Comments (25)Add a Comment
Read the book instead than waste your 100 minutes of time.
A remake of the 1989 film ... but this is just an awful adaptation remake.
The 2019 film version of Stephen King's 1983 novel is nowhere near is good as the book. But it is better the 1989 film version, which is a terrible movie, which is ironic because King wrote the screenplay for it. This film is a mixed bag. It changes many things from the novel. Some of the changes work and some don't. The acting is good by everyone, even the cat. It does come to an exciting climax, which helps.
I didn't think this was bad for a remake. Although I may not be as faithful to the original since I can't remember it and it's due for a rewatch. And now I'm not sure if I read the book. I didn't think it was boring as some reviewers expressed, but to be fair, I was doing something else while watching. So perhaps it's the kind of movie you can have on the background while you work on your projects.
This movie adaptation is a lot more faithful to the novel as it actually acknowledges the Wendigo. It is a lot scarier than it's predecessor. Highly recommend it
Having actually read the book, and being familiar with the forgettable '80s film, I was excited to see this classic Stephen King book was being revamped! As it crossed the Desk I snapped it up, and wasn't disappointed. It was far more atmospheric, and with few exceptions, more true to the original novel. Even being familiar with the story, there were tense moments; unexpected and jarring. John Lithgow is superb, taking a tired predictable character and making him not only relatable but surprisingly sympathetic. I wasn't unhappy with this rendition, and it was far and away less campy than the previous incarnation.
Awful! I did not see that ending coming, I’ll give it that, but otherwise, this movie just bad.
Pet Sematary I give this movie a 2 out of five. Pet Sematary is based off the 1989 movie and Stephen King book. I have watched the 1989 movie and compared to this one it was a disaster. It definitely wasn’t worth any of my time and was really bad. I did like that they did remake the 1989 movie and bring light to it, because the older one was underrated. Other than that, it was bad, horrible even to say. The first movie was much scary than the newer one, it didn’t even get a little. This movie was really boring I would never watch this movie again. The actors did an ok job with the movie, Jete Laurence who played Ellie did a good job. I didn’t like how they changed the movie like by making the oldest died and not the youngest. It just turned into another horror remake, and at this point I'm sick of remakes. Like can no one think of a new horror that isn't and extension or a remake. People in horror movie really make me mad because why in what world would it be ok to some the things that they do. I do not recommend this movie to anyone simply because it is just a bad movie. @IceCream of the Teen Review Board at the Hamilton Public Library
Another lame re-make. There should be law against remaking any Steven King story already put to celluloid. The originals are much better, so what's the point?
This was a pretty good movie! Creepy (especially the mother’s sister) and suspenseful! The only problem was that the movie was predictable at some points. Good acting & special effects! Liked the moral sometimes better to be honest than lie, and by lying are you protecting others or yourself. The ending was great! Overall great show!
This is from the classic Stephen King's novel Pet Sematary. Compared to the other Pet Sematary movies I found this one to be done better. However, the my best experience with this story was actually reading the book.
i like the original movie much better i dont like this movie i think its boring and dosent come close to being as scary to me as the first movie
King's novel was pretty good read but this horror drivel is truly awful and very boring. There's no sense of true horror here. And the director telegraphs all the silly plot line at the very beginning which makes it so predictable. And the very ending with the little boy is laughable not scary. This film is bad....really bad.
Just not my cup of tea. Veers too far from the original and the King book. Two stars out of five.
I had not read the book or seen the original movie. This was scary and creepy, but not very exciting. I'll read the book.
The original was the very first horror movie I ever saw when I was 8, and it scared the bejeesus out of me. So I was very excited to see an updated version of this. With the advances in special effects, and Stephen King talking about how much he liked this version, I was expecting something that would chill me to the bone and give me nightmares.
I only jumped once during the entire film, and that was only because my cat jumped out from out of nowhere. While I really did like the update to the story line (no spoilers, but they make a huge change from the source material that seemed like it would give them so much more to work with), it fell flat really fast. The things that creeped me out about the original and the novel, the very essence of the movie that leaves you triple checking your locks at night and sleeping with a nightlight on, were sadly missing. It seemed bland, as if they put all their creativity into that one update and that's it. Even John Lithgow, who played the part he was given perfectly, couldn't save this movie. They took the best bits of his character and left them somewhere on the editing room floor, apparently.
The only real good thing I can say about this movie is that Jete Laurence was fantastic. With very little source material for her to draw from, she gave a great performance. She was the only one with any real character development, and the drastic changes to her character throughout the film were great. If everything hadn't felt so rushed, I'm sure she could've done even more with her part and really added some depth to the film.
Why do a remake of a mediocre movie? Really poor casting and acting. Can not really get involved with the characters. How can you make a horror movie and not make it scary?
Seems to stay faithful to King's famed novel with same family of four and other significant characters in a town called Ludlow but a somewhat different ending. Pretty good remake of the first 1989 film adaptation. Too unnerving psychological horror and graphic violence for early teens.
Patron review on this movie - "Don't muck about with black magic. If you don't understand it, leave it alone, if it's dead - it should stay dead!"
Awful Awful movie. Chilled me to the bone about the children. I likeD the original movie better, this remake should never had happened. I would not recommend this movie to anyone nor should it ever get a movie award. TERRIBLE !!
SOMETIMES, DEAD IS BETTER... THIS IS ONE OF THOSE TIMES
I watched this to see where they'd run in the parts from
the original, because none of this film connected...
Perhaps the greatest of the sci-fi films presents in it's
efforts, workmanline production.. think everyone knew it
was exercise in futility (and the click bait about the cat
dying before release; maybe a timed coincidence from the
producers.. PETA has been made aware)
Take the original, at least it had the decency to have
the actual Ramones do the title track, not some late
comer with a cover doing horrible things.
A horrific adaptation of Stephen Kings novel of the same title which is bound to give you goose bumps!
The book was rich with background. The film was true to the book until the final few scenes. This movie remake is a horror: they should've left it alone.