Editorials
In Defense of ‘Pet Sematary Two’
Andy Muschietti’s IT promises to scare up huge box office numbers next month and has recently expressed interest in remaking another beloved Stephen King classic, Pet Sematary. The 1989 film, adapted for the screen by King himself, is deemed a horror classic by many. So much so that its success lead to an inevitable, but much-maligned sequel just a few years later. Released in theaters on August 28, 1992, Pet Sematary Two was panned by critics and audiences alike. As we’re approaching the film’s 25th anniversary, I wanted to champion this underrated sequel and explain why it’s much better than you remember.
It’s no surprise that Paramount was eager to move forward with a sequel after the success of Stephen King’s Pet Sematary, or that they tapped Mary Lambert to return to the director’s chair. But a sequel meant veering away from Stephen King’s original story into new territory, which added a level of trepidation. It didn’t help that the author had his name removed from the sequel prior to release, either. While its predecessor was somber in tone, Pet Sematary Two defied expectations and dove head first into completely new territory in both tone and story, further alienating the Pet Sematary fan base.

Instead of the grief and guilt stricken father, Louis Creed, the sequel’s protagonist is an adolescent boy, Jeff Matthews, forced to move to the quaint town of Ludlow, Maine after losing his mother in a horrific on set accident. The dead don’t stay dead in Ludlow, Maine, of course, and Jeff learns way more about death than any 13-year-old should. It’s this shift in perspective, from adult to teenager, in combination with Richard Outten’s script that gives the sequel such an off-beat, B-movie sense of fun and humor. That Outten was selected by Steven Spielberg to re-write Gremlins 2: The New Batch (without credit) is fitting, given that he nails that campy style well.
The dialogue is definitely the weakest point of the sequel, but there are rare moments of cheesy brilliance peppered throughout. Borrowing Jud Crandall’s catchphrase, “Sometimes, Dead is better,” and turning it into a rallying cry from the walking dead is pure, schlocky cleverness during the movie’s most outlandish, over the top climax.
The sequel also landed a talented cast, catching Anthony Edwards before he landed his breakout role on E.R. (though he’s fairly underutilized here), and landing Edward Furlong as the lead, Jeff Matthews, right after his triumph at the box office in Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Furlong brings a lot more depth to his character than the screenplay offers, transitioning Jeff from a bullied teen suffering a personal loss to an inexplicably creepy kid a bit too obsessed with his mother.

The true secret weapon of Pet Sematary Two, though, is Clancy Brown. Alive, Brown’s Gus Gilbert is the epitome of machismo as town sheriff and one prick of a stepfather to Jeff’s best friend Drew. Eager to teach Drew harsh life lessons, he’s the perfect horror film jerk that serves as the launching point for Jeff and Drew playing in the old Micmac burial ground to begin with. Brown’s imposing stature makes him a perfect fit for the character as is, but when Gus finally meets his end and is resurrected it’s a highlight of the movie. Gus takes sadistic glee in his new undead life, and it’s simultaneously unnerving and humorous.
There’s a lot of gore in the sequel, too, that didn’t really exist in the first film. Oozing wounds, melting skin, shredded jugulars, and a lot more bloodshed in general. The sequel also doesn’t shy away from upping the body count on animals, either. Skinned rabbits, brutally murdered kittens, and of course, poor Zowie all meet visceral ends. The climax might actually be my favorite part, so over-the-top, bloody, and nonsensical that it reminds me of Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II, and that’s meant as a compliment.

Lambert and Outten expand on the evil burial ground that plagued the Creeds, exploring how it’s haunted the town of Ludlow in the three years since their deaths. True to the sequel formula, that evil feels bigger here, manipulating the Matthews and Gilbert families as pawns with much greater ease. Lambert and Outten honor the Creeds’s story sticks to the rules set in the first film, then introduce a completely different story fitting of its protagonist’s age.
Pet Sematary Two is a flawed film with weird story logic and cheesy dialogue, but it’s also ballsy and fun. Gory practical effects, B-movie entertainment, and set around Halloween? What’s not to like? If we’re comparing the two films, of course, the original is better, but that doesn’t mean the sequel is without merit. Even the soundtrack is fun, with the Ramones returning to offer a new centerpiece song in “Poison Heart” (though admittedly not as catchy as “Pet Sematary”). This off-the-rails sequel is absolutely crazy, and that’s precisely why it’s deserving of far more love than it has gotten so far.
Editorials
André Øvredal’s ‘Troll Hunter’ Remains One of the Best Found Footage Movies
In this day and age, the word “troll” is often used to describe various online nuisances. Yet as abundant and irksome as the modern troll can be, they aren’t usually as fearsome as their mythological counterparts. I’m not talking about the small and gentler versions that have become more common to see in media. No, there are much bigger and scarier trolls out there—and André Øvredal’s movie Troll Hunter is one of the best places to find them.
It doesn’t take long for Troll Hunter (or Trolljegeren) to dump the Blair Witch Project-esque setup and aim for something a lot fresher. The trajectory of the story is augmented by Otto Jespersen’s character Hans, the titular Troll Hunter. The second he comes barreling out of the deep, dark woods and shouts “troll” at the camera, this movie takes a turn into what feels like uncharted territory. Not only subject-wise, but also conceptually.
For fantastical and made-up subject matter in cinema, found footage is a fast way to add a guise of believability. After all, what we accept to be the most crucial aspect of documentaries—the truth—rubs off on pseudo-documentaries, despite our understanding of the pretense involved. That is what Øvredal delivered with Troll Hunter: a movie so convincing that some viewers wondered if trolls really do exist. So, had this been straightforwardly made, it likely wouldn’t have been as effective. Conventional narratives would be more inclined to treat something like trolls as flat out unreal, and never try to convince the audience to think otherwise.

