Connect with us

Movies

Andy Muschietti is Hungry to Make New Adaptation of ‘Pet Sematary’

Javier Botet as Zelda. Just imagine it. Are you scared yet?

Last month, well before the release of his IT, director Andy Muschietti expressed a desire to someday adapt Stephen King’s Pet Sematary for the big screen.

We’re huge fans of Pet Sematary,” he told Toronto Sun, referring to he and sister/producing partner Barbara. “If we can get our hands on that and do the Pet Sematary we want to do, that will be something. One day, maybe.”

Now that we’ve seen how much justice Muschietti did to IT, we can’t help but want his Pet Sematary even more. And speaking with EW this week, both Andy and Barbara once again noted that adapting King’s 1983 novel (which became the 1989 film) would be a dream come true for them.

My affection for Pet Sematary will go on until I die,” Andy Muschietti told the site. “I will always dream about the possibility of making a movie.”

Barbara added, “We’ll see who gets to it first. But it is the first Stephen King book that we read, and it’s something that has been a great love, because it is possibly King’s most personal book. You can imagine his young family. What will you do to be able to keep your family? How far would you go? I really hope we can do it. But if we do it, we have to do it justice, like we did with IT. The versions we read in the past years, the scripts we’ve read, have not been, in our opinion, representative of the book.”

Recently, Guillermo del Toro also expressed interest in adapting Pet Sematary. As far as we’re aware, Paramount has no plans in motion at this time.

If they’re smart, they’ll scoop up the Muschietti siblings ASAP.



AROUND THE WEB


COMMENTS

126 Comments
  • Francesco Falciani

    wow there’s still paramount behind that….

    • jasonlives1986

      Any time king Wants pet sematary back all he has to do is say the word

  • jasonlives1986

    Did anyone leave IT thinking that the director brought anything unique to the movie that screams talent?

    Through two movies of his the only thing u can say is that visually he makes a stunning movie. That’s it.

    Pet sematary should be out into someone’s hands who brings more than that. IT could of been made by thousands of directors, Andy wasn’t responsible for the box office success and the movie was blah.

    • Creepshow

      You must feel 20 pounds lighter after unloading all that dopey garbage.

      • jasonlives1986

        I wouldn’t go as far to call IT dopey garbage but it’s certainly treading in the massively over rated category.

        • Creepshow

          30 pounds lighter.

          • jasonlives1986

            40

          • MODOK

            Sold.

    • Necro

      Is that a trick question or a rhetorical one?

      • jasonlives1986

        You would of madee the same movie if they hired you.

        The director didn’t bring anything to the table.

        • Necro

          And what would you bring to the table if they hired you?

          • jasonlives1986

            Sigh

          • Necro

            Hey you said it not me

    • Matt Miller

      That was maybe the principal problem with the movie and also the reason of the succes. The filmmaking is unremarkable and feels anonymous all the way. But it also avoids to piss off people with a distinct vision that could not be in everyoone’s taste.

  • Necro

    Personally it sounds good to me. I’d like to see what he and his sister would do. I do like the Mary Lambert film, but if they’re going to remake it I’d like to see it done by more than capable hands.

  • llcc1103

    Nooooooooooo Mush Mush is a studio hack job!!!!

  • richanthon

    oh god please no!! he already destroyed IT. Is nothing sacred??

    • Cure4Humanity

      In what way did he “destroy” IT. Please elaborate as to why you’d use such a wild exaggeration to describe the film.

      • Mr. Red Right Hand

        the same shit they’ve been saying over and over “too much cgi” wah ohhh and insert: irrelevant aspects from the novel that couldn’t realistically be added to a two and half hour feature

        • Cure4Humanity

          I had issues with the CGI, I have no problems admitting that. I also thought the final fight felt kind of rushed and bland. Regardless, I still very much enjoyed the film though with consideration to the novel.

  • Do It: chapter two and then we’ll see!

