Review of Pet Sematary (2019) by Filipeneto — 18 Jan 2021

A remake with technical and visual improvements, but that's basically it.

Although his writing is generally brilliant, not all of Stephen King's short stories are in fact attractive and interesting. As with all authors, there are smaller works in the middle of their writing and "Pet Sematary" is probably one of them. Even so, this did not prevent three adaptations from being made for the cinema. This film is precisely the third on the list, and the most recent, being a remake of the first, made in 1989. Personally, I found the original film average. It presents several improvements, mainly at a technical level thanks to the most modern technology and methods. But honestly I have some reservations about the script.

Being a remake, the script is very similar to the film of the Eighties: again, we have the story of the Creed family again, who moves to the quiet city of Ludlow, Maine, in order to disconnect themselves from the tiring routine of the great City. What they did not expect was that the road in front of their new home had so much truck traffic, which circulated at high speed and without much care. Nor did they expect to find an animal graveyard behind the house, which is presented to them by a friendly neighbor, Jud. The cemetery is a place created by the children of the surroundings, to bury their friends, many of them run over on the road. So far, nothing special. Weeks later, when Louis Creed, a doctor and family patriarch, is unable to save the life of a young man who dies at his hands after an accident, he is warned by the spirit of that same young man that he, as well as his family, are in danger . In fact, behind the house, there is also an ancient sacred place where the Indians buried their dead, but which was abandoned when it became a cursed place. A place where you shouldn't go and where the stony soil hides a cruel force, which Louis will discover over time.

The script is very similar to the 1989 film, and there are scenes that were even traced on carbon paper. However, besides this not being exactly original, it also makes the film predictable and boring for those who saw the oldest film. Of course, there are modifications here and there: at least one of the characters in the original film was removed and the script tried to put more emphasis on the character Rachel Creed, developing her traumas and internal conflicts to increase tension. These were positive changes, but on the other hand, the film does not seem to have much feeling: in the 1989 film, I felt that the film was creating an atmosphere of tension and suspense that worked satisfactorily. That was less noticeable here, and it's a shame, because then the film is not able to scare anyone.

The cast is decent, but it is not brilliant. The young Jeté Laurence, for me, was the actress who stood out the most, with a remarkable ability to act as an innocent and friendly girl and, quickly, turn into a totally different thing. Jason Clarke seems to me to be well enough, but he was not able to do better than Dale Midkiff did in the Eighties, in the same character. Amy Seimetz initially seemed quite bland, but it improved as her character became more neurotic and traumatized. John Lithgow did a satisfactory job, but no more.

At a technical level, the film is reasonably more appealing and interesting than its predecessor of the Eighties. It couldn't be any other way. Cinematography is frankly good, but still within the standard of today's films, with nothing that really surprises us. The visual and special effects are good, and the sets and costumes don't surprise us much. The look of animals and people who come back to life after dying was very well thought out and really leaves no doubt as to the perverse nature of what they become. The CGI effects were used discreetly, as well as the soundtrack, which is not noticeable.