Better Wednesday, April 06, 2005
We find the same low-key movie about a pet cemetary that just happens to be built on an ancient indian burial site. In turn everything that is buried there comes back to life with a curse on them. Although it is much better than the original adaptation of Stephen King's book it is no were near a well made Horror movie.
3 out of 3 people found the following review helpful:
I dont care what you say. this movie was goodMonday, January 17, 2005
First off, you shouldnt be watching this if gore offends you. Its a "horror" movie and you should expect that. Also, most people didnt get the plot, which is death. Learning to deal with death and learning that it is a natural part of life that you should learn to deal with. Hence the dark brooding feel of the film. I enjoyed this movie start to finish without being bored and I thought it was a good way to end the franchise. They even played The Ramones again at the end of the film! Buy it if you liked the first
1 out of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Overly disappointing sequelThursday, January 13, 2005
It's amazing that with Mary Lambert at the helm of this sequel to her richly chilling adaptation of the Stephen King novel that this film is as emotionless and empty as it is. Anthony Edwards and Edward Furlong play a father and son who move near a familiar pet cematary after a tragic accident. There's no point in going into the overall story, because the screen writer sure didn't put too much thought into the story himself. Animals and people die, they get buried, and then they come back rather homicidal. This goes on for a while, with some nice gore effects, but it's all rather pointless. Clancy Brown (Highlander, HBO's Carnivale) is at his usual psychotic best, but he's lost in the middle of this schlock fest. All in all, this dismal sequel can't come close to how good the first film was, and is better left on the scrap heap.
2 out of 5 people found the following review helpful:
UNDER RATED!Tuesday, August 31, 2004
THIS IS AN AWESOME MOVIE!!!
THERE IS A LOT OF BLOOD AND GORE IN IT AND THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT FROM A HORROR MOVIE!
YES, THE FIRST ONE WAS VERY GOOD, BUT I LOVE THIS ONE!
1 out of 5 people found the following review helpful:
Ick.Monday, May 31, 2004
This sequel is a disgusting splatterfest with the bare bones of a story wrapped around it. Anthony Edwards (who should have known better) and Edward Furlong (who shouldn't have, probably) star as a father and son who move to the town which the Creed family from the first movie didn't have so much luck in. Mayhem ensues. A zombified sheriff oozing face goo onto his cute little screaming wife as he sexually assaults her... A box full of chewed-up kittens... A young boy getting his neck snapped in a scene which winds up being played for laughs... These scenes are not just disgusting, they are in bad taste.
The first movie was not "Silence of the Lambs"-caliber cinema either, but at least it was scary and a decent "popcorn" movie. It was gross too, but it was practically "Annie" compared to this sequel's pointless, offensive gore-a-thon. Apparently the filmmaker's goal was to make as many audience members as possible flee the theater retching. Mission accomplished. Shame on you, Dr. Greene!