Connect with us

Reviews

[REVIEW] ‘Salem’s Lot’ (2024) is Another Toothless Stephen King Remake

Salem’s Lot follows the familiar author, Ben Mears, as he returns to his childhood home to research his next book but discovers the town has a vampire infestation. While this newest iteration retains a few central characters, it does not let them have as much fun as either miniseries that came before it. There is no grandiose Donald Sutherland’s Richard Straker having a devilish time or the sweet Rutger Hauer’s Kurt Barlow rolling across a ceiling energy as seen in the 2004 version. It also does not recapture the few scares that live rent-free in our minds from the 1979 adaptation. Although, this one does return to the 1970s instead of attempting to bring the story forward to modern times. 

Published

on

Salem’s Lot was the first novel I ever read as a kid. I powered through it to watch the Tobe Hooper adaptation on TNT when I was 11 or 12. That was also the tender age when I discovered the book is usually better. I have realized these last few years that this Stephen King novel holds a special place in many horror heads’ hearts. This explains why we have carried so much collective annoyance as the newest version sat around collecting dust for a couple of years after completion. With the checkered history, the ridiculously long wait, and King’s very own stamp of approval, the tension was thick when I hit play on my screener.

Salem’s Lot follows the familiar author, Ben Mears, as he returns to his childhood home to research his next book but discovers the town has a vampire infestation. While this newest iteration retains a few central characters, it does not let them have as much fun as either miniseries that came before it. There is no grandiose Donald Sutherland’s Richard Straker having a devilish time or the sweet Rutger Hauer’s Kurt Barlow rolling across a ceiling energy as seen in the 2004 version. It also does not recapture the few scares that live rent-free in our minds from the 1979 adaptation. Although, this one does return to the 1970s instead of attempting to bring the story forward to modern times. 

This version leaves the iconic kitchen battle toothless. It makes the child floating to the window surprisingly less eerie. However, it does have a few tense moments up its sleeve. Ralphie’s abduction specifically has never been so terrifying on screen. From the actual kidnapping to the audience watching his fatal ending from his POV through a burlap bag, it is unsettling and led me to believe this movie would have more cool stuff to rattle us. Sadly, this would not be the case though.

One thing I loved about this version is Mark Petrie (Jordan Preston Carter). Not only is he seemingly the bravest and smartest person in town, but he is an actual kid. There are no underdeveloped teens who tell bad jokes and get into trouble in The Lot this time. When he encounters a vampire, he turns to his comics for research and starts figuring out his next steps. He is also a Black central character in a Stephen King adaptation that cannot die if we stick to the character arc. I also love that this adds another layer to his isolation in Salem’s Lot and inspired the set designers to sneak a Sugar Hill (1974) poster onto his bedroom wall. I also have to highlight that there was no racial trauma shoehorned in, as that is a trope the industry cannot seem to shake. I was happy that the only time he was picked on was a standard bully, and Mark kicked his ass. I almost clapped when the teacher and other students were on his side because I had braced myself for the worst.

Another thing that works in Salem’s Lot’s favor is that we never waste time trying to convince people vampires are real. If it is not a major plot point, like getting them to the morgue so Ralphie’s undead mom can have some fun, the characters fall into formation. I have to admit that while things faltered after Ralphie’s death, it was cool to have scary vampires again, even if it was too brief. We have been getting too many cutesy non-threatening ones, and I am tired. I want vamps to be brutal, vicious, and frightening. Although some of the vampire activity of Salem’s Lot was undercut by the crosses glowing whenever a baddie was nearby. It was a puzzling choice that I still do not know how to feel about. 

Advertisement

I was rooting for this movie, but it is sadly another missed opportunity to capture the magical world Stephen King built all of those decades ago. I appreciate that this is the leanest version we have seen, clocking in at just under two hours and cutting away any unnecessary characters. However, it also leaves the story feeling a little hollow as we do not really get to know the new iterations of some of these characters. This is especially a shame because Alfre Woodard plays Dr. Cody this time. I would love to see if the character is as messy as all of the male versions of this character. I also just wanted her to have more screen time because it feels like filmmakers do not understand what a powerhouse she is when they cast her. I am still seething about how they wasted her talent in Annabelle while giving her all of the racial tropes we are all tired of seeing. This Salem’s Lot also has what feels like the most rushed attempt at this forced romance between Ben and Susan (Lewis Pullman and Makenzie Leigh). So, his unwillingness to kill her once she is turned is even more confusing than any previous screen adaptation.

What the film lacks in character development and any good scares after Ralphie’s demise funnels over into creativity. I have never seen vampires use cars as coffins, and I have never seen an epic battle go down in a drive-in. There are some cool shots of vamps catching fire, but this also feels like it is going through the motions far too often. This also highlights this film’s problem of having great ideas but no follow-through. Gary Dauberman’s script feels like it bared its fangs but was not ready to sink its teeth into anything. This results in wasting some fantastic set pieces in a movie that mostly plays it safe. I hoped this would be my favorite attempt at Salem’s Lot, but it made me feel sad as I slid it to second place in my mental ranking.

