FlixChatter Review: PET SEMATARY (2019)

GuestPost_Vince

Directed by: Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer
Starring: Jason Clarke, Amy Seimetz, Jeté Laurence and John Lithgow

A year prior to graduating high school I had seen Mary Lambert’s 1989 adaptation of Stephen King’s Pet Sematary in the theaters. Yeah – remember those? (I’m looking at you streaming fans). I was on a date and a horror movie seemed like a perfect choice at the time and King’s novels were very popular with the bookish kids in my grade, although I was still wading my way through the first hundred or so pages of The Stand notwithstanding (to pardon a pun). While I recall the slickness of the production, and perhaps a Ramones song or two in the film, it did its purpose but not much else. Scary it was not at the time but I enjoyed seeing Fred Gwynn in a role sans Munster makeup. He was quite good in it.

Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer’s 2019 adaptation sticks with the original premise: Louis (Jason Clarke) and Rachel Creed (Amy Seimetz) have moved their family (daughter Ellie and toddler Gage) out to the country to escape the stresses of the big city and in Louis’ case, the pressures of being an ER doc at the city hospital. Once settled in, they discover a makeshift pet cemetery the neighborhood kids created. Apparently, as the film implies, the road that passes through the area takes many pets’ lives.

John Lithgow plays Jud, their amiable, strange and dusty next door neighbor who gives them a vague history of the place and whom Ellie strikes up an innocent friendship. On Halloween, the Creed’s cat Church (after Churchill, funnily one of Lithgow’s famous roles) is killed on said road. Rather than telling Ellie the truth, the couple tells her Church ran away. Jud, conscious of Ellie’s feelings decides to help out by leading Louis to an ancient site in the forest beyond the cemetery and instructs Louis to bury their cat. A day later, Church is reanimated and returns to the house but something isn’t quite right. This is when the story takes a terrifying turn… (I’ll stop there to avoid spoilers).

Now in 2019, as a father of two young kids, I can understand why King considered this novel as awful and terrible and one he was reluctant to publish as “it just spirals down into darkness.” The themes here are familiar: guilt, trauma, denial and grief. However, King’s story and the filmmakers’ use of them with effective means and from a cerebral level is outright horrifying. You could call it a twisted Lazarus or Frankenstein story with dashes of the Golem.

The first 2/3 of the film is all this, effective, dreamlike with a touch of simplicity. It’s a great modern day horror story in the traditional sense with great atmospherics and good performances by Clarke, Seimetz and Lithgow. The last 1/3 of the film settles into predictability but in a sense, it really couldn’t go any other way. When the campiness started creeping in during the film’s finale, I must admit I welcomed it. It gave me respite from the story’s main themes – a sense of relief. While it is a flawed film, the filmmakers’ choice to keep it simple and not inundate it with effects and adrenalized editing is commendable.

At its core Pet Sematary is a family tragedy; loving parents who with their overprotectiveness and good intentions set into motion a terrible chain of events. The worst part is that we can relate to Louis’ actions even in its insanity – above all, when loss is coupled with guilt and denial and not given the right to mourn or grieve thus preventing it from running its natural course. As a horror film, Pet Sematary works quite well. But it is the idea in King’s story that really makes it horrifying at a deep archetypical level.

Vince_review


So what do you think of PET SEMATARY? Let us know what you think!

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “FlixChatter Review: PET SEMATARY (2019)

  1. “A year prior to graduating high school I had seen Mary Lambert’s 1989 adaptation of Stephen King’s Pet Sematary in the theaters. Yeah – remember those? (I’m looking at you streaming fans). ”

    What’s a movie theater? Is that like one of those places where used to actually go to buy books or music? I’ve heard legend of such places but never laid eyes on them. They sound…awrful. Ugh. Actually going places? So over it.

    (He says playing along with your joke…and also as someone with an AMC A-List membership.)

    Good review. I have similar reflections about the first film – does its job, but only just barely – and reservations about the new one – does the same job better, but still not perfect. Still, worth seeing in one of those…what did you call it again. Oh, right – “theater.” Ha. I swear I’m saying that wrong.

    1. Hi Kelly,
      Haha – I’ve been seeing too many articles about Netflix vs Academy Awards. I came into the screening thinking this could not possibly be that good. In fact, afterwards I felt the same. But the more I thought about it, I was terrified of certain events in the movie involving the kids. Must just be being a family man these days but it’s hard to shake off. It’s a flawed film for sure. But I was disturbed by the plot. It’s not even a ‘great film’ but I got creeped out nevertheless. So to be fair to it, it must’ve been effective enough…

  2. Nice review Vince, I enjoyed the original but never thought it’s scary or anything. It’s creepy for sure but I didn’t get any nightmares from it like other horror films I saw back in my younger years. I was also a huge Stephen King fan but I never read the book that the film was based on. I’m hesitant to see this remake since it looked like a shot for shot of the original. I know they switch who became a “zombie” from the original book and film. But otherwise it looks very similar to the 1989 version.

    1. rockerdad

      They did add some things for texture, things I don’t remember being in the first one. The film is not a deal breaker by any means but I had to be honest. I don’t think it will creep most people out. I’m a bit sensitive to certain things. It actually reminded me of the first part of Antichrist although that was very glamorized creepiness.

  3. rockerdad

    They did add some things for texture, things I don’t remember being in the first one. The film is not a deal breaker by any means but I had to be honest. I don’t think it will creep most people out. I’m a bit sensitive to certain things. It actually reminded me of the first part of Antichrist although that was very glamorized creepiness.

  4. Pingback: Member Reviews: “Pet Sematary” – Online Association of Female Film Critics

Join the conversation by leaving a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s