Pet Sematary Two - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Pet Sematary Two Reviews

Page 1 of 40
Super Reviewer
March 28, 2012
Pet Sematary two is a pretty bad sequel to a very good horror flick. As usual, the filmmakers decided to create a follow-up to a fun horror flick, but this time around, the sequel really doesn't pay off. The film may appeal to gore fans, as it is very gruesome and director Mary Lambert leaves nothing out. This sequel acts as if it forgets the first film, that actually delivered terror; but this time around, it just delivers on the bloodletting. What I loved about the original was the supernatural elements that rounded out a good story, and in fact it probably was the best work by author Stephen King. Pet Sematary tries to amp up the game by providing more blood and gore and the film doesn't stand out. I felt that this film missed the mark and didn't deliver anything aside from gore. A good story would have helped, but the film lacked in that department. I felt the film lacked anything really interesting that would make it watchable. This sequel relies more on gore than anything, and it's fine if that's what you're expecting, but to those who loved those who loved the original, this will most likely disappoint you. As far as sequels are concerned, this follow-up is bad to mediocre and with only the gore factor to deliver its horror, the film ends up being a waste of time. There are a few decent elements here and there, but as a whole; the film doesn't work and like I previously stated, it's a disappointment. The film could have been much better and the filmmakers could have thought of a better plot, but it's just bland.
Super Reviewer
October 14, 2011
Gus Gilbert: No Brain, no pain... think about it. 

"Raise Some Hell."

Pet Sematary Two was surprising because  it wasn't nearly as horrible as I thought it would be. It's still bad, but it has its entertaining parts. It doesn't make much sense to make a remake of Pet Sematary, but it happened, and  it could have turned out much worse. Comparatively to the first one, it's not as creepy(and the first one wasn't that creepy).

This one has a whole lot going on when nothing is going on. The movie is weird, goofy and over the top. The plot is slightly more ridiculous than that of the first, but nothing new is really established; just more of it. Basically it's the first movie, but uses the end of the first movie and makes it pretty much the whole film. There are a lot more deaths and a lot more blood and the whole thing comes off as a mess. 

It isn't scary and they try to make up for that by making it funny, when it should be scary. Sometimes it works to an extent, but most of the time it just comes off as annoying. There's a lot of family drama involved like in the original, but it isn't used as well and most of it just comes off as laughable. 

What I did like about this more than the first was that the acting was better. I know that isn't saying that much.  I liked Edward Furlong in his role as the grieving young kid. On a whole the movie isn't good at all. It makes no effort to stand apart from the first and really is just a bad sequel of a not so great horror film.
Super Reviewer
September 6, 2010
Not as good as the first, but it brings in a large amount of gore, which feels humorously over the top at times. I liked it.
Super Reviewer
January 20, 2008
Passable sequel, but barely worth watching. Possibly only of interest for nostalgic reasons. I think if you watched it as a new release now, you would be pretty disappointed with it. Plot pretty crap, some of it makes no sense, and quite honestly was bored half way through it. Missing the creepiness of the first one. Now THAT was a film to give you nightmares!
Super Reviewer
½ October 23, 2007
The zombies were a bit too comical for this to be in horror. However, Clancy Brown plays an amazing world class A-hole as usual, and as a zombie it's an A plus. Edward Furlong reprises his pre-emo emo-ness, and a fat child gets killed by a potatoe truck. Not too bad.
Super Reviewer
December 2, 2007
This one is hilarious!
Super Reviewer
November 28, 2007
this film was terrible. they should have stopped at one.
Super Reviewer
April 26, 2007
Not quite as powerful as the original, but still a fun horror film.
Super Reviewer
½ June 18, 2007
After burying the corpse of animals and people in the local Indian burial grounds, then that frightened me a bit when they resurrected as the evil. Better than the original.
Super Reviewer
½ February 16, 2007
It was ok.
Super Reviewer
November 11, 2015
Having none of the creepiness and terror of the original, Pet Sematary II is an abysmal sequel. After the death of his mother Jeff Matthews moves to the rural town of Ludlow, Maine, with his father; where he soon learns of an ancient Indian burial ground that has the power to resurrect the dead. Edward Furlong leads the cast and gives a terrible performance. But he doesn't really have much to work with, as the writing is awful. Additionally, the costumes and sets all look incredibly cheap, giving the film a low-rent feel. While it tries to hit the same beats as the first film, Pet Sematary II is just a pathetic imitation.
Super Reviewer
½ October 15, 2011
A weak sequel with only a few good bloody/scary scenes.
Super Reviewer
½ October 13, 2012
When it comes to a low-grade horror films, "Pet Sematary Two" is the absolute worst of the worst. It's poorly-handled and cheap-looking, flatly-acted and disgusting, and there's a questionable amount of slow-motion thrown in. Basically, it's the tiresome result of a studio getting greedy and trying to make a couple of quick bucks by making an unnecessary sequel to a better and more successful horror flick, but failing in the worst way possible. "Pet Sematary Two" is boring, incompetent and laughably uninspired. It's more than a waste of time.
Super Reviewer
September 27, 2007
All in all, yah, this film was bad. But really it was entertaining as hell, maybe for the wrong reasons.
It has all the corny lines, bad acting, hilarious "scares" that any fan of cheesy 80s and 90s horror films will could want.
It even has a tough kid with a dangling cross earring. How could you ask for more?
Super Reviewer
½ December 18, 2007
I don't get what the point of this movie was. It's one of those weird 80's horror films where nothing ever happens, yet there is a lot of guts and blood all the time.
Super Reviewer
March 7, 2008
nowhere as good as the original however it had its moments of terror
Super Reviewer
½ December 24, 2007
Super Reviewer
August 7, 2007
Ummmmm yeah another un-necessary and just plain bad sequel.
Super Reviewer
½ May 10, 2007
Not as good as the first one, but still enjoyed it!
Page 1 of 40