Salem's Lot

Having read the novel several times and seeing the 1979 tv-series a number of times over the years, I was really looking forward to this. Well, it was disappointing. I realize it's a lot to ask to have to cram the book into a two-hour film, a lot of story and character background had to be sacrificed. All of our main characters are there, some visibly altered to suit 21st century norms, but not well fleshed out. A bunch of liberties are taken with the storyline as well, some for no clear reason, it seems. I guess if you have never read the book, you wouldn't know what you're missing. But the most heinous thing about this film is simple: if you're the least bit of a horror movie fan, It's Not Scary. Like, at all. Give it a watch if you like, but the broth of this soup is quite thin.

I believe this movie could have used another 30-40 minutes to flesh thing's out. To much rushed scenes to get to the next. More back story could have happened with the care taker which he was a waste unlike the original which was much better and very much more creepy. Could have seen how he became barlow's servent. Backstory on Barlow the master himself how he became what he is. Offer something different or adding to that what the original or remake didn't have that set's it apart not saying it would be better then the original but hold up as very worthy remake. I still enjoyed it but just something to think about for people wanting to do remake's.

The movie had some decent scares. The acting was solid but the plot was rushed and, something I'll never understand, they felt the need to rewrite one of the greatest writers of our time. Too many storylines were dropped while others were strangely created. I just wish the story had been properly developed which is where an episode series would have been appropriate. The Marsten house murdee backstory could have been given some time, as well, as that's a great subplot and explanation as to why Barlow and Straker choose the house/location. Barlow's makeup was beautiful done, however, so that's something. Do films still do test audiences? It doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

Ok I just watched one of my all time favorite Stephen King novels. I loved the 1979 version which I watched eagerly when I was 15 years old. I had been anticipating watching this for quite a while at least since the whispers started that a remake was coming. The movie was not terrible I gave it a six (that may be to generous) because the movie was watchable. I had so hoped it would be remade with the kind of money writing acting everything that "It" had when the last remake was done. Everything was just a little off with this movie. The acting was just ok. Character development was pretty non existent. They could have done a lot better on developing some interest in the characters. I think it was to rushed toward the end the drive in ending was terrible some should have pumped the brakes hard on that one! Why? Why remake something if not to make it outstanding! Stephen King is an awesome writer and if the production is done correctly then it should be awesome. Very disappointed ...

What makes the book a masterpiece is the slow burn. The budding love affair. The vignettes of strange things happening around town. The eventual gathering of a gang of misfit heroes that come together in perfect King fashion.

All of that is gone. The pacing is largely incoherent. Characters jump to conclusions (the right ones, always) without a second thought. It's hard to love any of characters because they all lack the depth they need to make the story move forward.

There are some really amazing moments here, and some small sparks of genius. But, unfortunately, this adaptation is defanged.