'Salem’s Lot' review: Familiar Stephen King adaptation is stuck in the past
Courtesy of Max
There’s no hotter name in literary horror adaptations than Stephen King, and the arrival of October almost guarantees at least one film featuring the prolific author’s name above the title. Since the record-breaking success of “It,” there have been roughly 13 King adaptations, both on the small and big screens. Most of these are retreads of superior versions like “Firestarter,” “Pet Sematary,” and “The Stand,” with a few exceptional standouts such as “The Boogeyman” and “Doctor Sleep.” Now, “Salem’s Lot” enters this crowded field as the third adaptation in a lifetime, (following two subpar miniseries) that has seen its share of starts and stops.
After all, it was first announced in 2019, filmed in 2021, and repeatedly shuffled in the release calendar. Initially promoted for a streaming debut, it was upgraded to a theatrical release in 2023, only to be demoted once more to a streaming premiere. After watching the finished product, it’s evident why Warner Bros. made that decision—especially in a year where horror hasn’t thrived as it once did.
While “Salem’s Lot” might have benefited from a big-screen release, the King brand is starting to feel overly familiar. After a while, you start to notice the clichés and tropes that recur across his adaptations. It’s not a disaster suggested by the lack of faith from the studio, but it is unremarkable. Aside from a lively and energetic third act, “Salem’s Lot” lacks the bite needed to stand out this season.
The film features all the hallmarks of King’s novels: a small town in Maine, a male novelist, street-smart kids, and an ancient evil reborn. These elements probably seemed livelier when the novel was originally published. Signaling this is the type of King narrative ripe for a modern reimagining, similar to what the “It” films achieved. However, director Gary Dauberman (“The Nun,” “Annabelle”) delivers a well-shot, decently acted film that remains faithful to the source material but fails to justify the need for a third version of the same story beyond the obvious financial incentive.
The plot follows an author, Ben (Lewis Pullman), who returns to his hometown in search of inspiration for his next book. He becomes sidetracked by local clerk Susan (Makenzie Leigh) before getting pulled into a search-and-rescue operation after the disappearance of a boy sends the community into chaos (King is never afraid to kill children). Alongside a group of locals, including seasoned character actors Alfre Woodard, John Benjamin Hickey, Bill Camp, and newcomer Jordan Preston Carter, they begin to piece together a sinister plot involving vampires, deciding that the only way to save the town is to band together and fight back—armed with plenty of crosses and wooden stakes.
At just under two hours, it presents a contained story, but this brevity often results in a hurried and stagnant experience. This adaptation of “Salem’s Lot” doesn’t have the luxury of multiple episodes to flesh out its characters (or the romance), nor does it capture a true sense of community.
Consequently, some payoffs fail to resonate. While it reaches an inflection point in the third act reminiscent of campy, cult vampire flicks from the eighties—offering a playground for ruthless, bloody mayhem—the journey to get there feels sluggish. There’s nothing, or no one, to truly invest in, and the film’s reliance on shock value and jump scares grows tiresome. What this “Salem’s Lot” desperately needed was fresh invention.
Grade: C+
SALEM’S LOT streams on MAX Thursday, October 3rd
Comments