Hans petrifies the three-headed Tusseladd troll.
The viewers, like the characters trailing Hans, are quickly thrown into the deeper end of that extraordinary story. They have to process all this new information while staying on the go. So, although there is no significant amount of meandering, narratively or physically, there is still a good amount of atmosphere, not to mention tension building. It’s never anything frightful, but then again, Troll Hunter isn’t your standard offering of horror; it’s more on the low end of the dark fantasy spectrum. We aren’t ever spirited away to a faraway world—we stay in rather familiar surroundings, as well as dip into those less so. The outcome is a movie where you’re constantly more in awe than in terror.
As fantasy fiction might do, Troll Hunter prefers not to deal with incredulity. There is no time to waste on doubt, as interviewer Thomas (Glenn Erland Tosterud), soundperson Johanna (Johanna Mørck), and cameraman Kalle (Tomas Alf Larsen) all follow Hans around, recording whatever this character is willing to reveal about his bizarre job. Of course, the Troll Hunter himself is not an open book; in that respect, the diegetic documentary fails to fully capture and unpack the more interesting of its two subjects. Yes, all those giant, monstrous trolls are indeed incredible, but understandably, your mind wanders to their pursuer. What kind of person signs up for this gig and then chooses to stick with it for so long?
Reviews have called out Troll Hunter for its lack of character development. In regard to Thomas and his fellow documentarians, that criticism is valid, but bear in mind, they aren’t the focus of the story, either. Meanwhile, Hans is a well-crafted character. At least better than first realized. Before he was introduced, Hans had already grown tired of the troll grind. Fed up with that low compensation for his services, resentful of the bureaucracy, and wanting to expose his employer on a large scale, Hans’ discontent is glaring.
Then there are those finer details about the Troll Hunter, such as that indifference to both the natural splendor of his everyday surroundings and the affections of an obviously smitten colleague, that also suggest some level of despondency. So it is fair to say this movie doesn’t feature any sizable growth for its characters; however, the namesake isn’t underwritten. No doubt, putting a real-life character like Otto Jespersen in that role is partly why Hans is so fascinating—maybe even relatable.

Otto Jespersen as Hans the Troll Hunter.
There is always a small risk whenever using the term “mockumentary” to describe a found-footage movie, as the word could imply humor where there is none. In the case of Troll Hunter, the term’s usage is appropriate. Some folks have claimed the English-dubbed version has the more comedic tone, however, the Norwegian cut isn’t exactly humorless. Apart from the trolls’ absurd appearances, this is a movie where the characters nearly choke on the monsters’ farts, and Christians are like walking targets. Hans’ complete apathy towards everything is another cause of laughter. Overall, the comedy is intentionally dry and inconsistent. Unfunny, though? Absolutely not.
In a movie where endemic creatures are maltreated, as well as disavowed from living freely and peacefully, it’s hard not to notice the ecological message buried beneath the story. In addition to that is the unmistakable political satire. There is this whole business about intrusive and unsightly power lines—like trolls, they’re big blemishes on the land—that leads to what is perhaps the movie’s funniest moment. The scene in question is that one where certain electric lines, the ones secretly being used to keep the trolls at bay, go in a loop and don’t actually send power to any residents. Yet the monitors of said lines don’t find this at all weird. So it stands to reason that Øvredal was having a go at those who accept the government’s doings without question.
Looking past the fact that trolls aren’t actually real, this movie is an enlightening source of information. And not just for international audiences; Norwegians, too, get schooled about their homeland’s own mythology. It’s also evident from everything on screen that Øvredal and his crew were enthusiastic about the topic. The creature designs are the most indicative of that zeal; those imaginative yet myth-accurate manifestations are equally amusing and grotesque. One second you’re laughing at their phallic noses, the next you’re white-knuckling during a hairy sequence. Most surprisingly is how well the trolls’ visual effects hold up after fifteen years. It’s not all spotless, but on the whole, they remain impressive.
Vouching for a mockumentary about trolls isn’t easy, but those who do come around and give it a shot will more than likely be grateful for the recommendation. For Troll Hunter is a real find in that vast and varied genre we call “found footage“.

A bridge troll reaches up for food and finds Hans decked out in armor.

You must be logged in to post a comment.