Review: Pet Sematary

The Creed family (Jason Clarke, Amy Seimetz, and kids Jeté Laurence and a toddler played by both Lucas and Hugo Lavoie) move to Ludlow in Maine where doctor Clarke has found work. Unfortunately, their new home is situated on a very dangerous road, leading to the poor family cat Church being fatally wounded by a car. New neighbour Jud Crandall (John Lithgow) informs Clarke that behind the house and through the woods lies an old Indian burial ground that has become a ‘pet cemetery’ (The film and novel’s title being deliberately misspelled). So, the duo go that night to bury the departed pet. Astonishingly, the next morning Clarke finds that Church is alive again…if somewhat ‘changed’. He’s creepy-looking and grumpier than internet meme sensation Grumpy Cat (Who is also dead, but hopefully not reanimated). And then something dire happens to one of the children…and that’s when the trouble really starts.

 

The first adaptation of the Stephen King novel was a darkly comedic take, and very nearly a good movie. It’s far from the worst King adapted film, but stupid subplots and two dull lead performances kept it back ever-so slightly from a recommendation from me. Released in 2019, this second stab at the apparently very scary 1983 novel is…a bit lesser still than the 1989 Mary Lambert one. With a tone supposedly more in-keeping with the original text and a couple of good performances, it’s certainly not bad. It looks terrific too, as shot by Laurie Rose (“High-Rise”, “Overlord”, and a lot of British TV work) who gives it a lovely foggy atmosphere. The music score by genre regular Christopher Young (“Hellraiser”, “Flowers in the Attic”, “Drag Me to Hell”) is nicely atmospheric and foreboding, too. Directed by the duo of Kevin Kölsch & Dennis Widmyer (their first major Hollywood project) and scripted by Jeff Buhler (writer of the underrated Clive Barker adaptation “The Midnight Meat Train”) it’s just sorta ‘there’. It doesn’t have much of the sick humour that made the original very watchable for a twisted audience, for one thing. Sure, the mangy, ugly cat is worth a chuckle, but that’s about it. This one’s operating on a very grim and dour tone, and a little of it was more than enough for me, despite strong work by a well-cast Jason Clarke and a perfectly solid John Lithgow. I think the basic story (at least in cinematic terms) works best with a black comedy bent to it. Or at the very least, it works better than the so-called ‘horror’ this film attempts to provide. Let’s face it, the basic premise is fucking funny in a gruesome way. Apparently the book is so terrifying it even scared its author, but just based on these two film versions, I can’t see it working as anything other than dark, rather gory comedy/horror. Once you’ve seen the re-animated cat in the cult classic “Re-Animator”, anything involving the revival of dead pets is hard not to giggle at, I’m afraid. King himself scripted the 1989 film, oddly enough and that’s the more comedic one. Having not read the original text, I don’t know which version is more accurate but you’d think it’d be the one the author himself wrote, right? At any rate, books and movies are completely different mediums anyway, so what works on the printed page doesn’t always translate on screen. I’m only concerned with what works or doesn’t work on screen.

 

Aussie ex-pat Clarke is a really good fit for the material and tone. Lithgow doesn’t bring the Southern Gothic flavour Fred Gwynne did in ’89, but is certainly a better actor  Amy Seimetz is probably just as bad as Denise Crosby in the 1989 film, she’s utterly useless. Jeté Laurence is perfectly fine in the plum child role, if no Miko Hughes from the ’89 film. I just didn’t have a whole lot of fun with the story and tone, nor did I think it was especially scary beyond the lazy ‘jump’ scare nonsense (which admittedly the original indulged in, too). I’m not a ‘jump’ scare lover, I hate it as the cheapest form of fright in a filmmaker’s arsenal, and the film is pretty rife with the tactic. I’m also not sure that I particularly cared for the two main protagonists in either version of the story, with the supporting character of Jud Crandall being the most interesting character in both. So despite some pros in casting, cinematography, and music score, the cons of tone, story, character, and cheap horror tactics stopped me from really getting into it.

 

I liked some of this film’s qualities a lot, and Jason Clarke is ideal in the lead. Unfortunately, being a grim-faced ‘jump’ scare horror treatment of what feels better served as gruesome black comedy has limited appeal for me. I’m pretty sure the 1989 film (which was slightly better) moved a helluva lot quicker, too.

 

Rating: C+