It’s likely if you are a regular movie watcher or book reader that you already know that Stephen King’s movie adaptations never do total justice to his original novels. Therefore, the fact that Director Gary Dauberman’s latest cinematic version of ‘Salem’s Lot did not flesh out for me the full story depicted in the book should not be surprising to anyone whether you are one of King’s “constant readers” or not.
Overall, the product which recently debuted on MAX after a long delay in release was worth watching but it certainly was not as good as the TV mini-series version from 1979 starring David Soul, James Mason, Bonnie Bedelia, and Lance Kerwin. In fact, this latest creation would have benefitted greatly had it been produced as a multiple-episode series. The overall downfall of this newest rendition is that there was simply not enough time devoted to discovering the storyline, developing the characters, and establishing their relationships with one another. Plotline points seemed to jump quickly to established facts before the audience or characters even had a chance to formulate them into a possible workable scenario. The scenes were rushed and short. Backstories for the characters and Marsten’s house were largely absent and only mentioned briefly and awkwardly.
Although the opening credits were interesting and creatively produced, there was too much clue-like imagery and too many newspaper clippings to possibly take in and digest so quickly. Yes, these images helped to set the tone and highlight elements of a back story but the average viewer may have been unaware that clues were being offered or they were simply overloaded with too much too fast particularly if they were not previously familiar with the story.
And speaking of the story, it is hard to sum up the plot for viewers who did not read the book or seen any other versions in part because this two-hour movie does not adequately represent the original text. At any rate, in generalities, an author returns to “the Lot”, a town he lived in as a child. He and other residents realize that there is a vampire preying on the community. As a group, the writer and some of the townspeople band together to expel the vampire from their town.
Surprisingly, the Kurt Barlow vampire appeared briefly far earlier in the movie than is usually anticipated in horror films. There was little time to build up for a bigger reveal. Even though the vampire’s caretaker, Mr. Straker, is indeed a stranger in Salem’s Lot, his character should have been featured more…particularly since the creators went to the bother of giving him a unique appearance and demeanor with costume and voice; an odd and underused character whose screen time was wasted.
The music also helped to establish a seventies vibe and considering the original text came from Stephen King I am surprised that there was not more of a soundtrack as King frequently references lyrics, songs and musicians in his novels. Gordon Lightfoot’s “Sundown” was a great addition, appropriate and mood setting.
None of the acting stood out as particularly noteworthy, even Alfre Woodard. Bill Camp, who plays teacher Matt Burke, was probably the best, but overall, the way the movie was put together, with no depth, anybody could have played the parts.
Visually there were some creative camera shots and the occasional use of colored light particularly in misty blue and pinkish red caught my attention in certain scenes. Additionally, the effort was put into the seventies costuming, cars, and streetscapes. Sadly, the Marsten house was not featured nearly enough and therefore was a missed opportunity.
The movie’s ending ramped up to a more thrilling, intense, climatic resolution than I was expecting considering the short, jumpy, disjointed pace of the rest of the movie. But, as is the case with many horror films, when the movie is over…it is over abruptly.
And that is indicative of my overall review of “Salem’s Lot”. At two hours, it was simply too short a film to give the town, its residents, newcomers, strangers, and the Marsten house enough screen time and the treatment they deserved in order to have their layered plotline told sufficiently and satisfactorily. Not a complete waste of time, but a disservice to Stephen King’s detailed and deserving work. A very much wasted opportunity to not have the work produced as a six- or eight-episode series.
To future watchers of this film I say, take in what this rendition offers in its truncated format, then watch the 1979 TV mini-series then read Stephen King’s phenomenal book, Salem’s Lot. Only then will the potential of this newer version be revealed.
Find this adaptation of ‘Salem’s Lot and the superior 1979 miniseries both on Max.