"Salem's Lot" is a 1979 made for TV Horror movie that is based off of a Stephen King book of the same name. The version that I watched was the 3 hour cut which I rented on Amazon. I originally watched the movie with my father many, many, years ago, but it had been so long, that it was like watching it again new. In a way, it was like I was going in blind, only knowing the basic elements of it being a vampire movie.
Despite knowing that it was about vampires, the way the film starts out is pretty confusing. Much of it left me in the dark, and I wondered if maybe the average viewer in 1979 would have known more thanks to advertisements on television.
The main character is an author named Ben, who comes to Salem's Lot for what initially seemed like unknown reasons. It's eventually revealed that he grew up in the town and moved at the age of 11. Ben, a writer, was inspired to write thanks to a teacher of his. Seeing as this was based off a work by King, the setting is in, of course, Maine.
Not long after coming to The Lot, Ben comes across a woman reading one of his books in a patch of grass. I don't know if this is how things just were back then, but he just walks up to her and starts flirting with her. The conversation was awkward, but the woman identifies herself as Susan Norton, a teacher, and she admits to stealing the book of his from her school library to read for herself.
The movie shows this subplot of a real estate agent, played by Fred Willard, who was having an affair with his assistant. I was surprised to see Willard in this movie, as he was in many of the TV shows that I'd watch growing up, such as "Roseanne", and "Sister Sister".
The love affair subplot was mostly useless, in the grand scheme of the movie, though it did provide what was the most interesting scene in the entire movie.
Willard's character goes to his partner's house, while they are under the assumption that her husband is away. The husband acted like he was going to the nearby town of Portland, Maine, but switches with his coworkers, who do the job. While I realize that they were the ones to pick up the mysterious package that unleashes the monster, it seems that this would have happened anyway, love affair or not.
The film drags on, and by the first 30 minutes, I was already getting bored. Willard's character being confronted was the most interesting scene, and I loved when the gun pointed at him only clicked, revealing it was blank. After this scenario though, the movie only barely remains interesting, and continues to drag on.
There were some tropes in the movie which did make me laugh, though I know that this was not their intention. For example, when Ben was in front of his typewriter, wearing his glasses, and crumpling the paper, I already knew what they were going for. I nearly became hysterical when he looked out the window at the creepy house with his cup of coffee. Something that is seen in nearly every movie where the main character is a writer.
Ben's idea was to write his next book about the creepy abandoned house that had a history of terrible things happening to it. The movie differs from the actual book by King, where the source material apparently talks more about the degradation of the town, where the movie does not. The film sort of just forces us to believe that what is going on is scary, and spooky, and that terrible things are happening...but you don't really see anything weird and paranormal until after the hour mark.
Initially, this film was split into two "episodes", where the first half was presented, and the second half later. I couldn't help but wonder why someone would rewatch the first half of the movie, considering how boring it was, and barely anything goes on.
While I realize that much of it was to establish the plot points and characters, if you were to rewatch this film, and already know this information, there is little incentive to watch from the beginning again. Save for the romantic affair scene.
Various people start to go missing, turn up dead, and the local antique dealer, Straker, is eventually pointed as the culprit. He manages to kidnap a local boy, and is seen taking the body into his basement. I wondered how scary this might have been for people to see at the time, considering that John Wayne Gacy had been caught barely a year before, in 1978.
While it's implied that Straker was turning people into vampires, the movie never reveals why. All we know is that he does. Was it some sort of entertainment for him? Plan for world domination? We don't know. According to Wikipedia, the plot was that Straker was the servant for the vampire, preparing for his master's arrival. This seems backwards to me, because when you watch the movie, Straker is made out to be the villain, and the vampire, Kurt Barlow, appears as some sort of dopey pet.
The boy that Straker kidnapped is somehow turned into a vampire, by unknown means, and is seen coming to the window of his brother's room one night. The effects were good for TV, but the scene in general was very silly to me. The brother eventually ends up in the hospital with an unknown illness, which doctors try to pinpoint as some sort of anemia, but we know the real reason. The vampire brother comes to the window of his brother's room to visit him again, and turns him into a vampire too.
Eventually, Ben teams up with his old teacher, Burke, and they start to discuss the possibility of the town being taken over by vampires. Many people don't want to believe in the possibility, but of course, more people start to turn.
Barlow, the main vampire, makes an appearance in the kitchen to the home of Mark Petrie and his parents, killing the child's parents. Because of this, Mark ends up teaming up with Ben also, especially after Burke ends up having a heart attack.
Mark and Ben eventually go into the creepy house and shoot Straker, though Susan, who also entered, disappeared. Mark and Ben are seen in Guatemala 2 years later, and for whatever reason, Susan is there. Ben sticks a wooden stake through her heart and she dies. The End.
If it wasn't obvious, I didn't really care for this film. I'm the type of person that likes a good story, and this movie did not have one. Despite having the source material right there...they completely ignored it. My main gripe with this movie is just how long, drawn out, and boring it was. While I can admit that yes, the set design and makeup were good, that doesn't excuse how lame much of this movie was.
I feel like the window vampire scenes were more of a way to distract the viewer from the terrible dialogue and plot, like jingling keys. If the viewers were impressed by the effects, they wouldn't notice how absurd many of the lines were. For example, there was a scene where Straker was being questioned by one of the cops, and before the officer left Straker says, "Ciao.", informing the cop that it was Italian for "Goodbye".
The cop says: "I didn't know you were Italian."
Straker then replies: "I'm not. The word is.".
How incredibly lame. I seriously wondered how they could have taken something by Stephen King, and turned it into absolute dogshit.
Much of the film is very camp. It's not the worst thing I've ever seen, but I did not enjoy much of it either. "Salem's Lot" is like a greasy microwavable hamburger. You are never fully satisfied, but you try to finish the meal anyway. And when you do, you wonder, "Why did I do that?".
Obviously, I'm one of the few that don't really care for this much. Looking through the newspaper archives, the press lauded the film when it was released in 1979. There were only a few people that publically stated how they found that the film's plot didn't make much sense.
Overall, I didn't care for this movie very much. Because of it's length, and the problems I have with it, I can't imagine myself watching it again, on purpose.
I gave this movie 1 star on letterboxd.
