Jake’s Take: “Pet Sematary” Review

Fair warning if you are going to see this most recent version of Stephen King‘s “Pet Sematary“… it is not the same movie as the original. Overall a great and fun film, it did still lack in some aspects. I would say it is a good thing to say that it is more thriller than horror.

Much like the original in a lot of ways, the movie deviates in some ways, which can be expected much like when it happened with the “It” film in 2017. The film is fun and carries some horror aspects such as jump scares and the like, but it mostly gains its sense of fear through traditional thriller movie tropes. Although very enjoyable and refreshing, the film was nothing spectacular.

I can say for sure that most likely, if you are a huge Stephen King fan, you most likely will not like this film. It doesn’t stray to far from the source material or even that of the original film, but it may go off road just enough to irk those die hard King fans. Focusing more on the psychology of the father and how he copes with the events that happen throughout the film, the cinematography and pacing of the film are great. And great acting from the likes of John Lithgow, Jason Clarke, Amy Seimetz, and Jete Laurence. Other than that, the film’s story can be said to be only a bit above average. Although, I would have to say that the film seemed to be aimed at those who have seen the original, preying of their memory of the original film and changing things to suit a new narrative and instill a new type of horror.

—–Spoilers Below—–

As mentioned previously the film differs from the previous version in many ways. One of these ways is how the film focuses on the minds of the parents and the trauma they have endured in their lives. The mother enduring the trauma of her sister dying and the father’s inability to accept his daughter having died. Which I guess leads to the largest change in source material. The death of the daughter. In the original film it was Church the cat and the boy who died not the daughter, this is interesting and I believe was done pretty well.

One aspect that I found interesting is how the film preyed off the memory of those who have seen the original film. An example of this can be seen in the infamous ankle scene, where the boy back from the dead slices the ankle of the character Jud from under the bed, instead in this film he kicks the bed moving it revealing no undead killer child underneath. Other than these nice little changes, the film often relied on cheap loud jump scares that mostly consists of semi-trucks driving by at obnoxious speeds. This brought down the sense of fear you could feel a lot because of the sense of repetition it caused.

I would have to say overall it is somewhat enjoyable, but it is not as great as it could have been.


Leave a Reply