Pet Sematary (2019) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
974 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Sometimes dead is meh
n00bMLG28 April 2019
The recent success of Stephen King adaptations must have inspired the creation of this film, I have not seen the 1989 version and I have only just now started reading the book, although I had knowledge of how the book ended. I was decently excited to see this film and it had some potential, but the final product is a serviceable but mediocre horror film that entertains but doesn't truly scare. The biggest issue with the movie is it's very hesitant to commit, the novel covers some very dark themes around the inevitability of death but the film only pokes the themes with a stick. Briefly introducing them in dialogue but not doing much else with them. The movie greatly suffers from being rushed, it never really takes its time to build up to characters or scares and just rushes its way from one plot point to another without giving any of them the time they need. What we end up with is a movie with decent acting, a few decent scares, a very messy third act and a stupid ending. Overall the film is mediocre but enjoyable, if you're a fan of the genre and just want a fun time at the movies it's worth a watch but it won't be one you remember, and it definitely doesn't live up to the legacy of the book.

One other thing I'd like to touch on is the abysmal marketing, the second trailer has to be one of the worst movie trailers I've ever seen, the trailer touches on every major plotline in the movie and spoils basically everything but the ending, it even spoiled the one twist they changed from the book. If that wasn't bad enough they released a third trailer a week before the film came out, and the opening shot of the trailer had major spoilers for the movie. This kind of marketing has sadly become a common practice with a lot of films and it really needs to stop, a film sometimes gets upwards of 3 trailers before it releases, what's the point in seeing the movie if the trailer has all the best moments and ruins all the surprises?
110 out of 145 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not nice....
Otkon21 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
....or very interesting. Yeah, they changed up a few things. But the joy of the novel and the original movie was that the resurrected child in question was a toddler. His death was all the more tragic by this fact. And when he comes back as a murderous imp, it is all most chilling because of how he just wanted "to play with you". The tweenage girl's post-mortem descent was so fast that it wasn't rewarding or fun.

Of course the new ending implies that the ghoulish trio (and cat) will just murder and bury new Gage in order to remake a happily now-undead family. But so what. I never really emotionally connected with this group to begin with. The father was a blank-faced dud. The mother must have been listed as generic blond actress on the casting sheet. Lithgow was the only redeemable presence. Not even the truly terrifying Zelda subplot worked this time around.

