Salem's Lot

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.

I have t read the book so I can't compare it to that. I loved the look of the vampires. There was definitely good creepy atmosphere. Good action scenes. It had the makings of a good horror movie, I just think it would have fared better as a mini series. We needed more time to get to know these characters better. More time to develop these relationships. I think Lewis does a really good acting job with what he's given but his character needs more development. His backstory doesn't play into the story in any way, except for a vague "only the outsiders win" kind of way. Like I thought him being a writer (besides being the obvious Stephen King stand in) would serve a purpose, like maybe he's the one to do research, but no. The only other thing we know about him is that his parents died when he was a kid and that serves no purpose either. He's kind of nothing character. Again, at least Lewis does a good job with what little is given to him. But as said, I think a mini series would have been better to give more time for the characters.

I loved the book when I read it in the 80's and looked forward to this movie but I was let down.

I'm not a purist and don't usually mind different interpretations of a fictional story, but the changes weren't really the worst parts, that would be the bland storytelling and the movie just felt rushed.

There was no character development whatsoever, the acting was mediocre, though Alfre Woodard stood out and I wish she was shown more as she was the best part of the movie for me, though she was hardly in it, and I can't say it enough, there was nothing really happening with the story to keep me interested.

A little backstory on anyone would have been nice, an actual view of the budding romance that was taking place to help us actually feel the main characters grief, anything at all other than the bland scenes we got.

Unfortunately an utterly forgettable film.

Not Recommended.

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.

Having read the novel several times and seeing the 1979 tv-series a number of times over the years, I was really looking forward to this. Well, it was disappointing. I realize it's a lot to ask to have to cram the book into a two-hour film, a lot of story and character background had to be sacrificed. All of our main characters are there, some visibly altered to suit 21st century norms, but not well fleshed out. A bunch of liberties are taken with the storyline as well, some for no clear reason, it seems. I guess if you have never read the book, you wouldn't know what you're missing. But the most heinous thing about this film is simple: if you're the least bit of a horror movie fan, It's Not Scary. Like, at all. Give it a watch if you like, but the broth of this soup is quite thin.