Hello horror fans, Slick Dungeon here! I’m back to review yet another Stephen King adaptation. And no, you are not experiencing déjà vu. I already reviewed Salem’s Lot but that was the Tobe Hooper directed version from 1979. Today I want to talk about the newest adaptation, the Salem’s Lot (2024) version you can only catch on Max. This is a newer adaptation so I will keep the spoilers to a minimum but if you can’t stand spoilers, watch the movie in daylight and come on back here to read the review!

Salem’s Lot (2024) Background

This film has a bit of a convoluted history. In 2019 it was announced Gary Dauberman who wrote It and It Chapter Two would be writing the next adaptation of Salem’s Lot. James Wan was attached as a producer and production on the project began with Lewis Pullman as the lead.

Unfortunately for the movie, and the world, COVID-19 hit. The film was delayed and set to release on April 21, 2023. But this film lost that release date due to the release date of the Evil Dead Rise film.

It was then supposed to come out on Max in October of 2023 but the writer’s strike was in full force at this time. In February of this year, Stephen King questioned on social media why it had no release date. And soon after that, Max announced it would air in October of 2024 and here we are.

It’s a project that could have been yet another fully finished bit of media, simply hidden from us for tax write offs if had not been for an author with an exceedingly large following. But, now that it has debuted, the question remains if it is worth viewing. Let’s find out.

The Premise

Like the book and previous adaptations, the story centers around an author named Ben Mears. He returns to his hometown of Jerusalem’s Lot, since shortened to Salem’s Lot, obsessed with a huge, supposedly haunted house. As he starts to mingle with the townsfolk, Ben notices strange things happening and believes the epicenter of these events is the Marsten house. He has to team up with a group of people to stop an immense evil from destroying everyone in his hometown.

For a more in-depth breakdown of the plot, you can look at my post about the 1979 version of Salem’s Lot here. Many of the events are similar, however, the 1979 version is a miniseries and has a bit more room for subplots and side characters. And the third act of the 2024 version varies greatly from the third act of the 1979 version but I don’t want to give that away in this review.

The Good

The good news about this version is it was not shelved permanently. The story is still set in the 1970s just like the book. The performances here are all good performances. No one seems to go too far or be too reserved in their emotions.

And there are definitely a few good, scary moments. Enough to make you jump out of your seat a time or two but not so many that you are always on the edge of your seat. The set and production design are excellent and in a lot of ways this version feels more believable than parts of the 1979 version.

It stays largely true to the novel but it’s obviously condensed considering it’s a lengthy book.

The Bad

While it’s exciting to see another adaptation of Salem’s Lot this version feels a bit underwhelming. It doesn’t have the gravity of the 1979 version and it definitely doesn’t pack the punch the book did. There are moments that feel like they are on the edge of greatness but it doesn’t ever manage to get there. It and It Chapter Two were both adaptations that deviated a little from the book but really had an impact. Yet, Salem’s Lot feels more sluggish and too rushed all at the same time. It would have made more sense for this to be a miniseries of some kind in my mind but at least we got to see it at all.

The Ugly

I’ve got to make an argument here for practical effects. While there are some creepy moments and good scares in the movie, there are also some distracting scenes. These are the ones involving CGI. Giving the vampires glowing eyes and making crosses glow with computer effects is fine and all but there are moments here which just feel silly because of the CGI. And there are some parts where vampires burn. I know it is very difficult to do but CGI flames just do not look the same as real fire. It takes away a good amount of the horror we should feel when we see something burning. I understand the reason for the choice, I just wish it could have been done a different way.

On top of that, this film was made now to look like the 1970s. Having recently watched the Tobe Hooper version, which was actually made in the 1970s, there is no comparison. Hooper’s version looks and feels like the decade while this one looks like it is trying way too hard to reproduce that look.

Salem’s Lot (2024) in Conclusion

There’s a lot that can be said for and against this version of Salem’s Lot. While it has some high points, there are definite problems with it, and one gets the feeling if it could have more room to tell the story we might have seen something amazing.

But I also want to take us back for just a minute to when Stephen King wrote Salem’s Lot. This book was one of the first to take the idea of vampires invading a small town. This predates things like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Vampire Diaries, TruBlood, and even The Lost Boys. It felt new to the audience first reading it. Now, we have had all that media. To see people in a small town figure out, and be surprised by, vampires getting burnt by crosses feels quaint and obvious.