    • Matt Miller

      That’s where the profits are, so if this is happening, it has to be after the second chapter. In fact I think after their succes they will be able to do whatever the hell they want.

  • Nick Schwab

    Great! Andy Mushietti (It/Mama) has to be one of the most successful Hollywood studio hacks of the horror genre since James Wan (Saw/The Conjuring),,,, both directors trade in artistry and quality of execution for huge profits. They are frankly fucking terrible. Now Mushietti will make another abortion of King’s work with Pet Sematary (a film that, much like It, once had respectable directors attached to it.)

    • Khy

      Declares the wonderful nobody in a comment section with no talent on display of their own.

      • Nick Schwab

        What an tasteless, fascist remark.
        Other than the fact that you don’t even know who I am, are you saying that no one can have an opinion unless they create their own artwork? That only those who are part of Hollywood can actually have an opinion. That even an opinion of someone who is just as educated and articulate with why they liked or didn’t like a piece of artwork simply doesn’t matter. Have you ever had an opinion on a film, either positive or negative? Are you that arrogant and narrow-minded? Who the hell are you if I may ask? Are you somebody with talent on display? Just remember there’s always somebody smarter and more successful than you, regardless. It would be like me saying that I am probably much more educated and smarter than you to begin with, so don’t waste your breath arguing with me. As even if you are right, your small brain just makes you bloody wrong. Fair enough?

        • Khy

          I never said you can’t have an opinion. I just find it funny how you’re calling people with successful creative careers amongst audiences- talentless.

          If I don’t like someone’s work, I just don’t like their work. But I wouldn’t called them talentless. Not when I’m busting my ass at some shitty dead end retail job while they are enjoying a profitable and NOTABLE career based ON their talent.

          They are not for you. That’s fine. But calling them talentless is ridiculous.

          • Fred

            You should just let it go. It’s pretty obvious he’s a troll.

          • Khy

            Good looking out Fred, I should know better by now. Thanks!

          • Nick Schwab

            I never called him talentless. Scroll up to what the word ‘hack’ means. And how can I be a ‘troll’ when you are the one who tried to do a personal attack on me? I attacked a film/director in terms of being generic, but unless you are him or at least associated, lay off on your personal attack. Especially when you don’t know anything about me……

          • Nick Schwab

            and I am actually doing something with my life other than ‘busting my ass at some shitty dead end retail job.’ I seriously can’t tell if you meant yourself or made some wisecrack about what you think my life is, as your writing isn’t that clear. Guess again.

  • Rake

    He has a real passion to make another film loaded with jump scares and blasting speakers.

  • Khy

    The new King and Queen of horror. I love them both!

  • Khy

    Horror fans are fucking sad. They drone on and on about the state of the genre then you get some really successful amazingly talented individuals who gain some notoriety for their contributions and then all of the bitter bitches come crawling out of their caves to scream overused terms like “HACK” and “SUCK”. Only genre of fans that attacks and bashes their own successful members.

    FYI- Not liking someone’s movie or writing or even talent doesn’t make them a “hack”. It also doesn’t make you “cool” or “edgy”.

    • Nick Schwab

      Maybe it is because, opinions are opinions. Much like fascists be fascists…..

      • Nick Schwab

        You also might want to look up the definition of ‘hack’. No one is arguing he is not successful in his line of work rather they are arguing simply that he is too routine and commercial, banal even.

        adj.

        1. By, characteristic of, or designating routine or commercial writing: hack prose.

        2. Hackneyed; banal.Phrasal Verb:

        hack out Informal

        To produce (written material, for example), especially hastily or routinely: hacked out a weekly column.

