Review of Salem's Lot

Salem's Lot (2004)
2/10
Disappointing: read the book, watch the Hooper version
3 January 2005
I was expecting to like this movie. Salem's Lot remains one of my favorite King books, and the earlier adaptation by Tobe Hooper was really very good. James Mason was wonderful, and a lot of other talented actors did a good job of bringing King's humor and chills to the screen.

So, if they were going to remake it, they must have had an idea of how to make it even better, right? Keep the good, and improve?

Evidently not.

Allow an analogy: Why did Peter Jackson mostly succeed with his Lord of the Rings trilogy? Because he knew he was working with wonderful material. When he respected it, the result was masterful. (When he didn't... yow!) The forces behind this can't have thought much of King's book. Perhaps they mused, "Say, Stephen King's a big name. He wrote some book about vampires in Maine, didn't he? Let's find someone who read the book and knows the names in it, then let's make up a story using those names. And let's mix some of them up!" Result? Gone are King's wry humor, deft observations, and most of the chills and thrills of the story. You won't recognize Straker, nor just about anyone else. It's just a dumb, dumb movie.

Do yourself a favor: read the book, get the full version of the Hooper movie. It's by no means perfect, but it is MUCH better than this mess.
20 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed