Review of “Salem’s Lot” – This vampire film could have stayed in the grave

Some things just don’t go away – death, taxes and cockroaches come to mind. You can add Stephen King adaptations to this list. They are a subgenre of their own and have been with us for around 50 years, longer than Moses wandered through the desert. After such a long time and the abundance of it, we can collect some things well, others are better left forgotten.

Salem’s property has a strange place in this canon, as there is a Tobe Hooper-directed version that is considered timeless, and others that seem more disposable as they don’t capture the same magic. First, an updated miniseries with an all-star cast that aired 20 years ago on TNT and left a lot to be desired.

So it’s only fitting that the delayed remake lands on Max in 2024. Sure, it was intended for cinemas, but everything spoke against it. Pandemics, strikes and shutdowns have thrown the world into turmoil over the past four years. This is a fitting apology package for any difficult production.

If only that were the worst problem with this film directed by Gary Dauberman and produced by James Wan’s company Atomic Monster. With a family tree that brought us Aquamanthe crippled one but impressive Swamp thing series, the Insidious Films and that incantation Universe, you’d think they could do no wrong.

Unfortunately, while some of the creative power that made each of these viewers a crowd-pleaser in their own way is present in the latest Kingly remake, it’s far from perfect. It’s also quite repetitive, doing a lot of the same things as the other iterations – like vampires appearing outside windows in the foggy night.

The rest of the story is a formality and you are probably aware of the textbook beats. Writer Ben Mears (Lewis Pullman) returns to his hometown of Jerusalem/Salem’s Lot, but he’s not the only newcomer to town. The mysterious and creepy Richard Straker (Pilou Asbaek) opens an antique shop on the main street together with the invisible Kurt Barlow. Yada, yada, yada – people are starting to turn into bloodsuckers.

It’s standard material. Dauberman tries to improve everything and do his best Much the tone of a Conjuring connection that shows potential but never sticks on the landing. At first glance you can see that the spoilers were right about the contradictory visions. The tone is mostly dark and menacing, except for the dry humor (which reeks of re-recorded garlic) used in the first act.

The spoilers were also right about the drive-in climax, which may be the film’s only original idea. King called it a “great reward,” although I didn’t find it as satisfying as he did. He liked it too Night swimming and I have a different opinion than him. We also have a different opinion about Stanley Kubrick The shining oneas he would with most cinephiles. (Are you seeing a pattern yet?)

King’s taste is questionable, and like the smorgasbord of miniseries that adapted his books in the ’90s, Dauberman’s opinion doesn’t help King’s case. That’s already clear Salem’s property will not replace the 1979 Hooper version in anyone’s mind or heart. Dauberman reportedly wanted a darker film, three hours long.

I don’t think that would have helped. The current cut is mildly entertaining in places, but it feels like it was made for the purpose where it ended up – streaming.

READ MORE: Before there was “The Substance,” there was a movie that actually had “The Stuff.”

This article was mentioned: Gary Dauberman James Wan Lewis Pullman Max movie review Salem’s Lot Stephen King Vampire Warner Bros.

More about: Movie Reviews Films