The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part
The Walking Dead
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We want to hear what you have to say but need to verify your account. Just leave us a message here and we will work on getting you verified.
Please reference “Error Code 2121” when contacting customer service.
No consensus yet.
Tomatometer Not Available...
No consensus yet.
All Critics (20)
| Fresh (5)
| Rotten (15)
| DVD (1)
For now, though, it's time for Hollywood to lay this whole burial ground theme to rest.
It's a sequel that really should never have been made...
Pet Sematary II looks like a feature that quickly slipped out of Lambert's control, and she decided to drive the production into the ground out of spite.
Life's too short to spend an hour-and-a-half of it watching hollow cinematic dreck like Pet Sematary Two. There are some neat gory bits, though.
An easy sequel to "dig"! A Hip Horror Film for Teens
A needless sequel, but a pretty good one all the same.
The first one was bad enough as is...
A movie that didn't need to made with a sequel that didn't need to made.
Caso o roteirista deste filme morra, por favor, não o enterre no cemitério indígena visto na história.
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.
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.
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.
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!
View All Quotes