In 1989, Stephen King’s Pet Sematary was adapted into a movie for the first time. A box office success, the film would go on to become one of the better-known Stephen King adaptations. Though it wasn’t exactly one of the most beloved films, and the film would also be one of the most critically divided of all the King movies. An update was needed, and this year, that project was realized, with a new adaptation directed by newcomers Kevin Kolsch and Dennis Widmyer. And while this version of the story doesn’t solidify it as a modern horror classic, it is at the very least, an improvement over the original film, thanks to some creative changes.
The film once again follows Louis Creed (Jason Clarke), a doctor who moves to Ludlow, Maine with his wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz) and two children Ellie (Jete Laurence) and Gage (Hugo and Louis Lavoie). Ellie, lonely in her new surroundings, befriends longtime Ludlow resident Jud Crandall (John Lithgow), who warns the family not to venture out into the woods alone. Ellie’s only other solace is the family cat, Church, who ends up being struck down and killed by a truck, unbeknownst to her. Hearing from Louis how heartbroken Ellie would be when she finds out, Jud decides to take Louis deep into the woods and give him a way to avoid having Ellie to deal with the grief.
The film is an ambitious effort, introducing quite a few concepts in its first forty-five minutes or so. It introduces a subplot in which Rachel is haunted by the death of her sister, as well as Louis suffering from twisted nightmares of his own after he fails to save the life of a student at the university he works at. In the first half the movie, the film consistently keeps revisiting these concepts but fails to really go anywhere with them, more so repeating itself rather than clarifying what their overall significance is.
The film winds up being a slow burn, as it’s filled with some heavy exposition, including scenes explaining the titular “Pet Sematary” itself, the town, and everyone’s backstories. There are some heavy-handed exchanges early on in the film that discuss religion and the supernatural that feel clunky, as the film almost lays all its cards out on the table a bit too early. The film attempts to be deep and meaningful, but at times feels like it’s bit too much of a morality tale.
Additionally, during this first half, the audience is subjected to an over-reliance on jump scares. Easily one of the most contrived horror devices used, as it does nothing but induce cheap scares, these moments are constantly used in the first half of the movie. While horror movies aren’t always critically revered, there has arguably been a better output of them in recent years, with many film relying more on being genuinely creepy rather than going for cheap thrills. The use of this tactic in Pet Sematary feels like it’s many steps in the wrong direction.
The film’s second half is built on a huge suspension of disbelief, and it’s more than just having to believe the film’s supernatural elements. Louis, who spends the first half of the movie boasting about how much of a rational human being he is, begins jarringly behaving in the most irrational ways possible. Without spoiling anything, he sees first-hand a horrible event for himself and can’t stand the sight of it, and then essentially repeats this moment later on in the movie. While it is due to some emotional trauma he suffers, he suddenly feels like a much different person way too quickly and the journey for him to get to where he is by the film’s second half feels like it could have been a bit more cohesive.
That aside, the second half of the movie is drastically better than the first half. Whereas the first forty minutes to an hour was built on exposition and jump scares, the second half suddenly becomes a genuinely creepy experience, and begins moving at a much quicker pace. There are plenty of dramatic beats after the turning point, and they hit the audience one after another. Those who were almost ready to tune out will suddenly find themselves reengaged, and much more invested in the rest of the movie. Many of the second half’s scares are built on creepy looks from characters, as well as built-up suspense. Also, many of the film’s seemingly aimless plot points become much more fully realized in the second half. While it takes a bit too long to bring some stories full circle, most things will make sense here.
Part of what makes the second half of the movie work so well is the acting. While the acting is overall solid, and is part of what makes the first half of the movie watchable, it becomes much more committed by the second half. In particular, newcomer Jete Laurence gives easily the best performance. Child actors in horror films generally tend to be hit-and-miss, as they spout contrived lines and are given some of the film’s weaker material, but Laurence feels like a natural. She doesn’t have some of the most fantastic dialogue in the first half, but delivers it in a way with true innocence that it’s easy to feel sympathy for her. And her handling of some of the more horrific material in the second half is truly top-notch, making her one of the best child actor performances in a horror movie in recent memory.
Amy Seimetz also gives a wonderful performance here. While the story line involving her sister is a bumpy road, her acting is one of the story’s few saving graces as it first gets off the ground. And as the story improves, she’s given much more free range to truly show off her skills, including some heartbreaking moments during the film’s second half. Conversely, Jason Clarke, despite being the main character in the film, feels like he’s given very little to do here, mostly stuck with some of the film’s more unbelievable dialogue, and his performance undermined by his character’s jarring change in ideas halfway through the film. The only other performance worth noting is John Lithgow, who gives a highly emotional performance that works well off his many scenes with Laurence.
Pet Sematary is a very uneven movie, and requires some patience in order to be completely satisfied. While the first half of the film drags with exposition, jump scares, and heavy-handed ideas, those who stick with it will be rewarded for their diligence. The second half of the film is a major improvement over the first, with some excellent performances, genuinely scary elements, and many of the elements introduced early on in the film finally becoming realized. While it’s still not one of the all-time best Stephen King adaptations, it is much more memorable this time around.
Comments