We've probably discussed what makes good movies good - excellent mood, pacing, acting, writing, cinematography. But what makes bad movies so HORRIBLE?
I'm a big Stephen King fan and I've read a ton of his books but never got around to some of the early ones like Carrie and Salem's Lot. Carrie was excellent. Still haven't the movie (movies?). Salem's Lot had a slow burn at the top but all seemed necessary once it all got rolling as it got excellent. Right as I finished I noticed they recently made a movie for Salem's Lot that was released October 2024. I thought why not... I'll check it out. Didn't make it past 20 minutes in. Good god it was horrible. Stephen King executive produced it? Oh my. It was like a horrible made for TV movie.
Why was it bad... just some little notes.
I'm a big Stephen King fan and I've read a ton of his books but never got around to some of the early ones like Carrie and Salem's Lot. Carrie was excellent. Still haven't the movie (movies?). Salem's Lot had a slow burn at the top but all seemed necessary once it all got rolling as it got excellent. Right as I finished I noticed they recently made a movie for Salem's Lot that was released October 2024. I thought why not... I'll check it out. Didn't make it past 20 minutes in. Good god it was horrible. Stephen King executive produced it? Oh my. It was like a horrible made for TV movie.
Why was it bad... just some little notes.
- Absolutely abysmal script. EVERYTHING was so over the top with the dialogue with so much exposition. "Here I am doing this and this is why" I'm saying everything outloud this is so obviously written to explain something that could have been explained or suggested in a much better cinematic way. Oh lord. The first scene. The FIRST scene! Second scene too.
- Abysmal acting and casting that wasn't helped by the horrible script. The villian's underling Straker who was so freaking creepy in the book and in my head was played so OVER THE TOP by Pilou Asbæk. I'm sure it wasn't his fault and he was directed to do it but oh my it was comical. The scene where he sacrifices the boy was laughable. This scene was all hinted at and never shown in the book and it worked so much better. In this "ilm he starts shouting and explaining everything he's doing and why. "here I am sacrificing this boy to you so you can return to your true form!" Things that would be better hinted at.
- The vampire was some really lame Nosferatu clone but had none of the creepiness of it. The vampire in the book was creepy because he was very charming and human like. Also you didn't meet the character until almost well into the second half of the book. He was all hinted at and suggested before which made when you met him SO much more effective in the novel. It think in the first 10 to 15 minutes you fully saw the vampire and it was so lame.
- There were a bunch of really neat cinematic transitions but they were all done in a way that says "look I'm cool" "see what I can do". Absolutely none of them served a story purpose.
- There was one really cool shot in the woods as the boys were running away from Straker but it wasn't scary or creepy (it could have been - the shot was amazing). It wasn't scary or creepy because you knew who/what was after them. (you had no idea in the book - made it creepy) You knew because the script and the acting was so over the top. "we're trying to get away from the scary man" It would have been so much better if one of the boys just disappeared behind one of the trees in the long shot and you never saw Staker following them. Sigh. Suggest don't show.
