Released in 2024, Gary Dauberman’s Salem’s Lot presents a new cinematic telling of Stephen King’s legendary 1975 vampire novel. As a story exploring the sinister forces threatening a small Maine town, the source material has spawned multiple screen adaptations over the decades, most notably Tobe Hooper’s acclaimed 1979 TV miniseries.
In this latest film version, Dauberman—known for his work on horror films like Annabelle and It—aims to balance faithfulness to King’s chilling tale with enjoyable scares for modern audiences.
The plot follows novelist Ben Mears as he returns to his childhood home in Jerusalem’s Lot. There, strange events coincide with the arrival of antique store owners Richard Straker and Kurt Barlow. As residents begin to disappear, Ben and others come to suspect the village is suffering from an infestation of the undead.
Over the runtime, this review will consider how successfully Dauberman weaves iconic elements of King’s story—including the townsfolk characters, slow-building dread, and themes of everyday evil—into a movie entertaining for both fans and newcomers to this legendary work.
The Slow Horror in Jerusalem’s Lot
Ben Mears arrives in the sleepy town of Jerusalem’s Lot, hoping his visit will spark new ideas for his writing. But he soon notices peculiar changes since his childhood days there. Strange events coincide with the arrival of antiques dealers Richard Straker and Kurt Barlow.
First to go missing is young Danny Glick after appearing frightened in the woods at dusk. Everyone bands together to find the boy, but their search yields nothing. Around this time, residents like Dr. Billington have patients with unusual symptoms like anemia but can find no cause.
Suspicions intensify after Matt Burke’s brother becomes ill at the local diner one night. Matt later finds his brother mysteriously changed, attacking him in a bloodthirsty rage. Nearby, Bart Johnson’s dog behaves oddly before turning on Bart himself.
Word of these strange occurrences spreads concern through town. Mark Petrie notices similarities to tales of the undead after losing a friend. Ben and Matt examine Mark’s supernatural books and realize an ancient evil has descended on Jerusalem’s Lot. Soon more and more people disappear or turn viciously on loved ones.
Straker maintains the new arrivals mean the townsfolk no harm, but his assertion does little to ease tensions. With no other explanation, Ben and his allies deduce vampires secretly control the people of Jerusalem’s Lot under the shroud of night. They work to warn others and combat the dark forces spreading like a plague.
In a climactic final battle, Ben, Matt, and the others make a daring last stand against the vampires at a drive-in theater. There, the true mastermind behind Jerusalem’s Lot’s destruction is finally revealed. Though the changes streamline some parts, this adaptation effectively captures the novel’s rising horror and introspective character moments.
Developing connection in The Lot
This adaptation of Salem’s Lot introduces a diverse cast of small-town residents. While some are altered from the novel, each attempts to shine through in their limited time.
Ben Mears acts as our entry into the story. Returning to inspire his writing, we follow his dread as mysteries deepen. Lew Pullman ensures Ben’s growing determination feels natural. Ben works to rally the others yet struggles with his own history in The Lot.
Susan Norton, portrayed with care by Makenzie Leigh, provides Ben connection in this unfamiliar place. Their relationship highlights the humanity at stake. Even as horrors emerge, we understand Ben’s motivation through his fondness for Susan.
As young Mark Petrie, Jordan Preston Carter brings believability to a child grappling with terrors beyond his years. Displaying both bravery and fear, Mark progresses believably from curious observer to valuable member of the group.
Perhaps the most fully realized is Matt Burke, thanks to Bill Camp’s nuanced work. As a teacher aware of darkness from experience, Matt centers the action with a steady, knowledgeable presence. We appreciate his friendships and loyalty, hoping for leadership in the finale.
None receive much background investment, but their cooperative dynamics shine. Faced with unimaginable events, these portraits of a community banding together maintain allure even with reduced intricacies from the source text.
Capturing Dread on Screen
When it comes to visuals, Dauberman’s Salem’s Lot excels in generating an unsettling mood. Sweeping shots of the town’s hidden corners immerse us in this New England community. Later horrors sting all the more for these grounded beginnings.
Standouts like the brothers lost in the twilight woods build an excruciating tension. Shadow and silhouette say more than any script. Dauberman understands horror derives from implication over exhibition. At their peak, haunting images approaching Hooper’s primetime mastery cling to memory.
Less successful are slower sections, where clumsy cuts undermine growing dread. But when vampires appear, Dauberman’s skills shine. Terrifying distortions of Barlow infiltrate dreams. Glowing eyes peer from distant frames with nightmarish effect.
Cross illuminations summoning holy power to repel shadows of the night feel both suspenseful and symbolic. Fight or flight instincts wake viewers just as townsfolk. Clever visual storytelling makes vivid forces palpable threats instead of abstract concepts.