A wholly unnecessary and underdeveloped remake that should have stayed in the ground.
35 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Seriously disappointed.
sonic_blue-533806 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I was excited for this remake the second I heard it was coming out! I figured with today's movie tech it could be more like the original story, even more so than the first 1989 movie. The story was changed so much to stand out as an artistic original for the directors, that it became a glorified zombie movie (eye roll). I read the book and watched the original movie, so I had high expectations for this to be even better than those! But it was a huge let down. I hated the switch in characters, the daughter brought a whole new dynamic to the story and that alone changed the entire feeling for the movie in my opinion. Plus she was older so you're not as heart wrenched at the tragedy of her death, and I hated that when she came back she had memories of her life and just spoke in a lower voice to show her "changed" behaviour. I wasn't really a fan of her acting, had she played the Ellie from the original storyline, I think I would have liked her. I also hated Jason Clark's portrayal of Louis Creed, he was kind of rude and standoff-ish and had zero emotion towards anything in this movie. The original Louis is loving, heartfelt, and affectionate. In this movie he just made you feel like he didn't care about anything. In the book and first movie Louis' grieving is so intense for his child after he dies that you're actually scared for why he's going to do. And when the child does come back; he comes back different. NOT zombie like but actually something worse. I was not impressed with the new version of the zombie being able to talk and converse with Louis and definitely thought the dancing and trashing the place was unnecessary and quite dumb. And I hated Louis' relationship with Judd; he treats him like some kind of old relative you just want to die already. The original friendship is so much more, Judd shares way more info about the burial ground and gives more history to its powers and consequences. This movie left out a lot, and left a lot to be desired. I also didn't like the role of Victor Pascal, he had a bigger part to play in the book and in this movie was just sort of thrown in to show they used a guy named Victor. And lastly, the ending was absolutely TERRIBLE! It was literally just quick deaths, and then scene jumps to zombies standing around in dirty clothes. The girl trying to bury everyone to bring them back to life was ridiculous, it made zero sense and had nothing to do with the original story. I found this to be a cheap attempt for the directors to try and make it their own and add a twist, but it totally bombed and became just another zombie film like every other movie out there. This story is terrifying, and meant to be sad enough to make you go crazy after being witness to the worst tragedy any parent could ever face. Crazy enough to want to dig up your dead child and bury them in an evil burial ground so that they could come back from death. And then being absolutely petrified with fear when the person you wanted back is no longer there and something else stands in its place. Instead you get no character chemistry, changed plot and storyline, and a generic run-of-the-mill zombie wannabe movie.
347 out of 519 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
what's with all the "10" reviews?
conyo15 June 2019
If you see so many 10s being given, you instantly *know* the movie is not that good (good movies defend themselves). Here, paid cronies attacked again :( Unfortunately, movie is pretty bland. Typical jump scares, irritating child characters. John Lithgow is a class of his own, but the rest of the cast underwhelms. If you have nothing else to do, your Netflix account just froze up, and there's no good books around - sure, watch it. Otherwise, there's so many better things to do/read/watch instead of this.
133 out of 193 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Sometimes Just Leaving the Original Alone is Better
LisaFogle1 June 2019
I have never in my life seen a worse sequel to a movie than this pile. There is not one good thing to be said about it. Fredd Gwynn is probably spinning in his grave. Do yourself a favor and skip this one. I was actually angry that I watched it at the end.
46 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
magdacazacu19 April 2019
I wanted to restrain myself from having some high expectations about this movie but I couldn't. The book was one of my favorites as a child. Comparing the original story line, the movie did not change that much the course of events. However, they applied the classic old horror movie recipe - jump-scares and dramatic music (in scenes when it was clearly not the case) - and transformed the whole product into some cheap stuff. The way the movie was filmed and put together as an artistic product makes me think of the Discovery TV shows that were showing reconstitutions of murders and strange events --> cheap and almost schematic. It's a pity, the story remains one of great value, but anything else, not so much. PS : The cat was, indeed, truly beautiful and good chosen.
105 out of 160 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What the hell was that???
CatPssy5 April 2019
This movie sucked, plain and simple. There is ZERO character development. Victor, Zelda are HORRIBLE represented here, with either too little or too much of them. The editing was horrible, we go from a scene where Ellie asks Jud to come meet her cat, to him having dinner with the whole family, like seriously they're missing a scene where Louis meets Jud, they have no chemistry and no real relationship. I'm all for trying new things than the book, but other than the names, EVERYTHING is different. I'm shocked they cat wasn't made a dog. This should not be called Pet Semetary, and should not claim to be based on the book, it's insulting to the book. I'd give this 0 stars if I could.
247 out of 403 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It Should be Buried in the Pet Sematary
hilaryswank20117 April 2019
"Sometimes remade is better?" It is a tagline of this film promotion. On the contrary, this film is turned out to be unsuccessful even in the ''Eastern Hollywood'' Hong Kong. It only hit international box office record of ten million dollars out of the production cost twenty million dollars in both US and Canada.

Pet Cemetery (1989) was an alternative to Romero zombie films and pretty successful in terms of box office record. It is a psychological zombie drama when a tragic family who lost their child and a pet finds a magical burial ground where buried dead bodies reanimated according to the fictional Micmac Indian tale.

Pet Semetery (2019) should be forced on psychological aspect of the main characters. The family including the doctor/protagonist Louis Creed (Jason Clarke), his wife Rachel Creed (Amy Seimetz), his daughter Ellie Creed (Jeté Laurence) and his son Gage Creed (Hugo Lavoie).

Major problems of this film

First, this film's ridiculous even in the dead movies. It's scaring effect is heavily depended on jump scares that endlessly overused in SAW series (2004-2017) and Ju-On series (1998-2020) in the past. It is a mechanical method to scare people with jump cuts and heavy sound effects.

