Here is the rewritten content:
Salem’s Lot makes a classic book-to-movie mistake. It tries to do too much and ends up doing very little right. Writer-director Gary Dauberman’s clear affection for the film’s Stephen King-penned source material is clear in nearly every frame of his new, straight-to-streaming adaptation.
Pros:
* Bill Camp’s standout supporting performance
* Numerous striking, gothic images throughout
* A few genuinely scary set pieces and jump scares
Cons:
* A thinly sketched cast of characters
* A rushed runtime
* Not enough thematic depth
Salem’s Lot doesn’t try to hide what it is. The film’s opening minutes set up in extremely blunt fashion its small-town setting and the arrival of its two hungry strangers, an immortal vampire referred to only as Mr. Barlow (Alexander Ward) and his human familiar, Richard Straker (a hammy Pilou Asbæk). From there, Salem’s Lot abruptly switches to the point of view of Ben Mears (Lewis Pullman), a writer who has moved back to his childhood hometown of Jerusalem’s Lot, Maine, to conduct some “research” for his next book. Shortly after he arrives in town, he makes friends with Matthew Burke (Bill Camp), an observant elementary schoolteacher, and Susan Norton (Makenzie Leigh), a young woman dying to leave her hometown behind.
Ben and Susan’s motivations and backstories are plainly laid out in Salem’s Lot‘s first act by Dauberman, but the filmmaker doesn’t have the time to truly flesh out either character — or any of the film’s heroes and villains for that matter. He has too many ideas for Conjuring-esque jump scares and set pieces, as well as too much knotty plotting from King’s book to deal with, to give Salem’s Lot enough depth to really separate it from other, better vampire movies.
In this section, Matt’s open doorways suddenly feel like portals into black, vacuous spaces in which monsters could very well be lurking around every corner. This turns out to be one of many visual ideas that Dauberman pulls off exceptionally well in Salem’s Lot. For all of its flaws, it is crafted with a colorful, playful eye, and there are more than a few images — like that of a cloaked vampire standing ominously in front of a movie projector’s light — that are absolutely striking. If the narrative groundwork laid beneath them were stronger, they might even have had the potential to become iconic.
For the most part, Salem’s Lot seems more interested in offering as many bloody thrills as it can. Some work better than others. A late-night attack on a young boy (Boy Kills World actor Nicholas Crovetti) in his backyard, for instance, lands with a thud because it is too dimly lit and artificially foggy for any actual tension to build before its sudden climax. This sequence marks one of the rare instances in Salem’s Lot in which Dauberman and cinematographer Michael Burgess strive for rich, shadowy visual depth and end up delivering disappointing murkiness instead. A different set piece, in which Camp’s Matt finds himself facing off against a newly turned vampire, works precisely because of how well Burgess and co. light the character’s home.
In conclusion, Salem’s Lot is a fun but ultimately forgettable thriller that tries to do too much and ends up doing too little right. While it has some striking visuals and a few genuinely scary set pieces, its lack of thematic depth and thinly sketched characters make it difficult to truly invest in. Fans of the book or the horror genre may find some enjoyment in its bright, colorful take on vampire lore, but for others, it may be more of a chore to watch.
FAQs:
* Is Salem’s Lot a good adaptation of the book?
+ While it has some creative moments, the film largely struggles to capture the atmosphere and themes of the source material.
* Is it a scary movie?
+ Yes, it has some jump scares and spooky visuals, but it’s ultimately more of a thriller than a horror movie.
* Is it worth watching for fans of the book or horror genre?
+ Yes, if you enjoy bright, colorful takes on vampire lore and don’t mind a lack of depth or character development. However, fans of the book may be disappointed by its liberties taken with the original story.