Salem's Lot

Unbelievable! As has been mentioned by other reviews, there is no way Salem's Lot can be made into a single feature film. There are just too many characters and therefore too many character developments to explore. The 1978 mini series had the right idea in doing two parts and it was very good; my only regret is more characters weren't introduced. See, unlike Carrie, who is the star of the book (and movie), there are no "stars" in SL; the town and its inhabitants are the stars. If you can't develop them fully to where one can feel empathy, then it's all a lost point. That said, there are no characters here to invest in. We go from David Soul's 1978 Ben Mears; intelligent, resourceful, articulate and a leader, to Lewis Pullman who is about as interesting as an insurance seminar. The choice to turn Ann Norton into a psychotic Annie Oakley is also a bizarre turn. Even Alfre Woodard, whom I normally enjoy, seems rather indifferent in her character. I also wondered about how everyone was so eager to leap to the conclusion of vampirism, as if it was as common as a, well, cold. And it's treated nonchalantly as well. The little boys, Glicks, were dull and sounded as if they were 5 years old. When Danny screamed, I swear my fillings cracked. Even the dynamic between Susan and Ben seems odd and foreign. And let's not forget the decision to show Barlow early on in the movie, so when we do finally see him in full, there is no thrill. We have a Straker who talks to his master Barlow as if he is reading from Shakespeare. I knew early on I would make comparisons between this and the 1979 mini series, as well as the novel. For us die hard Lot fans, this is the Holy Grail we're talking about here. But at the very least I was expecting something remotely enjoyable. All this time, numerous rewrites. Allegedly, Stephen King himself loved it! I wonder just how wasted he was when he said that. We deserved better. We earned it, if by nothing but patience alone. We stuck through and persevered and we were rewarded with this oddity of a movie, and I coin the term loosely. Also, Ben's fascination with the Marsten House. Never once touched upon. That is the basis for the whole story and it was blatantly ignored. Here's an idea. Since we unanimously agree that part of the problem is fitting all the characters and subplots into the time that a general feature film allows, why not do it in parts? Part I and II? "It" did it and if it hadn't been for the lackluster part II, it would've pulled off off nicely. It ended on a solid note so people showed up for the continuation. I believe if Salem's Lot had enough time to develop the characters, their stories and provide us with enough time and content to develop investment with these characters, it could pull it off. Truthfully speaking, I'm 56 and I doubt if another remake of Salem's Lot will come around, if ever, in my lifetime. After the disappointing product we all got as a reward for our patience, I think we deserve more.

I already see a lot of negative reviews here and I don't get it. Because the world has been so messed up for the last few years, the only thing I've been able to handle watching is horror, and this movie is better than the vast majority of horror movies out there. It was actually a relief to watch. I've loved Stephen King for over 40 years, but I get the impression a lot of fans hate this movie because it's not 4 hours long to do justice to every scrap of plot and character development in the book. Instead, this flick hurtles along at under two hours, looks gorgeous, and is stuffed with legit terrific actors who create memorable, empathetic characters. Props especially to Bill Camp and Alfre Woodard for keeping it real. None of the dialogue made me groan, some of it made me genuinely laugh, and I was tense even though I know the story. There were even some nice cinematic inventions that weren't in the book like the drive-in sequence. A movie is not a book. There are already two prior miniseries adaptations of this one if you want to spend the whole night bingeing on plot points. I'd rather watch something lean and effective then hit the sack so I can get back to my nightmares.

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.

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.

We have returned to The Lot ! The movie is about a book author Ben who returns home after many years to Salems Lot. He is doing research for a new book and into his past. A new kid at school Mark makes his mark standing up to a Bully that even his teacher Mr Burke knows is a pain. Things go sideways as kids begin to go missing and the body count of the Lot rises. There is a darkness seeping into the lot as there are new residents in the Marsten house. I did like it, it's a nice Halloween treat and a fun way to start October. There was some very good performances, Mr Burke was a stand out for me, I started to enjoy Dr Cody more and more as it went on and the third half Mike shines!! The whole atmosphere was cool, the old town, foggy woods and nights, dim lights, and a dark colour I enjoyed. The movie didn't rely on jumpscares for a thrill which is also good. The vampires were quite cool and I love that it stuck very close to the book. My issue was the pacing and clear identification of studio interference which drives me bananas. The movie was over too fast, what King does best is slow and tense build ups, I think the first 20 minutes was build up and the movie flew threw the rest giving no time to breed or create that suspense. Not only that but at times the movie feels like it was trying to be too many tones, cool action, scary horror, slow build, quick action, stick to the book, be original, it felt a bit messy for a while, normally that ruins a movie but not here, for me it just shows it could have been great if left alone !! I would have liked maybe more of a practical look on Barlow, and some other vampire scenes. Overall it's good, should have been 2hr 40 but blame the studio for that, good Halloween watch, 7/10.