Salem's Lot (1979) ***
It's hard to believe that Salem's Lot (1979) was only the second adaptation of a Stephen King story. It's also hard to believe that I somehow only managed to watch it for the first time now. King had only written six books by the time that SL started filming, so it makes sense (and I say only six because he's been incredibly prolific over the course of his career). It's just I sometimes forget that "King Fever" didn't truly ramp up until the 80s (with three feature films based on his works released in 1983 alone). Speaking of the 80s, just six months after Lot aired, Stanley Kubrick's vastly superior The Shining (1980) was unleashed—still one of the best King adaptations (and I don't care what the man himself thinks about it).
Salem's Lot aired as a miniseries on CBS over two nights, totaling just over 3 hours in runtime. There was also a theatrical cut (released in Europe and aired on cable TV) called Salem's Lot: The Movie, running just under 2 hours, that I am very curious to see, though it was only ever officially released on VHS and never found its way to DVD or Blu-ray. I actually think that the story would benefit from that shorter running time (there are scenes in the 3 hour version that just drag), though I don't know what exactly was trimmed other than the prologue and epilogue (which I enjoyed).
I also don't think that a remake would be a bad thing (yes I know there was another miniseries in 2004, though I can't imagine it's better, from what I've read about it). The timing is right, what with the solid (and in a lot of ways improved) 2017 remake of It (and sequel on the way), a remake of Pet Sematary (2019) in post-production and more announced. I say this because, while I enjoyed SL, it's definitely a product of its time. The television budget and production style are very evident, particularly due to the casting of David Soul ('Hutch' of Starsky & Hutch (1975–1979)), who is serviceable in the role of a novelist returning to his hometown to write his new novel, but didn't wow me.
There's a lot of buildup to when we finally see a vampire (is that a spoiler at this point?), and the ghostly floating kid vamp is pretty creepy, but also kind of funny. Same goes for master vamp Kurt Barlow—there is some great Nosferatu (1922) inspired makeup f/x (plus glowing eyes!), but when the townsfolk are battling him the action is a bit clunky. It really isn't until the last 30 minutes or so, when we're finally in the Marsten House, that the production values jump way up in quality. At this point, when the film becomes a full-on haunted house ride, the lighting is more interesting, the camerawork more exciting, and the atmosphere scarier. It's then that I really felt like I was watching a Tobe Hooper movie. Oh yeah, I hadn't even mentioned him until now. That's because, as I just mentioned, the majority of the miniseries feels like work-for-hire territory, without much of a director stamp. Then again, Hooper's output as a director was very uneven, filled with a couple of gonzo masterpieces, one pop phenomenon, some good-to-great work, and a fair amount of middling-to-abysmal dreck.
You can find my Stephen King Feature Film & Television Adaptations Ranked list here.
You can find my Tobe Hooper Feature Films Ranked list here.
Salem's Lot aired as a miniseries on CBS over two nights, totaling just over 3 hours in runtime. There was also a theatrical cut (released in Europe and aired on cable TV) called Salem's Lot: The Movie, running just under 2 hours, that I am very curious to see, though it was only ever officially released on VHS and never found its way to DVD or Blu-ray. I actually think that the story would benefit from that shorter running time (there are scenes in the 3 hour version that just drag), though I don't know what exactly was trimmed other than the prologue and epilogue (which I enjoyed).
I also don't think that a remake would be a bad thing (yes I know there was another miniseries in 2004, though I can't imagine it's better, from what I've read about it). The timing is right, what with the solid (and in a lot of ways improved) 2017 remake of It (and sequel on the way), a remake of Pet Sematary (2019) in post-production and more announced. I say this because, while I enjoyed SL, it's definitely a product of its time. The television budget and production style are very evident, particularly due to the casting of David Soul ('Hutch' of Starsky & Hutch (1975–1979)), who is serviceable in the role of a novelist returning to his hometown to write his new novel, but didn't wow me.
There's a lot of buildup to when we finally see a vampire (is that a spoiler at this point?), and the ghostly floating kid vamp is pretty creepy, but also kind of funny. Same goes for master vamp Kurt Barlow—there is some great Nosferatu (1922) inspired makeup f/x (plus glowing eyes!), but when the townsfolk are battling him the action is a bit clunky. It really isn't until the last 30 minutes or so, when we're finally in the Marsten House, that the production values jump way up in quality. At this point, when the film becomes a full-on haunted house ride, the lighting is more interesting, the camerawork more exciting, and the atmosphere scarier. It's then that I really felt like I was watching a Tobe Hooper movie. Oh yeah, I hadn't even mentioned him until now. That's because, as I just mentioned, the majority of the miniseries feels like work-for-hire territory, without much of a director stamp. Then again, Hooper's output as a director was very uneven, filled with a couple of gonzo masterpieces, one pop phenomenon, some good-to-great work, and a fair amount of middling-to-abysmal dreck.
You can find my Stephen King Feature Film & Television Adaptations Ranked list here.
You can find my Tobe Hooper Feature Films Ranked list here.
Comments
Post a Comment