        • Nick Schwab

          Here’s some more definitions of ‘hack’ from The Free Dictionary…….

          hack2 (hæk)

          n.
          1. a person, esp. a professional, who surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward: a political hack.
          2. a writer whose services are for hire.
          3. a person who produces banal or mediocre work or who works at a dull or routine task. v.t.
          9. to make a hack of; let out for hire.
          10. to make trite or stale by frequent use; hackney. v
          13. hired as a hack; of a hired sort: a hack writer; hack work.
          14. hackneyed; trite; banal: hack writing.
          [1680–90; short for hackney]

          • Nick Schwab

            Like I said, maybe it’s just an ‘educated’ thing on your part. I know, literacy in writing and definitions is hard for some people. It’s OK…..

    • Fred

      Haters will be haters. I’ve never quite understood it. If I don’t enjoy a movie, I simply won’t talk about it. Why try to ruin what other people enjoy? There are too many good movies for me to linger on the ones I don’t like. Plus, if I didn’t like a movie, I often like to see why others did like it.

      • Nick Schwab

        I think discussions of various opinions– so long as they are intelligent and civil– are important not just in art but in life.

      • Garbageface

        You’ve seriously never fucking talked to anyone about a movie you didn’t like? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaase

        • Fred

          Of course I have. But if i’m with someone who liked a movie, I certainly won’t bash it in his face. What’s the point? And going online to bash stuff I dislike? I’m not 15 anymore.

          • Garbageface

            Yet here you are, online bashing people that don’t like things you like

          • Fred

            If you say so. I came here to talk about stuff I like. You came here to bash everything you didn’t. Isn’t it better to breath and simply enjoy the stuff you like? Why put so much energy on stuff that you dislike? And then to bash it online? What’s the point? In the hope you might ruin someone else’s enjoyment of some movies? It’s so much better to try to show people why something you like is worthwhile, rather than the opposite. Maybe it’s because i’m a filmmaker, and I see how hard it is to make a movie. Even the movies I disliked I have respect for the people behind the camera. Making a movie is hard. Making a horror movie is even harder. We’re all horror fans here. Let’s rejoyce about horror!

          • Garbageface

            You came here to talk about stuff you like but the post I responded to of yours was you complaining about stuff you don’t like. It wasn’t a movie but you were still complaining.

          • Garbageface

            And, honestly, how interesting is a discussion if everyone just showers praise on every movie that’s talked about on this site? Differing opinions are okay even if they make you a little uncomfortable.

          • Fred

            True, to a certain degree. Some people go way too far in their bashing. Someone just below our discussion was calling the filmmakers behind the new IT hacks. People just tend to bash stuff they don’t like. It’s as if they forget that sometimes movies aren’t just made for them, and that the people behind them are people like you and me. There are a lot of horror movies, and calling other people hacks or other names simply because I didn’t care for their movies is pretty intense. Plus, honestly I don’t see how I was bashing people. Rereading my post above, I was simply trying to find the merit in bashing the movies other people enjoy. Yes, a healthy discussion is good. Opinions will vary. Few movies are perfect, and it’s good to point out their shortcomings. But it’s also good to point out what they did right, which you rarely see when someone hates on a movie. Filmmakers need to learn from their mistakes, but they also need to know what they did right. Which can be hard sometimes when the entire internet is obsessed with bashing everything. It’s far “cooler” to bash stuff these days, than to admit you liked a movie. I’m proud to be a big monster movie fan. I love movies like Rawhead Rex, and I certainly won’t hide it because it’s cool to bash it. 😛

    • Blood Boil

      Then there are also the people that come out of the woodwork and always have to make a self righteous statement about how people who don’t agree with their critiques of a genre are “sad”, at least they are critiquing the art itself and not the critiquers. No but seriously, tell me more about what and how people are suppose to like and feel, your opinion is really the only one that matters. Talent is subjectable.

      • Cure4Humanity

        Except the majority of the people who seem to get vocal about their distastes are the ones that usually don’t bring any objective criticism to the table. They just parrot what someone else is saying or don’t give any examples or reasoning behind their criticism. There’s a difference between having a discussion and just spitting venom.

