Pet Sematary II (1992) User Reviews

Not bad, despite its reputation

[Isnam777 · 6/10 · 21 April 2009]

Many will lump this into the sequels of Stephen King based movies, which is correct. This one was not written by King, but despite this lack of originality it is a fairly good sequel to an excellent movie.

The mood is dark, just not as dark as the first film. We have Geoff and his veterinarian dad relocating to rural Maine (and the location of the Pet Sematary) after Geoff's mom is accidentally killed in front of him while shooting a movie. In their new small town, Geoff's dad opens up his own practice while Geoff has trouble adjusting to his surroundings. He befriends another outcast, Drew, who has an abusive stepfather named Gus to deal with at home. One night, out of meanness, Gus shoots and kills Drew's loyal dog Zowie. Drew then gets Geoff to help him bury Zowie in the notorious cemetery in hopes of bringing his dog back to life. It comes back, just different, mean and nasty, like it's mad about being resurrected and now hates everything and everyone (like all things brought back to life in the cemetery act). This starts off a chain of events that leads to the destruction of the lives of everyone involved (and some who aren't involved incidentally). Now its just a matter of who can survive the supernatural terror engulfing the town. The storyline is fun and the acting is good enough. The gore and other special effects are great.

I can easily look past the bad points in a film and see the good in it. This film is like that for me. The film also posses qualities that make me automatically like it. It is an underdog film (meaning it's not very popular with most people on this site). It also has that early 90s disillusioned grunge youth generation feel to it. Some may see this quality as making the film darker, even mean-spirited, but I love that era and love its influence in movies. This is just the frosting on the "cake" for me, and overall the "cake" is worth a viewing on its own merits, even if it's just so you can judge for yourself.

Far more "over the top" than the original, may be a bit too much for many

[lemon_magic · 6/10 · 24 January 2006]

All right...I think that many commentators hate this film for what seems like good reasons, to them at least. And I agree that PS II is definitely not for everyone, maybe even not for fans of the original film - or even for fans of Stephen King.But there are things I enjoy about this film.

I enjoy watching Clancy Brown chew up the scenery in the 2nd half of the movie after his character 'comes back'. Brown has a real gift for physical comedy and black humor, and he does a great job portraying a shambling revenant...he just radiates savage, hateful glee, and very effectively comes across as a...THING masquerading as a man, an agent of chaos and misery just barely keeping it together long enough to extract his revenge. PS II is worth watching just for his performance.

I enjoy the way the plot spirals out of control after the opening events, as the two boys try to "fix" things early on by using the Pet Semetary to cover up their, um, "mistakes", only to find themselves completely over their heads.

There are individual moments of mean-spirited gallows humor that are a lot of fun, and even a few good one liners - "No brain, No Pain; Think About It, Won't You?" was a screamingly funny line in the context it was delivered in. And the bit where Anthony Edwards staggers back into the Gilbert house and you hear 3 more shots was perfectly timed, and worth a chuckle.

In fact, I feel that the entire movie seems to somehow embody the spirit and malice of whatever it is that brings the dead back from the Sematary. The director and screenwriter manage to make every scene, almost every shot, feel as if the "wrongness" of the Sematary has infected the very air and light of the town from the very opening shots.

And in this, they may have been too successful. The glumness, the sense of oppression and airlessness and dread, the rot and gore and malice from beyond the grave are simply too much for the average film goer; if the director had backed off a little, and allowed a little more light into the mood and not rubbed our noses in the gore and blood and maggots quite so much, I think the results would have been more accessible for a lot more people. There a moments where I wish that we didn't have to see quite so many spurting wounds and decaying flesh and that not quite so many characters had gotten killed in the last 20 minutes.

So...I think the movie was what the creators intended to make, but they may have misjudged the reaction most people would have to their creation. I can still watch this on occasion and admire the energy and effort put into bringing this "feeling" to, er, life.

Not Nearly As Bad a Sequel As I Expected

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 15 May 2013]

The ancient Indian cemetery with the power to raise the dead returns and influences the lives of new residents.