As Christopher Lee pointed out that creating horrific atmosphere with imprecations is the best way of horror film's artistic practice. In this film, the killer dump truck rapidly move into frame with heavy horn noises, Rachel Creed's sister Zelda Goldman's evil ghost suddenly appears in the food carrying path in the house.

Second, it is too easy to summon the ghosts in the film. As if ghost is an ordinary existence in the film's everyday life. This mistake is also done in the remade version of IT (2017). For example, Victor Pascow is mutilated by a car accident and the doctor Louis Creed failed to save him, then the ghost of Victor Pascow appears just after his death in front of him. It's too easy to show ghosts in the film. The biggest flaw in the film is that illogical involvements of Victor Pascow's ghost, the evil spirit of Zelda Goldman and the neighbour Jud Crandall (John Lithgow)'s deceased wife Norma Crandall (Suzy Stingl).

Especially Jud Crandall and Victor Pascow guiding Louis Creed to the Indian burial ground is self contradicted that they should not have informed the protagonist the existence of the cursed burial ground that animates dead to get the living.

''The Ocean is dying... the plankton is dying...the Pet Cemetery zombie is made out of the people.''

Highly not recommended.
114 out of 179 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Surprising letdown
sarahkaye-300244 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
From the trailers, I was so excited to see this. I'm a huge fan of the novel, and whilst I'm well aware a certain amount of artistic licence goes into putting a book onto the big screen, they changed so much of the story that it was barely recognisable. I understand why they changed which child was killed, you'd be hard pushed to find a toddler that can act as the living dead, but it didn't work with the older child either. In the book, the resurrected 'being' was taken over by a demon-in the film, Ellie is well aware she is dead, and she's living an unwanted 'afterlife' of which she is also aware, and it turns her evil. There is no atmosphere in the film, the setting should be creepy and atmospheric, but I'll be honest, the scenes in the woods look very much like a stage set with dry ice covering the floor. It looks cheap and thrown together. The story is patchy and nonsensical in many places, it feels rushed to get to the end, and none of the characters are padded out enough for you to actually care about. The one shining light in this is John Lithgow as Jud, he's incredibly well cast, but the let down with him is they didn't utilise him like they should have. One of my favourite parts of the novel is the friendship that develops between Louis and Jud, it's beautiful in places, and we learn a lot about Jud, his life, the burial ground, what becomes of anyone or anything that's buried there etc. But in the film he's just some old guy that pops up every now and then, with no real background-and there isn't a single whisper of the MicMacs and their part in the burial ground. I also didn't like how in the film, they justified Rachel's irritating and bizarre neuroses about death by having her be responsible for her own sisters death, that was a completely new plot line addition for the purpose of the film As for the ending, I'm not even sure I have it in me to comment, the ending turned it into a pseudo comical farce-the book left me feeling bleak and slightly bereft. However, I'd like to give a special mention to the cat, the cat played his part beautifully!
285 out of 468 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Bored Sematary
goldfish-2723910 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I really don't understand all the 10 star ratings which say this reboot is soooo scary. Besides the fact that they gave away the biggest twist in the trailer, the pace of the movie is slow and wooden. Clarke as Louis Creed is a chunk of talking wood throughout the film. The role of Pascow the ghost is pointless with his 3-5 minutes of screen time. The best part is John Lithgow only because he's John Lithgow. Ellie was good but scary...not so much. It's like they made a reboot of the 1989 version instead of writing a new script based on the book. The 1989 version at least creeped me out when I was a kid. This new one had me checking my phone to see how much longer I'd have to watch it. Plus the cliffhanger ending is formulaic and contrived. They'll never make a sequel. In my opinion, save your money and catch it on TNT in a year. You've seen the movie already anyway...
96 out of 152 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Very dull and average remake that quite fails to do the source material justice or compare to the classic original. Warning: Spoilers
Urg, it's only been however long but I'm already sick of hearing the praises of this stupid bland little movie! There's virtually nothing there, it's painfully average and half-assed as hell! Something that almost immediately bothered me about it was that everything in the first half felt horribly rushed and wafer thin, in terms of things like character development and motivations and characters that you actually cared about for that matter.. General buildup cohesion and emotional payoff of the story, pathos and all-important deeper dark themes of death grief horror and madness that the first movie integrated into the story and brought to the screen so well..this modern thing here to me doesn't come close to the original picture or book, oh no it does not! You know a lot of these reviews seem to me to consider this a better movie purely based on it being new, and that really makes me a little sad! Ok so I won't say that the acting was bad because it mostly wasn't, with the big exception for me being the distractingly Punch-like Jason Clarke, the guy is a horrible actor who has the emotional presence of a block and his interpretation of the Louis Creed character is just very off putting and not particularly even likeable at all.. In the vastly superior original, when Louis fails to save his little infant son in time from the truck on the pitch perfect sunny day that strangely made the event even more horrific? How he reacted, that scream? That was real mental anguish that you could feel and that hit you hard on display, this film had almost nothing to it in terms of emotional depth and grief you can feel, there wasn't any of the kind of all-consuming, maddening grief that would drive a father to dig up his own dead child to see here, he just did it without a second thought, there was no finesse or subtlety to it, the parents barely seem to grieve at all here, that felt rushed and tossed aside like everything else in order to get to the bloodshed, which by the way really wasn't anything to write home about.. On a positive it does have some solid performances, Jete Laurence was very impressive and she did her job perfectly, being sweet enough that you felt sad for her death and then effectively wicked and hateful enough that you were quite ready to see her die again! Very creepy moment with her and her dad when he's just cleaned her up after seeing her after her resurrection and he's lying next to her in bed and she speaks to him about what's in her head and where she's been after she died. I also thought it was a legit great moment when Rachel is nearly dead and the evil thing that was once her child is taunting her and she turns to her/it and says "Don't call me mommy, you're not my daughter, Elle's dead..." I loved that line, it really summed everything up and I could feel it because the damn movie actually slowed down for a moment and let me. Amy Seimetz I liked a lot too, she was really good and sympathetic. I love John Lithgow, he's always been nothing less than a class act as an actor...But he was no Jud Crandall. He did what he could with the role but he just immeasurably paled in comparison to the iconic performance of the late Fred Gwynne, that guy arguably MADE the original movie what it was, even I'll admit that. I didn't like the ending with the silly resurrected whole evil family all together and about to prey on poor little helpless Gage... That was just bonkers to me, what a trite and cheaply nasty way to end the movie. "Beep beep!" Nice. So it had potential and wasn't the worst remake that I've ever seen, but I'm not planning on seeing this again anytime soon, it was a weak movie that had no emotional or psychological weight to it, and even on it's own merit, Pet Sematary 2019 is nothing but another average horror remake that will never be as fondly thought of and remembered as the original classic still is thirty years on, and I suspect will in fact be largely forgotten soon enough. Go away dull soulless remake, die already 💀
65 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pointless Remake
tickles-tapeworm1 May 2019
This movie did literally nothing better than the original film. Changes that added zero to the story were made, because reasons? If I hadn't have paid a matinee price, I'd have asked for money back. I wanted to ask the others in the theater if they thought it was as bad as I did. I went alone, because no one else was that jazzed to see it. Lucky them.

