L'autore Ben Mears torna nella sua casa d'infanzia, Jerusalem's Lot, in cerca di ispirazione per il suo prossimo libro, solo per scoprire che la sua città natale è preda di un vampiro asseta... Leggi tuttoL'autore Ben Mears torna nella sua casa d'infanzia, Jerusalem's Lot, in cerca di ispirazione per il suo prossimo libro, solo per scoprire che la sua città natale è preda di un vampiro assetato di sangue.L'autore Ben Mears torna nella sua casa d'infanzia, Jerusalem's Lot, in cerca di ispirazione per il suo prossimo libro, solo per scoprire che la sua città natale è preda di un vampiro assetato di sangue.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 2 candidature totali
Recensioni in evidenza
First of all, I have to say that even when a Stephen King adaptation is weak, at least it's still watchable. That is the testament of King's work. This movie is lucky to be a King movie.
With that said, it's very mediocre. In the beginning of the movie I was very excited, everything liked good, the atmosphere of unease was there and it felt very King. But every aspect of of the story evolving is abandoned. Pretty fast we get to a point where people have just vanished from the town. It happens so quickly and the remaining people just "know" the cause is vampires. They also seem to know instantly who the main vampire is and it makes no sense. I have seen incredibly bad horror movies in my life and this is not bad, it's just too Quick. Also, no gore. In a vampire movie. Shame.
If this had been a 8 to 10 episode mini series, it would have worked. The elements are there. The cast is there. I do have to give credit for sticking with the source material, it shows that the creators did have an understanding of what they are working with.
With that said, it's very mediocre. In the beginning of the movie I was very excited, everything liked good, the atmosphere of unease was there and it felt very King. But every aspect of of the story evolving is abandoned. Pretty fast we get to a point where people have just vanished from the town. It happens so quickly and the remaining people just "know" the cause is vampires. They also seem to know instantly who the main vampire is and it makes no sense. I have seen incredibly bad horror movies in my life and this is not bad, it's just too Quick. Also, no gore. In a vampire movie. Shame.
If this had been a 8 to 10 episode mini series, it would have worked. The elements are there. The cast is there. I do have to give credit for sticking with the source material, it shows that the creators did have an understanding of what they are working with.
This new adaptation of Stephen King's classic, "Salem's Lot", is a missed opportunity.
It's now well-known that this movie fell victim to studio meddling, both from WB and producer James Wan. The result is a mediocre, bland, and lifeless product.
King's strength has always been his focus on the human element-the characters, and how their relationships inform the narrative and provide an emotional core to his stories. Here, none of that exists.
It seems, based on what's left, that director Dauberman had an idea of how to tell the story while staying faithful to the source material. His directorial approach is simple, almost naive, but for a story like this, it could've worked.
However, any resemblance of life has been sucked out (likely in the editing room), leaving behind what I'd call a "non-film." The pacing is so brisk it becomes annoying, making it impossible to care about the one-dimensional characters, who exist more as narrative devices than as real people.
The visual style doesn't help either, as it's reminiscent of The Conjuring series-visually slick, sterilized horror aimed at the masses. The few character-driven moments seem shot for efficiency, with the most basic framing, blocking, and composition, rather than any attempt to convey real emotion.
Alfre Woodard (Dr. Cody) delivers a performance that's a cut above the rest. Makenzie Leigh (Susan), John Benjamin Hickey (Father Callahan), and Lewis Pullman (Ben Mears)-in that order-do their best with the material. The younger actors are fine, but everyone else... not so much. A couple of performances are even laughably bad.
If the characters come off as one-dimensional despite the actors' best efforts, it feels fitting that the main antagonist can't even be described as such. His only discernible trait seems to be going "Bleaarrggghh" before feeding on his next victim.
There's virtually no blood or gore and most of the violence happens off camera.
The score and sound design are serviceable but far from memorable, doing little to enhance the nonexistent emotional impact of the story.
After nearly two hours of nothingness, the film devolves into a boring, senseless, and meaningless "action-packed" finale (keep an eye out for the sun moving at plot-convenient speeds). The sequence is topped off with sub-par CGI and one of the most anticlimactic endings I can remember.
The production values are clearly there, though. Even if it was never going to be a masterpiece, there was a chance to make an emotionally resonant film with the timely theme of a small American town's fear of "the outsider."
Alas, what we're left with is an hefty, bloated serving of nothing.
It's now well-known that this movie fell victim to studio meddling, both from WB and producer James Wan. The result is a mediocre, bland, and lifeless product.
King's strength has always been his focus on the human element-the characters, and how their relationships inform the narrative and provide an emotional core to his stories. Here, none of that exists.