This Salem’s Lot is not the worst version we have seen on screen. The film is quite simply okay, which is fine. I know we feel compelled to love or hate something, but the middle of the road is still something to celebrate. This is probably a good movie for tweens to sneak by parents at slumber parties. It will also make Uncle Stephen’s stans looking for their regularly scheduled adaptations breathe a little easier. However, watching it fall from grace after such an epic disposal of Ralphie is going to leave a lot of King fans as annoyed as I am. 

Salem’s Lot arrives on Max (formerly HBO Max) on October 3.

Advertisement

Sharai is a writer, horror podcaster, freelancer, and recovering theatre kid. She is one-half of the podcast of Nightmare On Fierce Street, one-third of Blerdy Massacre, and co-hosts various other horror podcasts. She has bylines at Dread Central, Fangoria, and Horror Movie Blog. She spends way too much time with her TV while failing to escape the Midwest. You can find her most days on Instagram and Twitter. However, if you do find her, she will try to make you watch some scary stuff.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Reviews

‘Frankenstein’ Review: Guillermo Del Toro Is Off to the Races

Published

on

Those expecting Guillermo Del Toro’s Frankenstein to be similar to the book, or to any other adaptation, are in for something else. A longtime enjoyer of the creature’s story, Del Toro instead draws from many places: the novel, James Whale’s culturally defining 1931 film, the Kenneth Branagh version, there are even hints from Terence Fisher’s Curse of Frankenstein, and if the set design and costuming are to be believed, there are trace elements of the National Theatre production too.

The formulation to breathe life into this amalgam is a sort of storm cloud of cultural memory and personal desire for Del Toro. This is about crafting his Frankenstein: the one he wanted to see since he was young, the vision he wanted to stitch together. What results is an experience that is more colorful and kinetic and well-loved by its creator than any Frankenstein we’ve had yet, but what it leaves behind is much of its gothic heart. Quiet darkness, looming dread, poetry, and romance are set aside as what has been sold as “the definitive retelling” goes off to the races. It’s a fast-paced ride through a world of mad science, and you’re on it.

Victor Frankenstein’s Ambition and Tragedy

A tale as old as time, with some changes: the morbid talents and untamed hubris of Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac) guide him to challenge death itself. Spurred by a wealthy investor named Henrich Harlander, and a desire for Harlander’s niece Elizabeth (Mia Goth), Victor uses dead flesh and voltaic vigor to bring a creature to life. His attempts to rear it, however, go horribly wrong, setting the two on a bloody collision course as the definitions of man and monster become blurred.

Guillermo Del Toro’s Frankenstein is more Hellboy in its presentation than it is Crimson Peak; it’s honestly more similar to Coppola’s Dracula than either of them. The film is barely done with its opening when it starts with a loud sequence of the monster attacking Walton’s ship on the ice. Flinging crew members about and walking against volleys of gunfire, he is a monstrosity by no other name. The Creature (Jacob Elordi) cries out in guttural screams, part animal and part man, as it calls for its creator to be returned to him. While visually impressive (and it remains visually impressive throughout, believe me), this appropriately bombastic hook foreshadows a problem with tone and tempo.

A Monster That Moves Too Fast

The pace overall is far too fast for its first half, even with its heavy two-and-a-half-hour runtime. It’s also a far cry from the brooding nature the story usually takes. A scene where Victor demonstrates rudimentary reanimation to his peers and a council of judges is rapid, where it should be agonizingly slow. There’s horror and an instability in Victor to be emphasized in that moment, but the grotesque sight is an oddly triumphant one instead. Most do not revile his experiments; in fact he’s taken quite seriously.

Advertisement

Many scenes like this create a tonal problem that makes Victor’s tale lean more toward melodrama than toward philosophical or emotional aspects; he is blatantly wild and free, in a way that is respected rather than pitied. There are opportunities to stop, breathe in the Victorian roses and the smell of death, to get really dour, but it’s neglected until the film’s second half.

Isaac’s and Goth’s performances are overwrought at points, feeling more like pantomimes of Byronic characters. I’m not entirely convinced it has more to do with them than with the script they’re given. Like Victor working with the parts of inmates and dead soldiers, even the best of actors with the best of on-screen chemistry are forced to make do. The dialogue has incredibly high highs (especially in its final moments), but when it has lows, how low they are; a character outright stating that “Victor is the real monster” adage to his face was an ocean floor piece of writing if there ever was one.

Isaac, Goth, and Elordi Bring Life to the Dead

Jacob Elordi’s work here, however, is blameless. Though Elordi’s physical performance as the creature will surely win praise, his time speaking is the true highlight. It’s almost certainly a definitive portrayal of the character; his voice for Victor’s creation is haunted with scorn and solitude, the same way his flesh is haunted by the marks of his creator’s handiwork. It agonizes me to see so little of the books’ most iconic lines used wholesale here, because they would be absolutely perfect coming from Elordi. Still, he has incredible chemistry with both Isaac and Goth, and for as brief as their time together is, he radiates pure force.

