Salem's Lot, the uniqueness of being one of the most influential horror filmakers in recent years, and still be dull

Salem's Lot is the new direct to HBO Max movie based on the book of the same name, written by the (Stephen) King of horror. This vampire invasion of a little town in Maine is produced by James Wan, the mastermind behind modern classics as The Conjuring Universe, Insidious, Saw and other underestimated movies as Malignant, Aquaman, Dead Silence and Furious 7, who even lent his entrusted (and very visually striking) cinematographer, Don Burgess (what a let down that this page does not consider other departments worthy enough to have their own library), to upgrade the visual identity of this film. But, in this time, the writter and director is no other than Gary Dauberman, who seemed as the perfect choice, but was just… mmmhh, not very good.

This retelling of the second book by Stephen King, because God deliver us from attempting new ideas, is about a (you guess it) writer, who comes back to the little town he grew up in (you know it) Maine, which, since a misterious man from Europe put his antique store and lives in a manner uphill, is starting to be infested by vampires. This modern retelling and recontextualization of Stoker's classic seemed the perfect option to be adapted by the writter of It and It Chapter Two, movies also based on a Stephen King's novel. Also, with Dauberman's extensive work under Wan's arm as a writter in almost every The Conjuring spinoff films, not very good any of them though, what could possibly go wrong?

Dauberman (forgot to mention in the lasr paragraph and does not want to intervene with its flow) has also directed before, the third (I can't believe we are already at that point) Annabelle Comes Home. Ilogically, and against all odds, this is the strongest of the trilogy, not scary, which is a trademark of the saga stablished by the two previous Annabelle movies, but embraces completely its teenager, campy and over the top premise and tone to be just a fun and popcorn eating flick. Once again, and now for real, what could possibly go sideways?

I do not like being this person, but just the direction and script of Dauberman. The movie has very good production values, managing to create a direct to video historical piece that is both belieable and does not feel particularly small. The cinematography of Burguess in not his strongest one, but it is full of chiaroscuros and stylized red lights, creating an oppressive, bloody and hellish sensation. The interpretations are simply solid, as well as the montage, and even the openning credits are well made (even for its cheap look).

But, the script just does not help itself, and has the same issues as It Chapter 2's screenplay, respects the book's author an awful lot. And yes, King is a very good horror writer, his books are really scary and have you bitting your nails in the middle of the night, but he is a literary storyteller, not a cinematic one. Dauberman tries to follow the original story so close, including every little detail that becames even ridicoulus in an audiovisual way (I am talking to you giant woodcutter statue and zombie uber), that results in very seriously pacing issues; at the beginning there are like thirty minutes without the slightest horror scene, and suddenly, BUM, three horror scenes that follows the same dynamic just changing the character and location. Also, the characers development, relationships and empathy are tried to convey by the characters just telling one another their backstories, which is very literary where you can just pause the story and tell me the full biography of the new character, but is not really cinematic nor affect any decision making which could, in fact, be a visual way to achieve this task. It is also worth mentioning that, even when the villian, maybe is more appropiate just to name this empty shell “threat”, is bounded since the beginning with this weird manner uphill and an eerie antique furniture shop, places that are not explored and the climax do not even happen here. Like, why?

But, Dauberman, sorry to say this, has never been a very good writter, he loves easy exposition and stupid blank characters, but most of these movies kind of hold up because of the atmosphere, tone and visual directorial work. Which, is not the case here. Where Don Burguess' lightings shines as a very oppresive red with high contracts, Dauberman do not take advantage of this and all the shots are the same ones you could find everywhere else. There is not really a terrifying atmosphere or sensation, most of the scare scenes are just characters waiting for something to happen, which in most cases is soil dripping out of a wooden box or shinning crosses that make the threat a joke. Which, not to be mean to the vampire idea, but the fact that you could be safe from them just by staying in your house, makes some characters seem really stupid and does not feel very dangerous for the two characters who last longer on the history; even when dialogue wants to make us believe the whole world, which we never see I might add, is in danger of turning into vampires that had the same personality as their untransformed counterparts.

At the end, is dull, but a movie you put on TV to eat popcorn on a pre-halloween night in which you do not have nothing to do. It was smart to premiere it directly on HBOMax (which I believe that is not the name anymore, but who cares? I only want to see Batgirl and Coyote vs. Acme). Dauberman is pretty much consistent with his previous work, Wan and Burguess deliver and some scenes made me remember the novel with a gratifying sensation. Now, I am just scare to see how David F. Sandberg will not stick to his amazing YouTube shorts in the adaptation written by Dauberman about the incredible game Until Dawn. Let's cross our fingers.