Pacing shifts diminish this impact some, yet production values overall elevate the material. Faithful 1970s authenticity emerges from detailed sets and costumes. This grounded framework anchors supernatural terrors, increasing their unrest.
While visual high points abound, maintaining pervasive eeriness through conclusion could have strengthened adaptations uneasy relationship with its legendary source. When allowing viewers to sit in shadows, Salem’s Lot finds its most compelling heights.
Tones of Dread in Jerusalem’s Lot
Beneath the surface of any town lie mysteries, and Salem’s Lot excavates the decay eating at one community’s soul. The film gestures to relevant themes through metaphor, yet struggles blending moods into a cohesive whole.
A permeating sense of isolation and stagnation haunts opening scenes, mirroring societal issues eating away foundations. Residents feel trapped in place and time. Later sequences flipping between genres undercut developing ideas, when a consistent tone better suited King’s depth.
At its finest, Dauberman’s direction plunges viewers into an atmosphere of growing unease. The period setting and details of life in 1970s rural New England immerse completely. In these moments, the slow burn of dread recalls Hooper’s 1979 miniseries, tapping a raw nerve regarding small towns facing an unstoppable slide into shadows.
Yet shifts breaking pace underserve King’s exploration of humanity facing evils from without and within. The film suggests resonant topics, from closed-mindedness to relying on tradition over reason. But changing rhythms prevent embedding such introspection as profoundly as source texts.
With smoother tonal blending sustaining its most compelling structures, Salem’s Lot might have probed underlying anxieties more critically and chillingly.
Honoring King’s Vision
By necessity, Dauberman’s adaptation condensed many of Salem’s Lot’s rich threads. Subplots disappear, and moments are truncated from page to screen. Yet reverence for King’s seminal work remains apparent.
Scenes directly drawn from both novel and 1979 miniseries survive with haunting familiarity. Straightforwardly dramatizing these iconic parts retains terrifying power for legions who know this world. New visuals translating King’s visions feel authentic to his style.
Other changes streamline a sprawling story into the film’s tighter structure. Slightly altered climaxes inject fresh stakes. The Marsten House’s grandeur loses impact elsewhere yet sparks imaginations anew.
Characters thin but maintain essence. Deeper themes resonate though murkier. Tight pacing flees the atmosphere but propels tension inexorably forward.
Faithfulness and liberty exist in precarious balance. Ultimately, King’s Gothic tapestry loses nuance, yet underlying horrors endure, revitalized for new audiences by means both elegant and inevitable.
With reverence for source and intent to innovate, Dauberman navigates adaptation’s difficult line, resurrecting beloved terrors for today while ensuring their influence extends further into the darkness.
Assessing Salem’s Lot on the Silver Screen
With its release, Dauberman’s adaptation aimed to satisfy devoted Constant Readers while attracting new eyes. On balance, the film achieves this moderately. Strong production values and a committed cast shine through, yet uneven pacing and shortened character arcs diminish what could have been.
When allowing King’s vision to permeate without clutter, the glorious atmosphere transports viewers. Improvised elements feel tacked on, clashing with source integrity. But faithful reproductions of iconic scenes please fans. Overall, the plot unravels competently if briskly.
Direction falters inconsistently between suspenseful imagery and clumsy cuts. But reverence for chilling source tones in their prime underscores Barlow as a calculated feature. Technical peaks show promise, marred by uneven consistency.
As entertainment, casual viewers may find enjoyment. But brevity costs depth for character investment. For dedicated fans, familiarity risks distraction from deviations.
In evaluation, Salem’s Lot merits recognition for ambitious attempts bridging fandoms. Yet falls short of its forebears’ profundity. Its imperfect realization may relegate adaptation to cult appreciation over timeless classics. Nonetheless, opportunities for atmospheric chills merit recommendation for nighttime viewings.
The Review
Salem's Lot
While Salem's Lot shows flashes of atmospheric horror and suspense, uneven pacing and an overambitious plot undermine its potential. Dauberman succeeds more in chilling moments than sustaining intrigue or developing characters fully. As an adaptation, its brevity threatens connections to King's deeper themes. However, devoted constant readers may appreciate familiar scares, and casual viewers find entertainment.
PROS
- Atmospheric production design and cinematography effectively set the period setting.
- Strong visuals in suspense sequences heighten tension.
- Faithful recreating of iconic scenes pleasures fans
- Committed performances bring characters to life.
CONS
- Uneven pacing rushes plot at cost of character development
- Inconsistent tones clash between dramatic drama and horror.
- Cluttered additions dilute focus from source material.
- Technical inconsistencies undermine scares
- Brevity fails full adaptation of themes/subtleties
