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.
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.
Revisiting the Familiar Story of Vampires in Small-Town Maine
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.
Mark Petrie Steals the Show as a Smart and Fearless Final Kid
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.
Underdeveloped Characters and Wasted Talent Hold the Film Back
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.
Salem’s Lot is a Middle-of-the-Road Stephen King Adaptation
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.
Most people find that stretching their dollar still barely gets them by in today’s economy. I am very particular about what I spend my spare money on regarding extracurriculars. And no one likes to feel like their money is wasted. Madame Morbid Trolley Tours wasn’t an experience I had been familiar with. Maybe that’s because I’m chronically offline for most of my life. So this leads to the perfect question: in today’s turbulent economy, is Madame Morbid Trolley Tours worth the price? The short answer is unquestionably, yes. But it’s more than just a simple yes.
My wife and I arrived at the designated meeting point 15 minutes before the scheduled departure time. A handful of minutes later, a gorgeous, e-candle-lit trolley pulled up to the side of the road. We were greeted by impeccably on-brand Allison Chase, our tour guide, and trolley driver ‘Mad’ Matt Zaller. The wonderfully cheery duo invited us on the trolley, and the tour was set to begin.
400 Years of Death, Destruction, and Infrastructure
After a welcoming video intro from someone who knows a thing or two about busting ghosts, we set off on the inaugural Madame Morbid Trolley Tour in its ninth year of operation. From the Brooklyn Naval Yard all the way to Dumbo, and more, this tour magnificently chronicles 400 years of history, the good and the bad, expertly. No matter how much you think you may know about Brooklyn history, I can bet there will be something new learned within the first 15 minutes of the tour. From the first-ever plane crash to one of the worst theater fires in history, this tour covers tragedies that the greatest horror writers couldn’t conceive.
The Deadly [Charming] Docent
Allison Chase led the fascinating tour in character from the moment we stepped on the trolley until our departure. But Allison’s character was not forced or fake; you could feel Allison’s passion for not just morbid history, but the accuracy of it. Some of the stories we heard were steeped in historical context, and it was not boring for a single second. The Madame Morbid Trolley Tour is not your standard full-talking tour. It’s a mixed-media adventure of some of Brooklyn’s darkest moments.
During “downtime” (the times between locations), we were edutained by mini documentaries (that were quite funny). Some of the “downtime” was filled with traffic trivia (I won a needle pen!). And other times were show-and-tell-like, with objects passed around for us to examine. But there was never a moment of silence that wasn’t purposeful. All in all, Allison’s knowledge and passion shone like the luminosity of a full moon.
Is Madame Morbid Trolley Tours Worth It?
The Madame Morbid Trolley Tour was not just a fun night out for my wife and me, but it was a delightfully dark night of edutainment. It should also be noted that ‘Mad’ Matt’s driving skills were fantastic. There was a time when I had become enamored with how Matt handled the narrow streets of Brooklyn before realizing that I needed to refocus my attention on Allison. The Madame Morbid Trolley Tour is an exceptionally fun evening of horror and history that will make you think twice next time you walk down the streets of Brooklyn. It is worth the money, and then some. There’s no better activity for a cold, dark October night than the Madame Morbid Trolley Tour.
For more information on Madame Morbid Trolley Tours, and to get your tickets, click here!
I don’t know what’s wrong with me. I should have watched the Stephen King adaptation Cujo a million years ago. First of all, I was a voracious King reader in middle school. The other thing I was obsessed with during those years was Friends. You know, the show that hinges a major episode’s subplot on Rachel (Jennifer Aniston) watching Cujo for the first time. Whatever the reason was, I never got around to it, but I’m rectifying that oversight now.
What is Cujo About?
Cujo tells a relatively simple story. Donna Trenton’s (Dee Wallace) a housewife who’s cheating on her husband Vic (Daniel Hugh-Kelly) with local handyman Steve (Christopher Stone). There’s no accounting for taste, because Vic is 10 times hotter and Steve doesn’t own a bed frame. Look, Donna. I know Vic has that awful David Hasselhoff hair, but I promise the 1980s will end sooner or later. It’ll be OK.
Donna’s attempted termination of this affair ultimately leads to its discovery. Amid this drama, her car breaks down at a mechanic’s isolated farmhouse, trapping her and her son, Tad (Danny Pintauro). You see, the mechanic’s dog, Cujo, freshly christened with rabies, is patrolling the area and attacking everything in sight.
Dee Wallace Is Cujo’s Not-So-Secret Weapon
It would be impossible to start a worthwhile review of Cujo without praising Dee Wallace. The woman is a genre icon, naturally. Think about this: She had only appeared in seven theatrical movies before starring in Cujo. Four of those movies are The Stepford Wives, The Hills Have Eyes, E.T., and The Howling. But this woman didn’t become an icon simply by accidentally stumbling into some iconic titles. She is simply terrific as Donna, using her darting eyes and taut expression to deliver oodles of subtext. You instantly get the sense of how trapped she feels by marriage and motherhood without her uttering a single word.
A good performance is vital, here. Because there’s a hell of a lot of drama to get through before she’s trapped in that damn car. But Wallace instantly shoves you into Donna’s perspective, whether you like it or not. This makes it all the more potent when she is menaced by Cujo. Her desperate attempts for survival, also impeccably performed, have true weight because she seems like a real person. She is also given an incredible scene partner in Danny Pintauro. The future Who’s the Boss? star, who was only six when shooting Cujo, has a perfect everychild quality. His innocence heightens the peril. But so does that fact that he is just as irritating as every six-year-old you’ve ever met.
This movie truly captures how annoying it must be to be stuck in a life-and-death situation with a child. This is a compliment, I swear! Donna is worn down by every aspect of the situation, including her own son’s inability to cope with it. And this ratchets up the tension even further, to an almost unbearable degree.
Cujo Is a Mixed Bag, But Worthwhile Overall
The movie doesn’t work if Cujo himself doesn’t work, and at first I was real worried that he wouldn’t. In the first half, the St. Bernards that play Cujo onscreen are often shown to be wagging their tails in delight. Which kind of undercuts the reality of the situation, I’d say. But the editing and the special effects step in to fix what animal training couldn’t. The attack scenes in the second half are constructed with quick cuts that never let you get too much purchase. It’s a good approach for keeping viewers off-kilter.
Also, Cujo becomes less and less recognizable as a cuddly canine the further the movie gets. It’s a simple trick, really. He ends up getting coated with more and more slime. Saliva, pus, blood, and what have you. This is good for making him feel like a true movie monster. Plus, it’s a good mirror for the sliminess inside the car as it gets covered in sweat, blood, and grime.
The second half of the movie ultimately works like gangbusters. It’s a shame that Cujo is too cowardly to get Donna and Tad in the car before the halfway point. This decision is somewhat faithful to the book’s structure as I remember it. However, it diminishes the weight of the long days that they spend in the car. We really need to feel that crushing stretch of time, and we don’t. When Tad is suffering from dehydration, it’s not a gut punch. Honestly, I just found myself asking, “Already?” It’s good that they gave the movie a happier ending, because the classic grimdark Stephen King finale wouldn’t have landed.
Is Cujo Worth Watching in 2026?
At the end of the day, Cujo is a solid movie and I’m glad I finally watched it. However, it’s not such a stone-cold classic that I’m not at least a little intrigued by that upcoming Netflix remake…
