SALEM’S LOT. How to Neuter Stephen King with Vampires

Stephen King often lends his presence to the production teams of adaptations of his novels, which has its consequences. More on that in a moment. In the case of “Salem’s Lot”, directed by Gary Dauberman, King took on the role of co-producer, so it’s no surprise that he defended the film when Warner Bros. hesitated to release it, first in theaters and then delayed any decision about it altogether. Shot in 2021, “Salem’s Lot” finally landed on Max, although it’s already 2024. Any potential for the film has been lost, and now it’s unlikely to achieve any major success. Perhaps someone at Warner Bros. took a very rational, business-first approach, considering tax write-offs versus box office earnings. Now, you can judge for yourself whether this third adaptation of “Salem’s Lot” was even necessary.

“Salem’s Lot” was first published in 1975, and in 1979, Tobe Hooper made the first adaptation, which today is more amusing than frightening. In 2004, a more faithful version was made as a miniseries directed by Mikael Salomon, featuring well-known actors in the lead roles, but again lacking the right dose of horror. It was more of a drama for the first hour, with no real mystery. In 2021, horror specialist Gary Dauberman took on the third adaptation. Dauberman, known for films like “The Nun”, “It”, and “Annabelle”, delivered genuinely scary movies. His “Salem’s Lot”, released on Max, follows a similar path. Although it’s clear from the first scene that vampires are the antagonists trying to dominate a small American town, this version’s atmosphere is the strongest of the three adaptations. However, those looking for strict adherence to the novel will be disappointed. It’s important to pay attention to the credits and dialogue early on, as it’s clearly stated that this “Salem’s Lot” is “based on” King’s novel, meaning that the content, including the ending, is a loose adaptation of the extensive text—over 500 pages. It would be impossible to tell the full story in under two hours. Moreover, the director focuses on action, omitting the depiction of the mundane struggles of small-town life, which were important in King’s writing to create a vivid world but could bore moviegoers. Dauberman’s priority was action, centered on the battle with vampires, which unfortunately brings some issues.

The soundtrack fits the horror genre but lacks a distinct, memorable quality. The cinematography is competent, though not artistically outstanding, and the acting is solid but far from exceptional. The fight scenes with the vampires, however, are quite concrete, almost reaching a level of campiness. From this latest “Salem’s Lot”, we learn mainly that vampires fear crosses, which can even be made from tongue depressors. A well-made cross glows with an orange-white light, and a person freshly bitten by a vampire can be saved with a rabies vaccine—or at least delay their transformation. The vampires are treated rather superficially. It would have been better if the horror had relied on more than just vampires jumping out from basements or being staked through the heart. I’m talking about a more refined presentation of fear because, as the action develops and the number of vampires increases, there are so many similar scary situations that they become less frightening. I especially recommend the church scene, which is a mix of horror and comedy. However, the car trunks serving as coffins were impressively filmed.

The latest “Salem’s Lot” is not a masterpiece, but it works well enough for a casual horror watch. Earlier, I mentioned a certain “King-ness” to the production, which can be a downside of films that King personally endorses. Dauberman’s “Salem’s Lot” is no exception. King has often criticized adaptations of his novels for shallow character development, and the biggest flaw of this “Salem’s Lot” is the superficiality, not only of the characters but most importantly of the vampires. You can’t really connect with them, remember them, or create a clear image of the heroes. Although Lewis Pullman tries hard, he ends up somewhere between Indiana Jones and Van Helsing. The latter film was heavily criticized, but Richard Roxburgh’s Dracula was highly memorable—something that can’t be said for Kurt Barlow in this adaptation, who could just as well be one of many henchmen killed with broomsticks, rather than a dark, vampiric figure with a specific vision for saving his race. In this respect, the adaptation fails the most, as previous versions featured iconic actors like Rutger Hauer and Reggie Nalder in the role of Barlow. I’ll stick to the book, and treat this latest “Salem’s Lot” as just another horror curiosity, whose strength dissipates as the film progresses, like vampires disappearing into the mist, fleeing from glowing crucifixes. Once again, Stephen King’s work has been stripped of its horror—this time, by King himself.