Salem's Lot Review: This Long-Delayed Stephen King Adaptation Lacks Bite

Gary Dauberman's "Salem's Lot" has had a bumpy ride. The Stephen King adaptation was originally supposed to hit theaters in 2022. Then it got delayed to 2023. Then it got pulled from the release calendar entirely. Since "Salem's Lot" is a Warner Bros. production, there was a growing fear that this vampire movie would go the way of WB's "Batgirl" and "Coyote vs. Acme" and never see the light of day. King got involved, taking to Twitter and pondering why the studio was sitting on the flick. "Not sure why WB is holding it back; not like it's embarrassing, or anything," the master of horror said. Rumors eventually began to swirl that "Salem's Lot" might skip theaters entirely and go directly to WB's streaming service, Max. Sure enough, the studio finally announced that was the case: "Salem's Lot" is destined to stream on Max this October, just in time for Halloween season. 

When a movie is delayed like this, it comes with a certain amount of baggage. Such delays can frequently indicate a studio doesn't have much faith in their finished film, which raises some red flags. But delays aren't always a sign of certain doom: Drew Goddard's horror-comedy "The Cabin in the Woods" was infamously delayed for years, only to finally be released and embraced by horror fans. Ditto Michael Dougherty's Halloween anthology "Trick 'r Treat," which sat on a shelf for two years before being dumped directly to DVD and becoming a modern spooky season favorite. 

Now that Dauberman's "Salem's Lot" is finally here, the question must be asked: was it worth the wait? I'm a huge Stephen King nerd, and I'm fond of Dauberman's work (his haunted house flick "Annabelle Comes Home" has become my personal favorite entry in The Conjuring Universe), so it brings me no pleasure to confess that this new take on "Salem's Lot" lacks bite. I'm not saying it should've been shelved forever — such a process is ghastly and wrong-headed. But this adaptation of King's vampire classic is rushed, clumsy, and curiously lifeless. King was right: It's not "embarrassing, or anything." It's just not very good, either. Bummer.

"Salem's Lot" was King's second published novel, a mash-up of Bram Stoker's "Dracula" and Grace Metalious' "Peyton Place," telling the story of a small New England town becoming overrun by vampires. King's story has been adapted twice before, once as a now-beloved 1979 miniseries helmed by "Texas Chain Saw Massacre" mastermind Tobe Hooper, and again as a not-so-beloved 2004 miniseries for TNT. Since both of these adaptations were miniseries, they had room to breathe and use a lot of King's text in the process (although changes were made in both instances). Dauberman's take is the first feature film adaptation of the material, which means the writer-director has to do some serious trimming to fit the story into a 113-minute runtime. Sadly, this hurts the movie, because the end result feels like it's missing something. King's book does a swell job of making the town of Salem's Lot feel like a real place full of a wide ranging cast of characters. In Dauberman's movie, Salem's Lot feels practically deserted before the vampires even show up. None of the characters here make much of an impact, as virtually all of their backstories have been excised for a swifter narrative. 

Set in the '70s, "Salem's Lot" begins when writer Ben Mears (Lewis Pullman) returns to the Maine town of Jerusalem's Lot. Ben grew up here a long time ago, and he's come home to write a book about his past. Ben isn't the only newcomer in town: a mysterious figure named Barlow has purchased the Marsten House, a spooky old mansion on a hill overlooking town. Barlow plans to open a new antique store with his business partner, Straker (Pilou Asbæk), but honestly, if you didn't read King's book, you might miss much of this info, as it unfolds in rushed exposition delivered flatly. It's as if the film has no interest in story setting, it just wants to sprint to get to the vampire stuff.

Because, yes, Barlow is a vampire, and Straker is his human familiar. And before you know it, various residents of Salem's Lot are turning up dead, their bodies drained of blood. The first person to realize there's something supernatural going on is Matt Burke (Bill Camp, always welcomed), a school teacher who isn't afraid to say the "v" word. Eventually, Matt, Ben, local girl Susan Norton (Makenzie Leigh), nerdy horror kid Mark Petrie (Jordan Preston Carter), boozy priest Father Callahan (John Benjamin Hickey), and the somewhat skeptical Dr. Cody (Alfre Woodard) band together to form a makeshift vampire hunting committee. Why? Because the movie needs them to, that's why. King's book does a much better job of moving these characters into place, but Dauberman's movie has no time for that stuff — it just barrels ahead awkwardly and hopes we'll go along for the ride. 

The rushed nature of the movie might be forgivable or acceptable if there was something else to grab hold of, but "Salem's Lot" comes up short again and again. Pullman's Ben is an immensely boring main character (Who is he? What does he want? The movie doesn't care!), and the supporting cast, aside from Woodard's charmingly no-nonsense doctor, don't fare much better. Pilou Asbæk's Straker shouts his way through his few scenes, and Alexander Ward's Barlow never seems very threatening or even interesting, even though he's supposed to be the movie's big bad. He's not very scary, either, and that seems like a fatal flaw. 

The lack of character development is a major concern for a Stephen King adaptation, as King's biggest strength as a writer isn't really the scares he creates — it's his characters. King is uniquely skilled at creating characters and making us understand who they are almost immediately, which in effect only increases the horror. Because when we grow invested in a character, we care what happens to them. If we grow to like a character, we don't want anything bad to befall them — so when it inevitably does, our fears are ratcheted up. But everyone in this take on "Salem's Lot" is paper thin. 

Eventually, "Salem's Lot" finds some life in its climax, gleefully unleashing monster mayhem that feels ported over from a much more enjoyable B-movie. A big sequence set at drive-in movie theater during sundown is admittedly fun and action-packed, and now and then, Dauberman conjures up some memorable images, like when two young boys traipse through the woods at dusk, or like when a cross being gripped by a character begins to glow white-hot in a darkened room when vampires are nearby.

But gosh, did this movie have to feel so uninspired? I'm not saying the third adaptation of "Salem's Lot" needed to be a groundbreaking achievement, but it didn't have to be this dull, either. Even if you're unfamiliar with King's novel and therefore not comparing it to the source material, this new "Salem's Lot" will still feel unfulfilling. I'm glad this movie finally got released ... I just wish I liked it more. 

/Film Rating: 5 out of 10

"Salem's Lot" will be streaming on Max starting October 3, 2024.