(REVIEW) “Salem’s Lot” is a visual feast and a fun romp through classic vampire formulas, but stumbles when trying to tie these strong elements into deeper themes.

Classic horror monsters are back in a big way these days. I have written about how exorcism movies have been on the rise recently. But now vampires are having their turn, with this year’s remake of “Salem’s Lot” and Robert Eggers’ remake of “Nosferatu.” 

Unlike exorcism movies, which have largely gone unchanged since the 1973 film ‘The Exorcist,” vampire films have gone through interesting cycles of evolution. While vampires originally were portrayed as evil, alien creatures, franchises such as “Twilight” and “The Vampire Diaries” showed them as hot antiheroes and even — at times — as wholesome and misunderstood. 

READ: ‘Rings Of Power’ Season 2 Offers Up A Dramatic Finale And Mixed Triumph

This “vampires as misunderstood good guys” was part of a larger trend in the American zeitgeist questioning the goodness of American culture – including Christianity – and associated with the establishment. Musicals like “Wicked” and franchises such as the Marvel movie universe told stories built around the runners of the establishment being evil and the people who were supposedly evil (like The “Wicked Witch”) as actually good.  

This was to parallel how new generations had rejected the narrative of the American and Christian power class regarding who the bad guys were, whether it was ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, feminists or communists. Vampires, with their Christian significance — priests and crosses being traditional vampire vulnerability — are strong candidates for such remaking of these myths. 

It’s interesting then that these new vampire stories are returning to the root of the vampire mythos. Stories like Steven King’s “Salem’s Lot” and “Nosferatu” all assume the traditional alien and evil nature of these creatures. This is particularly true since Christianity declines and paganism continues to rise.  

What’s the reason for this? It’s not entirely clear. Perhaps it's just the cyclical nature of the genre. It will likely become more evident as more vampire movies come out. But in the meantime, it’s still worth noting.  

“Salem’s Lot” is an adaptation of the 1975 King novel and remake of the 1979 miniseries of the same name. It follows a young writer named Ben Mears (played by Lewis Pullman) who comes back to his hometown and gets caught up in a vampire invasion that threatens to destroy the locals. He must partner with those willing to stand up to the threat to have any hope of saving the town and the rest of the world.

The movie is as classic a vampire story as you can imagine. You have the evil vampires with their sycophantic manservants, heroes clutching crosses and reciting prayers to fight them off, coffins, bloodsucking, stakes through the heart and creepy walks through hallways. 

In an era where every work of mythology is being reinvented (and subverted), watching a film that unironically and unapologetically embraces an old-fashioned take on the vampire concept takes some getting used to. Once you do, it’s honestly refreshing. There’s power in the stories and the way they were historically told. And the film does have that power when you embrace it on its own terms.

The Christian aspects of the story are not ever questioned. Vampires are vulnerable to crosses and prayers. These are taken as fact in the story, even by characters who don’t consider themselves religious. 

Christian characters in the story talk and debate earnestly about their faith, even when they aren’t discussing vampires. The Catholic priest and the town constable discuss the merits of atoning for what you’ve done wrong or the merits of standing up to evil, bringing in their faith as they do – even if it’s in a half-joking way. The same Catholic priest affirms the power of the cross and holy water against vampires and rejects the idea that the church’s supernatural power is merely a metaphor. 

“Salem’s Lot”’s biggest strength is in its visual craft. So many films forget that movies don’t just tell their story through acting and dialogue but with every part of the medium. This film’s cinematography, use of color, editing and all other such layers of the medium are used to brilliant effect to make even the most familiar of vampire tropes a feast for the senses. Characters are framed in the same shot together to show meaningful contrast. 

At the same time, the contrast of light and dark is put on screen in rich blacks and whites, blues and oranges, to make each frame a gorgeous painting. And the camera moves makes these visuals come to life. Crosses do not just stop vampires, but blaze like lighting. Scene transitions jump cleverly from one thing to another, building thoughtful associations. A priest opening a Bible transitions to a man opening a sandwich, creating an association between the two that is open to the imagination.

The biggest missed opportunity in “Salem’s Lot” is its themes. At first, the film seems like it’s just cycling through classic vampire cliches, albeit with style. But it’s when the sheriff explains that the reason the vampire was able to take over the town so easily was because it was “already dead” that the theme becomes clear: The story is a metaphor for how a community — particularly a small town — can die from the inside by crushing the life of its people, sucking them in, then crushing their hopes and dreams. 

All that’s left is a half-life, where the best they can do is get drunk or have affairs to keep some form of excitement in their days. But there’s equal condemnation for the people who just leave such towns for brighter futures without trying to stand up to the evil there. That’s a really cool idea for a way to use vampires to explore an issue like that.

The problem is we rarely see a strong connection between the townsfolk’s rotten souls and their unique vulnerability to the vampire’s machinations. The vampire gets into the town in a variety of ways, including kidnapping a child to use as a sacrifice and then using that child to attack innocent bystanders and spread the disease. What about this is the fault of the town? Do houses never get sold and kids never get kidnapped in other places? 

There are places where the links work, but they’re inconsistent. Susan Norton’s mom, so terrified of not having a man to take care of her or her daughter that she gives herself over to the vampire, works. But we don’t see the same kind of clear causal link anywhere else. The sheriff and the rest of the town ignore the evil that goes on (as Matthew Burke, played by Bill Camp, observes when no one else will stop the bullying child) works. And yet, when a child named Danny Glick goes missing, the town pulls in. So the fact that they “ignore” things that are going on isn’t consistent. And it’s not clear how the town could have stopped the spread even if they didn’t ignore it because of how secretly and supernaturally it was done. 

The priest is a good example of how this inconsistency blunts a deeper exploration of its themes. The priest is the one who argues that we need to stand up to evil, and he affirms that the church has real power, not just symbolic power. And yet, he can’t make the cross work because he “doesn’t have faith.” How is it that he has less faith than the non-Christians wielding crosses? I’m not saying that this paradox couldn’t work.

The priest is an alcoholic and he speaks of the power of the church, but rarely that of Jesus. But the film never develops whether the vulnerability lies here or elsewhere, and specifically how his faith contrasts with the faith of the people who can make the crosses work. It ends up being more perplexing than thoughtful and meaningful.

The movie is a fun watch for its unironic embrace of classic (even pro-Christian) vampire tropes and amazing visuals. If it had worked a little harder to strengthen the connection of these things to its themes the results could have resulted in a modern vampire classic.

Joseph Holmes is an award-nominated filmmaker and culture critic living in New York City. He is co-host of the podcast “The Overthinkers” and its companion website theoverthinkersjournal.world, where he discusses art, culture and faith with his fellow overthinkers. His other work and contact info can be found at his website josephholmesstudios.com.