Salem's Lot (2024) - The Die-Hards Are Wrong
- Viktoria
- Mar 17
- 5 min read
Director: Gary Dauberman
Year of release: 2024
Country of origin: United States
Spoiler status: Light spoilers
Genre: Classic horror
Gary Dauberman's adaptation of Salem's Lot from 2024 brought the audience back into Stephen King's twisted, scary mind. The original Salem's Lot mini-series was definitely scary in its own way. Still, Alexander Ward's dread-inducing portrayal of Kurt Barlow, an ancient and powerful vampire, raised the scare factor to a completely new level. This Salem's Lot remake modernized a classic vampire horror and made it suitable for the 21st century with stunning visuals and fun special effects. It didn't stick strictly to the source material, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. Some parts had to be left out to create an actually intense and scary movie, and no one should fault the screenwriters or the director for this. If the divergence adds to the story and makes it more enjoyable, it should definitely happen.
Is the Salem's Lot remake worth watching? Definitely. It's spooky and keeps to the classic vampire tropes, which is always fun to see. Don't listen to the die-hards, give it a try.
A Deep Dive Into Salem's Lot
Salem's Lot is a classic vampire movie with a traditional villain, and if you're anything like me, you'll deeply appreciate that fact. When it comes to vampires, writers and directors alike like to experiment with their main supernatural characters. They over-romanticize and over-sexualize them. In a world where this is the new norm, fans of fright and dread appreciate when a vampire actually makes shivers run up their spine. Kurt Barlow does exactly that. He's ruthless and scary in a classic sense that puts most of modern vampires to shame. Alexander Ward's portrayal of the main antagonist is impeccable. His mannerisms gave a deeper layer to the villain's character, turning Barlow even more terrifying. Every time he shows up on screen, you know something gruesome is going to happen. The first time we see him descending the stairs in the scene with Ralphie (played by Cade Woodward) is heart-wrenching because we know exactly what's about to happen. We also need to compliment Woodward's delivery of a terrified young child. He managed to embody the character's emotions so perfectly that it felt too real, making it hard not to turn away. But the acting isn't the only good thing about this movie.
The team behind the Salem's Lot remake did a great job of creating stunning visuals and playing with colors, especially red. Viewers could notice it throughout the movie as an accent color. It popped up as a background light, on the church door, or simply as a piece of decoration. Technically speaking, red is a very aggressive color, which could mean that the visual department tried to give subliminal cues to the viewers that the scene they're about to see will be quite intense. Doing something like this can be tricky because sometimes it can backfire, making it feel like the visual department tried too hard. This isn't the case with this classic vampire movie. The colors were incorporated perfectly as a subtle piece of the scenery, this way adding layer to the movie's fear factor. That's what makes this movie so great. It communicates with viewers in more than one way, making it even more dread-inducing because it affects the psyche in a deeper, more profound way. And even though I was delighted with the movie as a whole, there were still some shortcomings that need to be addressed.
Stephen King's Salem's Lot, as a book, is a slow-paced psychological horror. The 1979 mini-series followed the source material pretty closely, which means it was also slow-paced and mainly psychological. The reason most members of the cult following disapprove of the 2024 remake is that it completely changed the pacing. It removed the framing narrative from the start of the movie, it either combined or cut some of the subplots, and introduced a few jump scares, among others. Thanks to the shorter runtime, it also had to reduce the exploration of some of the characters and storylines. Basically, they took a story that needed a lot of time to explain all the small, intricate details involved and tried to cram it into a 2-hour-long movie. Unfortunately, this made the movie feel a bit rushed, especially towards the end. With Barlow being one of the scariest vampires I've seen in the past few years, I would've liked to see more of him and his brutality, but it wasn't in the cards since the director decided to pay more attention to the protagonists of the story. I'm not saying that was a bad choice, but the villain definitely lacked the proper representation. So the problem isn't necessarily the cutting of details; it's more about the rushed pace of the film. But does this mean the movie is bad?
No, the movie is far from being bad. You can hate me all you want for this, but I think it's the best vampire horror movie that came out in the past 5 years. They managed to take the original story, shrink it down, and still make it fun and intense, even though at times it felt like a sprint. It still had all the elements of a classic vampire movie, like clichés about sunlight, an invitation to enter, mind control, and they even added a cool twist with the glowing crosses. The fact that the director toyed with the idea of faith in a similar way Tom Holland did in Fright Night, making it impossible to use the crosses unless you actually believe they are going to help, was just another plus in my book. There are a lot of things to love about this movie if one lets go of the die-hard ideas and accepts that a movie doesn't have to be a carbon copy of the original story. I know, I've been there. I've let myself get into online arguments with random people on the internet over the smallest changes in the lore/story, but then I grew up. Some people don't feel like sitting through 3 hours of storytelling, and that's okay. That doesn't mean that this movie is better than the book or the original mini-series. This just means that all of these versions of the same story are entertaining in their own way.
Is Salem's Lot (2024) Worth Watching?
This small town vampire movie is greatly underrated. It's entertaining, it has great scares, and the visuals and special effects are terrific. Even though some parts have been left out or switched, Salem's Lot is still a great story that's worth your time. It still has that special Stephen King feel to it, especially his love for killing kids (in literature, don't come at me) to get a greater emotional response from his audience. So, please, don't listen to the gatekeepers and haters. Have an open mind and give it a chance.
Rating: 🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️
Salem's Lot (2024) gets a 4/5 because even though I enjoyed it immensely, the fact is that rushing through some scenes definitely took away from the experience. Barlow's character was incredibly spooky and enjoyable, so I was sad that he didn't get more screentime. And yes, the team behind the movie definitely made some changes that affected the story, but don't let that discourage you. It's still incredibly entertaining.
If you'd like to check out the trailer, you can find it below:
Comments