Salem's Lot

Stephen King has not been treated kindly by the movies. For years, his books were turned into films. Most of them bad. None of them on par with the books. This has been remedied in the past few years by the television miniseries, the only format that can do King justice. For while he may be a horror writer, it's King's gift for prose and characterization that makes him shine above others in the genre. The Shining and especially The Stand fared well as miniseries. Now Salem's Lot has been remade. The Tobe Hooper version (also made for TV) was flawed in that it made some unwise changes to the book and had a silly ending but it was genuinely scary. And to that end, this remake largely falls short.

(This review is written from the perspective of someone who has read the book and I assume most viewers will have read it or are familiar with it.)

I don't know why every writer who takes a crack at King has to change plot and character needlessly but it seems they do. This version has far too much setup before anything really happens. Some of the good stuff includes an updated backstory for Ben Mears and a much more sinister history for him with the Marsten house (in this version, he actually witnesses the suicide death of Hubie Marsten instead of only imagining it years later.) This version also includes Dr. Jim Cody and Father Callahan-one of whom was eliminated from the original and the other serving a much truncated role. The Barlow character is also a full-fledged one instead of a speechless Nosferatu that relied on the Straker character (played in the original by James Mason) for a voice and personality.

Alas most of the new material is unnecessary padding and I was largely bored by the first half. For example, a new story line about Dr. Cody having an affair with a patient and getting blackmailed that was not in the book and totally unnecessary. These revisions on the original become particularly annoying when some of the best moments from the book are left out later on or not fully explained. One of the creepiest moments in the novel was when the team breaks into the Marsten House only to find Barlow had already relocated and left them a letter correctly guessing and urbanely threatening each team member. That was completely omitted. They do add a nice touch though with the subsequent discovery of Susan there that I won't reveal.

By failing to stick to the book and venturing out on his own, the screenwriter (Peter Filardi) also introduces a number of noticeable logic gaps. The characters make a point of saying vampires can't enter a home unless they are invited only to have Barlow later do just that without explanation. Later, after their leader is killed the vampires all seem to turn into zombies with one significant exception. While this made for a poignant interaction between two main characters, it made no sense. Certainly many horror films have idiosyncracies and you the viewer must at a certain point just let go and enjoy but the material must rise above them to make this possible. This miniseries was also filmed in Australia and it's evident from the accents of the minor characters that something is amiss as their ill-fitting American accents occassionally slide all over the map. At one point, I wondered if one character had been changed to an Eastern European only to have her accent wander back to New England a few sentences later.

As for the cast, Donald Sutherland is brilliant in an over-the-top performance as the fey yet ominous Straker. He is easily the best part of the movie. Rob Lowe fares well as Ben Mears and Andre Braugher adds gravitas as Matt Burke. I also liked Samantha Mathis-where has she been hiding?-as Susan Norton and Dan Byrd as Mark Petrie, in a role that is closer to the book than the original film. Rutger Hauer was miscast, however, as Barlow in my opinion and as this is such an important part it's yet another flaw that fatally affects the movie. Overall, the second half somewhat redeems the first but this book is still waiting for better treatment.

(This DVD is well-made but contains no extras. Some deleted scenes might go a long ways toward rectifying the plot gaps but as it is the mystery of why this version had to reinvent a perfectly fine wheel will remain unsolved.)

***Warning: Spoilers Ahead***

I've always loved the novel and the 1979 miniseries. When I heard they were doing a remake in 2004, I couldn't wait! Then I found out Rob Lowe was starring. Eeeh, he was in "The Stand" a decade earlier and that managed not to suck. So I gave him the benefit of the doubt and tuned in. And in all fairness to Rob Lowe he can hardly be blamed for how awful it turned out.

Now I can understand changing around elements for "dramatic purposes" and "updating" and "adapting for television". Let's not forget the novel was written and published in the 1970's when there were no cellphones, laptop computers or Internet. It seems the fellow who adapted the novel, Peter Filardi, and went hog-wild with it. The end result is that the only the movie characters have in common with their book counterparts are the names. Ben Mears was once held captive by the Taliban? Matt Burke is gay? Susan Norton is a waitress? Did Filardi even read the novel? Then there is the problem of the very minor characters getting way, way, waaayyyy more screen time than they deserve, as in they shouldn't have been in the movie at all. Sandy McDougall, Dud Rogers, Charlie Rhodes and Ruthie Crockett are all very minor throw-away characters who don't deserve a place in the movie. Ruthie didn't even have any dialogue in the book for crying out loud!!! What is so special about these characters that they managed to get on screen and take away precious time from the real characters? This is reason why Barlow is reduced to a cameo, because Peter Filardi felt the inexplicable need to cram in as many characters as possible.

My biggest complaint is the way they handled the scene where a vampire Mike Ryerson comes back to Matt Burke's house. Instead of being a terrifying encounter with the undead it winds up a truly bizarre homo-erotic/necrophiliac encounter so completely drained of any suspense that left me scratching my head and wondering 'what the hell was that about'? Hey people, if it ain't broke don't fix it! If you had $25 million to spend on this movie why didn't you hire a writer who could actually write a suspenseful scene!! Stephen King should sue! Excuse me, I'm going to watch the 1979 version and try to put this slop out of my memory for good.

Rob Lowe is mildly okay as Ben Mears, but his performance goes nowhere near David Soul's angst ridden, really convincing portrayal from the 1979 original. Donald Suterland is disappointing, and I don't think it needs to be said that his performance is less than spectacular, even absurd. He's no James Mason.

Rutger Hauer gives a better performance than this series deserved. His portrayal of King's Barlow is more accurate than the Nosferatuesque Reggie Nalder, but somehow this seems to work to the film's detriment rather than benefit. Rent the original film, or miniseries. I had high expectations, maybe that they'd build on the original a little, but it's just rushed, badly acted, trying too hard to be modern, and in general, a waste of time.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 91 reviews  3.2 out of 5 stars