Geeks logo

Where Pet Sematary (2019) Succeeds Pet Sematary (1989)

The Remake Versus The Original

By SkylerPublished 5 years ago 7 min read
Like

It is easy to latch on to the original film of a franchise, and incessantly attack the remake. We are all guilty of it to some degree due to our own bias. Personally I am OK with remakes... some of the time. I can accept the remakes to Friday The 13th and A Nightmare On Elm Street. Do not tell me to accept Halloween or Psycho though.

I will also say I saw the original Pet Sematary rather late in my life as a horror fan. Keep in mind, I was barely three when the film first came out. Now allow me to say I will be looking at only the films, and not the book whatsoever. We are here to look at the films, not the book and cite rather it was fateful or not. Beware... spoilers ahead.

Church

Winston Churchill... or Church for shirt. As a cat person myself, I feel much justice was done here. Remember the scene in the original film when Louis Creed is outside? All of a sudden Church is growling and hissing at him as he descends this tree in their yard. But... why? Is Church all of a sudden territorial of this tree... not likely. If anything it appears like a dumb jump scare.

Recall the notion that a 'fixed' cat will not travel as much from the original? I've had cats since I was a child, and never once have I heard this. If anything it sounds like an old wives' tale. Again, I had male cats growing up that we had fixed and guessed what? They still wandered! Cats wander, usually about three houses down, both sides. Looking back at the original film, including the road, Jud's house is not that far away. Talk about a cheap lie for your daughter.

Neither of these parts are in the remake. Church's death is treated with a lot more weight. Louis is rather distraught over this loss, for he does not want to break the bad news to Ellie. What makes this more realistic is that his wife is involved in this, as she should be. Normally, when a child's pet dies, both parents take up the mantle in discussing it with their child. In the prior film, Rachel is never aware of Church's death. I always found this odd. We are also given reason as into why Jud did it. Ellie brought a sense of joy and love to Jud's heart, something he has been missing for a long time. He did not want to see Ellie suffer, for he cared for her. The best way to keep Ellie from suffering was to bring back her favorite pet.

He notes his dog was rough and came back rough after he buried him up there. No surprise to him or us. Jud was surprised how Church was when he came back, for the cat was very warm and welcoming to Jud. Church returned rotten and vile. Ellie is scratched by the cat, never happened before. Instead, Louis got all the grief from Church, never Ellie. It is Church's behavior that causes Ellie to reject him, and lock him out of her room at the night.

Louis then decides to euthanize the pet, but cannot come to terms with it, and drives the cat out instead to the country. Louis cannot come to terms with killing his daughter's favorite pet, but he also cannot come to terms with telling her the truth. He wants to save her as much pain as possible. A classic parenting tool to fall back on is telling the child that the pet ran away. This is quite possible to do when the pet dies without the child's presence. It is this chain of events that leads Ellie to her own grief, and what will change everything for her and others in the film.

Zelda

I am sorry but the original Zelda has not aged well at all. Our original Zelda was played by a young man and dubbed over by a woman. Director Mary Lambert states in the commentary, because it was hard to get any young lady to put on make-up making them look 'ugly.'. Plus, they weren't down to look scary. The voice and performance makes for something I dare say of an over-acting, comedic performance. With her witchy design, hunched over posture and t-rex arms, when she yells out "never get out of bed again" I cannot help but laugh, sorry.

Zelda's death is also worked into the film better. In the original film it feels a bit tacked on. Here they connect it better to Rachel's overall fear of death. With the flashbacks, and her story this feels more like a traumatic event in her life. Whereas in the prior film, it is something of just an added element.

The Acting

Luckily I have seen this from many old-time, hardcore fans. The acting of the first film is flat. Fred Gwynne's Jud is fine, the one exception. The kids do surprisingly fine too, especially Miko Hughes' Gage. Our main problem is Dale Midkiff's Louis Creed, especially since he is our main protagonist. Denise Crosby does not do a whole lot better. Jason Clarke handles the role much better. We can see the pain, grief and despair on Louis' face. Jason displays a wide array of emotion. You get him as the rationalist, the crier, the mourner and more. Dale's felt more like a flat line reading and delivering of most of the material.

I do think part of this is also the times. We never really saw Louis cry in the original. Then again, it was 1989, men aren't supposed to cry. This is beginning to change. What we got was the "NOOOOO" that I would dare liken to Darth Vader in Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. Again, the execution was just corny! What helps too is some of the new scenes as well within the film. Ellie's deathly arrival into her mother's life allows Amy Seimetz to pull much over on Denise Crosby.

The Suspense

I remember when the one trailer first leaked, and it basically spoiled Ellie's death. Many of the fans were upset by A) this being spoiling, and or B) the fact that Ellie died. That's not supposed to happen! Gage gets hits by the truck, That's how it is in the book! That's how it is in the original film! A typical narrative complaint and reaction to the trailer sounded like this.

I fit more into the first category. However, the scene plays out quite well. For a moment we are misled that maybe Gage does get hit by the truck as he chases up there after Ellie. The Creeds see both children, the road, and the truck. Louis saves his son just in time, but the truck doesn't so much hit Ellie, but disconnects, swerves and collides with her. The accident isn't that Ellie got hit, but instead there was an accident and Ellie was a victim of the accident. Afterwards, we have Ellie's resurrection.

We see Louis drug Jud to keep him out of possibly interfering. For a moment we even get the notion that Ellie will be hiding under Jud's bed to cut into his ankle, but the directors have tricked us. We even expect Rachel to come to Jud's house, and be murdered. Nope! It was right here I realized the film could go anywhere it wanted to. Our directors were not here to slavishly follow the source material. Ellie kills her mother, and brings her back, Rachel kills Louis and brings him back. This is not really Stephen King's Pet Sematary but a retelling. I prefer this, rather than some shot-for-shot remake like Psycho.

Does this outweigh everything of the original film, making it superior? Of course not, for that is not my point at all. It is simply something to consider though. I believe it is possible to live in a world where you can accept both films for their merits.

review
Like

About the Creator

Skyler

Full-time worker, history student and an avid comic book nerd.

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.