From the very beginning, everything was against Gary Dauberman’s adaptation of Stephen King’s classic vampire novel, ‘Salem’s Lot.
It follows in the footsteps of Tobe Hooper’s glacial miniseries, a classic of its time which I couldn’t find more dull, and a mid-noughties curio that has seemingly been stricken from the record (I think Rob Lowe was in it). Dauberman is the first to give the material the cinematic treatment and, for his sins, his film was inexplicably shelved for years before being released to a critical mauling earlier this month.
In a time where Blumhouse would probably buy the rights to King’s forewords for other writers, it makes no sense that a film based on one of his greatest stories would be treated this way. Considering the adaptations of King’s work that have made a smoother transition to screen despite being utter drivel, ‘Salem’s Lot is even more confusing – because it is no where near as bad as I though it would be.
I’ll say it, while Salem’s Lot is not a great movie, it is a fun one. It’s more entertaining than Hooper’s – mainly because it gets to show its teeth, literally and otherwise – but it does highlight the choice that always needs to be made with this story. King’s novel is his first town-wide story, showing how the horror of the supernatural latches on to the more banal horror of real life. For a movie-length version, you have to make a choice between a) the horror and b) the small-town life.
Dauberman puts as much into the town, specifically returning writer Ben Mears (Lewis Pullman giving tremendous stressed everyman), and his expanding then disbanding group of friends including Susan (Makenzie Leigh), Matt (Bill Camp), and Dr Cody (Alfre Woodard) as well as the parallel story of young monster lover/hunter Mark Petrie (Jordan Preston Carter) who spends a lot of the movie fending for himself. Yet this neat and tidy characterization begins to disappear the more the vampires take hold of the town. Dauberman makes the choice that the monster movie is more important than the town story but, like the other versions, it makes the Lot feel like a thin backdrop.
For the vampire action, Dauberman brings the same fun, if limited, work he brought to the silly (and pretty great) Annabelle Comes Home. The set pieces, while not particularly scary, are a blast, especially the drive-in finale that is original to the movie and Straker’s silhouetted sunset kidnapping of Ralphy Glick, which was brilliantly done. Even so, at times the rules of Salem’s Lot are frustrating and confusing. For example: in the famous scene, vampire Danny Glick is invited in to Mark’s bedroom before Mark can repel him with a crucifix. The same happens with Ben when he is attacked by Danny’s victim Mike, except Ben revokes his invitation. Mark never does this so, supposedly, Danny can come back in whenever he wants. So, why doesn’t he. Then there is the fact that daylight inexplicably lasts about an hour in the town. This is obviously to do with pacing, especially on a truncated timeframe of a feature film, but it just had me thinking “well, what have you guys been doing all day?”
‘Salem’s Lot is a shallow and entertaining version of a novel that is too sprawling to be a film. It hits the familiar scares, adds some new ones, and isn’t a total disaster. The material needs a proper miniseries to truly prosper, but as a fun monster movie, this version is a lot (heh) better than its place on the cinematic shelf suggested.
If you enjoyed this and want to see more stuff like it, please consider supporting us on Ko-Fi.
By Kevin Boyle
(header image via Rolling Stone)
No But Listen 