Director Tobe Hooper turned Stephen King’s “Salem’s Lot” into one of the more frightening yarns to grace the small screen.
That two-part miniseries delivered signature scares back in 1979. Remember the undead child floating outside a bedroom window? What about the chief vampire, a beast as ghoulish as any CGI creation?
Max’s “Salem’s Lot,” the oft-delayed reboot of the King property, will be swiftly forgotten, rewatched by curiosity seekers who quickly hit pause to dig out their copy of the 1979 original.
Nothing in the new story sticks, but it does teeter on camp a time or two.
Maybe three.
Author Ben Mears (Lewis Pullman, son of Bill) is returning to his roots as the story opens. He spent his formative years in Jerusalem’s Lot AKA Salem’s Lot. This is King territory, so it’s a quiet Maine hamlet where secrets are in short supply.
“So, you’re a writah, or something,” goes the early dialogue as Ben makes the rounds. Groan.
A local realtor in training named Sue (Makenzie Leigh) grabs his attention in a classic, “this couple must fall for each other because … reasons” way. Turns out a mysterious stranger has purchased the long-dormant Marsten property, and we learn why that’s awful news for the locals.
He’s not just a European … he’s a vampire!
RELATED: HOW ‘STAND BY ME’ SAVED STEPHEN KING MOVIES
Children begin disappearing. Ben, along with Sue and the local physician (Alfre Woodard, who must have gotten all of her eye-rolling out of her system off camera) set out to solve the mystery.
OK, so spoiler alerts aren’t needed for a King classic, but from the start there’s something clumsy about “Salem’s Lot.” Off, even.
King’s canon is typically long and complicated. “It.” “The Stand.” “Under the Dome.” So telling “Salem’s Lot” anew in under two hours is a problem.
Writer/director Gary Dauberman, a horror vet behind the “Annabelle” franchise and the first two “Conjuring” films, has no clue how to solve said problem. The story feels hopelessly rushed from the jump, with characters solving puzzles and detailing the vampire threat with ease.
Here’s a pro tip: The average person needs a LOT of convincing to think vampires are real.
The TV miniseries not only had more time but created an eerie sense of calm in the community, not to mention delivering characters that matter. The sense of despair hanging over the main characters, set up in the intriguing prologue, carried through the project.
What does “Salem‘s Lot” 2.0 offer? A young, scrappy Mark (Jordan Preston Carter), who ostensibly fills in for Lance Kerwin from the original. What vampire stands a chance against this wily lad?
It’s ludicrous, but like the rest of “Salem’s Lot” it’s never dull.
Of course, the local priest (John Benjamin Hickey) is a drunk – King’s enmity toward faith is well known. The great character actor William Sadler gets nothing to do as the cowardly sheriff. Bill Camp of “Sound of Freedom” fame enjoys more screen time, but his character doesn’t register beyond his BoSox jacket.
No one does.
Reviews are in for Gary Dauberman’s adaptation of Stephen King’s Salem’s Lot. Stream it on Max October 3.https://t.co/RTrxsDZIJN pic.twitter.com/yHi6wRAbbr
— metacritic (@metacritic) September 26, 2024
It’s unfair to judge a movie based on the behind-the-scenes struggles, but it’s fair to guess the film endured a brisk editing between the end of the official shoot and now. The choppy storytelling is your first clue, shoving us toward a third-act showdown with brain-numbing battles.
Dauberman knows what scares us, but he’s handcuffed himself to material that demands a broader canvas. A few isolated moments are legit chilling, including a silhouetted vampire attack which is perfectly cold and unsettling.
Other visuals grab our attention, but they come and go in a flash before we’re thrust back into the clumsy story.
There’s no need to remake “Salem’s Lot” unless there’s a fresh, and vital approach in place. The new version fails on both fronts.
HiT or Miss: “Salem’s Lot” is never dull, but that’s not enough when talking about the Stephen King film canon.
I remember watching the original when it was on TV. I had no idea who Stephen King was. I just knew the lead actors and wanted to watch. For over the air TV, it was tremendously shocking and engrossing. It was very well done.
I’ve read many of King’s books, and ”Salem’s Lot’ is my favorite. It’s truly scary and well written. I haven’t watched the 1979 mini series, but now I want to see it. I’m undecided about whether I’ll watch the Max film. Related to King’s enmity toward faith, yes; it’s in nearly every one of his books, along with the requisite snipe at Republicans. And yes, it bothers me as a Christian, but I read his work despite this and his vulgarity because of his ability to tell a good story. What I’ve noticed is that he’s more than just antagonistic toward faith–he’s preoccupied by it. And he’s read the Bible–he lists the King James Bible (rookie-level translation choice, but whatever) in his ‘On Writing’ memoir among his recommended titles. I’m fascinated by how preoccupied he is with faith, God, the Bible, the afterlife and the devout. He just can’t stop obsessing about it. He just can’t leave it alone. Interesting.
Another woke re-make. No thanks!
I think having a young black child as the extremely heroic kid figure feels a bit woke … but I wouldn’t label the whole project that way. More like garden variety ‘bad.’
The 1979 series followed the book pretty closely.
How bad is it compared to the remake of The Stand?
How could it be worse?