Salem’s Lot review | Well, more like Salem's Not (original) (raw)
Stephen King’s 1975 novel gets its first big screen treatment, courtesy of Gary Dauberman. Here’s our Salem’s Lot review.
There’s a particular flavour of horror films that don’t often get a lot of appreciation, especially as so-called “elevated horror” dominates the screens and critics’ notebooks. These horrors aren’t necessarily what we’d call good in the most traditional sense, but they’re perfectly fine and most importantly, hugely accessible for everyone.
Which brings us to Salem’s Lot, Gary Dauberman’s adaptation of Stephen King’s 1975 vampire novel. Dauberman’s version of Salem’s Lot is the first time the book has been adapted to the big screen, although a shortened version of the 1979 miniseries did enjoy a short stint in cinemas, as did a feature film sequel to the miniseries, A Return To Salem’s Lot.
The film follows Ben Mears (played by Top Gun: Maverick’s Lewis Pullman), a writer who moves back to his hometown, Jerusalem’s Lot in Maine, to research a new book. Little does he know that his arrival coincides with the arrival of a sinister creature of the night, who quickly begins to terrorise the town.
Credit: Warner Bros.
If you’re coming into it with a love for Stephen King’s original novel, you might however find Salem’s Lot unfulfilling. In order to squeeze the story into under two hours, a lot has been cut and liberties have been taken. Not all of them work either, but at least Salem’s Lot is shot with a sense of style. Michael Burgess’ cinematography does a great job at elevating the thin, unimaginative script that the film is left with.
Dauberman focuses strongly on the vampire action, but Salem’s Lot can’t hide that sense of being heavily chopped up. Perhaps a lot of the character development and narrative continuity was left on the cutting room floor, as most of the characters come across as empty stereotypes.Salem’s Lot goes from no vampires to an overabundance of vampires awfully quick.
Read more: Salem’s Lot | The new film originally clocked in at three hours
Thankfully, the cast are on hand to make the characters likeable. Lewis Pullman – about to play a character called Bob for the second time in the upcoming Thunderbolts* – makes for a pleasant protagonist, even if the script gives him little personality. Alfre Woodard and Bill Camp are wasted in roles that ultimately go nowhere and Pilou Asbæk has clearly been instructed to just occasionally look menacing.
In the midst of this, it’s Jordan Preston Carter who is the unexpected highlight of the film. Mark Petrie, a young boy with a surprising talent for vampire killing, is the film’s hero and a far more interesting character than anyone else. Dauberman, who also co-wrote and wrote Andy Muschietti’s IT films, seems to have been tempted to make Mark the hero of the film and perhaps that would have made for a better movie. Sure, that would have further diverged from the source material, but Carter is such a naturally magnetic presence that I can’t help but wonder about the film that could have been.
Sadly, Salem’s Lot isn’t particularly scary either (unlike the miniseries, that achieved more in that department on scarcer resources). Barlow, the film’s big bad, is revealed relatively early on in the film and simply doesn’t feel very threatening. Dauberman then also tries really hard to give the impression of violence without really showing much. The film did receive an R-rating in the US, so I’m not entirely sure why the violence feels so tame on screen.
Salem’s Lot – after the great big long wait for it – isn’t a great film, but if it was released 20 years ago, my teenage self would have been all over it. There’s a lot of value in films like these; they open up the world of horror films to a whole new, usually younger audience and that shouldn’t be ignored. It’s not quite enough to warrant the film an extra star, but I do think Salem’s Lot has a lot to offer. But just imagine what it could have been.
Salem’s Lot is in UK cinemas 11th October.