It relies on predictable jump scares for the horror element. The gore was so-so. Regarding that, Pasgow might as well not be in the movie. There are no flashbacks, where there should have been more than the first movie. I haven't been this disappointed by a movie since The Amazing Spider-Man.
39 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
R. I. P Pet sematary
nanagladys6 April 2019
As a fan of the book and the original movie i wanted go into the movie with an open mind and to give it a chance, I knew within five minutes that this was going to be NOTHING like the book or the original movie. Although in some cases change can be a good thing sadly in this case it really wasn't! Where do I start? Jason Clarke and Amy seimetz had no on screen chemistry, they weren't convincing as a couple at all, I didn't have an emotional connection to the parents there was no warmth no real feeling of family, Gage was absent when Ellie wandered into the woods, with Louis at work had Rachel left him home alone? There was no building of friendship that grows between Louis and jud, it was like heres two men that have been neighbourly sure, but not even nearly close as they are in the book. My daughter has a cat, my neighbours are nice people , would they lead me to a magic place to bury it and bring it back from the dead ? No! That requires at minimum a huge amount of trust! A bond that wasn't there. No discussion about has anyone ever buried a person up there, no watching the children grow and flourish, that happiness and joy that seems perfect only to be ripped apart by the horror of the accident. No broken Rachel and Louis being overtaken by the power of the place unable to be there for his remaining family. No real background on Rachels parents and, the dislike they have of Louis or that he has for them, the hatred and horror that combusts at the funeral of the child. All these things that to me are key to building the bigger picture weren't there. They could have done amazing things with this movie, modernized it so its current but with the connection and the terror that is felt in the book and the first movie. All that and even paxcow as Ellie calls him didn't say what he was supposed to say, Zelda was really NOT scary, I thought they would make her equally if not more terrifying than original. and the end? Really??? Was this a remake? No, it was a different story that borrowed the original character names and the original title of a truly heart wrenching and horrific masterpiece and made into what felt like a cheap knock off. For me a stranger sat next to me in the cinema summed it all up when she said to me " I don't remember any of that happening in the book " I looked at her and said " that's because it doesn't".
71 out of 119 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Sometimes Dead Is Better
ymyuseda15 April 2019
Rating 9.5/10 Sometimes, dead is better. A brilliant adaptation of stephen king's bestselling novel from 1983. This movie is just amazing and the acting from everyone was great. If you want to see a film that will truly give you chills, you must watch Pet Sematary. This movie succeeds far more at being truly terrifiying experience !! Absolute horror perfection !!
309 out of 566 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
irotinmyskin-15 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I just saw it and i hated it. Whenever it tried to do something different it did but for the worse.

