As a huge fan of vampires, I’ve always held Stephen King’s Salem’s Lot in high regard. The novel is one of my absolute favorites, and while I’ve enjoyed the two prior adaptations, neither felt like the definitive take on King's chilling tale in the way Andy Muschietti’s It Chapter One and It Chapter Two feel for King's It. As such, to say I was looking forward to Gary Dauberman’s remake would be an understatement. However, after all the delays, the shelving, and its quiet drop on Max, I finally got to see what the holdup was. And while it’s not the disaster I feared, it’s definitely far from the definitive adaptation fans like me were hoping for. Honestly, it feels more like a low-budget, made-for-TV movie than the grand, terrifying version of Salem’s Lot that the novel deserves.

Now, that’s not to say this movie is bad. I’ll start with the positives: Lewis Pullman is phenomenal as Ben Mears. He brings a gravitas and depth to the character, making him instantly likable and easy to root for. Bill Camp is equally great as Matthew Burke, the wise elder who helps Ben uncover the sinister forces at play in the town. Their performances were highlights, and I'd even go so far as to say they helped anchor the film in moments where it risked drifting off into mediocrity. And speaking of highlights, Barlow’s design? Spot on - for the most part. There are some shots where he looks like the demonic nun, Valak, from "The Conjuring" franchise and other shots where he looks like a horrible CGI creation. But I digress. Most of the time, he looks terrifying, exactly how the character should be. 

But aside from the movie's aforementioned positives, everything else falls squarely into the "fine" category. The rest of the cast is serviceable, but their performances veer into campy territory at times. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’ll take camp over flat-out bad acting any day, but considering the source material, it’s a little disappointing. It’s especially frustrating because the vampire effects—Barlow aside (again, for the most part)—are more laughable than scary. At times, it truly did feel like I was watching a SyFy original from the early aughts rather than a film shot with today's modern CGI capabilities.

I have to give credit where it’s due, however: Dauberman’s direction isn’t entirely without merit. Some of the shots are beautiful, especially the sweeping views of the town and the imposing Marsten House. That setting looks as creepy and foreboding as you’d hope, looming over the town like a dark omen. But for every impressive wide shot, some interiors feel strangely cheap, as though they ran out of money before shooting wrapped. It’s a shame because the atmosphere of Salem’s Lot is where half the terror of the book derives from, and while the Marsten House works, the rest of the town feels like a Halloween haunted house attraction. And unfortunately, Dauberman misses out on delivering iconic moments that would elevate the film into something truly memorable. One of the most terrifying scenes in the original adaptation of the novel is Danny Glick floating outside Mark Petrie’s window - a scene that remains pure nightmare fuel that haunts viewers to this day. Here though? It falls completely flat and has no effect on the viewer whatsoever. Sadly, this film is completely void of any kind of visceral and lasting scares like the kind we got in prior adaptations. The horror sequences, while competent, never reach the heights of terror that the source material so masterfully builds.

In the end, Salem’s Lot is fine. It’s an entertaining enough watch if you’re in the mood for some vampiric fun during Spooky Season, but it’s not the definitive adaptation we’ve been waiting for. Hardcore King fans like myself will likely walk away feeling unfulfilled and still craving the ultimate adaptation of this iconic story.