M_A's score: ** 1/2
First published in 1975, Salem's Lot is one of Stephen King's earliest, and arguably best, novels. The plot revolves around a fiction writer who returns to his small Maine hometown of Jerusalem's Lot to get inspiration for his next book. As is usually the case in these situations, he gets more than he bargained for. It seems that Jerusalem's Lot is slowly being transformed into a town full of rather bloodthirsty creatures that seem to have jumped right out of old lore. It's up to the writer and a select few of followers to rid the town of this menace for good.
Salem's Lot is not exactly original, and Stephen King admits as much, having borrowed much of the story from the "Dracula" legend. But the book works for two reasons. First, King is able to make such an absurd concept amazingly believable. As is his usual style, he innodates us with complex but flawed characters that we can relate to. Second, the book is damn scary. I've read a good portion of King's work, and I don't think I've come across a more frightening novel.
First published in 1975, Salem's Lot is one of Stephen King's earliest, and arguably best, novels. The plot revolves around a fiction writer who returns to his small Maine hometown of Jerusalem's Lot to get inspiration for his next book. As is usually the case in these situations, he gets more than he bargained for. It seems that Jerusalem's Lot is slowly being transformed into a town full of rather bloodthirsty creatures that seem to have jumped right out of old lore. It's up to the writer and a select few of followers to rid the town of this menace for good.
Salem's Lot is not exactly original, and Stephen King admits as much, having borrowed much of the story from the "Dracula" legend. But the book works for two reasons. First, King is able to make such an absurd concept amazingly believable. As is his usual style, he innodates us with complex but flawed characters that we can relate to. Second, the book is damn scary. I've read a good portion of King's work, and I don't think I've come across a more frightening novel.
That being said, this review is about the 1979 TV miniseries starring David Soul. Chalk this one up on director Tobe Hooper's resume between TX Chainsaw Massacre and Poltergeist. Make no mistake, 'Salem's Lot is not a good movie in the traditional sense. The budget is poor. The writing, bland. The acting, wooden. So what makes the movie memorable? It's damn scary.
While the plot strays moderately from the novel, Hooper manages to capture the feel of the book, not an easy task for a King tale. There's a growing inexplicable sense of dread from the very first minutes. Hooper is able to grab our interest without relying on quick edits and jump scares and without the benefit of CGI.
While the plot strays moderately from the novel, Hooper manages to capture the feel of the book, not an easy task for a King tale. There's a growing inexplicable sense of dread from the very first minutes. Hooper is able to grab our interest without relying on quick edits and jump scares and without the benefit of CGI.
That's not to say there aren't jump scares. There are. But the film manages to horrify without leaning on them as a crutch. It's the aforementioned dread that drives the picture. That, and the fact that the vampires are monstrous. There's no Anne Rice here. A couple scenes in particular that were terrifying in the novel are transmitted flawlessly to screen. One involves a vampire in a rocking chair...
As mentioned, the miniseries takes some liberties. Characters are combined, eliminated or transformed. For instance, the main baddie, Barlow, is changed from an intellectual prowess to a Nosferatu-like demon. The "smarts" is instead passed to his very human second in command played by James Mason, who turns in the only memorable performance, sans the vampires.
As mentioned, the miniseries takes some liberties. Characters are combined, eliminated or transformed. For instance, the main baddie, Barlow, is changed from an intellectual prowess to a Nosferatu-like demon. The "smarts" is instead passed to his very human second in command played by James Mason, who turns in the only memorable performance, sans the vampires.
'Salem's Lot was remade in 2004 with Rob Lowe as the male lead. This version reinstates many of the characters demanded by fans of the book. It improves on pretty much all performances except for Donald Sutherland, who apparantly thinks he can out-act James Mason by looking like Santa Claus. Yikes.
The remake isn't a bad film in its own right, but it takes the mood of the story in a completely different direction, leaning more on flash effects and humor. While it manages to keep somewhat closer to the plot of the novel, it did not, nor did it attempt to, capture that feeling of dread lingering between the pages of the book. For that, you'll have to stick with 'Salem's Lot 1979.
No comments:
Post a Comment