Review of Pet Sematary (1989) by Thequietgamer — 27 Jul 2017

A very faithful adaptation of the novel. It's an almost scene-for-scene recreation of the book's story. I enjoyed seeing my favorite moments from it being brought to life before my very eyes. There are a few minor differences in dialog here and there, and the character Victor Pascow is given a larger role, but the only big change comes from the removal of Jud Crandall's wife. Her role in the story has been given instead to the maid, Missy Dandridge. With the screenplay having been written by Stephen King himself, you can tell this decision was made just so there would be a difference between the book and movie that's a little more distinguishable than the rest. Something more significant to possibly encourage people to check out both versions of the fiction. It ultimately effects very little. The fidelity to the source material guarantees that this movie is sure to be a hit with fans of the novel. The level of success it will find among those who have not read the Stephen King story is more up to question.

When I watched the movie I tried to do so from two perspectives; one as a fan of the book, and one as an outsider who never picked up a copy. While the fan in me was mostly pleased, the part of me that had to view it with out any knowledge of what happened in the book was a little more critical of the flaws. It's not hard to notice how flatly acted the whole thing is. Not hard at all. Our lead Dale Midkiff is the worst offender. He's far too wooden and lifeless. Former sitcom star Fred Gwynne feels a bit too suited for comedy to play a truly great Jud Crandall. In the final act though he really shapes up and shows some true emotion. There are also some poor decisions made with some scenes that rob them of their potential creepiness. For example a few scenes include interactions between a grown man and an obviously lifeless mannequin/doll. These issues could have been in part the fault of either time or budget constraints. Maybe both. Then there's the fact that the movie sort of rushes through the plot of the book. It jumps from major event to major event at occasionally jarring speeds. Never sticking around long enough to really sell the horror or capture the emotions that were on display in the novel. All of these were things that could have handled better if the movie had been in the hands of a better director. I get that there was a lot of material to cover, but some of these mistakes feel amateurish in nature.

Still, the movie has it's creepy moments in it's final act and some of the more potent themes from the book manage to still find their way in here as well. It's even got some pretty great gore effects. So there's still a chance it may appeal to the less literary-inclined out there. And as I've said before, those who have read the book this movie is based on are practically guaranteed to find at least a small level of enjoyment here for the faithfulness alone. Even if they too find it to be unintentionally funny at times or not quite so well-executed in some areas. As it stands, this is definitely among the best adaptations of a Stephen King novel in the exactness department. It just doesn't quite make it alongside the best movies to be born out of one of his works because of it's shortcomings.

7.