t_pellman Reviews

Salem's Lot (1979)

Why horror fans don't like it.

[1 November 2006]

We fans of the Salem's Lot miniseries often wonder why other horror fans don't like it. Well, for one, it is *vampire-film* fans who don't like it. And I suspect it is for one glaring difference between Salem's Lot and other films of the genre: the vampires of Salem's Lot are not sexy, not charismatic. They have no allure. They are simply monsters, repulsive and loathsome. They do have hypnotic power over their victims, but it is a purely magical power, not the usual "animal magnetism". Even in King's book, when the doctor is attacked by Mrs. Glick he complains about how *filthy* her touch was. And that's one of things I liked about it. But if you like most vampire movies, then one of things you probably like, even if unconsciously, is that vampires have sex appeal. So you won't like Salem's Lot. Here the vampires are EVIL, in the worst sense of the word.

Something else I recall about when the film aired is that the network previews did not let the viewer know that it was about vampires. I was about 10 years old and I made almost entirely through the first episode before I suspected it was about vampires.

Salem's Lot (1979)

See the mini-series version if at all possible

[2 July 2002]

First let me suggest to see the original miniseries version if at all possible. The "movie" version is horribly chopped. The remaining pieces don't fit together and leave gaping holes (such as, "what happened to Susan?")

Salem's Lot is an almost unknown milestone in horror films. This superb combination of the talents of Tobe Hooper and Stephen King bridges the gap between the Hammer-style films of the 60's and the modern vampire films. Two things to especially note:

(1) This takes place in Everytown, USA and the cinematography reflects the ordinary turned extraordinary (which is the same effect achieved by Bram Stoker's original writing for the audience of his time.) It begins looking almost like a Rockford Files episode and goes dark from there. But even the climax in the evil Marsten house looks *real*, just as you would imagine an old decrepit house to look. You can almost smell the dust. Hey, this was the seventies, the decade of naturalistic lighting. Everything coming out of Hollywood now looks just that - like Hollywood.

(2) It is a shame that anyone today viewing Salem's Lot already knows that is about vampires because when it first aired on TV, the unknown aspect is what made the first half so creepy. Now you just sit there waiting for the vampires to show up. (If I thought that even one person might read this without knowing it was about vampires, I wouldn't write this.) The advertising for the show made no mention of vampires and the effect worked well. I was ten years old when I first saw this. I had seen at least a dozen other vampire flicks - Noseratu, Lugasi, the Hammer films - and I had no clue that this was about vampires. All I knew was that something creepy was going in this town and it was getting creepier and creepier. Only in the second episode when you see someone get bit in the neck did it finally click, "Oh my god, they're vampires." You realize it right about the same time that the main characters do. Highly effective.

Also, superb performances by David Soul, Lew Ayres, James Mason.