more achievable. Next, take out the attempts for over-the-top gross-out horror. Thankfully there isn't much, but you'll still see two or three scenes. It works the first few times when you just get sudden glimpses of a mangled corpse or a deformed, sickly body, but much of the last half is full of long, uncut shots of late 80s horror effects which are highly subpar and kill any legitimate terror. Finally, tighten up the dialogue here and there and remove one or two on-the-nose scenes (I'm looking at you askew picture frames during a dream sequence), and you have yourself a great film. Generally speaking, I quite enjoy the first half of this movie. It builds suspense quite well, uses jump scares rather effectively and not at all cheaply, and expertly establishes a creepy and unsettling premise. Then the second half craps the bed, but at least in an entertaining way. Midkiff's laughable performance along with the cheesy effects as I mentioned, make the climax incredibly stupid but still fun nonetheless. If you can forgive this movie for all of it's dumb and dated moments then you can get something really special out of the scenes it does right. The design of the pet sematary, Fred Gwynne's iconic performance, and some truly great scares all hold up to this day. In another timeline, this movie could be a classic, and I only wish more people in this timeline would see it.

Good horror in places, but uneven

[LivingWitness · 6/10 · 2 August 2023]

There's parts of Pet Sematary that are very good horror. The last twenty or thirty minutes were actually genuinely horrific--both in what happens, and in the implication that despite what's just happened, Louis had learned nothing from it. The makeup and prosthetics they used for Zelda were also really cool.

On the other hand, there were definitely parts of Pet Sematary that dragged the movie down. A lot of the performances from the adult actors were very uneven--in places, they were passable, but in others, they were horrible. The kid they got to play Ellie was so awful and so annoying that I'm glad she wasn't a huge part of this movie.

Some other reviewers have said that this isn't the worst Stephen King adaptation, and they're right to say it. It's been a hot minute since I've read the book, but this is pretty accurate to what the book was like from what I remember. It's also not the absolute worst in terms of its actual quality as a movie.

However, it's also far from the best. I don't think anyone's gonna argue that this should be the first King adaptation you see instead of Carrie (1976) or Misery. It's more like the one you watch after you've already seen the cream-of-the-crop King adaptations.

A very good horror film.

[Peach-2 · 8/10 · 19 January 1999]

Pet Sematary is a very good horror film and believe it or not somebody can make a good horror film out of a Stephen King novel. Mary Lambert does a great job with this film and manages to bring across King's creepy story pretty well. Most people may avoid this, but they should check it out.

A Difficult Novel to Stuff Into a Movie

[thalassafischer · 6/10 · 2 October 2023]

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.

The book was so much better

[Rectangular_businessman · 5/10 · 28 October 2012]

While "Pet Sematary" wasn't too bad (At least, it wasn't so bad as other adaptations of any Stephen King book into a movie, and it was certainly much better than the awful sequel) I think that this film doesn't make any justice to the original book, which was darker and more complex.

That being said, I think that, at least, "Pet Sematary" was somewhat entertaining to watch, despite (Or maybe because of) some cheesy scenes (Particularly the ending, which includes a laughable special effect failure) On the other side, the atmosphere was pretty well done, there were a couple of interesting scenes, and Fred Gwynne was perfect in the Jud Crandall role.

I guess that it could have been much worse. (Like "Pet Sematary II".) But there are much better adaptations of the books written by Stephen King, such as the original "Carrie" film, "The Shining", "Misery" and "1408".

Very creepy.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 10/10 · 26 October 2001]

This scary and rather gory adaptation of Stephen King's great novel features outstanding central performances by Dale Midkiff,Fred Gwynne(who sadly died few years ago)and Denise Crosby and some really gruesome gore effects.Director Mary Lambert has a wonderful sense of visual style,and manages to make this one of the few versions of King's work that is not only worth seeing,but genuinely unnerving.The depiction of the zombie child Gage(Miko Hughes-later in "New Nightmare")is equally noteworthy,as what could easily have been a laughable character is made menacing and spooky.As for the people,who think that this one isn't scary-watch it alone in the dark(eventually with your squeamish girlfriend)and I guarantee you that "Pet Sematary" will creep you out.Some horror movies like this one or "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" shouldn't be watched in group.Recommended for horror fans!

Better than a lot of King movies

[Sergiodave · 6/10 · 29 June 2022]

This may sound obvious but the problem with Stephen King movies is they are based on his books, which a lot of us have avidly read since childhood using our imagination to create a picture of the novel. When that novel is put on screen it rarely delivers, especially with Horror, where your imagination is more vivid. This movie was a decent adaptation, though I imagine people who haven't read the book may enjoy it more.

This Should Have Been Buried IN the Pet Semary!

[sign543 · 1/10 · 9 November 2006]

I find it disheartening that so many of King's masterpieces were treated so badly in their film adaptations...and perhaps it's mostly because his books are too complex to adapt well to film...I'm not sure. Delores Claiborne, Stand By Me, Misery, Carrie, Shawshank Redemption, The Shining, and the Green Mile all did well. Then we are treated to stinkers like IT, Maximum Over-drive, Dreamcatchers, Thinner, The Running Man, Firestarter...and of course, this one.

Did I forget to mention Stephen King's own remake of The Shining? He should have settled for the original.

This film has all the feel of a made-for-TV movie or direct-to-video film...and, in fact, that's what it should have been. The film was terribly fast-paced and left out some of the more necessary plot elements of the book. They jumped into the darker elements way too quickly. There is barely a set up for the horror to come.

That they left out Norma Crandall was very disappointing as she added to Judd's character so much. He's barely even interesting in the film. Fred Gwynn turned him into a goofy, drawling, old man. Over-acted. Not subtle at all, as his character was in the book.

Ellie, the daughter, was a terrible actress. I am sure they could have found a better actress than her. She was whiny and abrasive and her lines were very forced and unnatural.

Even the cinematography was badly done. Everything is way too bright for the plot line. Too many primary colors. It felt like they were on the set of a soap opera. At least it matches the acting of the principal characters.

They tried to sew it all up with gory makeup effects, but set in the backdrop of a badly made film, it just makes the blood and gore goofy and laughable. The only way this film could be considered "scary" is with the cheap haunted-house "BOO!" scare tactics...like when a hand shoots out of the dark and grabs a shoulder.

Why would they choose Mary Lambert to direct this film? She barely had any experience as a director before this gig and most of the experience she did have was with music videos. And, as expected, beyond this flop, she has barely done anything worth mentioning. Well, except for more music videos and the follow-up stinker sequel to this film.

Let's hope the 2008 re-make is better.