User reviews

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.

I have t read the book so I can't compare it to that. I loved the look of the vampires. There was definitely good creepy atmosphere. Good action scenes. It had the makings of a good horror movie, I just think it would have fared better as a mini series. We needed more time to get to know these characters better. More time to develop these relationships. I think Lewis does a really good acting job with what he's given but his character needs more development. His backstory doesn't play into the story in any way, except for a vague "only the outsiders win" kind of way. Like I thought him being a writer (besides being the obvious Stephen King stand in) would serve a purpose, like maybe he's the one to do research, but no. The only other thing we know about him is that his parents died when he was a kid and that serves no purpose either. He's kind of nothing character. Again, at least Lewis does a good job with what little is given to him. But as said, I think a mini series would have been better to give more time for the characters.

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 ...

I believe this movie could have used another 30-40 minutes to flesh thing's out. To much rushed scenes to get to the next. More back story could have happened with the care taker which he was a waste unlike the original which was much better and very much more creepy. Could have seen how he became barlow's servent. Backstory on Barlow the master himself how he became what he is. Offer something different or adding to that what the original or remake didn't have that set's it apart not saying it would be better then the original but hold up as very worthy remake. I still enjoyed it but just something to think about for people wanting to do remake's.

Having read the novel several times and seeing the 1979 tv-series a number of times over the years, I was really looking forward to this. Well, it was disappointing. I realize it's a lot to ask to have to cram the book into a two-hour film, a lot of story and character background had to be sacrificed. All of our main characters are there, some visibly altered to suit 21st century norms, but not well fleshed out. A bunch of liberties are taken with the storyline as well, some for no clear reason, it seems. I guess if you have never read the book, you wouldn't know what you're missing. But the most heinous thing about this film is simple: if you're the least bit of a horror movie fan, It's Not Scary. Like, at all. Give it a watch if you like, but the broth of this soup is quite thin.

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.

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.

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.

There's no way you can adapt The Lot in under 2 hours. Complete waste of time for King fans. Barely worth the time for Vampire movie fans. There's ZERO character depth for anyone in this movie. King writes character depth just about better than anyone, so if you aren't willing to commit to that, why bother? One of the biggest characters from the novel, and it's importance to the story, IS THE MARSTEN HOUSE ITSELF! Completed omitted. At this point, I don't think we can trust anyone else to touch King's work except for Mike Flanagan. I wasn't expecting a by the numbers, page to screen movie, but I was really looking forward to this.

Going to rewatch the original to wash the bad taste out of my mouth.

I already see a lot of negative reviews here and I don't get it.

Because the world has been so messed up for the last few years, the only thing I've been able to handle watching is horror, and this movie is better than the vast majority of horror movies out there. It was actually a relief to watch.

I've loved Stephen King for over 40 years, but I get the impression a lot of fans hate this movie because it's not 4 hours long to do justice to every scrap of plot and character development in the book.

Instead, this flick hurtles along at under two hours, looks gorgeous, and is stuffed with legit terrific actors who create memorable, empathetic characters. Props especially to Bill Camp and Alfre Woodard for keeping it real. None of the dialogue made me groan, some of it made me genuinely laugh, and I was tense even though I know the story. There were even some nice cinematic inventions that weren't in the book like the drive-in sequence.

A movie is not a book. There are already two prior miniseries adaptations of this one if you want to spend the whole night bingeing on plot points. I'd rather watch something lean and effective then hit the sack so I can get back to my nightmares.

The film felt rushed and all over the place. Would've been better off as a miniseries on HBO. I am glad that they finally released it but you can tell that there was a lot of rewrites well watching the film. I did like the changes and how some characters were given more to do than in the novel, But like I stated, I feel like we were just jumping to the highlights of the novel. The film did suffer from a lot of basic horror, movie clichés, but I'm not going to fault them for that sense. It was already known that there was a lot of issues trying to release the film in general. I am glad that the film was placed on a streaming service instead of the movie theaters.

It definitely felt rushed, and I would have loved to have more character development and there would have been time to dip into the town's history.

They changed things here and there, some worked, some didn't. I can understand not wanting to try a shot-for-shot remake because some of the scenes and scares in the 1979 version are iconic and you would always fall short. The sinister suspense from the first was unreal.

If I had never seen the first miniseries, this would be a serviceable version but ultimately would leave me wanting.

I think the actors did a great job, and the atmosphere and era felt good. I think this really suffered from just trying to cram so much into so little space and time. There was so much more to be explored and it would have made the horror that much more horrible if we had a stronger bond with the town and the characters.

