Salem 2 - Die Rückkehr

A good story can survive all but the worst treatment. Unfortunately, this really is the worst treatment.

The acting is terrible. The editing is worse--choppy and inept. It's the kind of editing that's so bad you have a number of those "What? How'd he get over there?" moments. It's hard to believe that Larry Cohen had ever directed anything before this, it's so amateurish. I would have guessed this to be a first film, if I didn't know better. It looks as if the director just didn't get the shots needed to cover the action and left the editor scrambling to stitch together a movie.

Similarly, lines of dialogue come out of nowhere, completely unmotivated, almost nonsensical.

The sad thing is, there are good ideas buried in this mess: vampires trying to run a sustainable community by feeding on cows' blood, their attempts to recruit a journalist to record the details of their lives for future generations, the protagonist's perpetually-17-years-old childhood sweetheart seducing him into the Devil's bargain. They're good elements for a story.

But the details don't hang together. None of it quite makes sense. And the one or two good special effects are overwhelmed by all the lousy ones.

If, like the inhabitants of Salem's Lot, you plan to live forever, you might want to take a look at this movie. But for the living: Believe me, you don't have enough time to waste two of your precious remaining hours on this one.

This movie had a good idea, that is, how a colony of vampires might live, what they do to survive, etc. However, it just didn't work out right. The pacing and performances were not up to snuff, and any movie in which you have characters standing in a barn full of Holstein cattle, and explaining that "Jersey cows make richer milk", obviously had problems in the design phase.

Just a bad film...

If you are a fan of the horror and cult genre, especially of original screenplays and imaginative plots, you can't but have tremendous respect for Larry Cohen. The creative mastermind had an extremely busy career, during which he wrote more than eighty scenarios and also directed a good twenty films between the early 70s and the late 80s. Moreover, and what I personally appreciate most about Cohen, there is a huge diversity in his films. From pioneer blaxploitation cult like "Black Caesar", over micro-budgeted horror classic "It's Alive", towards the absurdly playful "Q - Winged Serpent" or "The Stuff"; - each of these is unique and 100% original. As a matter of course, not all of Cohen's scripts and/or films can be equally flawless. Notably the ones where he experimented with comedy and homage, like "Full Moon High" and this "A Return to Salem's Lot", are rather large disappointments.

In fact, "A Return to Salem's Lot" is more than a disappointment. It's a huge misfire. I honestly can't fathom what Cohen tried to accomplish with this redundant, in-name-only sequel to Tobe Hooper's successful TV mini-series based on the Stephen King novel. Here, an estranged father and son land in the little Maine town of Jerusalem's Lot and it's apparently already inhabited by vampires since the time of the Pilgrims. This wouldn't be a Larry Cohen flick if it didn't contain at least a handful of worthwhile elements. There are some nifty plot elements (for instance, the vampires use humanoid "slaves" to run the town during daylight), the gore is fairly outrageous and it's great fun to see the controversial director Samuel Fuller ("White Dog") as a bonkers vampire hunter. Still, throughout most of the running time, "A Return to Salem's Lot" is dull and utterly pointless. Michael Moriarty is once more incredibly irritating. Sometimes I really dig him, sometimes I can't stand him. In this film, it's the latter.

PS: I also hate misleading film posters. The poster for this film leads you to believe that Reggie Nalder's notorious character from the original, Kurt Barlow, also still appears in the sequel, which obviously isn't true. And yet, in spite of all this, you are still a favorite of mine, Larry Cohen!

But not as bad as others might have you believe either. Michael Moriarity returns from South America to get his mal-adjusted son and brings him to a house he inherited in Maine in the cozy little town of Salem's Lot. This film has no bearing on the original source, nor is it a similair film in any way. Larry Cohen directs and creates his vision. He shows us a town where vampirism is an accepted and seemingly normal lifestyle. The story has plenty of flaws, and sure does ask you to do a lot of suspending belief, but it has at its core a pretty interesting story of a father and a son bonding amidst their own weaknesses and a horde of vampires. Moriarity is good and some of the character actors are in fine form, especially Samuel Fuller barking out one-liners and Andrew Duggan(his last film) as the head vampire with New England grace and charm. Some exceptionally weak areas are special effects. The evil vampire face is absurd-looking, like a mask from a shop! All in all, I enjoyed this very flawed film for its heart.

I actually feel embarrassed for Michael Moriarty. He has never had the really good roles he deserves. And he did not deserve this. It is obvious that the studio wanted to exploit the popular "Salem's Lot" without "shoveling" out the cash to do a decent job. This film cannot even in good conscience be called a sequel. There was nothing left of the town at the end of the last film, and suddenly all new characters are coming home to a place that isn't even supposed to exist. I really felt as if my intelligence was being insulted, by this truly poor representation of the subject. If you are renting the film OK, you just wasted a couple of bucks, no big deal. But if you bought it, you've just been bitten big time. This movie deserves an early grave.