REVIEW: Salem's Lot
*** SPOILERS ***
Well, not bad, overall. Great look for a TV movie, that's for sure, and heavier handed than some of the other King for TV adaptations. The Shining was a real disappointment as they took all the pathology out of Jack Torrence, who was a necessarily redemptive character in King's novel. This one maybe had a bit too much pathology. I read in Fangoria that the scriptwriter had added this "darker" level to Rob Lowe's "Ben," and, I dunno, there was something a bit more interesting for me in the novel that Ben was just small-town folk coming back to his small town to find himself, or whatever it was. It was about a guy who loses his small-town purity by uncovering the secrets of Jerusalem's Lot. This becomes a tale of redemption, and it's a little slappy on that point.
It's been ages since I read Salem's Lot, but it is undoubtedly one of King's best books, and does a nice job with Vampire lore without having to twist it all out of shape to make it "hep." This adaptation manages to hold on to King's original vibe as well as toss a few Buffy-isms into the mix. One thing that I really missed, though, was a true representation of "The Master." All the Vamps here retain their purely human visages, and never attain that hideous, Nosferatu like appearance that Tobe Hooper's version presented us with in '79, and I think that's a shame. I seem to remember The Master was the big reveal in King's novel too, and I think it's a real shame that these creatures never really get down to that level of revulsion.
Still, not bad for TV, that's the best I can say. A few decent gore moments, Ben's term in the jail cell is genuinely creepy, and true to the novel as I recall it, and there are decent perfomances all around ... though not enough of Don Sutherland, which is a waste. The descent into the Marsten House is the most powerful part of the book as well, and it seems like they sort of skip by that element a bit here. Maybe if they'd done it in 3 parts this would have had more of a heartbeat.
An entertaining show, however, and I suppose you could do worse for four hours on television.
3 out of 5.
Well, not bad, overall. Great look for a TV movie, that's for sure, and heavier handed than some of the other King for TV adaptations. The Shining was a real disappointment as they took all the pathology out of Jack Torrence, who was a necessarily redemptive character in King's novel. This one maybe had a bit too much pathology. I read in Fangoria that the scriptwriter had added this "darker" level to Rob Lowe's "Ben," and, I dunno, there was something a bit more interesting for me in the novel that Ben was just small-town folk coming back to his small town to find himself, or whatever it was. It was about a guy who loses his small-town purity by uncovering the secrets of Jerusalem's Lot. This becomes a tale of redemption, and it's a little slappy on that point.
It's been ages since I read Salem's Lot, but it is undoubtedly one of King's best books, and does a nice job with Vampire lore without having to twist it all out of shape to make it "hep." This adaptation manages to hold on to King's original vibe as well as toss a few Buffy-isms into the mix. One thing that I really missed, though, was a true representation of "The Master." All the Vamps here retain their purely human visages, and never attain that hideous, Nosferatu like appearance that Tobe Hooper's version presented us with in '79, and I think that's a shame. I seem to remember The Master was the big reveal in King's novel too, and I think it's a real shame that these creatures never really get down to that level of revulsion.
Still, not bad for TV, that's the best I can say. A few decent gore moments, Ben's term in the jail cell is genuinely creepy, and true to the novel as I recall it, and there are decent perfomances all around ... though not enough of Don Sutherland, which is a waste. The descent into the Marsten House is the most powerful part of the book as well, and it seems like they sort of skip by that element a bit here. Maybe if they'd done it in 3 parts this would have had more of a heartbeat.
An entertaining show, however, and I suppose you could do worse for four hours on television.
3 out of 5.
-
-
amused
-
