Let me begin my review by clarifying that I can absolutely understand the polarizing opinions on this remake of "Pet Sematary" and even support most of the arguments mentioned about why this is supposedly a bad horror film, but I couldn't stop loving this experience anyway. As a huge fan and frequent defender of Stephen King's original novel, I have been looking forward to Dennis Widmyer and Kevin Kölsch's take on this classic horror story for quite some time, especially since I can't pretend being a huge fan of the first cinematic adaptation of "Pet Sematary" from 1989.
First, let's begin with the casting. Nobody could possibly replace Fred Gwynne, who was quite frankly the best part about the first film. But if someone else has to portray Jud - and since Gwynne sadly passed away, there was no other way around it - then John Lithgow has to be the perfect choice for this character. And Lithgow did a marvelous job, there can't be any doubt about that. Meanwhile, Jason Clarke was chosen for the protagonist, and just like with Lithgow, I couldn't possibly think of a better choice. Clarke was exactly the actor I always imagined would be perfect for playing Louis in a movie adaptation, and here he is allowed to present each side of his versatile acting. Amy Seimetz and child actress Jeté Laurence also do a good job with their respective characters. Next, the eerie atmosphere does feel a little off from time to time, but I could forgive this film for that. There was a little unnecessary jump scare now and then, but it was certainly bearable and didn't ruin the entire experience.
What probably made so many people angry was the excessive number of changes from the original novel, and they sure were difficult to swallow if you loved the novel. But I've been thinking a lot about those changes since I watched the film, and the more time has passed, the more did I actually appreciate the creativity and originality which went into the changes made for this reimagination of the story. For many people, a remake seems to have no chance of being anything but a failure - either it isn't a close adaptation to the book or the original film, in which case it is called disrespectful, or it IS a close adaptation, in which case it is often called unnecessary and redundant. I find it important that some signals of creativity flow into the process of remaking a film or adapting a book, as long as it still makes sense and doesn't completely avoid the characteristics previously set by the author. And that's exactly how I feel about this remake of "Pet Sematary": it updates everything to a modern scenario and still maintains the most important aspects and elements of the original, while simultaneously setting itself apart and creating its own voice. That process is always going to be polarizing and rather unpopular, and I can definitely understand everyone who thinks this way and doesn't appreciate this adaptation of "Pet Sematary" in some kind of way, but I definitely loved it way more than I initially thought I would. The rather low average rating on IMDb (currently sitting at 6.2 and probably only going to sink even further in future) doesn't reflect the actual quality of this film.
First, let's begin with the casting. Nobody could possibly replace Fred Gwynne, who was quite frankly the best part about the first film. But if someone else has to portray Jud - and since Gwynne sadly passed away, there was no other way around it - then John Lithgow has to be the perfect choice for this character. And Lithgow did a marvelous job, there can't be any doubt about that. Meanwhile, Jason Clarke was chosen for the protagonist, and just like with Lithgow, I couldn't possibly think of a better choice. Clarke was exactly the actor I always imagined would be perfect for playing Louis in a movie adaptation, and here he is allowed to present each side of his versatile acting. Amy Seimetz and child actress Jeté Laurence also do a good job with their respective characters. Next, the eerie atmosphere does feel a little off from time to time, but I could forgive this film for that. There was a little unnecessary jump scare now and then, but it was certainly bearable and didn't ruin the entire experience.
What probably made so many people angry was the excessive number of changes from the original novel, and they sure were difficult to swallow if you loved the novel. But I've been thinking a lot about those changes since I watched the film, and the more time has passed, the more did I actually appreciate the creativity and originality which went into the changes made for this reimagination of the story. For many people, a remake seems to have no chance of being anything but a failure - either it isn't a close adaptation to the book or the original film, in which case it is called disrespectful, or it IS a close adaptation, in which case it is often called unnecessary and redundant. I find it important that some signals of creativity flow into the process of remaking a film or adapting a book, as long as it still makes sense and doesn't completely avoid the characteristics previously set by the author. And that's exactly how I feel about this remake of "Pet Sematary": it updates everything to a modern scenario and still maintains the most important aspects and elements of the original, while simultaneously setting itself apart and creating its own voice. That process is always going to be polarizing and rather unpopular, and I can definitely understand everyone who thinks this way and doesn't appreciate this adaptation of "Pet Sematary" in some kind of way, but I definitely loved it way more than I initially thought I would. The rather low average rating on IMDb (currently sitting at 6.2 and probably only going to sink even further in future) doesn't reflect the actual quality of this film.