Gary Dauberman’s “Salem’s Lot” had a bumpy ride. This Stephen King adaptation was originally supposed to hit theaters in 2022. Then it was pushed back to 2023. Then it was removed from the release calendar altogether. Since “Salem’s Lot” is produced by Warner Bros., there were growing fears that this vampire film would go the way of WB’s “Batgirl” and “Coyote vs. Acme” and never be released. King spoke about this on Twitter and wondered why the studio was holding the film back. “Don’t know why WB is holding it back; it’s not like it’s embarrassing or anything,” the master of horror said. Eventually rumors began to swirl that “Salem’s Lot” might skip theaters altogether and head straight to WB’s streaming service, Max. Sure enough, the studio finally announced that that’s exactly what happened: “Salem’s Lot” is set to stream on Max this October, just in time for the Halloween season.
When a film is delayed like this, it brings a certain amount of baggage with it. Such delays can often indicate that the studio doesn’t have much confidence in its finished film, which raises some red flags. But delays aren’t always a sign of certain doom: Drew Goddard’s horror-comedy “The Cabin in the Woods” was infamously delayed for years, only to eventually be released and loved by horror fans. Same goes for Michael Dougherty’s Halloween anthology “Trick ‘r Treat,” which languished on shelves for two years before being dumped straight to DVD and becoming a favorite of the modern horror season.
Now that Dauberman’s “Salem’s Lot” has finally arrived, the question has to be asked: Was it worth the wait? I’m a huge Stephen King fan, and I love Dauberman’s work (his haunted house film “Annabelle Comes Home” has become my personal favorite entry in The Conjuring Universe), so I take no pleasure in admitting that this new version of “Salem’s Lot” lacks substance. I’m not saying it should have been shelved forever – such a process is appalling and misdirected. But this adaptation of King’s vampire classic is rushed, clumsy and oddly lifeless. King was right: It’s not “shameful or anything.” It’s not even very good. Bad.
Salem’s Lot appears to have been built in a hurry
“Salem’s Lot” was King’s second published novel, a mix of Bram Stoker’s “Dracula” and Grace Metalious’ “Peyton Place,” telling the story of a small New England town taken over by vampires. King’s story has been adapted twice before, once as a now-beloved 1979 miniseries directed by “Texas Chain Saw Massacre” mastermind Tobe Hooper, and again as a less-beloved 2004 miniseries for TNT. Since both of these adaptations were miniseries, they got room to breathe and utilized a lot of King’s text in the process (though changes were made in both instances). Dauberman’s approach is the first feature film adaptation of the material, meaning the writer-director had to do some serious trimming to fit the story into a 113-minute runtime. Sadly, this hurts the film, as the end result feels like it’s lacking something. King’s book did a great job of making the town of Salem’s Lot feel like a real place, with a wide variety of characters. In Dauberman’s film, Salem’s Lot seems almost deserted even before the vampires arrive. None of the characters here make much of an impact, as nearly all of their backstories have been removed for the sake of a faster story.
Set in the ’70s, “Salem’s Lot” begins when writer Ben Mears (Lewis Pullman) returns to the Maine town of Jerusalem’s Lot. Ben grew up here a long time ago, and he’s come home to write a book about his past. Ben isn’t the only new person coming to town: a mysterious man named Barlow has bought the Marston House, a spooky old mansion on a hill above town. Barlow plans to open a new antique store with his business partner, Straker (Pilou Asbæk), but honestly, if you haven’t read King’s book, you might miss a lot of this information, as it’s presented in a flat, hasty way. It’s as if the film isn’t interested in the story’s setting, it just wants to rush to get to the vampire thing.
Because, yes, Barlow is a vampire, and Straker is his human familiar. And before you know it, several residents of Salem’s Lot are turning up dead, their bodies bleeding. The first person to realize this is Matt Burke (Bill Camp, always welcome), a school teacher who’s not afraid to say the “v” word. Eventually, Matt, Ben, local girl Susan Norton (Mackenzie Leigh), nerdy horror kid Mark Petrie (Jordan Preston Carter), alcoholic priest Father Callahan (John Benjamin Hickey), and somewhat skeptical Dr. Cody (Alfre Woodard) get together to form a makeshift vampire hunting committee. Why? Because the movie needs them, that’s why. King’s book does a better job of getting these characters into place, but Dauberman’s film doesn’t have time for that stuff – it just moves along awkwardly and expects us to go along with it.
Salem’s Lot should have been released, but…
The film’s rushed pace could be forgiven or acceptable if there was more to it, but “Salem’s Lot” repeatedly falls short. Pullman’s Ben is an extremely boring main character (Who is he? What does he want? The movie doesn’t care!), and the supporting cast, with the exception of Woodard’s charming and straight-laced doctor, doesn’t fare much better. Pilou Asbæk’s Straker yells in his few scenes, and Alexander Ward’s Barlow never seems very dangerous or interesting, even though he’s supposed to be the film’s big villain. He’s not very scary either, and that seems like a fatal flaw.
The lack of character development is a big concern for Stephen King adaptations, because King’s greatest strength as a writer isn’t actually the scares he creates – but his characters. King is uniquely skilled at creating characters and letting us understand who they are almost immediately, which really only enhances the horror of the story. Because when we start to invest in a character, we care what happens to them. If we start to like a character, we don’t want anything bad to happen to them – so when it inevitably happens, our fear increases. But in this version of “Salem’s Lot” everyone is as thin as paper.
Eventually, “Salem’s Lot” finds some life in its climax, which joyfully unleashes demonic mayhem that seems lifted from a very entertaining B-movie. A big scene set in a drive-in movie theater at sunset is certainly fun and action-packed, and at times, Dauberman brings out some memorable images, such as when two young boys wander through the woods at dusk, or when a cross held by a character begins to glow white-hot in a dark room when vampires are nearby.
But oh my god, was this movie supposed to feel so disappointing? I’m not saying that the third adaptation of “Salem’s Lot” should have been a phenomenal achievement, but it shouldn’t have been so dull. Even if you’re unfamiliar with King’s novel and therefore don’t compare it to the source material, this new “Salem’s Lot” will still feel incomplete. I’m glad this movie finally came out… I just wish I liked it more.
/Movie Rating: 5 out of 10
“Salem’s Lot” will stream on Max from October 3, 2024.