I must say, good or bad, I am glad director Mary Lambert returned for the sequel. As the first was her creation, it seems only fitting to let her take the characters and concepts where she wants to go with them. Had another director handled it, the film could have lost any flavor of the original that might exist. (There is some similar tone and such, which I think keeps it a strong sequel.)

I love the young Edward Furlong (during his career peak) and Anthony Edwards with a beard. Great casting that keeps this film relevant even if it carried over pretty much nobody from the original. (I say "pretty much" because I think it has no one, but a minor character might have made it past me.)

The film as a whole has received negative reviews, but the fact is that the original really is not that great. Although a modern classic, and a pop culture gem, it is not actually a critically good film. So the sequel by horror standards is not bad -- it actually maintains the level of the original.

Dark horror enlivened by flashes of humor and good performance by Clancy Brown...

[Doylenf · 13 November 2011]

Some of the scathing reviews from those who preferred the original PET SEMATARY rather than this sequel, are misleading, no matter how well-intentioned these viewers were. This horror film, full of the kind of touches evident in any Stephen King story, is really much better than these reviews would have you believe.

The premise, of course, is a silly one--that burying dead animals or human beings in a specially cursed Indian sematary will bring them back to life, deadlier than ever in evil intent. But once you get beyond that, there's enough fright and scares invoked by the script and by the clever direction of Mary Lambert, particularly in sequences involving Clancy Brown. His return from the grave is marked by some really scary and howlingly funny moments that give the film a sense of life it otherwise would have lacked.

She has also directed her two youthful protagonists, Edward Furlong and Jason McGuire, in such a manner that she gets skillful performances from them. Furlong has a glowing presence that fits the material beautifully and McGuire has a naturalness that is refreshing and real.

And the story actually covers a lot of ground, everything from bad parenting to bullying from one's peers and lots of revenge motifs that lead to some truly harrowing moments. Alas, it's true that much of the action has a mean-spirited slant but all of it is somewhat softened by touches of real humor.

Worth a look if you enjoyed the first PET SEMATARY.

Forgettable Sequel

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 8 July 2019]

While shooting a horror film, the famous actress Renee Hallow (Darlanne Fluegel) dies in a weird accident. Her ex-husband, the veterinary Chase Matthews (Anthony Edwards) decides to leave Los Angeles and move with their teenage son Jeff Matthews (Edward Furlong) to Renee´s house in Ludlow to start a new life. Soon Jeff is bullied by his schoolmate Clyde Parker (Jared Rushton) and befriends the teenager Drew Gilbert (Jason McGuire). When Drew´s stepfather Sheriff Gus Gilbert (Clancy Brown) kills his dog Zowie, Drew buries his dog with Jeff in an ancient Indian cemetery that has the rumor of raising the dead. Zowie returns and kills Gus and they bury him in the cemetery. But soon the boys learn that sometimes death is better.

"Pet Sematary II" is a forgettable sequel of Stephen King´s "Pet Sematary (1989). Directed also by Mary Lambert, the plot is weaker and unoriginal. The one-dimension lead actor Edward Furlong keeps the same expression when is happy, sad, bullied or whatever. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Cemitério Maldito II" ("Damned Cemetery II")

Don't bury this movie in Pet Sematery...

[Newsense · 1/10 · 2 April 2009]

...it might come back as a sequel that is even worse than this one. For the record I actually liked the first Pet Sematary. While not being the best book-to-movie adaptation, it had its moments. This one has none.

Premise: A son loses his mother in a fatal accident on a movie set. The boy's father moves to the same town that the Creed family died in. things start to happen when a boy loses his dog "Zowie" to a gunshot would by his abusive step dad who is also a sheriff. The boy buries his dog in the same Indian burial set and things get worse from there.