        • Garbageface

          Yeah, spitting venom is more like calling everyone sad that disagrees with you and making the bizarre assumption that a total stranger didn’t like a movie only to make themselves seem cool or edgy to a bunch of other total strangers online

          • Cure4Humanity

            Reread what you just wrote. It doesn’t make sense. Not in the context of a rebuttal or as a smart ass retort. Try again.

  • Fred

    Wow, that would be pretty great! Hollywood would be insane not to let them make the movie. Plus, Javiet Botet as Zelda is pure gold. Here’s hoping they bury her in the Pet Semetary so she can come back too. 🙂

    • Khy

      Javiet Botet never fails to scare the crap out of me!

      • Fred

        He is quickly becoming the new Doug Jones, or a modern Kane Hodder. So good at being creepy!

    • Necro

      Yeah I love the idea of him playing ‘Zelda’!

    • mballard_87

      You’re kidding right? They (Andy and Botet) would butcher Zelda’s character in a PS remake. After seeing Mama and IT I’ve concluded that Andy uses too much CGI in his films and ultimately makes his monsters unrealistic and cartoonish. Mary Lambert knew exactly what she was doing when she casted that role and that is to keep it simple. Less is usually more in the horror genre, in my opinion.

      • Fred

        You are aware the original Zelda was played by a man? Botet would be perfect for the role. I agree Andy tends to add too much CGI, but I doubt he would on Zelda. She just screams practical effects.

        • mballard_87

          I’m very aware of that… what does that have to do with my comment?
          So just because Botet is a man he deserves to play her?

          • mballard_87

            The dude is like 7 ft tall, Zelda is supposed to be a young girl.

          • Fred

            I wouldn’t fault Botet about that. He’s really good at what he does. Just look at the test footage for Mama: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hewimSXd5yM
            Man, how creepy is that? He’s incredible! And then you watch the movie, and you see all the CGI they added, and you wonder why they cast him in the first place. I like Andy, mind you. His Mama short is one of the greatest horror short film ever made. It’s a masterful class in suspense and scares. And while not flawless, his new adaptation of IT made people excited Stephen King movies again. I’m hoping he learns from his mistakes, rather than embrace CGI even more. The worst is, CGI can be a great tool for horror movies. It just needs to be used properly.

          • mballard_87

            Yeah, that’s pretty creepy! But…. lol

          • mballard_87

            Sorry, tried to insert a picture but it didn’t send. Anyway, heres the article: http://horrorfreaknews.com/time-discuss-elephant-room-cgi/20483
            Andy is def going to have to change some things going forward.

          • Fred

            I agree with some of it, but I thought the teeth worked well. They appear so little in the intro, and have such an impact, that I didn’t notice they were CGI. The dance is awful, mind you. And the lepper looks “off”. But overall, I was surprised by how little it distracted me, unlike in the feature version of Mama (where it really hurted the movie, imo). But seeing as Guillermo Del Toro was Andy’s mentor, I doubt he will quit CGI altogether. The thing is, people like Del Toro have been great defenders of practical effects. Del Toro himself has tried to blend the two, and sometimes has succeed. Unfortunately, too often it distracts more than anything else (Crimson Peak). Neill Blomkamp’s Zygote really surprised me. A fully CGI creature that managed to stay scary from the beginning to the end? Wow! The Mama short also worked incredibly well, even with a full CGI Mama monster. Yet the feature didn’t, even with Botet instead of a full CGI creature. I think the line is very small, and it’s definately an interesting subject. How much CGI is too much CGI?

          • mballard_87

            It is a good question. Hopefully one day CGI will be totally indistinguishable in movies, but until that time comes I think it should be used if at all minimally and intelligently. I also wish horror directors would take a Savini special effects tutorial before making their movies!

          • Fred

            You just said Botet would butcher Zelda. Seeing as Botet played a very similar role to Zelda in REC, and would be downright perfect for the role, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t know the original Zelda was played by a man. I fail to see how Botet would “butcher” the role…

          • mballard_87

            Well, I’m honestly just NOT a FAN. I don’t find his roles scary and think they book him because he’s gawky and awkward looking. Yeah lets just cast a 7 ft. teenage girl for the role, because fuck it and Botet is Andy’s darling.
            And that’s just like, your opinion man…just like I have mine.

