James Berardinelli review - ** out of ****

https://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/salem-s-lot

This is the third time Stephen King’s bestselling vampire novel, Salem’s Lot, has been adapted for a visual medium. The first two, one in 1979 and the other in 2004, were both mini-series with running lengths of slightly over three hours. In order to cram the whole story into single sub-two hour slot for a theatrical release, writer/director Gary Dauberman (who previously massaged King’s It into a successful two-part motion picture endeavor) employs a lot of condensation – too much, as it turns out. Although the 2024 Salem’s Lot is generally faithful to King’s novel, it feels truncated and rushed. The characters are only half-developed and the world-building is incomplete. Although there are some effectively creepy sequences later in the film (especially as the vampire population expands), the movie as a whole lacks the impact of either the book or its original adaptation.

In an interview shortly before production began, Dauberman indicated that his goal with the film was to make vampires scary again by “getting back to the basics” of bloodsucking and gore as opposed to the romanticization that has recently been the central theme to these movies. To a certain extent, he has succeeded. As was the case in the 1979 mini-series, the look of the vampire was heavily influenced by that of Count Orlock from Nosferatu. (Nothing sexy about a feral, desiccated corpse.) The problem is that the narrative moves so quickly that there’s no time to build to anything. The vampires feel a lot like what zombies have become – soulless, personality-devoid monsters shambling through the night.

The movie opens with author Ben Mears (Lewis Pullman, who bears a strong resemblance to his father, Bill Pullman) arriving back in his hometown of Jerusalem’s Lot, Maine after being away for 25 years. He is there to write a book about the Marsten House, a ramshackle old building with a sordid history that has recently been purchased by antiques dealers Richard Straker (Pilou Asbaek), who fronts the new store on Main Street, and his little-seen partner, Kurt Barlow (Alexander Ward). As Ben settles in, he becomes friendly with high school teacher Matt Burke (Bill Camp) and develops a romantic relationship with Susan Norton (Makenzie Leigh). These three, along with Father Callahan, Doctor Cody (Alfre Woodard), and student Mark Petrie (Jordan Preston Carter), become vampire-hunters when it is revealed that not only is there something supernatural happening at the Marsten House, but Barlow, an ancient vampire, is responsible for the disappearance of several of the town’s children.

The primary difference between the 2024 version and its 1979 antecedent is evident. Although both use King’s novel as their superstructure, the additional hour accorded to the mini-series allows the plot to breathe. The characters are better developed. The town seems more like a slice of small-town America populated by quirky individuals. And the build-up to the vampire’s first appearance creates a tension that’s never evident in the new version, even though Dauberman attempts to use some camera trickery to achieve it.

The vampire is freakish and unsettling, but I generally find this to be true of any movie that hews close to the Max Schreck interpretation. He never does much beyond lurking in the shadows and occasionally launching a violent attack, which makes him something of nebulous adversary. Likewise, the heroes tend not to be very heroic and, although that’s true in the novel, King uses 400 pages to round them out – something Dauberman is unable to do given his time constraints. The people become like the walking dead in slasher films, with each one waiting their turn to be dispatched. The actors are adequate but there are few standouts.

Salem’s Lot was originally developed in the wake of It to satisfy audience interest for another high-profile King adaptation. Filming was completed in 2022 and the film then endured a series of release delays before Warner Brothers finally decided to bypass theaters and go directly to Max. (Given this decision, one wonders why the reported hour of material cut from the film to make it “multiplex-timeslot friendly” was not restored.) Although King has given his blessing (as is his wont when a film sticks close to a basic storyline), fans may be disappointed. Salem’s Lot feels more disposable than it should be and, although the atmospherics are fitfully strong, the narrative feels disjointed, with the fingerprints of the editors too evident. A feature film adaptation of King’s best novel is deserving of something more epic than this throw-away production.