Opinion: This was one pointless sequel. At least the characters in the first movie had a method to their madness. The characters in this movie are just plain stupid. The acting is bland and the story is backwards. The characters who die and come back to life have more personality as a reincarnated corpse than they did when they were alive. How insane is that? Plus this movie leaves questions unanswered? Why would Gus bury Clyde in the sacred burial ground after he killed him? It makes no sense as is the son who buries his abusive stepfather in the same burial site. If you saw that you dead dog came back to life more deranged wouldn't you think your spiteful step dad would come back more psychotic than he originally was? I didn't feel an ounce of sympathy for that pudgy idiot when Gus killed him and his mother. Stupid! If you want a better horror movie from Stephen King check out Misery. That was a classic. Pet Sematary Two is just a rotting, flea-infested dog of a sequel that should have never made it to the cutting room floor.

a inferior sequel that is much too slick for its own good

[disdressed12 · 5/10 · 23 October 2006]

Pet Semetary 2 is not as creepy as Pet Semetery.it is however,gorier and faster paced.there is also more character development in this one,so theoretically you should feel more emotionally for the characters,but i didn't.perhaps that may be because they are all shallow and unlikable.this movie was played more for camp value,than anything else.the acting is very hammy in some scenes,i hope intentionally.there is also an attempt at shock value,but it is more disgust i felt than shock in some scenes.this movie also has none of the atmosphere or mystique of the first.it is much too slick feeling.i felt the first had a sort of rough,raw quality,which works.the slickness of this movie is one of its failings,along with some others i mentioned.bottom line.this movie is inferior to the original. 5/10

Better than expected

[mw900405 · 7/10 · 2 August 2008]

So i sat myself down today to watch the sequel to the famous movie "Pet sematary" and expected a half-assed thing made only to drain a little extra money from the Pet sematary fans. I was positively surprised though as the plot was interesting(A widower vet moves to the village from the first movie together with his son to start a new life) and so was the characters. The actors was also good and performed excellent especially the guy who played Gus(cant remember his name). He manages to actually behave like a gleeful psychotic man without going so far that his performance would evoke laughter instead of shivers. His performance is without doubt the best part of the movie. This movie is more gory than the original movie and has less of the psychological terror elements that were a big part of the first movie although this is rarely taken too far, a few moments of the movie features over-the-top goriness but not enough to make it ridiculous in any way. To sum it up: Pet sematary 2 is a good horror movie featuring both psychological terror as well as gore, the simple yet interesting plot as well as the performance of the actors makes this a movie well worth seeing.

Damn it, is this movie mediocre!

[Ackbar-2 · 3/10 · 15 July 2001]

This is the most idiot and meaningless zombie movie I've ever seen. Pet Sematary I is a horror classic, but this is an A-bomb.

The characters' depth is non-existent, the movie is boring, the kid is boring, the bully is ridiculous and the sheriff was a zombie before he was dead. You begin to hope for some postal worker to assault and destroy that town. But no, probably even the postal workers of that town are boring.

The violence is gratuitous, not funny, and the final credits sequence with the faces of the people who died almost made me puke. That was the final blow: I lied catatonic over the couch, in true disbelief -- DUHHH...

Neither the cat's pyjamas, nor a dog's breakfast...

[natashabowiepinky · 6/10 · 9 August 2013]

It's not gonna win any Oscars or even be remembered a few days after you see it, but what you have here is a good, solid horror film with lots of nice, bloody deaths and a fine performance by one Clancy Brown as a nasty sheriff... who isn't much nicer before he's resurrected. It has it's fair share of silly scenes, but makes up for it never giving us a moment's peace once things get going... and the last part is one big slice 'n dice after another. It's a better film than it's predecessor, and I was pleasantly surprised how much it gripped me. Worth a look.

Two final thoughts: 1: It's nice to someone who understands that when you THINK a person who tried to kill you is dead, it's better to shoot their corpse repeatedly just to make sure. And 2: What happened to the cute kitten that goes walkabout in the second half without any explanation, only to reappear for the obligatory happy ending? Get Poirot on it now... 6/10

Lacking in originality, but still a good sequel...

[paul_haakonsen · 5/10 · 11 April 2023]

I have indeed watched the 1992 "Pet Sematary II" movie before. Twice actually, I think, since 1992. And I sat down to watch it again here in 2023, as I had the opportunity to do so, and I only vaguely remembered parts of the movie.

Writer Richard Outten put together a fair enough script for the movie, though it wasn't all that different from the original 1989 "Pet Sematary" movie. Though it should be noted that "Pet Sematary II" most certainly outdid the abysmal 2019 remake of the 1989 original.

