"Pet Sematary" (2019) ★★ 1/2

*DISCLAIMER* "Pet Sematary" suffers from one of the most irresponsible trailer/marketing campaigns in recent memory. If you're reading this and haven't yet seen this film, do try to go in as blind as possible because the spoilers that are given in the trailers are significant. Having very little experience with the original source material, I was originally very excited to see this film. However, I was on the wrong end of that marketing blast so I ended up going into this knowing the gist of the twists.

Doctor Louis Creed and Rachel Creed (played by Jason Clarke and Amy Seimetz respectively) move from Boston to a rural home in the country with their children Gage and Ellie. They soon discover that they're the proud new owners of a mysterious patch of land dubbed the "Pet Sematary" that locals have used as a burial ground for their pets for generations. While exploring her new backyard, Ellie discovers the "Pet Sematary" and meets mysterious-but-friendly old dude Judd Crandall (John Lithgow) who later tells Louis that the place is home to an ancient and mysterious power. When Ellie's cat is killed, Judd takes Louis beyond the Sematary and gives him a crash course in necromancy. Before long that cat is back on it's feet but something has changed in it and Judd tells Louis that "sometimes, dead is better."

Directors David Kolsch and Dennis Widmyer do a fantastic job of setting up this movie. The opening of the film is a tracking shot from the driveway of the Creed country home closing in slowly toward the front door. The pathway is splattered with blood, the car door is smeared with it and there are bloody footprints leading into the house. Immediately the juxtaposition of the beauty of Maine in the fall against the aftermath of whatever happened here is INCREDIBLY creepy. The "creep-factor" is one of the movie's strongest assets and Kolsch and Widmyer smartly establish the tone from the beginning. As fall turns to winter and the nights become foggier and foggier, every one of Jason's dreams and every one of Judd's ancient stories gets just a little bit creepier. The first two acts of Pet Sematary (in true King fashion) serve as somewhat of a masterclass in dread. The exposition is present without being too overdone, flashbacks and dreams are purposeful, the jump-scares are well-placed, and the score works to elevate the tension onscreen.

At the onset of the final act though, things begin to unravel. Quick, sloppy editing takes us completely out of the space and pacing that we've had to steep in for over an hour. Seemingly all at once, the momentum disappears as we cut between the Creed home, Judd's home, the Pet Sematary and back. Jump scares come more frequently as the score dips in and out at random. By the time the final twist were revealed, I was more drained than anything.

It wasn't just the editing and pacing that got to me. I found the character motivation (particularly Louis') was especially problematic. With respect to the afterlife, Louis and Rachel are on opposite ends of the belief spectrum (somehow something that has never once come up in their years of marriage). We're led to believe that Louis is "rational and logical" in the face of the unknown. Everything has an explanation and nothing should be withheld when discussing death with a child because it's "perfectly natural." What was impossible for me to grasp was Louis' blatant denial of the supernatural occurrences that he was experiencing. All evidence we've been given to this point in the film (just after the boy dies on the gurney) suggests that he would AT LEAST see another doctor. I'm onboard with the idea that maybe he doesn't believe in paranormal happenings but I was inclined to believe he might seek mental health treatment for what he would surely call hallucinations. All too frequently, the downfall of, what could be a GREAT horror movie is unrealistic character behaviors. What's more is that in this case, those behaviors might have been forgiven if we were given a narrative ABOUT grief and the way that Louis deals with it. Instead, by the end we're given something halfway between a commentary on grief and a haunted house flick- and neither work fully.

There's a captivating conversation to be had about the ways in which both men and women deal with grief and loss throughout the film. We learn about Rachel's sister's death in flashbacks and realtime mental breakdowns of dealing with that grief and the guilt of how it all went down. Rachel goes THROUGH that grief every day. She faces it. Louis' refusal to accept the death of his daughter and conviction to live with a zombie version of her instead is such an interesting discussion but what I found to be so unbelievably frustrating was that this film isn't remotely interested in having it.

I'm not sure why this sort messiness seems to happen as frequently as it does to Stephen King adaptations- a likely culprit is the sheer density of the source material. In most of the adaptations I've seen ("It" 2017 notwithstanding), there's is an incredible amount of groundwork laid in the first two acts but by the time the third rolls around, it's almost like the director(s) forget that the film needs to end and just tries to wrap things up as quickly and easily as possible. Don't get me wrong; there's a LOT to enjoy here. Lithgow as the foreboding lumberjack fella with some dark secrets and the likability of Santa Claus somehow works. The history of an ancient burial ground that brings things back to life? Sure. The CREEPINESS WORKS- but so much of it doesn't and I just couldn't get onboard. In the film, Judd reminds us that "sometimes dead is better" and that may just be the case for this reboot.

*Reviewed by Max Minardi