Just in time for Halloween, Warner Brothers has released a trio of vampire flicks: The Hunger (review here), Roman Polanski’s amazing Fearless Vampire Killers, and the recent TV remake of Salem’s Lot. Normally, the word "remake" is enough to send everyone’s favorite Monkey into a blind rage, pissing and moaning about the evils of modern Hollywood. However, this time it’s different. The original adaptation of Stephen King’s Salem’s Lot was a troubled production, featuring a weak cast (David Soul? Come on, the guy sang "Don’t Give Up On Us, Baby" for Christ‘s sakes, and don’t get me started on Starsky and Hutch), and some gaping plot holes. This was due, in no small part, to the last minute decision to make it into a TV movie (it was pulled from a theatrical run in response to the impending releases of Herzog’s Nosferatu and Badham’s Dracula). It still had some great scares (the kid floating outside the window asking for an invitation and the ghoulish, Max Shreck-style vampires still give me the willies) and hiring Tobe Hooper to direct was also a smart plan. However, despite some of its shining qualities, it lacked that certain something that made the book a classic. Now, the TNT miniseries has left the belfry to give its stab at a quality adaptation, with pleasing but mixed results.

At a soup kitchen, a vagrant viciously attacks and almost kills Father Callahan (a boozy James Cromwell). Both men are brought to the hospital, where the vagrant reveals himself to be Pulitzer award-winning author Benjamin Mears (perpetual pretty boy Rob Lowe), and begins to spin his tale to an RN. Mears returned to his childhood home of Salem’s Lot wanting to pen a follow-up to his award winning book about war crimes in Afghanistan (one of the updates the book that Peter Filardi peppers his teleplay with) by investigating the foreboding Marsten House, in which he spent a blood-soaked night of his youth. Sadly, his investigation is not to be, as the house has been sold to antique dealer named Straker (a delightfully manic Donald Sutherland) and his mysterious business partner Kurt Barlow (Rutger Hauer). With their arrival, the once-dormant "evil" of the town starts bubbling back up to the surface, starting with the brutal murder of a local boy. Slowly but surely, more and more townsfolk begin disappearing, only to show up later very changed: the scoliosis-ridden Dud Rogers suddenly has perfect posture, and the once-meek Floyd Tibbits makes a violent attempt on Mears’ life. I doubt I’m ruining it for anyone by telling that the cause of all the changes is vampirism, and Kurt Barlow is the source.

The first thing that I simply adored about Salem’s Lot 2004 (or SL04 for short) was its amazing cast. Sure, Rob Lowe seemed a little too nice-and-pretty for such an angsty role (or maybe it’s just my jealousy of his chiseled jawline talking), but he pulls it off rather effectively despite any preconceptions. Donald Sutherland alternates between quiet menace and bug-eyed mania at the drop of a hat (his tongue-flicking, eye-bulging taunting of one of the townsfolk is quite unnerving), Samantha Mathis paints her character of Susan as a fiercely independent woman upset with her being forced to move home, and James Cromwell portrays the alcoholic priest (one of horror’s biggest cliches) with grim results. However, the biggest kudos go out to Rutger Hauer for playing Barlow with a charisma and seductiveness I haven’t seen out of a vampire in years (and hopefully he’ll continue in the third installment of the fluffy Dracula 2000 franchise). Recently, directors seems to equate charisma and seductiveness with sexuality and physical attractiveness (Stephen Sommers and Patrick Lussier, I’m looking at you), which dilutes the fearsomeness of the character (don’t even get me going on Sommers’ decision to make Dracula transform into a bat-thing with wings coming out of his ass). Vampires are the most frightening as a more human character, and having Rutger Hauer, an older, less "hot" actor portray the puppet-master Barlow simply makes him a more threatening character (the fact that he‘s a great actor doesn‘t hurt, either).

Second, the quality of the scares in SL04 was sky-high. While not the shadowy, Murnau-inspired set pieces that (partially) saved the original, Salomon knows how to deliver the goods, giving us some stylish moments that still chill no matter how cliched they may be. The sped-up motion of the vampires crawling on the walls and ceilings like so many Brundleflies is creepy as hell (especially in the vengeful bus-attack scene), and the red-washed flashbacks of Mears’ night in the Marsten house were well-done and eerie. Overall, the underlying feeling of dread that pervaded King’s novel transcribed over quite well, painting the town itself as evil, and not just Marlow.

Unfortunately, SL04 is not without its sore spots. While Filardi’s attempt to update King’s novel is successful for the most part, some aspects of it seem out of place. At times, the "updated" material seems too obvious (Mears’ time in Afghanistan, Straker’s antique business being "90% online"), while other aspects seem woefully antiquated. High school teacher Matt Burke‘s "shameful secret" of homosexuality doesn’t quite have the same impact as it did years ago, and the ignorant treatment of the handicapped Dud Rogers seems unrealistic in the context of the "updated" teleplay. While crucial to the story, these two aspects of the story stuck out like sore thumbs, and made me wish that Filardi had taken a little less liberty with the story.

Being made just this year, Salem’s Lot looks especially tasty. The picture is flawless, without grain or damage. The blacks are rich and deep, and the colors can be quite vibrant at times, despite the film’s muted palette. Audio takes solid advantage of the surround speakers with some pleasing depth and clarity. Sadly, WB’s decision to pack the entire 3-hour running time onto a single dual-layered disc left no room for extras. I personally would have liked to hear some commentary or seen some behind-the-scenes footage, but no such luck.

As much as I would love to be the snide film critic and make some crack about how much the new Salem’s Lot "sucks," I’m left rather impressed by it as a whole. It’s definitely not the definitive adaptation, but neither was the original. There’s room for both versions on the shelf, and I’m pretty happy that way.