Eh

We watched the conclusion of Salem's Lot last night. I was underwhelmed. There were creepy moments, to be sure. But there was some lame attempts at additional exposition, some really clunky dialogue and some bits that just didn't make a lot of sense.

I almost laughed at the vampires shambling down the street like zombies. The main characters were not threatened by them at all. And why didn't the nest of vampires attack and eat the heroes when they slew Barlow just as the sun went down? And what was that whole dialogue between the protagonist and his (ex) love interest all about? Did we really need to know that? The idea that the protagonist is haunted by a past experience in the Marsden House was fine, as far as it went. But its resolution was not necessary. The protagonist was no less heroic before he began slaying vampires and he was no more heroic afterwards. The little sense of closure, delivered by a vampire no less, did not justify the clunky dialogue.

I did think that the bit with the priest was interesting. Although I liked the idea of faith in the book, and the priest's lack of it was a nice twist, I was frustrated by the lack of closure for that character in the book. In the book, the priest hops on a bus and rides away. Nothing more is heard from him. In the movie, he becomes (to paraphrase that famous vampire hunter Xander Harris) the vampire's butt-monkey. I was not impressed by the way the character arc was handled (and I enjoy James Cromwell's acting as a general rule) but at least his story is resolved.

I guess at the end of the day I thought the movie was a step in the right direction. If nothing else, the effort showed that the material is filmable.

In reading news, I am now halfway through the book An Army At Dawn. The Germans are still kicking our asses. How did we win this thing?