The fall season is timely; we crave a means to shed the year's emotional toll we've held onto for months. That is why scary movies fit this space on the calendar so well, offering us a means to process and release the stress from the year. We purge our anxious weight before we bury ourselves in the winter, preparing to face the new year renewed and refreshed. Horror films are merely the accelerant and are aptly released in abundance during the year's final quarter.  

 

One such horror film debuting this fall also touches on transformation, not progressively, but toward darkness and malevolent power, to evil.

 

Stephen King's second novel, 'Salem's Lot, has been adapted twice before, once in 1979 and again in 2004, both through the medium of television. Now, the robust and riveting vampire tale has the honor of following King's first novel, Carrie, by being adapted for a third time. The question of whether this 'Salem's Lot will scare you is a personal one, but it certainly tries. For writer/director Gary Dauberman, making the undead terrifying again was the prime directive.

 

Vampire stories have gone from in vogue to passe and back again like a turnstile. Considering its nearly 50-year history, the novel 'Salem's Lot has stood the test of time as one of the author's most prolific works. Being inspired by Stoker's Dracula and terrifying vampire E.C. comics, King's vampires veer more toward nimbly aggressive predators than romantic villains. King's mother famously told him those comic inspirations were trash, but perhaps, if they were impressionable, not bad trash. Her less-than-enthusiastic endorsement of vampires no doubt signaled what 'Salem's Lot needed to be: Dracula relocating to small-town-USA and gutting it from the inside out. 

 

With the flexibility of an R rating, writer/director Gary Dauberman allows his film to stand apart from what has come before by expressing the more graphic vampire content not permitted on television. Being sent directly to streaming service Max, 'Salem's Lot will join its predecessors in small-screen treatment, which is a shame because this film is beautifully crafted. The third act alone is ripe for an IMAX exhibition. For better or worse, I like the previous adaptations. Each had its own identity, and Dauberman's entry finds its footing by leaning into what made King's written creatures so terrifying. And you know what, I like this new version, too. 

 

Lewis Pullman plays Ben Mears, an author returning to his childhood home of Jerusalem's Lot, Maine, to research a new writing project. He begins a romance with town local Susan Norton (Mackenzie Lee), an impressionable, young twenty-something. Mears' popularity as the new guy is met with adoration and condemnation. School teacher Matt Burke (Bill Camp) puts Ben in front of his students as an example of academic achievement; the other locals question Ben and his motives for being in their town. But Ben is not the only fresh resident in the Lot. 

 

Barlow and Straker are also new in town. They are opening an antique shop along the main downtown strip and buying the allegedly haunted Marsten House, a dilapidated manor on a hill overlooking the entire town. Barlow is the silent partner, never seen. Straker deals with the public. We'll come back to these two.

 

As the town youth begin to disappear, and other citizens inexplicably turn up dead, Mears, Norton, and Burke deduce a severe case of vampirism has grabbed their quiet hamlet by the throat and is bleeding it dry. Our unassuming band of heroes aligns themselves with the resident sawbones, Dr. Cody (Alfre Woodard), the local priest Father Callahan (John Benjamin Hickey), constantly crawling himself out of a bottle, and a willful young teen named Mark Petrie (Jordan Preston Carter) who is already an expert of vampire lore at such a young age. I guess those comic books double as bad trash and instructional material. The battle for the lives of 'Salem's Lot culminates in a clever set-piece battle at a drive-in theater. While this final scene is not in the book, it proves that some deviations from the source can pay off smartly from time to time. 

 

The greatest strength of Dauberman's 'Salem's Lot is also its greatest weakness. Running a little south of two hours, this vampire flick sprints from scene to scene. Both earlier adaptations clocked in at three hours each. This new film leaves a lot of great book material on the table in the name of expediency. I respect this decision, as most of the runtime is dedicated to the vampires taking over and the heroes fighting back. 

 

I would have loved to see the cut of this film where Dauberman left in another half hour to account for the fate of certain characters and explore contextual storytelling details. In the blink of an eye, 'Salem's Lot ends, leaving a feeling of air being sucked from your lungs. This film flies by and mostly works as a solid, satisfactory horror flick. But substance takes a backseat to style. That is to say, 'Salem's Lot has a lot of vampires, hardly any… 'Salem's Lot. 

 

It is unwise and unfair to expect a film adaptation to be a slavish translation of its novel. Given cinema's limitations, doing so would be both inappropriate and impractical. However, this film condenses too thoroughly, resulting in a lack of closure for certain characters while barely allowing the main characters to breathe. Truncating so much of the book will irritate some novel purists and confuse newcomers. Thankfully, what is left in the film is a feast for the eyes.

 

Although packaged like a generic monster flick, 'Salem's Lot is buoyed by incredible cinematography. Creative scene transitions accompany hauntingly and beautifully lit moments. Director of Photography Michael Burgess's efforts are better than they need to be; a particularly brilliant scene involving a glowing cross exquisitely conveys the literal fight for the town. Dauberman infuses a particular visual language that works to transition scenes, reveal key information, or recontextualize what we thought we were watching.    

 

The performances are hot and cold, a common fallout in horror films. Thankfully, the three leads are captivating, or at least interesting, enough to move the non-vampire scenes along sufficiently. Regrettably, Pilou Asbæk as Straker is the fly in the ointment. Richard Straker, who is definitively evil, was the book's most intriguing character. Previous versions of Straker, played by the incomparable James Mason and the beguiling Donald Sutherland, exuded charisma, menace, and intimidation. It seems they set the bar too high. Kurt Barlow, the surrogate Dracula, is one of King's most sharply drawn antagonists. In the novel, arrogant and brash, Barlow stymies the heroes with his growing undead army, using his wits and experience. I have always admired Rutger Hauer's seductive take on Barlow in the 2004 rendition. The masses largely forget that version due to the popularity of the 1979 Barlow, a speechless, blue, multi-fanged abomination. The Barlow that Dauberman renders in this film is a soft hybrid of the two interpretations, and sadly, his impact does not punch in the same weight class as his predecessors. 

 

'Salem's Lot comes from the production team that created The Conjuring Universe and It (2017). This cadre's thumbprint is clear by the often off-putting but generally serviceable special effects and cliches. Many current horror movies have conditioned audiences to be on the lookout for jump scares, and thankfully, most of the horror in 'Salem's Lot is more dread than shock. Tropes crop up here occasionally, and a few telegraphed jump scares act as timestamps to the current horror genre trend. Dauberman wisely focuses on atmosphere and tension, allowing more suspense to build in an already cramped runtime. 

 

Looking back at the previous 'Salem's Lot iterations, this third version fits in smartly. All three pick different key moments of the novel to throw in, making each experience unique. Novel devotees can acknowledge the missing theme of the power of evil, arguably the centerpiece of the entire book, but still cast a sharp eye and be rewarded with ample easter eggs and tie-ins. 

Remakes have a generational output rhythm with an almost compulsory need to adapt to the time they are released. Today's generation will connect to the tempo and delivery of this iteration. This is their version of 'Salem's Lot that cuts to the chase, so to speak. Considering this film was three years in the making and was in danger of being permanently shelved, I am grateful we got to see it at all. It's ripe for scheduling among the horror movie lineup at your next Halloween party. Some viewers may regard this film as an inoffensive A-to-B vampire flick, a gratifying endorsement as we enter the year's final lap. Satisfactory and competent horror films like this always find their audience, even if others consider it trash. Except maybe not bad trash.