          • Fred

            Good for you! Botet is awesome, but to each his own. 🙂

          • mballard_87

            Common ground!! 🙂

          • Fred

            I do find that neither Del Toro nor Andy have been able to use him correctly. Aside from REC, filmmakers keep adding CGI to him, which is absolutely ridiculous. Why hired him in the first place if you’ll CGI him and transform him in a cartoon? Sigh…

          • mballard_87

            Totally on board with ya! The often added CGI added to Botet is my main qualm.

  • The Dark One

    After seeing IT I’m sold completely, he managed to capture the story and soul of the book to me.

    • Khy

      And THAT is the purpose of an adaptation. To capture the soul of the book. If I get the same feeling from watching the movie as I do when I read the book- then it achieved it’s goal.

      IT did just that.

      • The Dark One

        And that was what what I loved so much about IT, just the way the kids and pennywise were was like they came from the pages themselves!

  • The chicken man

    Why is it so trendy to hate/bash everything these days?

    Sounds cool to me!

    • Cure4Humanity

      People are self entitled douche canoes that think everything should cater to their individual personality and tastes. If it doesn’t then they get loud and make up that vocal minority that plagues the internet.

      • Garbageface

        Yeah, god fucking forbid people have opinions that differ from yours and post about them in the same space you do.

        You know who’s a real self entitled douche canoe? People that get made when other people don’t like what they do

        • MYKEE WATTZ

          Why so serious?

        • Cure4Humanity

          Who exactly is mad? It’s the people that senselessly bash things that generally try and belittle people for having a different opinion. So…why don’t you come back when you actually make a point?

  • I’m not saying IT was flawless or anything, but I think they did a phenomenal job. I’d totally be down with watching them take on Pet Sematary! Just because someone remakes a film, it doesn’t tarnish the original even if it’s bad.

  • Matt Miller

    Pet Sematary is one of my favorite books but I think this needs a different approach than in IT, PS should be more psychological. I think the first movie is pretty bad, so there’s room for improvement. And about Zelda, she wasn’t a monster, she was a sick child, so I think that Javier Botet is too much, her appearance was not what made me scared but the way it affected Rachel and how Zelda is still present in her mind.

    • Graham

      Bang on. I think she looked creepy in the original movie (which I am also not a fan of) because it was Rachel’s memory, and she’s sort of become a bit of a monster in her mind, but Javier Botet would be way too extreme. You’re right, it needs to be more psychological than anything else. They need a good script and good actors before they need good special effects.

  • Blood Boil

    Must be nice to keep profiting off of someone else’s original ideas.

    • CelticBull

      You mean like most directors, that make movies other people wrote?

      • Blood Boil

        Not just the directors, the whole industry. More and more re-hashed nonsense that just keeps getting passed around until they figure out how to make the most money while doing away with any original approaches or ideas. Hollywood makes “fun” movies, not good movies.

        • Fred

          Horror has been doing great in the last two years, with succesful movies like The Conjuring 2, The Shallow, Don’t Breath, Lights Out, The Badadook, The Witch, Get Out, Annabelle 2, IT, Split, etc. I might not love all of them, but I have mad respect for the filmmakers behind them. Hollywood is finally starting to wake up when it comes to horror, and yet people still complain! Just look at how diverse this list is! Outside of the James Wan universe, everything is very different. And with the success of IT, things can only continue. Enjoy the ride while it last. God knows we had some awful years.

      • Blood Boil

        And please lets not insult Carpenter, Hooper, Craven, Barker, Cunningham, Argento, Fulci, etc. and all the other horror greats. Directors do write actually, and have creative and original visions, so no, not most directors.

