Salem

Ok I just watched one of my all time favorite Stephen King novels. I loved the 1979 version which I watched eagerly when I was 15 years old. I had been anticipating watching this for quite a while at least since the whispers started that a remake was coming. The movie was not terrible I gave it a six (that may be to generous) because the movie was watchable. I had so hoped it would be remade with the kind of money writing acting everything that "It" had when the last remake was done. Everything was just a little off with this movie. The acting was just ok. Character development was pretty non existent. They could have done a lot better on developing some interest in the characters. I think it was to rushed toward the end the drive in ending was terrible some should have pumped the brakes hard on that one! Why? Why remake something if not to make it outstanding! Stephen King is an awesome writer and if the production is done correctly then it should be awesome. Very disappointed ...

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.

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.

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.

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.