Pet Sematary: Bloodlines – Film Review

With the finesse of a bulldozer and the subtlety of a sledgehammer, Pet Sematary: Bloodlines, the eagerly awaited prequel to 2019’s Pet Sematary, forays into the world of horror. The film, which Jeff Buhler and Lindsey Anderson Beer co-wrote and for which Lindsey Anderson Beer made her directorial debut, appears to miss the point of horror narrative. Despite having an impressive cast that includes actors with skill like Jackson White, Natalie Alyn Lind, and Henry Thomas, the film falls flat, offering a story that seems more like a reanimated corpse than a novel interpretation of the Pet Sematary universe.

The film’s 1969 setting and intriguing backstory are hinted at in the premise. The story’s protagonist, young Jud Crandall (Jackson White), finds a cemetery where the dead can come back to life, setting the stage for a potentially terrifying investigation of the evil forces that stalk Ludlow. Any hopes for a compelling story, however, are quickly dashed by the weak writing and uninspired direction.

The film’s most glaring problem is that it can’t generate any suspense or dread. The horror components, which ought to form the core of any movie in this genre, are poorly done. Pet Sematary: Bloodlines turns to cheap jump scares and gratuitous gore in place of relying on psychological horror or creating a sense of suspense. The scares lack any potential impact because they are predictable and frequently foreshadowed from a great distance. The audience is more likely to roll their eyes at this film than to clench their seats in fear because it seems to have mistaken loud noises and excessive blood for real frights.

Despite the efforts of the talented cast, the characters are unsatisfyingly one-dimensional. Jackson White’s portrayal of Jud Crandall fails to pique interest or sympathy. His transformation from a good-hearted young man to a terrified victim lacks depth, which distances viewers from his plight. It is difficult to emotionally invest in the fates of even the supporting characters, played by actors like Natalie Alyn Lind and Henry Thomas, because they are given little to work with.

Additionally, the film’s attempts to tackle issues like family, legacy, and the effects of messing with nature fall flat. The investigation comes across as superficial, as if the filmmakers only touched the surface rather than delving into the deep and unsettling issues that the source material, written by the masterful Stephen King, is known for. The audience is instead presented with a number of overused cliches and uninspired dialogues that do not significantly advance the main narrative.

Despite being competent, the film’s visual aspect does little to improve the overall impression. The 1969 time period is accurately captured, but the cinematography lacks the artistic flair to stand out. Here, the chance to develop an immersive visual experience that would have improved the film’s storytelling is lost. Unfortunately, even in terms of technical quality, Pet Sematary: Bloodlines settles for mediocrity, failing to leave an audience member with a lasting impression.

It’s disappointing to see Pet Sematary: Bloodlines become a part of the franchise. The film lacks inspiration in its direction and writing and misunderstands what makes a horror movie truly terrifying, despite the potential offered by its intriguing premise and talented cast. It doesn’t do anything to further the legend of Pet Sematary or pay homage to Stephen King’s original book’s legacy. The film is better off being interred in the cemetery of forgettable cinema if horror fans are looking for true chills and an engaging story.