SALEM'S LOT (1979)

 

A 1979 TV movie about Vampires? Oh come on, that can't possibly be very scary...right?

"You'll sleep with the dead, teacher."

 

Sometimes you get a little tired of soulful and seductive cinematic vampires and long to see a return to a more unsettling depiction where they are portrayed as ruthless, remorseless predators who seek out the blood of the living, both to feed their insatiable hunger, and to increase their own numbers. If that's the sort of vampire tale that gets your own blood pumping, then this is a film for you.

A somewhat sad truth of horror-cinema is that flicks based off the works of Stephen King are something of a mixed-bag. You have the likes of 'Carrie', 'Cujo', 'Christine', 'IT', 'The Mist', and 'Misery', all of which are good adaptations, and also very good films in their own right. Then you have excellent non-horror adaptations in the form of 'The Green Mile', 'The Shawshank Redemption', and 'Stand By Me.'

Conversely, you also have the likes of 'Graveyard Shift', 'Maximum Overdrive', 'Firestarter', and 'The Mangler', which may honestly make you wonder why you bothered watching at all. Hell, despite some fans opinions to the contrary, I feel the same way when it comes to 'Children of the Corn' and even 1989's 'Pet Sematary', since the former is hokey drek, and the latter is very nearly ruined by Dale Midkiff's inexcusably bad acting, and wouldn't be worth watching at all, were it not for the wonderful Fred Gwynne, who elevates every scene he's in.

As for 'The Shining', it sort of lies in a space in-between. While it's undoubtedly an excellent movie, it's also much more Stanley Kubrick's film than it is a Stephen King adaptation.

Anyway, 'SALEM'S LOT' was originally produced and aired as a 2-part TV miniseries, based off King's 1975 novel, and directed by Tobe Hooper, best known for 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.' While it does take some liberties with the source-material (some of which were definitely dictated by the restrictions imposed by network censors), it's regarded as a good adaptation of King's novel, and a good film on its own. King's tale of a small town that becomes the unwitting host for an ancient, undead evil was superb fodder for a TV movie and would eventually pave the way for subsequent TV adaptations of his work, like 'IT', 'The Stand', 'The Langoliers', and so on.

Most of the actors acquit themselves well, with Geoffrey Lewis turning in a particularly memorable, and ultimately very creepy, performance as Mike Ryerson. However, it's the veteran James Mason who absolutely becomes the standout here. His delightfully villainous turn as Richard Straker, the human familiar of the Vampire, Barlow, is a often unsettling joy to watch because he serves his Master with steady, unwavering reverence, and proves himself to be quite lethal in his own right.

The film boasts some very effective and haunting images of horror that managed to indelibly sear themselves into the psyches of many a young viewer thanks to the fact that this aired on network television. From the sight of young Ralphie floating and scratching at the outside of his brother's window, to Barlow's horrific vampire visage, Salem's Lot became something of a rite-of-passage for many a horror-loving Gen-Xer, testing their nerve while urging them on to sample still more cinematic fright-fests.

It bears mentioning that there's a lot of male-on-male vampire predation in this film, a detail which really thumbs its narrative nose at the more traditional gender conceits of most of the stateside vampire flicks that came before. And I should also mention that director Tobe Hooper was always very good at capturing the fears and secrets that lay beneath the surface of small-town life, and that talent definitely shows here. The town of Salem's Lot just oozes understated, mysterious menace, and the sense of looming dread is palpable. Every shadow its structures cast seems poised to swallow you up, never to be seen alive again, and a lot of that is down to Hooper's canny direction. The unease is palpable, and it makes the horror hit that much harder when it becomes more overt.

On the downside, there's a sequence in the latter half of the film that feels a bit goofy as opposed to horrific, and it was sufficient for me to deny this film an additional star in my rating.  Also, the fact that this was produced as a pair of 2-hour TV movies means that the film drags at times, but overall it remains a winner. 'SALEM'S LOT' is a well-executed effort in the storied annals of vampire cinema, and it boasts some of the most unsettling members of that undead tribe of night-stalking bloodsuckers to this very day. If you've never watched this one, then stop beating around the proverbial bush, and give it a shot. Chances are, you're going to have a spooky good time. 

Four stars (****), an undeniable classic.