Sequels in the world of cinema are a precarious tightrope walk. Filmmakers must juggle honoring the beloved original while carving out fresh territory, a challenge that has led to both triumphant expansions and unfortunate missteps in franchise history. Navigating this complex landscape, 1992’s Pet Sematary II emerges as a fascinating case study. Often relegated to the shadows of its predecessor, this sequel warrants a second look, not just as a follow-up, but as a distinct, albeit flawed, piece of horror cinema.
Crafting a worthy successor is no simple feat. A multitude of questions plague the minds of creators. Should the sequel adhere strictly to the established rules of the original? Or is there room to bend those rules, subverting audience expectations while maintaining thematic consistency? The delicate balance of satisfying die-hard fans of the first film while remaining accessible and engaging for newcomers is crucial. Furthermore, the pressure to escalate the stakes, to be “bigger and better,” looms large, yet overdoing it can paradoxically diminish the potential for future installments. Considering these monumental challenges, the path of avoiding sequels altogether seems almost sensible. However, such a cautious approach would rob us of the uniquely enjoyable, if sometimes critically panned, sequels that have become cult classics in their own right – films that, while perhaps not masterpieces, deliver a particular brand of entertainment.
Pet Sematary II occasionally hints at a genuine effort to respect the source material and build upon the mythology of the cursed burial ground. There are fleeting moments where the writers seem to have considered how to expand the lore established in the first Pet Sematary film, seeking to explore new dimensions of its dark powers. Yet, for the most part, the sequel veers into territory that feels disappointingly predictable. The creative choices often land with a thud of obviousness, as if the screenplay were constructed through a simplistic game of word association. The original film featured a cat as a pivotal animal character? The sequel shall have a dog! The father in the first movie was a medical doctor? Let’s make the sequel’s father a veterinarian! This paint-by-numbers approach results in a narrative that, while functional, lacks genuine surprise and often tips into unintentional silliness.
The internal logic of Pet Sematary II also buckles under scrutiny at several key junctures. The original Pet Sematary subtly conveyed the idea that resurrection via the burial ground twisted the essence of what was brought back. The reanimated beings returned “different,” often corrupted, their inherent goodness warped into something malevolent. Pet Sematary II attempts a deviation from this, an intriguing twist suggesting that burying someone inherently “evil” might lead to a less negative outcome upon their return. This concept, ripe with potential, is unfortunately abandoned rather hastily. The first antagonist resurrected seemingly comes back relatively benign, perhaps more accurately described as ambivalent, before swiftly reverting to murderous tendencies. Adding to the confusion, this reanimated character then inexplicably becomes subservient to the teenage protagonist, Edward Furlong, in the film’s latter acts, a plot development that strains credulity. At times, the film appears indifferent to basic plausibility. Are we really expected to accept that Anthony Edwards, portraying a character who looks to be in his thirties, is the father of a character played by Edward Furlong, convincingly portraying a teenager around fifteen? While such age gaps are possible in real life, here it feels less like a deliberate narrative choice and more like simple oversight.
Edward Furlong and Clancy Brown in a scene from Pet Sematary II, highlighting the movie's blend of teenage angst and horror elements.
Perhaps the most significant flaw of Pet Sematary II is that it attempts to grapple with an excessive number of thematic elements within its runtime. The original Pet Sematary achieved its chilling impact through a relatively focused narrative centered on the agonizing pain of losing a child and the devastating consequences of refusing to accept loss. In contrast, Pet Sematary II feels overstuffed with complex and weighty issues. It touches upon the turbulent trials of adolescence, the struggle to find acceptance in a new social environment, the torment of bullying, the grief of parental loss, the sorrow of losing a beloved pet, the specter of parental abuse, the complexities of step-parent relationships, and, of course, the reanimation of the dead. Attempting to explore such a vast spectrum of themes with any depth or sensitivity, while simultaneously maintaining a consistent level of suspense and horror, proves to be an insurmountable task within the confines of a 100-minute film. Adding to the perplexing nature of the sequel is the fact that both Pet Sematary and Pet Sematary II were helmed by the same director, Mary Lambert.
And yet, despite its numerous shortcomings, Pet Sematary II retains an undeniable, if inexplicable, charm. It exists as a cinematic guilty pleasure, enjoyed not for its polished perfection but for its peculiar and often unintentional merits. Rational justification for this enjoyment proves elusive, yet the affection persists. The casting choices, for instance, are a significant strength. Clancy Brown, consistently brilliant in villainous roles, delivers a memorable performance as the abusive police officer stepfather, a character dripping with malevolence. Jared Rushton, previously known for his endearing role as Billy in Big, embodies the quintessential high school bully with chilling effectiveness. His portrayal is so convincingly cruel – mocking the protagonist’s deceased mother, threatening harm to a defenseless kitten, and preying on a classmate’s weight – that he becomes genuinely unsettling. For younger viewers at the time, this character likely evoked a primal fear, embodying the anxieties surrounding the often-harsh social dynamics of high school. Anthony Edwards, regardless of the film’s overall quality, consistently brings a likable and engaging presence to his roles, and Pet Sematary II is no exception. The film’s autumnal setting, coupled with its small-town ambiance, further contributes to its peculiar appeal, evoking a specific nostalgic atmosphere.
Ultimately, Pet Sematary II, with its plot holes large enough to drive a hearse through and its reliance on the quintessential hard rock soundtrack of the early 1990s, possesses a strange, enduring endearment. It evokes the nostalgic feeling of stumbling upon a slightly off-kilter horror film on afternoon cable television, a cinematic discovery made during a day feigning illness to stay home from school. And for some viewers, including this one, that nostalgic resonance transforms its flaws into a peculiar form of cinematic comfort.