My biggest issues are : We never saw Ellie really care about Church, so Jud suggesting to bury the cat in the Indian cemetery doesn't make sense. The parents taking Rachel and Gage doesnt make sense since we dont see the conflict between them, blaming Louis for the death of Gage. We never see Louis regret bringing Ellie back, where in the original one having Louis kill little Gage is as powerful as it can be, he has to take the life of his child with his own hands, and then just to see him commit the same mistake again with Rachel and ultimately paying with his life. In this one what? their ultimate goal is to be ... a family of...zombies? huh? what? Not to mention practical effects, make up on the teenager who got killed looked more like a mutant/burnt victim than an accident. Trailer crash was laughable, Ive seen youtubers pull better green screens than that. After Ellie has been killed by this huge truck all she has is.... a lazy eye? wtf... seriously? Gotta be ashamed of your movie when the original one 30 years old still looks better. This was horrible.
52 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Is it worth it?
adamski-854953 May 2019
This film was unfortunately the biggest disappointment of the year in my personal opinion. Upon hearing that another Stephen King film was being remade, I couldn't wait to see it, but was hugely let down by it. I was that bored with it, I ate 90% of the popcorn before the film was 75% through. The long and short of it is this..the best parts are in the trailer.
50 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Directors thought they could do better than original but failed
huiwaikeung5 April 2019
The directors seemly determine to change a classic movie (and novel) . They erased lots of the original, especially the ending, but created nothing new. In my opinion, there in no ending in this story. The first half of this movie was still ok since it more or less follows the structure of original. However, the second half is just a meaningless movie of walking dead. And the main theme of original story, about understanding of death, has not been well elaborated.
102 out of 183 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great little Easter egg!!
aehadamsah14 April 2019
I thought the movie was very awesome and one thing I just wanted to mention was that in the beginning of the movie, Ellie is watching a spongebob cartoon, and that specific spongebob episode was one where they believe Squidward is dead but he "comes back to life"...i just thought that was a great little foreshadowing thing that they put in there.
62 out of 107 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Contrary to the mediocre trailers, this is a solid remake that nails the adaptation of King's original story, and seeps and drips with brutal bleakness.
dressedkill21 March 2019
I was lucky enough to check this out at an advance screening and was very surprised after not really thinking the trailers looked that great. I've always loved the original and have thought it has stood the test of time, but this new film executes the original story concept very well if not even better, with only a couple big changes. The dark and tragic tone is set from the start and never lets up throughout. There are some moments and scares that do follow modern horror cliches, but there are definitely some that are built up by magnificent ominous atmosphere. Jason Clarke once again shows he's an underrated actor that has some genuine humanity and emotion in his performance. John Lithgow is also very solid as well as Amy Seimitz. The camerawork is very crisply shot and creative and creates some fantastic visuals of the haunting wilderness settings. There are some moments towards the end that seemed rushed, but overall this is another great new age horror remake that honestly deserves loads of credit for following subject matter properly.
226 out of 439 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This Movie Stinks Worse Than A Dead Cat
opheliahasrisen23 April 2019
I'm one of those rare freaks who love remakes. I don't like this one. I don't understand how wrong they could go with Kings brilliant story line. Genius was served to them on a platter. I thought maybe part of the reason it was awful was a low budget (not saying there aren't many good, even great low budget films). But I did the math, and with inflation, they had virtually the same budget as the original. So why it looks like a youtuber filmed it, I don't know. Just a bad cinematographer I guess.

