Tobe Hooper's adaptation of Stephen King's Salem's Lot remains seared in many viewers minds from when it aired in 1979, though for all its memorable images, the picture is still a tepid version of one of the author's earliest triumphs. Slow pacing and excising of the book's Marsten House subplot take its toll on the series, while the scare department is wildly uneven in its execution. On the plus side, the Nosferatu-like villain is handled expertly and continues to be an iconic face of the horror genre thanks to the ingenious unveiling of the frightening creature and strong makeup effects across the board in the production. What's curious are the slow-motion techniques that Hooper utilizes for most of the other horrific moments of the film. His use of the zoom is a welcome choice, but his other strange directorial decisions no doubt made for the small-screen rollout tend to hurt the flick. In a way, the drawn-out scares very much echo the bloated running time, which as far as the miniseries cut goes, makes the whole process of watching the film a tedious experience. Funny enough, one of the strongest scenes in the picture has nothing to do with vampires or creepy floating kids, but with a domestic dispute featuring George Dzundza holding a shotgun to Fred Willard's mouth after catching the funnyman with his wife -- in it, the viewer is subjected to a sweat-inducing moment of nerve-wracking tension that shows why the director is considered a master of his craft (even if he sports a varied track record). Still, with all its faults, there hadn't been nearly anything this frightening on TV at the time, so a little history probably goes a long way when considering the quality of this maligned adaptation. ~ Jeremy Wheeler, All Movie Guide
Tobe Hooper's adaptation of Stephen King's Salem's Lot remains seared in many viewers minds from when it aired in 1979, though for all its memorable images, the picture is still a tepid version of one of the author's earliest triumphs. Slow pacing and excising of the book's Marsten House subplot take its toll on the series, while the scare department is wildly uneven in its execution. On the plus side, the Nosferatu-like villain is handled expertly and continues to be an iconic face of the horror genre thanks to the ingenious unveiling of the frightening creature and strong makeup effects across the board in the production. What's curious are the slow-motion techniques that Hooper utilizes for most of the other horrific moments of the film. His use of the zoom is a welcome choice, but his other strange directorial decisions no doubt made for the small-screen rollout tend to hurt the flick. In a way, the drawn-out scares very much echo the bloated running time, which as far as the miniseries cut goes, makes the whole process of watching the film a tedious experience. Funny enough, one of the strongest scenes in the picture has nothing to do with vampires or creepy floating kids, but with a domestic dispute featuring George Dzundza holding a shotgun to Fred Willard's mouth after catching the funnyman with his wife -- in it, the viewer is subjected to a sweat-inducing moment of nerve-wracking tension that shows why the director is considered a master of his craft (even if he sports a varied track record). Still, with all its faults, there hadn't been nearly anything this frightening on TV at the time, so a little history probably goes a long way when considering the quality of this maligned adaptation. ~ Jeremy Wheeler, All Movie Guide
Hotmail
