Salem's Lot

Ok I just watched one of my all time favorite Stephen King novels. I loved the 1979 version which I watched eagerly when I was 15 years old. I had been anticipating watching this for quite a while at least since the whispers started that a remake was coming. The movie was not terrible I gave it a six (that may be to generous) because the movie was watchable. I had so hoped it would be remade with the kind of money writing acting everything that "It" had when the last remake was done. Everything was just a little off with this movie. The acting was just ok. Character development was pretty non existent. They could have done a lot better on developing some interest in the characters. I think it was to rushed toward the end the drive in ending was terrible some should have pumped the brakes hard on that one! Why? Why remake something if not to make it outstanding! Stephen King is an awesome writer and if the production is done correctly then it should be awesome. Very disappointed ...

I believe this movie could have used another 30-40 minutes to flesh thing's out. To much rushed scenes to get to the next. More back story could have happened with the care taker which he was a waste unlike the original which was much better and very much more creepy. Could have seen how he became barlow's servent. Backstory on Barlow the master himself how he became what he is. Offer something different or adding to that what the original or remake didn't have that set's it apart not saying it would be better then the original but hold up as very worthy remake. I still enjoyed it but just something to think about for people wanting to do remake's.

What makes the book a masterpiece is the slow burn. The budding love affair. The vignettes of strange things happening around town. The eventual gathering of a gang of misfit heroes that come together in perfect King fashion.

All of that is gone. The pacing is largely incoherent. Characters jump to conclusions (the right ones, always) without a second thought. It's hard to love any of characters because they all lack the depth they need to make the story move forward.

There are some really amazing moments here, and some small sparks of genius. But, unfortunately, this adaptation is defanged.

This new adaptation of Stephen King's classic, "Salem's Lot", is a missed opportunity.

It's now well-known that this movie fell victim to studio meddling, both from WB and producer James Wan. The result is a mediocre, bland, and lifeless product.

King's strength has always been his focus on the human element-the characters, and how their relationships inform the narrative and provide an emotional core to his stories. Here, none of that exists.

It seems, based on what's left, that director Dauberman had an idea of how to tell the story while staying faithful to the source material. His directorial approach is simple, almost naive, but for a story like this, it could've worked.

However, any resemblance of life has been sucked out (likely in the editing room), leaving behind what I'd call a "non-film." The pacing is so brisk it becomes annoying, making it impossible to care about the one-dimensional characters, who exist more as narrative devices than as real people.

The visual style doesn't help either, as it's reminiscent of The Conjuring series-visually slick, sterilized horror aimed at the masses. The few character-driven moments seem shot for efficiency, with the most basic framing, blocking, and composition, rather than any attempt to convey real emotion.

Alfre Woodard (Dr. Cody) delivers a performance that's a cut above the rest. Makenzie Leigh (Susan), John Benjamin Hickey (Father Callahan), and Lewis Pullman (Ben Mears)-in that order-do their best with the material. The younger actors are fine, but everyone else... not so much. A couple of performances are even laughably bad.

If the characters come off as one-dimensional despite the actors' best efforts, it feels fitting that the main antagonist can't even be described as such. His only discernible trait seems to be going "Bleaarrggghh" before feeding on his next victim.

There's virtually no blood or gore and most of the violence happens off camera.

The score and sound design are serviceable but far from memorable, doing little to enhance the nonexistent emotional impact of the story.

After nearly two hours of nothingness, the film devolves into a boring, senseless, and meaningless "action-packed" finale (keep an eye out for the sun moving at plot-convenient speeds). The sequence is topped off with sub-par CGI and one of the most anticlimactic endings I can remember.

The production values are clearly there, though. Even if it was never going to be a masterpiece, there was a chance to make an emotionally resonant film with the timely theme of a small American town's fear of "the outsider."

Alas, what we're left with is an hefty, bloated serving of nothing.

It was an okay movie. Really needs to be an 8-10 hour mini series. That way the characters could be explored better. We would have more of an interest in the story and lore. Felt that the actors did well with what they were given. The leads all did a good job conveying their characters motivation, considering the shortness of the movie. The heroes of the story are good. Loved the teacher as well as the two main leads and the little kid who showed no fear. Was it perfect. No. But. The effects were well done. Though they should have waited for the grand reveal till later in the story. Other than they. A solid movie. Again. Should have been made a mini series.