    • Papa_spoosh

      Well I guess no one can adapt anyone else’s work according to you? Some directors write their own scripts… they’re writer/directors tho.. two jobs. So adapting someone else’s original idea is the job description… I guess you’d like to see King direct this? Lol

  • Well hopefully he won’t cherry-pick, dissect, and butcher it like he did with It.

    • Cure4Humanity

      No, you’re right, he’ll just completely adapt a 1200 page novel perfectly into a 2 hour movie. SMFH

      • MYKEE WATTZ

        Lol some people are just unpleasable.

      • He doesn’t have to adapt every comma and full-stop, he just doesn’t need to make completely pointless changes for no reason whatsoever. For instance: killing someone’s parent so they can be ‘adopted’ by a man who turns out to be their grandfather, despite the fact he could have just been cast as his dad anyway.

        Or completely changing the ending to the story. That sort of thing.

        Not that bright, are you? SMFH.

        • Cure4Humanity

          Go ahead and tell me how any of the changes made really affected the tone or feel of the film, which was very much in time with the novel. Also, the ending hasn’t been done yet…so obviously it’s not completely changed. For arguing that I’m not very bright you’ve done a remarkable job of enforcing the fact that you’re a moron.

          • By killing Mike’s parents and having Ben do all the research on the Black Spot etc., it essentially made Mike’s role a token appearance as opposed to the more in depth one that it should have been. That in turn changed how his relationship was with the rest of the group. That’s just one.

            I meant the end of the story in regard to what happened when they were kids. Obviously.

            Bit of a cretin, aren’t you?

          • Cure4Humanity

            Well, seeing how your reading comprehension is on par with a toddler, let’s revisit the question I asked you. Reread it…if that will help. Affected the “tone” or “feel”. Clear? Also, there is going to still be aspects involving them as kids in the sequel. The director already said that. So yeah, you’re still a moron, congrats.

          • Exactly as I said: it made one of the main characters almost irrelevant. That’s a pretty major change, ain’t it?

            So, yeah, you’re a retard on an epic scale. *slow clap*

          • Cure4Humanity

            Except he wasn’t irrelevant at all. You clearly didn’t pay attention to the film. Even if he was, it still didn’t change the fucking tone or feel of the film in comparison to the book. You clearly don’t understand what that means. Seriously, you are beyond dense. Throw your helmet back on and head to your nearest tech school to get your HSED ffs.

          • I did pay attention to the film: his role was reduced, and he essentially became canon fodder.

            Now sit down before you hurt yourself; I’m embarrassed for you.

          • Cure4Humanity

            Which didn’t change the tone of the film did it? Herp derp, are you getting the point yet? No, you clearly aren’t. Nor do you understand the term cannon fodder either apparently.
            The only person you should be embarrassed for is anyone unfortunate enough to speak with you as it won’t take long before they feel their IQ dropping. All your blithering on like an idiot and yet you still managed to avoid my original question. 10/10 Class A Mongoloid

          • I can’t stand to see a human being suffer this way. Please stop embarrassing yourself, it’s painful to watch.

            Just remember: You is smart. You is kind. You is important.

    • Trav

      Um, what exactly did you want? IT was pretty damn fantastic and terrifying to me.

      • I thought it was an equally butchered attempt at the book as the TV show was. I’ve yet to meet anyone yet who genuinely thought it was scary… a few of my mates said they thought it was more of a comedy than a horror movie.

        • Trav

          Well, if you didn’t like it, that’s fine. You obviously have a right to your opinion. But I can’t say the same, as I thought it was very scary, and have talked to many people who feel the same way.

          • That’s fine. I thought it was another poor adaption, which was not scary in the least.

  • Travis_Bickle

    You know, that kid who plays Eddie(Jack Dylan Grazer) in IT looks a lot like Miko Hughes from Pet Semetary, anybody notice that?