Edward Furlong was quite good in the lead here in "Pet Sematary II", adding his back-then-usual-charm to the movie for sure. The movie also have Anthony Edwards on the cast list, but it was a shame that he wasn't given more on-screen time. I have to call out Clancy Brown and Jared Rushton for doing great jobs in portraying two characters that you just can't help but loathe. They really put on spot on performances in bringing Gus Gilbert and Clyde Parker to life on the screen, no pun intended.

After watching the movie again here in 2023, I have to admit that I was sort of puzzled by the fact that dead Gus Gilbert could bury and bring back Clyde Parker. Isn't the lore of the Indian burial ground that you, and I quote, "bury your own". But Gus is never mentioned to have any relation to Clyde, which just seems to be strange as it breaks the lore.

Visually then "Pet Sematary II" is quite good. Sure, the movie is showing signs of aging, but for a movie from 1992, the practical special effects still hold up.

Not really as good as the 1989 movie, of course, but "Pet Sematary II" is actually not too bad for a sequel. It was just lacking somewhat of originality in the writing department.

My rating of "Pet Sematary II", from director Mary Lambert, lands on a six out of ten stars.

Funny and bloody!

[JCrewPsycho1980 · 10/10 · 20 May 2003]

Clancy Brown(Gus) is the man. He was hilarious in this. I know this movie isn't as good as the first but I don't think it was supposed to be. The first was dark, creepy and really awesome. This has wit and is funny not to mention enough gore to keep any horror fan satisfied. Watch it with not many expectations and you'll find it to be a laugh riot.

Not a classic film, but a decent sequel

[nathanjamesemerson · 7/10 · 6 April 2019]

The Micmic burial ground returns in the sequel to the 1989 horror hit PET SEMATARY.

Jeff, a young teenage boy moves with his father to the town of Ludlow, after the death of his mother.

It is not too long before Jeff learns about the dark power that the burial ground beyond the Pet Sematary holds.

This movie is more graphic then the previous film, but it is not too over the top. Edward Furlong does a passable job as young Jeff. Though his high pitch squeals and screams are annoying. Other then that, he does ok. Anthony Daniels is always good in everything he is in. Clancy Brown is the highlight of this film. Watch the film and you will see what I mean.

It's a shame a third instalment wasn't made. Despite some bad reviews, this movie is quite good.

A ghoulish tale. Evil just has trouble staying dead.

[michaelRokeefe · 4/10 · 25 March 2001]

This is a sequel that has no connection to Stephen King. The only thing carried over from the original is the same location. Parts of this film are gory while violence over shadows the horror. This movie has been struck with a mean streak.

A young widower(Anthony Edwards)moves with his young son (Edward Furlong)to an old town in Maine. After hearing the legend of the pet cemetery where sometimes the dead are revived; he wants to take his mother from her grave and place her in the special burial ground in hopes of her rejoining the family. The boy's best friend's stepfather is proof that the legend is true. Some of the strangest scenes are funnier than they are scary. But don't rest easy for there are times you will flinch.

Also in the cast are: Clancy Brown, Jason McGuire and Lisa Waltz.

Can you make a worse sequel?

[jwb02 · 1/10 · 18 July 1999]

"Pet Sematary II" tried too hard. The makers of this film tried to be like Stephen King, and failed miserably. I sat through this movie with the worst feeling. It was so unrealistic in a bad way, and the violence was inappropriate. "Pet Sematary" was a work of art by the master, Stephen King. "Pet Sematary II" was a work of trash by some wannabe. The acting was fine, but they couldn't save the movie if their lives depended on it. The nudity was in all the wrong places. The doctor has a fantasy about his dead wife, and her head turns into that of a barking dog. It was sick, disgusting, and way too many people died. Did you notice how there weren't very many deaths in "Pet Sematary"? Well in "II", there were tons. Way too many. This movie was horrible. If you want to see a good sequel, see "Scream 2" or "Scream 3". I gave it a 1 out of 10.

Why....

[Mister-6 · 1/10 · 12 September 1999]

Why do I do this to myself?

Why, when the original was so incredibly bad, so unredeemable, so completely bereft of entertainment value, did I ever see "Pet Sematary II"?

And why, in heaven's name, did I go to a THEATRE to see it??

Some questions, I guess, can never be answered.

