Studio: Paramount
Director: Lindsey Anderson Beer
Writer: Lindsey Anderson Beer, Jeff Buhler
Producer: Lorenzo di Bonaventura, Mark Vahradian
Stars: Jackson White, Forrest Goodluck, Jack Mulhern, Henry Thomas, Natalie Alyn Lind, Isabella Star LaBlanc, Pam Grier, David Duchovny
Review Score:
Summary:
In 1969, Jud Crandall makes a disturbing discovery about his family's connection to the cursed burial ground that haunts the small farming town of Ludlow, Maine.
Review:
A prequel to the Stephen King story that inspired it, "Pet Sematary: Bloodlines" takes place in 1969. Presumably, this setting retroactively re-dates Mary Lambert's classic "Pet Sematary" adaptation (review here) to this film's release period of the 2020s rather than that film's release year of 1989. Otherwise, we're supposed to believe Jackson White, an actor in his twenties who plays young Jud Crandall here, will somehow morph into 60-something Fred Gwynne in just twenty years. That would be an even further disbelief leap than Ewan McGregor aging all the way into Alec Guinness in the nine-year timeline span between when the "Obi-Wan" TV series ends and "Star Wars" begins.
On the topic of Gwynne, his Munster-sized lifters are challenging to fill since few performers become so inseparably associated with certain roles in the endearing manner in which he immortalized Jud Crandall and his iconic "dead is better" drawl. John Lithgow fared respectably in the 2019 remake (review here), as expected of a beloved veteran with his accomplished pedigree. Come to think of it, perhaps this is actually a prequel to that adaptation, which would make more sense to the timeline, even though it’s a weird choice to replace the stone-cold classic by building on the lukewarm remake instead.
Jackson White doesn't possess presence on Gwynne or Lithgow's level, few actors do, though he slots in admirably enough as a college-aged Crandall who is both physically capable and emotionally kind, a combination that makes Jud a stout centerpiece, if underdeveloped. It's fair to say that as fictional horror royalty goes, Jud Crandall may be up there as a lauded king, or at least a prince, so taking up his torch is more likely to lead to jeers than cheers no matter who carries the flame. White holds his own as much as the slender script allows. Anyone willing to give him a fair shake should agree any limitations to his range are more rooted in the movie's sometimes-peculiar construction than anything ordinarily associated with a poor performance.
The real spotlight stealer of "Pet Sematary: Bloodlines" is David Duchovny as Bill Baterman, a grieving father whose drafted son Timmy died tragically in Vietnam, making Timmy a prime candidate for resurrection in the infamous Micmac burial ground. Duchovny doesn't have a whole lot to do in the film. No one does (a little more on that later). That's why it's crucial for an actor of his caliber to tackle the task of adding emotional gravity as someone who can sob sincerely, and can spit cold snark at Jud for suspiciously avoiding a fate similar to his son. Only so many scant minutes are afforded to minor moments. Duchovny makes the most of his. Plus, it's always refreshing to see him doing something different from Fox Mulder.
Bill bringing back Timmy kickstarts events that throw the little Maine farm town of Ludlow into tumult. Jud and his girlfriend Norma were on their way to Michigan to join the Peace Corps, until an unfortunate encounter with Timmy's Cujo-esque canine turns them around. Timmy's unsettling behavior also sinks its hooks into Manny, who was the third friend in their childhood triumvirate, as well as Manny's older sister Donna. Getting to the bottom of this mystery will teach Jud the truth about his family's connection to Ludlow's horrible heritage, and his family's role as caretakers of the sour soil's sinister secret. It will also make him and his loved ones prime targets for Timmy's murderous machinations.
At the time of publication, "Pet Sematary: Bloodlines" sits at a pitiable 22% aggregate critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes. User scores aren't much better, holding at 44% on RT and 4.6 on IMDb. Scanning a couple of the quotes on top at RT, one will find the words "bland," "disappointing," "second-rate," and "forgettable." Headlines from the IMDb user pans shout things like "Worst Pet Sematary yet" and "Please kill the franchise!"
However, I don't follow how the film supposedly deserves such extreme negativity. Like any lower-tiered horror movie, even one that's part of a notable franchise from a major studio, "Pet Sematary: Bloodlines" does check a few boxes in the Con column. Legitimate gripes include, but are certainly not limited to, questionable editing where concurrent scenes with no narrative imperative to be juxtaposed are nevertheless spliced together simply so one can jump its time or place by inserting a shot from the other one first.
Wholly unnecessary characters also clutter up the roster. The overpacked cast list, which includes Samantha Mathis as one of Jud's parents even though she isn't important enough to earn her own title card, reeks of "Pet Sematary: Bloodlines" previously having higher aspirations that were scaled down for one reason or another. For instance, the sheriff and mayor are part of a clandestine pact that illustrates Ludlow's longstanding legacy regarding keeping the curse in check, but for the purpose of streamlining the story even more, they could have easily been composited into Pam Grier's underused mail carrier without any material difference whatsoever.
Yet none of these are significant, or even uncommon, cinema sins to justify single stars or scores colored red. No matter how low anyone thinks this goes, "Pet Sematary: Bloodlines" still isn't "Amityville: Bloodlines." I suspect some bad apples piled on hyperbolic hate because of offense at the cheeky reference to imaginary "bone spurs" keeping Jud out of Vietnam, or some misperceived queerness in the form of male friend Manny joking, "why are you sexy?" to question Jud coming at him shirtless in cold sweat.
The upside to the wonky editing style and amputated side stories is the movie moves swiftly, clocking in at just over 80 minutes when front and end credits aren't counted. As far as I'm concerned, brevity is one of the qualities a straight-to-streaming horror movie should strive for. Some differences may be subtle, yet they're notable enough that "straight-to-streaming" is a category above what "straight-to-video" used to mean in the pre-digital age, and "Pet Sematary: Bloodlines" meets what lowered "straight-to-streaming" standards should realistically be given the relative budget and Paramount+ brand.
"Serviceable," "average," and other room temperature terms hit bigger films harder. "Jurassic Park" sequels can't be those things, but a "Pet Sematary" prequel can. Scares come from an old hat. Plot points follow a predictable progression. Except, isn't that hitting for par on this kind of course? It would be foolish to try rewriting a book Stephen King has already written, literally and figuratively, so I'm okay with "Pet Sematary: Bloodlines" following formula to play it safe in this case. Expecting more out of the movie is expecting more than the movie ever expects out of itself. Sometimes, dead is better. And sometimes, mediocrity is fine, so viewers might want to adjust their anticipation accordingly.
Review Score: 60
It is moderately compelling in the moment, but it has a hard time holding up to even cursory scrutiny as far as believable “found footage” concepts go.