It seems, based on what's left, that director Dauberman had an idea of how to tell the story while staying faithful to the source material. His directorial approach is simple, almost naive, but for a story like this, it could've worked.
However, any resemblance of life has been sucked out (likely in the editing room), leaving behind what I'd call a "non-film." The pacing is so brisk it becomes annoying, making it impossible to care about the one-dimensional characters, who exist more as narrative devices than as real people.
The visual style doesn't help either, as it's reminiscent of The Conjuring series-visually slick, sterilized horror aimed at the masses. The few character-driven moments seem shot for efficiency, with the most basic framing, blocking, and composition, rather than any attempt to convey real emotion.
Alfre Woodard (Dr. Cody) delivers a performance that's a cut above the rest. Makenzie Leigh (Susan), John Benjamin Hickey (Father Callahan), and Lewis Pullman (Ben Mears)-in that order-do their best with the material. The younger actors are fine, but everyone else... not so much. A couple of performances are even laughably bad.
If the characters come off as one-dimensional despite the actors' best efforts, it feels fitting that the main antagonist can't even be described as such. His only discernible trait seems to be going "Bleaarrggghh" before feeding on his next victim.
There's virtually no blood or gore and most of the violence happens off camera.
The score and sound design are serviceable but far from memorable, doing little to enhance the nonexistent emotional impact of the story.
After nearly two hours of nothingness, the film devolves into a boring, senseless, and meaningless "action-packed" finale (keep an eye out for the sun moving at plot-convenient speeds). The sequence is topped off with sub-par CGI and one of the most anticlimactic endings I can remember.
The production values are clearly there, though. Even if it was never going to be a masterpiece, there was a chance to make an emotionally resonant film with the timely theme of a small American town's fear of "the outsider."
Alas, what we're left with is an hefty, bloated serving of nothing.
What makes the book a masterpiece is the slow burn. The budding love affair. The vignettes of strange things happening around town. The eventual gathering of a gang of misfit heroes that come together in perfect King fashion.
All of that is gone. The pacing is largely incoherent. Characters jump to conclusions (the right ones, always) without a second thought. It's hard to love any of characters because they all lack the depth they need to make the story move forward.
There are some really amazing moments here, and some small sparks of genius. But, unfortunately, this adaptation is defanged.
All of that is gone. The pacing is largely incoherent. Characters jump to conclusions (the right ones, always) without a second thought. It's hard to love any of characters because they all lack the depth they need to make the story move forward.
There are some really amazing moments here, and some small sparks of genius. But, unfortunately, this adaptation is defanged.
It was an okay movie. Really needs to be an 8-10 hour mini series. That way the characters could be explored better. We would have more of an interest in the story and lore. Felt that the actors did well with what they were given. The leads all did a good job conveying their characters motivation, considering the shortness of the movie. The heroes of the story are good. Loved the teacher as well as the two main leads and the little kid who showed no fear. Was it perfect. No. But. The effects were well done. Though they should have waited for the grand reveal till later in the story. Other than they. A solid movie. Again. Should have been made a mini series.
The movie had some decent scares. The acting was solid but the plot was rushed and, something I'll never understand, they felt the need to rewrite one of the greatest writers of our time. Too many storylines were dropped while others were strangely created. I just wish the story had been properly developed which is where an episode series would have been appropriate. The Marsten house murdee backstory could have been given some time, as well, as that's a great subplot and explanation as to why Barlow and Straker choose the house/location. Barlow's makeup was beautiful done, however, so that's something. Do films still do test audiences? It doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
Stephen King Movies Ranked by IMDb Rating
Stephen King Movies Ranked by IMDb Rating
See how IMDb users rank the feature films based on the work of Stephen King.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizWriter Gary Dauberman told Den of Geek in June 2019 that his goal with the new version of Salem's Lot is to make vampires frightening again. He wants to get away from the sexier, more romanticized undead that have infested pop culture for much of the past quarter century, thanks to everything from Interview with the Vampire to Twilight to The Vampire Diaries.
- BlooperWhen Ben is reading old newspapers on microfilm in the library, a headline reads "Local Couple Victims of DUI". The paper was supposedly printed in 1956, at a time when the term "DUI" was not yet in use.
- ConnessioniFeatured in Half in the Bag: Top 10 Horror Movies (2024) Part 1 (2024)
- Colonne sonoreSundown
Written and Performed by Gordon Lightfoot
Courtesy of Warner Records
By arrangement with Warner Music Group Film & TV Licensing
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Salem's Lot?Powered by Alexa
- When can we get an actual update about what is going on with the movie
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- El misterio de Salem's Lot
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 851.156 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 54 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
- 2.39:1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
What is the Canadian French language plot outline for Le notti di Salem (2024)?
Rispondi