But as far as this inexcusable sequel goes, why was it made?

The main thing the two have in connection is that otherworldly "sematary" of the title, where people bury dead dogs, abusive sheriffs, bullies and dead parents. It has the same director (Lambert), too. None of the same characters from the original are back, though. All dead, you know.

Too bad that actors like Furlong, Edwards, Rushton and Cluny (who can be good when he has to be) got stuck in this mess. There is not one honest moment of entertainment here to be found. And believe me, I was looking hard for one.

Remember the tagline for the original ("Sometimes dead is better.")? That should have went for "II", too. Not as a tagline but as a production note.

No stars. If I could rate it lower, I would. This is over 90 minutes of my life gone forever. I'll never get those minutes back again, and I could have used them for something of purpose. For instance, to petition against unnecessary sequels. ...like this one.

My opinion, with a minor spoiler about the very ending.

[lydiadarling · 1/10 · 31 May 2004]

I have to say that Pet Sematary II was the biggest load of rubbish I have ever insulted my eyes with watching. I should have been forewarned with the bizarre spelling of "cemetery" -- why they didn't spell it correctly in the first place... I'll never know.

What the hell was up with the ending credits with all that sad music and pictures of the people who died? It's not a -documentary-, it's a pathetic excuse for a thriller/horror film. The acting was dodgy, the script was bemusing and the plot was utterly ridiculous.

The psycho zombie dog was mildly amusing, but I'm not sure it was supposed to be. What was the film trying to do? Was it a spoof of a horror film? It failed at an attempt to fit into any genre of film other than "trash". I found the entire movie to be contrived, boring and stupid, and I wouldn't watch it again even someone paid me!

soundtrack?

[SpunkY_Punk · 6/10 · 1 December 2007]

OK this movie has some great music but why the hell not a soundtrack? i been trying for years to find songs i have found some like the song playing when the bullies take Jeff's cat and go on the bike chase the one right after I've got spies by drama Rama... and the song played at his moms funeral heres a list of songs i have gathered through out the years

fading away- Jan king ( going to Barrie Zowey) I've got spies- drama Rama ( at school) shitlist- L7 Reverence- Jesus and Mary chain ( the part where Gus is chasing Amanda and drew in the car) poison heart- the Ramones ( end credits) gush forth my tears- Miranda sex garden ( the end where his mom is burning up in the bed yelling dead is better)

OK as stand alone but not really for sequel

[movieman89-2 · 5/10 · 17 November 2008]

This film as actually not as bad as I expected. I was quite surprised.

Ed Furlong fitted pretty well as Jeff Matthews and a quite good cast. Clancy Brown fitted very for the part as drew's stepfather, slimy and evil, which was good. It was good that they kept Mary Lambert as director.

Nowhere near as good as the first but not a bad film to watch.

Still got moments of good suspense and a few gore scenes.

This would work as a stand alone film, not a sequel. It did mention a few bits from the first film into this film though, but still didn't really work as a sequel.

Other than that, not a bad film.

Good watch highly recommend

[baileydoyle · 7/10 · 13 March 2019]

I honestly don't understand why people hate on this movie so much it's really good in my opinion I love that 1990s vibe on movies And this has a lot more action and interesting scenes then the original

It's just a very different vibe to the original in a good way the acting is good the story is good and the overall delivery of the movie is a good attempt I recommend this to every fan of 90's horror movies

Makes the first one look like "Gone With the Wind"

[preppy-3 · 1/10 · 2 June 2003]

I had vague memories of seeing this when it came out in 1992. I hated the first one but I had some hope that maybe the sequel would be better. I remember hating it worse than the first one! Seeing it again last night (Why? Damned if I know) all those feelings came rushing back.

The plot is basically a retread of the first--a spooky cemetary in the Maine woods has the power to bring the dead back to life. Naturally the dead come back as killers.

The first one was a cruel, stupid horror film. This one manages to be even crueller and much, much stupider. The script is horrible--full of unlikable characters and has an extremely mean-spirited tone to it. The movie opens with a young boy seeing his mother electrocuted to death and then cuts to a dog being put to sleep by lethal injection! That's just the opening--all through the movie there are vivid scenes of child and animal abuse shoved in your face. It makes you feel dirty and disgusted. Also there's a truly sick (and unnecessary) rape scene and pointless female nudity. And there's some really sick, graphic gore.