I’m not the kind of person to tell people how to make a movie or show and I appreciate the work that went into any kind of entertainment. But, if I was able to make a wish and have this movie done differently, I have two ideas that I think might make it better.

First, and most obviously, is to make this into a solid one or two season series, where we can go into all of the characters, subplots and nuances from the book, but still set it in the 1970s.

The other idea, I think, is to keep it movie length but place it in our current time period and have the vampires have to deal with all the things like social media, cell phones, a huge amount of lore known by the general public and still be able to surprise people. One series that did this pretty well was Midnight Mass, so it can be done. And I’d absolutely love to see Stephen King be the screenwriter for that because I am sure he’d have some thoughts.

But that’s just my feeling about it. What’s yours?

Do you prefer this version, the Tobe Hooper version, the 2004 version, or the book? Let me know in the comments!

Want More?

Want to see some of my other King reviews? Take a look here!

Looking for a good King read? Check out this one!

Vampirically yours,

Slick Dungeon

Hello out there internet! Slick Dungeon here, back to review another Stephen King adaptation. This one is the under the radar television miniseries adaptation of the book Salem’s Lot. It’s a vampire story set in a small town. Since this one isn’t well known, I’m going to keep spoilers to a minimum. But, if any spoilers irk you, grab some holy water, find your monster movie makeup, watch the series and come on back here to read the review!

Background

Salem’s Lot is a novel by Stephen King about a small town which has to deal with a creeping threat. Originally, Warner Bros. acquired the rights and wanted to make a movie. But, the book is rather long and it was decided the project would be better as a TV miniseries. The series is directed by Tobe Hooper who you know from a little film titled, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

The series was made on a budget of $4 million. While it’s hard to gauge what kind of revenue this would have generated through television at the time, it has since turned into something of a cult classic and has certainly had some influence on the vampire genre.

It stars Lance Kerwin as Mark Petrie, David Soul as Ben Mears, Bonnie Bedelia as Susan Norton, and James Mason as Richard Straker

What is Salem’s Lot?

When a writer named Mark Petrie returns to his small town home, he finds he is obsessed with the supposed haunted mansion there. He has been somewhat successful in his writing career, having two books published already. But he’s not a breakout star in the way, let’s say… Stephen King was. This is one of many stories King does write about writers though.

Mark has been thinking through some of his past and believes the Marsten house is evil in the same way some humans can be evil. And what’s more, he believes there is an evil influence the house has on the town. The house has a new owner in the form of Richard Straker who plans to open an antique store there. It should be noted King also has more than one story involving antique stores.

A young boy named Ben Mears is also obsessed with monster movies and the Marsten house. Strange things happen around town and some of the people end up missing or dead. Ben and Mark meet each other and both realize something is wrong in this town.

Meanwhile, Mark develops a romantic interest in one of the residents named Susan Norton. As time goes by, things take darker and darker turns until it is undeniable there is a major threat.

Is it Worth Watching?

The series undeniably has its fans. At the same time, the adaptation changes several significant elements from the book. If you are looking for a perfect adaptation of the book, this is not the show for you. That doesn’t mean it is not enjoyable.

One thing to note is the series is incredibly slow paced compared to today’s standards. It is a full three hours long and there is a lot of dead space as characters get to know each other or are set up for later horror. The show looks and feels like something out of the 1970s because it is. Makeup is adequate but not striking in the show.

Overall, I much prefer the book to the series on this one. But it’s interesting to see how the adaptation deals with some of the themes in the novel. It wrestles with the possibility of inherent evil in humanity, the attitude of a small town to strangers, small town life, and creeping horror.

In Conclusion

If you haven’t watched the series I recommend it with a few warnings ahead of time. First, it’s three hours long so you have to be willing to commit. Second, the pacing is slow and the dialogue feels outdated. Finally, while there are some good scares here, there are much more terrifying adaptations of King’s work. You may find it preferable to watch one of those instead.

I will say, if you have not read the book, it’s an incredibly good vampire story and one of the least read of King’s early work. It’s a long book but it is worth every penny. And King can get away with horror in a book in a way no television show from the 1970s could possibly dream of.

Like Stephen King books and movies? Let me know which one is your favorite in the comments below!

Looking for a good King read? Check out this one!

Vampirically yours,

Slick Dungeon