Pet Sematary 2019

• Directed by Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer
• March 16, 2019 (SXSW) / April 5, 2019 (US)
• Based on the 1983 novel Pet Sematary by Stephen King

A family discovers a pet graveyard in the woods behind their home capable of resurrecting the dead. Doesn’t seem to do as advertised.

Pet Sematary 2019 is the second film adaptation of the Stephen King story to reach the screen following in the footsteps of the late 80s classic. Despite its flaws, that one has held a place in the heart of many horror lovers. Be it a remake or a new version of a previously filmed story, films that have predecessors need to improve on the narrative. The Thing 1982 is one good example as it was preceded by The Thing from Another World. I cannot say that this improves on what was done before.

One thing that jumps out at me is while in the first one it was clear that the husband and wife loved each other, in this one there appears to be some emotional divide between the two. Most notably they go back-and-forth about how to handle death with their young daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence) in a manner that does not feel like a close unit. I admit to not having ever read the original story, but it bothers me whenever we have couples in some work of fiction that appear to not be getting along. Their problems take focus away from the larger issues-especially if their problems are not connected to the larger issue.

In the original film, it was the little boy who was killed by the truck. Here it’s Ellie. I appreciate the attempt at a twist, but her death carries so much less impact than before. Perhaps because they show everything and it looks fake. Previously it was a great deal of creativity with the viewer’s mind doing a great deal of work the first time around.

Eli certainly makes for a more verbose evil child. And she says plenty of weird and unsettling stuff. That makes understanding why the father Louis (Jason Clarke) not freaking out a touch confusing though not completely without understanding so long as you consider other elements in the film.

John Lithgow takes on the part of Jud Crandall and the reasons why he does what he does and by extension why Louis does what he does are much better explained in this film than in its predecessor. They make mostly clear that there is something about the land that gets into you and it gets a better hold on you when you use it. They hint at some weirdness in the town and what goes on with the sour ground looks like common knowledge though the locals seem to have the spot wrong. The darkness influences but doesn’t overtly control.

I can’t complain about Lithgow’s work. He does a good job as is usual for him. A rare actor that rarely disappoints. He’s a nice and amiable neighborly character. The issue I have is what Ellie spouts off when she attacks him. It’s not a perversion of anything we know nor is it hinted at. It just comes out of the blue.

Jason Clarke has starred in his share of good and bad material. I first came across him in Farscape which if I remember correctly may have given the first international recognition to Ben Mendelsohn also but I digress. Unfortunately he’s been in some stuff that’s not allowed his career to advance. I’m not sure Terminator Genisys did anything for him for example. I do not feel his grief or pain and he does as the plot needs rather than what the character would do.

Louis starts out vehemently against believing in the afterlife or the supernatural. Rachel is trying to shield her daughter from the idea of death until she’s a little older at the minimum or maybe forever based on her issues over her sister. The thing is Louis flips pretty easily. And that all starts with him willingly making a long trek with Jud. While you could chalk up his willingness to the supernatural elements of the burial ground, he didn’t seem that broken up over the death of the cat. He was worried over Ellie’s reaction but to him Church was just a cat.

The mother Rachel (Amy Seimetz) here is barely a character. Admittedly, she’s not one of the mains, but given her prominence in the final fight, and the cliffhanger ending of the story, she’s not developed well at all. The actress does adequately, but adequate isn’t always good enough.

The ending is changed from Pet Sematary ’89 as well. They looked to be aiming for a direct sequel. The original left room for some type of continuation but was contained enough that there were no annoying dangling threads. This film’s ending says so much more happens after the credits role.

This new version of Pet Sematary doesn’t improve on what came before but it’s not a downturn. Its fault is that it is a series of weird events rather than a series of weird events using the supernatural to attempt to discuss grief. There’s just something missing. There’s a special bit of magic the original had that this is lacking. I can’t quite put my finger on it. Maybe it’s me personally and my enjoyment of the first film. Maybe it’s something to do with the film itself. I just can’t quite figure it out.

This version of Pet Sematary is not bad. And maybe what I think is missing from it is really nothing at all. It simply suffers from sharing the name of something I enjoyed. I would probably feel better about it if it had its own name. I would call it a good rip-off. It’s worth a watch and try not to compare it to the original if you have seen it.