The direction is lackluster and (with one exception) all the actors are terrible--Anthony Edwards appears to be sleepwalking and Edward Furlong is just pathetic in the lead role.

The only thing that makes this film bearable is Clancy Brown's hilarious performance as a resurrected sheriff. But that's not enough to sit through this crap.

Cruel, sick, badly acted, badly directed, stupid script--to be avoided at all costs. This definetely does belong in IMDB's bottom 100.

Enjoyable

[baileycrawly · 9/10 · 6 June 2020]

This film most definitely goes more over the top than its predecessor. The gore levels are upped, the tense moments are upped and, oddly enough, the heart and soul are upped a great amount as well. This isn't some half-assed cash grab seeking to make every penny it can off the Stephen King property (well, it probably is a cash grab, but half-assed it is not), it actually offers enough of an expansion of the original concept to justify its existence. It's a lot campier which, as a classic horror fan, I love a lot and, although it'll never adequately capture the pure, raw terror that was instilled in me with the original (you won't find an appearance from Zelda here, thank god for that) but it's definitely a tense movie, and it's a lot of fun to watch. If you're expecting something that follows King's formulaic setup of the original, you'll definitely be disappointed, but this film prides itself in showing you the action instead of telling you about it through conversation. It's a change from the original, and, for me, it honestly ended up producing a superior film in almost every respect.

Watch this movie for the Clancy Browns Character.

[Rjbulger115 · 6/10 · 6 May 2023]

This is more of a fun comedy horror type sequel for the pet cemetary series. The first one was more dark and serious. This one tries to be the opposite. Staring edward furlong and the guy from e.r. And top gun. It has a bit of it bland start learning about the characters. However the reason to watch this movie is for the Clancy Brown Character "Gus". His Role saves this movie. I would rate this movie very low if it wasnt for him. Classic 90s b-movie quality. Worth checking out if your lookin for a 90s bmovie horror. If there is a list of movies that were considered bad yet were saved by one Character in the movie. I would put this one on the list if it was out of 100 id put it in around 65- 85ish range.

Possibly the worst movie ever made.. no question about it!

[freaky_pjs · 1/10 · 29 September 2005]

Have you ever watched a movie you wish you could just make go away? I mean not just away from your mind, but away forever like it never existed? That would be this movie for me. I hated it.. HATED it with a passion. The movie was beyond cruel and totally unnecessary. If you're an animal lover like me, you won't be able to sit through it. Heck, even if you just like animals.. it's still hard to stomach.

I think whoever dreamed up this crap needs to have a lobotomy.

Giving it an 1 out of 10 cause there isn't an option for 0 or I would have used that... actually a -578357834578437534 more like it.

PUKE in it's worst form.

I Have a Question---Is It All Right to Pet on a First Date?

[tfrizzell · 19 April 2003]

Exactly. You have to have fun when doing movie criticism sometimes, especially when it comes to sorry films like "Pet Sematary II". Believe it or not I like the film slightly more than most other people, but that is not saying much because this is a movie that has basically no following. It is early-1990s Maine, a few years after the original, and once again a new family has moved into the sleepy community. Anthony Edwards is a veterinarian that has no ideas about the titled place and son Edward Furlong (basically destroying the short celebrity status he had after "Terminator 2") is still reeling emotionally after his actress mother's death during a freak studio accident. Furlong meets the chubby Jason McGuire (an adolescent disenchanted with sadistic step-father Clancy Brown) and he soon learns of the town's history and the fact that some things in life (or death) can indeed be changed. "Pet Sematary II" is a studio project all the way. The first was a minor box office success and it naturally spawned this one. This is not from the mind of Stephen King and thus the short series falls even further down the cinematic ladder. Director Mary Lambert (who also directed the original) once again shows her short-comings as a film-maker with an uneven pace that is not helped out by a sophomoric screenplay and sub-par performances across the board. By far not the worst horror flick I have ever seen, but still a movie that ranks real low in the American cinematic machine. 2 stars out of 5.