The amateurish filming could have been overlooked if they had made decent casting choices.I thought that would have been difficult because Fred Gwynne gave one of those untouchable performances as Judd. Obviously it wasn't difficult because it seems they picked John Lithgow randomly out of a phone book. I can't that guy seriously after Third Rock From the Sun.

There was no depth to the father and he looked like someone had hit him in the face with a shovel. He looked like a boxer not an MD. Really there was not much depth to any of the characters, which made it hard to like them. To me this misses much of the point of King's book and the original film. The horror isn't really about a spooky graveyard. It's about the horror of what this family is going through with the death of their child and the unthinkable things the father did to cope. It's about the lengths one will go to for the ones they love.

Victor wasn't scary. Victor and his creep factor really was a pillar in the original. I guess no one realized that and just picked some random guy.

I really think the casting department needs to do a walk of shame.

The writers need a kick up the butt too. I was cringing at the dialogue in the scenes that were transplanted from the first movie. Well, obviously I did a lot of cringing during this film

The Ellie thing could have been brilliant, but that fell flat on its face too. She wasn't scary. In the original Gage gave me the willies, but then again toddlers are terrifying.

I'm a big fan of The Ramones, and LOVE the song they did for the original. Starcrawler did a great cover..... Bad remake, good cover :) ;)
16 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Thirty years but still no concrete fence n rumble strip for slowing down. Thank GOD this time they didn't make the toddler come back from the dead.
Fella_shibby27 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
As I had mentioned in my review of the original film that the toddler attacking scene looked more comedic like Chucky's.

One of the best improvement is the casting n the acting of Jason Clarke is much much better than the actor from the original. This film is much more darker than the original n the ending creepier.

Things they omitted : Timmy....... Bed-ridden Zelda...... Jud's pet dog...... Jud's face...... But they kept the iconic scene of Jud's Achilles tendon.
49 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Saw this at a pre screening.
Narcissist0020 March 2019
I'm happy to announce that this is better than the first movie. Doesn't happen very often but this is one of those. Really creepy and the acting is really good. One change was a somewhat strange but seemed to work. Excellent horror.
212 out of 419 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I enjoyed the original so much more!
hipressure-792605 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I don't get all of these inflated scores. The movie was average at best. No wow factor! No shock value! A few role changes from the first..the daughter instead of the son. Nothing really shocking about that. A couple of brief scenes of brutality, but definitely nothing to scream about or to be scared of. Watch if there is nothing else better to see. Trust me there is so much more to see elsewhere! Passable!
64 out of 117 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Stick with the original.
CountVladDracula7 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The first warning sign that the Pet Semetary Remake isn't very good... When you learn Stephen King, himself, suggested a different ending from what they filmed... Seriously, they took a King classic and gave it an ending worthy of a crappy Zombie Apocalypse movie. This is not a "reinterpretation." This wasn't "Changed for the modern audiences." It was just a shameless cash grab and I hate that there are people defending it.

Not to mention they changed which child died just for the sake of changing it to "keep the audience on their toes."
26 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pet not so scary Sematary
mike-409-7446966 April 2019
Fails on every level and becomes a needless remake. The worst part is that it's not even scary, and the heart has been ripped from the book and original movie.
27 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed