The movie opens with a young boy seeing his mother electrocuted to death and then cuts to a dog being put to sleep by lethal injection! The nudity was in all the wrong places. It has the same director Lambert , too. There is not one honest moment of entertainment here to be found. I enjoy watching Clancy Brown chew up the scenery in the 2nd half of the movie after his character 'comes back'. And the story actually covers a lot of ground, everything from badparenting to bullying from one's peers and lots of revenge motifs thatlead to some truly harrowing moments.
I remember hating it worse than the first one! Not as a tagline but as a production note. The direction is lackluster and with one exception all the actors are terrible--Anthony Edwards appears to be sleepwalking and Edward Furlong is just pathetic in the lead role. The glumness, the sense of oppression and airlessness and dread, the rot and gore and malice from beyond the grave are simply too much for the average film goer; if the director had backed off a little, and allowed a little more light into the mood and not rubbed our noses in the gore and blood and maggots quite so much, I think the results would have been more accessible for a lot more people. The film as a whole has received negative reviews, but the fact is thatthe original really is not that great. This movie is pretty good, but the first one was better. The only thing that makes this film bearable is Clancy Brown's hilarious performance as a resurrected sheriff. The violence is gratuitous, not funny, and the final credits sequence with the faces of the people who died almost made me puke.
This one manages to be even crueller and much, much stupider. The acting was fine, but they couldn't save the movie if their lives depended on it. This horror film, full of the kindof touches evident in any Stephen King story, is really much betterthan these reviews would have you believe. Also there's a truly sick and unnecessary rape scene and pointless female nudity. I'll never get those minutes back again, and I could have used them for something of purpose.
Why do I do this to myself? I must say, good or bad, I am glad director Mary Lambert returned forthe sequel. But there are things I enjoy about this film. Giving it an 1 out of 10 cause there isn't an option for 0 or I would have used that. I mean not just away from your mind, but away forever like it never existed? We have Geoff andhis veterinarian dad relocating to rural Maine and the location of thePet Sematary after Geoff's mom is accidentally killed in front of himwhile shooting a movie. I really didn't like the fact that they didn't explain what happened after the events in the first film, because they don't explain what happened to Louis Creed's daughter, and they don't explain how Rachel Creed was killed for a second time.
For instance, to petition against unnecessary sequels. I hated the first one but I had some hope that maybe the sequel would be better. Geoff sees that the burial ground works, so he decides to bring his dead mother back. Seeing it again last night Why? Damned if I know all those feelings came rushing back. Many will lump this into the sequels of Stephen King based movies,which is correct. !!! Now its just amatter of who can survive the supernatural terror engulfing the town. But don't resteasy for there are times you will flinch.
Two: Its too different from the first one. The Creeds have just moved to a new house in the countryside. The plot is a little bit different from the first one, but it still manages to impress, and the gore effects are spectacular. In fact, I feel that the entire movie seems to somehow embody the spirit and malice of whatever it is that brings the dead back from the Sematary. The premise, of course, is a silly one--that burying dead animals orhuman beings in a specially cursed Indian sematary will bring them backto life, deadlier than ever in evil intent. Has a few flaws though. Furlong has a glowing presence that fits the materialbeautifully and McGuire has a naturalness that is refreshing and real.
In making it, I would have left out the doggie dream and given Drew and his mother a better chance to survive. I think that many commentators hate this film for what seems like good reasons, to them at least. Although a modern classic, and apop culture gem, it is not actually a critically good film. You begin to hope for some postal worker to assault and destroy that town. One night, out of meanness, Gus shoots andkills Drew's loyal dog Zowie. The film also posses qualities that makeme automatically like it. Honestly i don't look into stories just a good movie, i'd say Clancy Brown made this movie excellent, he is just too hilarious.
To sum it up: Pet sematary 2 is a good horror movie featuring bothpsychological terror as well as gore, the simple yet interesting plotas well as the performance of the actors makes this a movie well worthseeing. I think whoever dreamed up this crap needs to have a lobotomy. This film is like that for me. He was hilarious in this. I think the movie was what the creators intended to make, but they may have misjudged the reaction most people would have to their creation. More gory, not as scary as the original but worth a look.