Somebody try again and EXPAND not contract.

First let me start with, I hate 1 star reviewers. People that seem to think that their opinion tramps everyone else's. You didn't like a move or a show. I get it. Good for you. Move on.

Now that this is out of the way. The movie is fun and enjoyable but just barely. The problems are many. There is no character development. There is no setup. The plot seems to skip ahead like crazy. One minute they are in a drive in relaxing, a moment later they are fighting vampires without questioning the idea. There is no credible antagonist. I think the big bad shows up in two small scenes and has the personality of a zombie. Straker, more of the same. The main character just a paper thin plot device to takes us to the end since the villain cannot off himself and roll the credits.

You can see that there was potential for a good mini series here. It has production values, good cast and an excellent source material. Something longer than 110 minutes would do. Unfortunately they made a movie instead.

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.

First off movie deviates from the book quite a bit. Fans of the novel looking for it on the big screen are going to be disappointed. However the optimist in me knows that you can't make this movie in 2hrs and have it mirror the novel. Too many characters and side stories that are completely gone or reworked to make this movie. Not a bad vampire movie as is and I enjoyed it as such. Can't hold a torch to the novel though. Considering this film has been in the works for a decade with production changes, sold off to different studios and casting changes. This was success to say the least. Enjoy it.

I've rarely seen a horror film with more incorrect atmosphere for this genre. Got some good tunes at the beginning and end that are nice, if they were in a different movie. It's been eons since I read this book and have very little memory of it other than I liked it a lot. What I more clearly remember is the TV mini-series from the 1970's. Now that one knew how to create atmosphere. I was never frightened by this as it barely held my attention. I've seen the lead actor, Lewis Pullman, in a couple of things, one I liked, one I didn't, but he is as blank and bland here as any actor I can recall. He just sleepwalks through the role. Can't say I blame him. I felt bad for Alfre Woodard who seems embarrassed.

Salem's Lot is a wonderful way to kick off the Halloween season. The screen adaptation from Stephen King's second book follows the story of Ben, an author, who returns to his childhood hometown in search of a new story to write. What he finds however is a town being slowly turned to vampires. "Slowly" isn't quite the word for it though. They changed quite a bit from the original story and at times it felt like it was just jumping from major scene to major scene. Although a lot of the changes didn't bother me or the more modern approach didn't hinder it, it still left me feeling wanting a little more at times. They did not do justice to Barlow's screen time. He was scary but the impact of him felt a little too rushed. The lighting was the movies best quality and deserves an Oscar. Perfect in every scene with the mix of dark and light. It's definitely worth a watch and one that you could watch every holloween season!

The 2024 adaptation of Salem's Lot promised to be a chilling update of Stephen King's classic novel. Unfortunately, the film falls short of its potential. While the fast-paced narrative is commendable, it leaves little room for character development or atmospheric tension. The CGI scenes, though brief, feel out of place and detract from the overall immersion. The film's brevity is a major disappointment. It feels as though the story has been rushed, leaving many plot threads unresolved and characters unexplored. The horror elements, while present, lack the intensity and creepiness of the original novel. The altered ending is a particularly jarring choice, deviating significantly from King's vision and leaving a sour taste in the mouth.

The new Salem's Lot fails to capture the mystery and suspense of the original. While there are a few references to the classic, the overall story feels disjointed and lacking in originality. The absence of a compelling vampire origin story is a missed opportunity to delve deeper into the mythology of the creatures. It's hard to shake the feeling that this Salem's Lot was a quick cash grab rather than a passion project. The film's shortcomings are a testament to the challenges of adapting such a beloved novel. While the 2024 version may satisfy some viewers, it is unlikely to leave a lasting impression on fans of the original.

I loved the book when I read it in the 80's and looked forward to this movie but I was let down.

I'm not a purist and don't usually mind different interpretations of a fictional story, but the changes weren't really the worst parts, that would be the bland storytelling and the movie just felt rushed.

There was no character development whatsoever, the acting was mediocre, though Alfre Woodard stood out and I wish she was shown more as she was the best part of the movie for me, though she was hardly in it, and I can't say it enough, there was nothing really happening with the story to keep me interested.

A little backstory on anyone would have been nice, an actual view of the budding romance that was taking place to help us actually feel the main characters grief, anything at all other than the bland scenes we got.

Unfortunately an utterly forgettable film.

Not Recommended.