It's an obvious fact that adapting a book is a hard thing to do. First of all because you have to transcend (or descend, as a matter of fact) into another medium with your "creation" and thus changes occur. Generally, for the worse and that is mainly because you can not make something badly written look much better on a screen and also because by adapting a novel, or anything else actually, you have to make sacrifices. And stories usually may not be sacrificed.
Now, Salem's Lot ain't necessarily a brilliant book, so I'd have guessed long ago that it won't really do for a good movie. It's fun and nearly exciting up to the point where you find out that it's...just another story. I won't really bother saying about what, because that'd be like reaping the only special trait of this thing.
But the film is a very good adaptation of the book. It's not only loyal to its source, but it also seems to convey the characters pretty faithfully to what I imagined them to be. Now, of course, that isn't necessarily a good thing...my point of view and grasp of the characters may very well differ from anyone else's way of seeing them. But, interpretations laid aside, I firmly believe that as an adaptation of the book, the film does very well. The only thing I felt should've been more elaborate is the love story, because it lacked a certain spark which the book did offer.
However, a film is a film and may not be viewed only regarding its faithfulness to its source material, mostly because "the source material" doesn't refer only to a book or short story, but ultimately to the core of the movie, it's pulsating heart, if I may call it so. As long as the story pushes the film forward, it's fulfilled its purpose. Out of a more stylistic angle, what kind of impressed me were the lights. The atmosphere was all dark and gloomy and when those lights were shining through the window...man, that was quite a sight!
Rob Lowe is an individual I had only seen in one movie prior to this one and it just so happens that it was another Stephen King movie, 1994's The Stand. I've yet to watch it all, but I find it funny that I never really imagined Lowe like a talking dude. Now that I finally heard his voice (well, I did hear him in The Stand, but only for a few lines up to now) I felt a bit overwhelmed...especially at the beginning, with his voice over. Sure, I got used to hearing it, but I asked myself many times during the film how convincing it sounded. In the end, I guess it was a rather normal voice.
The weakest link in this film ends up being the dialog. I was just terrified while listening to some of the lines those poor actors had to regurgitate and it only rarely happened that something more elevated came out of their mouths. Oh yeah, and about what are they actually talking? I'd say it's simply a homecoming story...although the movie does hint toward acts such as "rediscovering himself" and also, within a certain limit, redemption. But it remains too shallow in these regards.
On the whole, Salem's Lot ain't crappier than other Stephen King adaptations. Actually, by comparison, it's quite acceptable. But globally it's a sub par movie.
Now, Salem's Lot ain't necessarily a brilliant book, so I'd have guessed long ago that it won't really do for a good movie. It's fun and nearly exciting up to the point where you find out that it's...just another story. I won't really bother saying about what, because that'd be like reaping the only special trait of this thing.
But the film is a very good adaptation of the book. It's not only loyal to its source, but it also seems to convey the characters pretty faithfully to what I imagined them to be. Now, of course, that isn't necessarily a good thing...my point of view and grasp of the characters may very well differ from anyone else's way of seeing them. But, interpretations laid aside, I firmly believe that as an adaptation of the book, the film does very well. The only thing I felt should've been more elaborate is the love story, because it lacked a certain spark which the book did offer.
However, a film is a film and may not be viewed only regarding its faithfulness to its source material, mostly because "the source material" doesn't refer only to a book or short story, but ultimately to the core of the movie, it's pulsating heart, if I may call it so. As long as the story pushes the film forward, it's fulfilled its purpose. Out of a more stylistic angle, what kind of impressed me were the lights. The atmosphere was all dark and gloomy and when those lights were shining through the window...man, that was quite a sight!
Rob Lowe is an individual I had only seen in one movie prior to this one and it just so happens that it was another Stephen King movie, 1994's The Stand. I've yet to watch it all, but I find it funny that I never really imagined Lowe like a talking dude. Now that I finally heard his voice (well, I did hear him in The Stand, but only for a few lines up to now) I felt a bit overwhelmed...especially at the beginning, with his voice over. Sure, I got used to hearing it, but I asked myself many times during the film how convincing it sounded. In the end, I guess it was a rather normal voice.
The weakest link in this film ends up being the dialog. I was just terrified while listening to some of the lines those poor actors had to regurgitate and it only rarely happened that something more elevated came out of their mouths. Oh yeah, and about what are they actually talking? I'd say it's simply a homecoming story...although the movie does hint toward acts such as "rediscovering himself" and also, within a certain limit, redemption. But it remains too shallow in these regards.
On the whole, Salem's Lot ain't crappier than other Stephen King adaptations. Actually, by comparison, it's quite acceptable. But globally it's a sub par movie.