Gary Dauberman’s new adaptation of Stephen King’s ‘Salem’s Lot’ is a love letter to the source material, evident in every frame. However, the director’s affection for King’s expansive, gothic novel becomes its undoing. Dauberman struggles to condense the story’s scope into a compelling two-hour narrative, leaving viewers with a film that’s ultimately more flash than substance.
The film’s central conflict isn’t the one unfolding onscreen between the townsfolk and the hungry vampires. It’s a battle of obligations: Dauberman’s to the source material, his own ideas, and the expectations of modern horror audiences. This internal struggle results in a film that’s heavy on jump scares and set pieces but lacking in depth and emotional resonance. ‘Salem’s Lot is a bloodthirsty film, but it lacks the human element to make it truly engaging.
Dauberman lays out the story’s foundation in the opening minutes, introducing the small-town setting and the arrival of the two strangers: Mr. Barlow, the immortal vampire, and his human familiar, Richard Straker. The film then shifts to the perspective of Ben Mears, a writer returning to his childhood town of Jerusalem’s Lot, Maine, to conduct research for his next book. He quickly befriends Matthew Burke, an observant elementary schoolteacher, and Susan Norton, a young woman yearning to escape her hometown.
However, Dauberman doesn’t have the time or space to truly flesh out these characters or their backstories. He’s too focused on delivering Conjuring-esque scares and plot twists from King’s novel, resulting in a lack of depth that prevents ‘Salem’s Lot from standing out from other vampire movies. The film feels like a hastily drawn sketch, with outlines of characters and plot beats but no time to fully develop them.
The burden of conveying depth falls on the actors, but many of them feel trapped playing broad archetypes. Bill Camp, known for his extraordinary character work, is the exception, bringing life and dimension to his role as Matthew Burke. Not only does he deliver some of the film’s funniest lines, but his character’s genuine concern for the well-being of his town is the closest the film comes to touching on the themes of King’s novel.
‘Salem’s Lot’s primary focus seems to be delivering as many bloody thrills as possible. Some work better than others. A late-night attack on a young boy, for instance, falls flat due to poor lighting and artificial fog, hindering any build-up of tension. However, other scenes, like Matthew Burke’s confrontation with a newly turned vampire, excel because of the way cinematographer Michael Burgess uses light and shadow to create a sense of dread and anticipation.
Despite its flaws, ‘Salem’s Lot is visually striking, with colorful, playful imagery and some genuinely memorable scenes. However, the weak narrative foundation undermines these moments, preventing them from achieving their full potential. Ultimately, ‘Salem’s Lot leaves little lasting impression. It’s immediately forgettable and lacks the palpable sense of grief over the decline of American small towns that was present in King’s novel. It’s a fun, but ultimately empty, thriller that lacks the bite to truly engage the viewer.
‘Salem’s Lot’s shortcomings are a missed opportunity to adapt a powerful and enduring novel. While the film shows a clear affection for the vampire-horror subgenre, it ultimately falls short of its source material, leaving viewers with a disappointing experience.
