John Connor Actor Edward Furlong Followed Up Terminator 2 With An Awful Stephen King Movie

Edward Furlong became an overnight sensation with 1991's "Terminator 2: Judgment Day." But the following years saw the actor gradually disappear from the spotlight and endure all manner of personal struggle. During that time he joined the cast of "Pet Sematary Two," a critical bomb that nonetheless became a cult classic and was far from Furlong's lowest moment.

To this day, Furlong is best known for playing John Connor in James Cameron's sci-fi action classic. In the film, the future leader of the human resistance is just a petulant wayward teen — a juvenile delinquent with no concept of what his future holds until Arnold Schwarzenegger's cyborg arrives from that very future. Furlong was outstanding in the role, delivering a completely convincing performance that required so much of the young actor. The fact that this was Furlong's first ever role just made the whole thing even more impressive.

"Terminator 2" was a massive hit, making $515 million and forever cementing its status as one of the best action movies of all time and easily the best of all the "Terminator" movies. Sadly, its young star never quite reached the same heights, which considering how well "T2" was received was always going to be a struggle. Things didn't get off to the best start, however, when Furlong immediately followed up his hit movie with a role in the critically-derided sequel that was "Pet Sematary 2." But as "A Home of Our Own" director Tony Bill put it in a 1993 letter to Furlong's agent, "Eddie Furlong didn't choose the movies, the movies chose him and it has taken a heavy toll." As such, "Pet Sematary 2" was not only not Furlong's fault, but the very least of his concerns at the time. 

In the 2017 documentary, "T2: Reprogramming the Terminator," (via Entertainment Weekly) James Cameron recalled how casting director Mali Finn found Edward Furlong via an unorthodox route. "He didn't come in through an agency," said the director. "He'd never been in anything, she literally just went out to find raw untried talent." Furlong himself explained how it happened: "I was in a place called the Pasadena Boys Club. [Finn] says, 'Can I have you come and audition for a movie? I can't tell you what it is, but take my number down, and call me.'" After three auditions, during which he impressed Cameron and the producers despite a rough second try-out, he was cast as John Connor.

His casting proved to be an inspired choice on Cameron and Finn's part. Furlong was a true revelation as John Connor. As such, you've got to wonder what possessed him to say yes to "Pet Sematary Two" as his next movie. At least, you would wonder if you didn't know what the young actor was going through at the time.

"Pet Sematary Two" was a follow-up to 1989's "Pet Sematary," which was based on Stephen King's 1983 novel of the same name. The first movie wasn't exactly a "T2"-level hit, but it also was a solid success, making $57.4 million on an $11.5 million budget and garnering mixed reviews. "Pet Sematary" also featured one of the scariest scenes ever, and had some neat little additions like a creepy painting with a morbid hidden meaning. "Pet Sematary Two" was directed by Mary Lambert and written by Richard Outten. It made less than half of its predecessor and was met with widespread negative reviews, making for an anticlimactic follow-up to "T2" to say the least.

"Pet Sematary Two" saw Edward Furlong play 13-year-old Jeff Matthews whose mother, Renee (Darlanne Fluegel), dies. Jeff then moves back to his hometown of Ludlow, Maine with his father, Chase (Anthony Edwards). There, Jeff learns about the Native burial grounds capable of resurrecting the deceased, prompting the youngster to bury his poor mother only for her to return as a zombie.

Stephen King, who'd prevented the "Pet Sematary" producers from cutting the saddest scene, could see that the sequel was headed for disaster, and had his name removed from the film's marketing materials. He was right. "Pet Sematary Two" was savaged upon its August 1992 release, with Variety's review claiming the film was "about 50% better than its predecessor, which is to say it's not very good at all," and criticizing the way in which it "relies more on gore than genuine chills." The New York Times' Stephen Holden similarly found the movie to be severely lacking, writing that it was "much better at special effects than at creating characters or telling a coherent story." There was also the sense that the film was essentially just a remake of the original, all of which ensured that it only made $17.1 million on an $8 million budget.

Again, you wonder what might have convinced Furlong to star. But aside from the fact the original was a hit, there's the fact that nobody was guiding him. According to a 1994 Entertainment Weekly report, Furlong was "at the center of a bickering triangle of guardians" arguing over money and accusations of abuse, resulting in what the outlet called a "textbook study of the ways in which a child actor can find himself with nobody to protect him."