    • MYKEE WATTZ

      I beg to differ…similar voices though

      • Travis_Bickle

        Wait…you don’t see it? Miko Hughed is the kid in New Nightmare. Its an astounding resemblance

  • Papa_spoosh

    It must suck to be too cool to enjoy a fun ass movie just because it’s popular. You’re on BD.. we’re all horror fans.. you don’t get a cookie for being “above” the popular ones.

    They did an awesome job with IT. That being said, nothing about their adaptation of IT has me wanting them to do pet sematary. I’m sure they could pull it off but there’s so much fun in IT to be had, and pet sematary is devoid of any fun or happiness. I’d prefer GDT

    • Cure4Humanity

      GDT, hmm, I personally think his style is to quirky for Pet Sematary. Just my opinion obviously. There usually seems to be a light-hearted or fantastical quality to his films that I feel wouldn’t serve PS.

      • Creepshow

        The great Del Toro films (the ones in Spanish) kick you in the teeth, and crush your heart.

        • Cure4Humanity

          Don’t get me wrong, I got a bit watery eyed over Pan’s Labyrinth (my favorite of his films). I just think that PS is a bit dark and less vibrant (if that makes sense?) for a film.

          • Creepshow

            I get what you’re saying. Toro says more of what he wants to make, rather than what he does make. But with his talent for making things “fantastical”, and his knack for crushing your soul…he could do a great job.
            Or I just say “fuck it”. Offer it to Peter Jackson, and give us an over the top extravaganza.

          • Cure4Humanity

            Dude….I’m down. PJ for the win!

      • Papa_spoosh

        I agree but in films like pans labyrinth it’s balanced with the dread and gloom of the reality of their situation. Pet Sematary has a lot of fantastical qualities that he could adapt really well. If you’re familiar with the source material, there’s a lot that the movie missed

        • Cure4Humanity

          To be fair, it’s been a LOOONG time since I’ve read the book. So I may just be a bit off the mark. I just reread Salems Lot, maybe I’ll go back and hit up Pet Sematary as well.

  • Aaron Johnson

    Not interested. “Pet Sematary” is so damned joyless. It’s the sort of book that I was glad I read once but would never want to read again. It just guts you. I’m not a fan of the movie, frankly, besides Fred Gwynne. To me, the acting was pretty terrible and some of the dialogue was downright cringe-worthy. It scared the crap out of me as a kid, but doesn’t hold up.

    • Creepshow

      Joyless for the characters, but not for the reader/viewer. Pet Sematary could (maybe, just maybe) use a fresh set of lungs.

    • MYKEE WATTZ

      That book was damn good. Really?

  • astronauta69

    get Fukunaga ffs

  • Mr. Dry

    It was pretty good, not excellent neither totally scary but it was a hell of a fun ride. It’s not just a movie set in the 80s but also feels like an 80s movie, when movies had really dark elements without losing the opportuniy of being hilarious and fun as a whole. And, at least the kids’ portion of the book, kinda had the same spirit. The kids were great and Pennywise was iconic. That being said, I don’t know if Andy is the guy for this one. Robert Eggers otherwise…

  • Royal Rican Prince

    I wish he would remake “The Keep”!

  • Mr. Red Right Hand

    DEL TORO SUCKS, leave it to Muschietti please dear lord

    • MYKEE WATTZ

      I wouldnt go that far man

  • Weresmurf

    Del Toro will SAY he will do it, then float around it for five years, then declare he’s off the project. Muschietti will get in there, do a great job and deliver a fantastic, faithful adaptation. Let. him. do it.

  • Mike Lawrence

    Yes please, but It Chapter Two first!

  • MeeGhoulz

    I like the original very much. That little boy was so cool! Like if Chucky was a real boy! And the song is so catchy! “I don’t want to be buried…”

  • IcarusArts

    I hope Muschietti will use the Matt Greenberg screenplay for Pet Sematary that Greenberg recently discussed on the Horror Movie Podcast Stephen King episodes. It sounds like he had the appropriate love for the source material and really nailed it.

More in Movies