SALEM’S LOT Was Fun But Not as Good or Scary as I Was Hoping For — GeekTyrant

The new film adaptation of Salem’s Lot was a film project I had been looking forward to for a long time. I remember watching the first trailer over two years ago and feeling genuinely excited by what I saw.

The idea of revisiting one of Stephen King’s most iconic horror stories was exciting. Now, after what felt like an eternity, it finally dropped directly on MAX, and I made sure to carve out some time to give it my full attention.

Unfortunately, while it had its moments and some things I enjoyed, the movie ultimately left me disappointed. I understand that adapting a novel into a film, especially one that runs less than two hours, presents challenges.

Naturally, things need to be cut or compressed to make it work, but even with that understanding, I feel like there could have been a better way to handle this adaptation.

To its credit, the movie captures the heart of King’s novel, and in many ways, it stays true to the source material. The dark, creeping essence of Salem’s Lot is there, but the execution felt lacking.

I was expecting the kind of creepy, unforgettable visuals that would burn into my brain and leave me feeling haunted, but the film didn’t deliver that. Instead, it gave us the same kind of horror we’ve seen before—predictable scares, overly polished aesthetics, and nothing that felt fresh or daring.

What this film needed was something unique, something that pushed the boundaries of horror and made it stand out in the sea of horror movies that are being made.

Before the release of this new movie, I rewatched the original miniseries for a refresher, and honestly, the 1979 version holds up incredibly well. It’s just unsettling in a way that sticks with you. The atmosphere was thick with dread, and there’s a rawness to it that made it so creepy.

The new version? It felt too polished, too clean. There wasn’t that gritty edge or sense of looming terror that made the original so memorable.

That’s what I think disappointed me the most. I went into this movie expecting a great horror experience, something that would lurk in the shadow of my mind and give me nightmares, and it just didn’t deliver on that front. The scares felt a little too routine, and it seemed more interested in playing it safe than taking real risks.

All that being said, I didn’t hate the movie. There were parts I enjoyed, and it was fun to watch in its own way. Lewis Pullman, who played the lead role of Ben Mears, was one of the highlights. He brings a grounded and sincere presence to the character.

His performance really sold the internal conflict of Mears returning to his haunted childhood home, only to discover that vampires were preying on the town.

The supporting cast was a bit of a mixed bag, though. Mackenzie Leigh did well as Susan Norton, and William Sadler brought his usual gravitas as Constable Parkins. Bill Camp as Matthew Burke and Jordan Preston Carter as Mark Petrie were solid too.

But on the other hand, Pilou Asbæk, who played Richard Straker, the villain, was a bit over the top for me. His performance was too exaggerated, bordering on caricature, and it took me out of the moment every time he was on screen.

The film was directed by Gary Dauberman, known for his work on The Conjuring franchise, and while he has a good eye for horror, this just wasn’t his best effort. It wasn’t the worst Stephen King adaptation out there, but considering the potential of Salem’s Lot and how rich the story is, this could’ve been so much better.

In the end, Salem’s Lot wasn’t the haunting, nightmare-inducing film I was hoping for, but it still had its enjoyable moments. If you’re a fan of the book or just looking for something to watch during the Halloween season, it’s worth checking out, but temper your expectations.

It’s not a bad film by any means, but it’s far from being a great one.