Dr. Louis Creed's family moves into the country house of their dreams and discover a pet cemetery at the back of their property. The cursed burial ground deep in the woods brings the dead back to l...
Pet Sematary teases that "sometimes dead is better", including this adaptation. More of a supernatural drama than a horror, this Stephen King adaptation (to which he wrote the screenplay) gently touches upon the themes of its source material. Now, having not read the original novel, I can only judge the story based on this interpretation. However, I am familiar with the premise and various characters that exist in the book. With that being said, Lambert's adaptation is an unusual concoction of thematic melancholy fused with mediocre execution that detracts from the creepy premise in its entirety. A family move to a new house which is situated next to a "Pet Sematary" that contains an ancient burial ground that brings the dead back to life, but in a murderous state.
Death is a heavy subject. Teaching children about the passing of life is a difficult subject, to which various arguments are expressed. Religious interpretations, scientific explanations or imaginative fantasies. We all deal with death differently. Some struggle to let go of their loved ones, and this film conveys that emotional turmoil. Sometimes it works, particularly during family discussions with the daughter, but quite often Lambert and King fluctuate the focus as they are unable to balance the supernatural elements with mainstream horror techniques.
Something just felt off, and it wasn't the "dead" cat. A drama requires convincing acting in order to convey the necessary emotion that the characters feel. This film boasts some peculiar acting, especially from Midkiff who gives an absolute dreadful performance. His face did not move. His monotony almost singlehandedly destroyed this film. As the vital protagonist, whose diminishing sanity further accelerated the thrills, it was imperative that the father was portrayed accurately as he acts as the audience's eyes. Sadly, not the case here.
This is without mentioning the ridiculous amount of stupid scenes, including a funeral brawl, a sudden confession about the wife's sister's crooked back and the most dangerous scalpel ever. Yet, I saved the worst til last. The neighbour, played reasonably well by Gwynne, clearly warned the father "don't ever bury anything up there, what comes back is something completely different". So what does the neighbour do? Invite the father to bury a dead cat. Knowing full well that it would be an incredibly bad idea, he still did it because the daughter "shouldn't have to say goodbye to her favourite pet just yet". Scenes like this really test my patience, and it's even more surprising when the original novelist writes the screenplay!
Lambert's directing technique was also weirdly generic, as if it was a TV movie. It had this cheap aesthetic appeal that rarely felt cinematic, particularly with the production value. Despite the third act raising the much needed tension with its engrossing visual terror (that kid's laugh...), the rest of this adaptation didn't work for me. Poor acting from Midkiff, weak writing and mediocre directing unfortunately detract from an intriguingly ominous premise that infrequently captivates. Unsure why this has a cult following, but best to bury this adaptation in a normal graveyard.