Frankenstein Is a Masterclass in Mise-En-Scène

Despite its pacing and tone issues, one can’t help but appreciate the truly masterful craftsmanship Del Toro has managed to pack into the screen. Every millimeter of the sets is carved to specification, filled with personality through to the shadows. Every piece of brick, hint of frost, stain of blood, and curve of the vine is painstakingly and surgically placed to create one of the most wonderful and spellbinding sets you’ve seen—and then it keeps presenting you with new environments like that, over, and over.

At the very least, Del Toro’s Frankenstein is a masterpiece of mise-en-scène down to the minutest of details, and that makes it endlessly rewatchable for aesthetic purposes. This isn’t even getting into the effervescent lighting, or how returning collaborator Kate Hawley has outdone herself again with the costuming. Guillermo Del Toro tackling the king of gothic horror stories, a story written by the mother of all science fiction, inevitably set a high bar for him to clear. And while it’s not a pitch perfect rendering of Mary Shelley’s slow moving and Shakespearean epistolary, it is still one of the best-looking movies you will see all year.

Advertisement

Perhaps for us, it’s at the cost of adapting the straightforward, dark story we know into something more operatic. It sings the tale like a soprano rather than reciting it like humble prose, and it doesn’t always sing well. But for Del Toro, the epic scale and voice of this adaptation is the wage expected for making the movie he’s always dreamed of. Even with its problems, it’s well worth it to see a visionary director at work on a story they love.

Continue Reading

Reviews

‘The Siege of Ape Canyon’ Review: Bigfoot Comes Home

Published

on

In my home, films like Night of the Demon and Abominable are played on repeat; Stan Gordon is king. One of my favorite stories surrounding Bigfoot and Ufology is the Bigfoot/UFO double flap of 1973, which Stan Gordon has an incredible in-depth book on. The Patterson–Gimlin film couldn’t hold a flame to Stan Gordon’s dive into one of my home state’s most chronicled supernatural time periods. But as much as I love the Bigfoot topic, I’m not ashamed to say I don’t know half of the stories surrounding that big hairy beast. And one topic that I’m not ashamed to say I haven’t heard of is The Siege of Ape Canyon.

The Harrowing Events of Ape Canyon

Washington State, 1924. A group of miners (originally consisting of Marion Smith, Leroy P. Smith, Fred Beck, John Peterson, August Johannson, and Mac Rhodes) was on a quest to claim a potential gold mine. Literally. The miners would eventually set up camp on the east slope of Mount Saint Helens. Little did they know their temporary shelter would be the start of a multi-day barrage of attacks from what they and researchers believed to be Bigfoot. What transpired in those days would turn out to be one of the most highly criticized pieces of American lore, nearly lost to time and history…nearly.

I need to set the record straight on a few things before we get started. One, I don’t typically like watching documentaries. Two, I believe in Bigfoot. Three, this documentary made me cry.

Image courtesy of Justin Cook Public Relations.

Reviving a Forgotten Bigfoot Legend in The Siege of Ape Canyon

Documentarian Eli Watson sets out to tell one of the most prolific Bigfoot stories of all time (for those who are deep in Bigfoot mythology). It’s noted fairly early in the film that this story is told often and is well known in the Washington area. So then, how do people outside of the incident location know so little about it? I’ve read at least 15 books on and about Bigfoot, and I’ve never once heard this story. This isn’t a Stan-Gordon-reported story about someone sitting on the john and seeing a pair of red eyes outside of their bathroom window. The story around Ape Canyon has a deeper spiritual meaning that goes beyond a few sightings here and there.

Watson’s documentary, though, isn’t just about Bigfoot or unearthing the story of Ape Canyon. Ape Canyon nearly became nothing more than a tall tale that elders would share around a campfire to keep the younglings out of the woods at 2 AM. If it weren’t for Mark Myrsell, that’s exactly what would have happened. The Siege of Ape Canyon spends half its time unpacking the story of Fred Beck and his prospecting crew, and the other half tells a truly inspiring tale of unbridled passion, friendship, and love.

Mark Myrsell’s Relentless Pursuit: Friendship, Truth, and Tears

Mark Myrsell’s undying passion for everything outdoors inevitably led to bringing one of Bigfoot’s craziest stories to light. His devotion to the truth vindicated many people who were (probably) labeled kooks and crazies. Throughout Myrsell’s endless search for the truth, he made lifelong friends along the way. What brought me to tears throughout The Siege of Ape Canyon is Watson’s insistence on showing the human side of Myrsell and his friends. They’re not in this to make millions or bag a Bigfoot corpse; they just want to know the truth. And that’s what they find.

Advertisement

The Siege of Ape Canyon is a documentary that will open your eyes to a wildly mystical story you may not have heard of. And it does it pretty damn well. Whereas many documentaries feel the need to talk down to the viewer just to educate them, Watson’s documentary takes you along for the ride. It doesn’t ask you to believe or not believe in Bigfoot. It allows you to make your own decisions and provides the evidence it needs to. If you’ve ever had a passing interest in the topic of Bigfoot, or if you think you’re the next Stan Gordon, I highly recommend watching The Siege of Ape Canyon.

The Siege of Ape Canyon stomps its way onto digital platforms on November 11. Give yourself a little post-Halloween treat and check it out!

Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria
Advertisement
Advertisement