Salem's Lot
3.4
(396)
Horror
2024
113 min
R
Author Ben Mears returns to his childhood home of Jerusalem's Lot only to discover his hometown is being preyed upon by a bloodthirsty vampire.
Starring:
Horror
Thriller
Supernatural
Mystery
5.6/10
38%
AD
Also Available On:
Community ReviewsSee all
"I didn’t read the #novel and don’t know the details of this #vampire story, but this #adaptation of Stephen King’s #book worked for me, and I liked the pacing.👍🏾 The freaky little vampires and the older vampire that resembles #Nosferatu, along with all of the sinister monster make-up visual effects, were cool and not overdone. But what was that hybrid wooden crucifix-flashlight thingy? 😂✝️🔦🧛♂️
▪️The Premise: As residents of 1970s Jerusalem’s Lot begin to disappear, a few brave locals, along with a visiting author doing research on the town, uncover a #horrifying secret — a centuries-old evil is spreading, threatening to consume the entire community. Tension mounts as they must confront the darkness before it’s too late. #StephenKing #supernatural #horror
▪️I didn’t realize that Salem's Lot is a shortened form of "Jerusalem's Lot.” The name carries an #eerie resonance, as "Salem" evokes the infamous #Salem witch trials, subtly hinting at themes of #superstition, #evil, and #persecution that run throughout the story.
⭐️6.8/10⭐️
"
"3.5⭐️ Officially spooky season is on! And this new adaptation has such an old school horror vibe. It starts with a very cool 70s feel and some amazing cinematography and production design. I thought I was in for some quality thrills and chills. It didn’t really deliver that for me though. There are problems with inconsistency and story development. Things set up at the beginning never really went anywhere and the rest of the film felt rushed without an effective building of suspense. Overall it stays light and pretty surface level. I just didn’t find it at all scary or even creepy, not even gory, very little blood for a vampire flick. Almost like an introduction to the horror genre?
So yeah it’s not like a great film but .. I didn’t hate it. It’s sort of one of those so bad it’s good situations. Like it was going for that in a slightly updated 50s/60s horror movie vein but didn’t quite get there. I did love the setting, ambience and details. Visually it’s captivating, the lighting and colors are kind of glorious, some shots spectacularly moody and period evoking. The main kid was exceptional. I also may have laughed a few times. Perhaps I was supposed to but honestly I’m not too sure. But the ending was tense enough to keep me watching, with the penultimate shot (the finale where it counts) really fun, creative and effective. But ultimately it still felt like a cross between IT and Scooby Doo.
I’ll be honest .. I’ve read and enjoyed several of King’s book but not this one. It’s been on my tbr forever, but I don’t know, every time I’ve thought about picking it up I just don’t. Additionally, never saw any adaptations so I’m coming into this one fresh. So please tell me, did I miss out on the book? I don’t feel like I now NEED to read it but if someone who has, AND also watched this movie tells me I really should read it, I will. "
"It's been a while since I've seen the original but I feel this version of Salem's Lot, although having a better look, lacks the overall fright factor. Maybe it's because it felt a bit rushed, whereas the original was a miniseries, and this has a runtime of just under 2 hours. So there's really not a lot of time put into fleshing out characters and creating an overall sense of dread. Although this version was somewhat entertaining it definitely isn't frightening. 6.5/10"
"I am giving this rendition three stars becase this is a classic book and movie and I seriously worship Stephen King and also actress Alfre Woodard who is also in this. Her and that adorable lead kid had me hooked as well as few other veteran actors but this was either meant to be silly or else it was pure nonsense rendition. Overall It's a Halloween "bite" of a scare that hits the ground running and doesn't let off th gas (which I loved) and I just decided to let go and have fun somewhere in the middle. "
" Despite being the shortest adaptation of Salem’s Lot. I think it still manages to be faithful. Even if it is a bit rushed.
It has a nice 70’s or 80’s film feel it to it. Perhaps wouldn’t have just been good if it was longer though.
Due to fine direction and being well cast. It could have been actually great."
"2/5⭐️Day 3 of Spooktober and I decided to watch Salems Lot remake. So Salem’s Lot is a classic horror film I’ve always heard of but never took the time out to watch. I literally knew nothing about it or read the book. So I know nothing about the source material. With that being said this was an ok vampire film. I use to love vampire films as a child but when I got older I lost all interest. I don’t know if it’s the lack of good vampire flicks or me just growing out of the genre in general. I feel if Mike Flanagan got his hands on this it would have been much better. He’s the last director I’ve seen handle stories like this the best. Steven King films seem hard to adapt nowadays idk. One thing this film did for me is usher me to see the original so I guess that’s good."
𝑹𝒊𝒄𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒑𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒐 ✪
"This was a decent Vampire flick, I've seen the original Salem's Lot, but not sure if Like it, This one has a similar feel but modern. Not the best Vampire flick, but released just in time for the Halloween season. Also has the cliche Vampire stuff, Stakes, Cross, but no garlic mentioned lol, it's worth a watch."
"I really enjoyed this remake ! I am a 100% Stephen King fan and this one earns its rank next to It chapters 1 and 2 . It was spooky , fun, and visually stunning . While some characters and memorable moments from the book were left out , this one had faithful ties to the original work . I didn't mind the added drive in ending. It took you back to that nostalgic moment in time. This remake works."
Similar TV & Movies
3
3.9
3.2
3.5
3.9
3.8
4.1
3
3.8
3.4
2.9
3.5
3
3.5
3
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.2
3.9