“Sometimes…dead is better…” It’s a line made famous by the 1983 classic ‘Pet Semetary’ – a novel crafted at the hands of the Horror God, Stephen King.
The original movie adaptation came to us in 1989 and with mixed reviews. It has the tropes of ’80s horror movies in some cheesy acting and unrealistic effects. But it’s also a terrifying film in its characters and presentation, as it closely follows the disturbing nature of the book.
It’s not fair to compare a 2019 movie to the book, or even the original film from 30 years ago (see “IT”). That being said, if the 2019 remake was itself a standalone film based solely off the imagination, it would be an abject failure.
Watching the movie in a darkened theater I got the impression that everyone else around me already knew the story, and with that in mind, the assortment of behind the scenes creators felt there was no need whatsoever to supply depth or background to any of the characters. The horror is boring and unoriginal. The acting is textbook average.
Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) moves his family into a picturesque house in the backwoods of Maine. He befriends his neighbor Jud (John Lithgow) though we don’t really know why he seems to put so much blind trust into the creepy old man that he barely knows. Louis has a wife (Amy Seimetz) and a two young children; daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence) and toddler Gage.
Where the novel takes time to dive deep into the details of each member of the Creed clan as well as Jud and his past, the movie gives us nothing. Again, I hate comparing the film to the book, but if you are going to take the notoriety that comes from the King classic, you have to absorb the criticism as well.
The premise itself is excellent and something only a twisted mind like Stephen King could conjure (the book is one he himself believes to be his most terrifying work), but I feel like it’s almost too much of a disturbing concept for a 90 minute film. Its constant themes of death and the afterlife are somewhat off-putting when told in such a commercialized way. While it was shocking in the 1989 movie, here it feels as nothing more than a setup for jump scares and gore, leading to a nearly unwatchable third act that’s so bad, any redeeming qualities from early on are lost, going from mood setting tension to in-your-face modern-day horror with the blink of an eye.
I felt Amy Seimitz was good as Rachel Creed, though her character is given little in the way of lines or scenes. Jason Clarke comes off as stiff (no pun intended) and almost unsympathetic despite the calamities flailing down around him in his life. John Lithgow is not memorable as Jud Crandall – the complete opposite of the Fred Gwynne portrayal in 1989 (there I go comparing again).
Where this version of the tale misses out on is its overall meaning for being made in the first place. If you want to create a truly disturbing ordeal based closely on the book, great. If you want to take the original movie and touch it up with better effects, acting, and the like, I’m all for it. But this feels more like a cash grab that isn’t special or notable in any way.
And setting the film aside for a moment, the marketing department, specifically whoever created the trailer everyone has seen, deserves to be shunned from ever working in Hollywood again. The entire twist of the plot that differs from both the book and the original film are revealed in a preview that divulges the entire story. Had they left this key moment absent, the reveal would have been so much better, and could have lifted up the overall experience. Instead, everyone knows going in what is going to happen, and the scene itself is a total missed opportunity.
“Pet Semetary” is a letdown, which is sad given its name brand recognition and perfectly crafted story. It’s a cliché horror movie from the 21st Century. Skip it and go read the book.
by – Matt DeCristo
