Stephen King's Salem's Lot is his quintessential vampire story, with adaptations of the story ranging in quality. The book, about a small town in Maine beset with horrifying versions of vampires, has so far been adapted into two TV miniseries, a prequel show, and two movies. King has written several vampire tales at this point, but Salem's Lot remains a fan favorite that influenced generations of vampire storytelling. It was only King's second published novel, released in 1975. It's also just a really good book, showing right away just how formidable a presence in horror King was destined to become.

As good and scary as differences from Stephen King's Salem's Lot. Here is each adaptation of Salem's Lot ranked from worst to best.

A Return to Salem's Lot (1987)

No Available Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer Score

A Return to Salem's Lot is the worst adaptation of Salem's Lot, with bizarre touches that can't replicate the underlying horror of the original. Directed by famously quirky filmmaker Larry Cohen, A Return to Salem's Lot is largely disconnected from the original story outside of a shared setting in the town of Jerusalem's Lot and the threat of vampires. A Return to Salem's Lot is ostensibly a sequel to the 1979 miniseries, and by extension, to King's original book. The movie focuses on Joe Weber, an anthropologist who returns to the town over the troublesome behavior of his son Jeremy.

Along with a wayward teenager, they discover that a vampire colony has emerged from the events of the previous film/mini-series, forcing them to confront the monsters. A Return to Salem's Lot lacks the distinct unsettling elements that made the original so memorable, instead relying on more campy effects and elements. There are some interesting elements at play in A Return to Salem's Lot, which was originally imagined by Cohen to be a reimagining of the traditional vampire narrative into a more grounded drama. If the execution had been better, there might have been something genuinely unique in the film.

A Return to Salem's Lot feels like a big missed opportunity...

Unfortunately, the poor acting, wonky effects, and mismatched tone sink any tension. Even the direction feels amateurish and without the distinct flourish, Cohen brought to his other work. It seems Warner Bros. agreed, as the film only received a brief theatrical run before leaving movie screens. A Return to Salem's Lot feels like a big missed opportunity, an interesting concept that has become relegated a footnote in the library of Stephen King adaptations. More a curiosity than anything else, the relentlessly weird A Return to Salem's Lot is fun for fans of bad B-movies and odd cinema, but few others.

Salem's Lot (2024)

48% On Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer Score

Directed and written by Gary Dauberman, 2024's version of Salem's Lot has a lot going for it, but suffers from a rushed tone and basic approach. Salem's Lot's story and ending follows the trajectory of the original, focusing on a group of unprepared vampire hunters dealing with the infestation in their town set off by the arrival of the monstrous Kurt Barlow. At times, Salem's Lot has flashes of artistic brilliance or creative direction that elevate the material. There are clever visual touches and additions, like the cars used as coffins or visual beats that use shadows to great effect.

However, there's a rushed quality to the new version of Salem's Lot that undercuts some of the strength of the original, with an over-reliance on jump-scares that undercuts the film's better moments of subtle scares. The first half in particular speeds through the story, with the plot advancing at a fast clip for the sake of itself rather than unfolding at a natrual clip. This costs some of the rich character texture that made other versions of the story so compelling. This is a flaw that becomes less pronounced over the film, however. The second half picks up the pace.

Gary Dauberman's Salem's Lot is now streaming on Max.

The new film benefits from a quicker tone, but can't ever quite match the depth of other versions. It's a shame, too, as Salem's Lot cast are impressive (with memorable turns from Alfre Woodard and Bill Camp). Dauberman's visual approach works overall, but the straight adaptation fails to be as memorable as other versions of the source material. A more fleshed out version of Salem's Lot might have improved this one's standing, which according to reporting from Den of Geek was apparently the initial idea. While 2024's Salem's Lot isn't necessarily bad, it isn't good enough to really stand out.

Chapelwaite (2022)

60% on Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer Score

Chapelwaite effectively serves as a prequel to Salem's Lot, taking more direct cues from Stephen King's short story Jersulam's Lot instead. Set in the 19th century, the show focuses on gruff sea captain Charles Boone relocating his daughters (Honor and Loa) and son (Tane) to a mysterious estate he inherited in Maine. The nearby people of the settlement known as Preacher's Corners begin to suspect they may be responsible for a virus that's sweeping through the population. Chapelwaite's ten-episode length might be its biggest problem, as the dreary tone and style becomes increasingly exhausting over the course of the series.

What makes this such a shame is the fact that it's core, Chapelwaite is occasionally a well-acted and engaging mystery. The frightening elements of the story are genuinely engaging in a way that the more overt jump-scares of other adaptations simply aren't, giving the entire series an underlying sense of dread that matches Stephen King's original writing. The performances in the show are impressive, especially Brody as an increasingly desperate Boone, working to save his family from a curse he's brought them into. Chapelwaite feels like a quietly strong film that has been unnecessarily stretched out to accommodate a show-length.

Salem's Lot (2004)

68% on Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer Score

Although it didn't attract as much attention as its more famous predecessor, there's honestly a lot to like about the 2004 version of Salem's Lot. A TV miniseries starring Rob Lowe as Ben, the 2004 version benefits from the longer run-time. This gives the cast more time to explore their versions of the characters, imbuing the story with a greater sense of personality. This benefits the story overall, and allows the pacing to be better spaced out to accommodate a slow-burn story. The acting in 2004's Salem's Lot might be the best of any adaptation, benefiting from the expanded scope.

This also helps with the underlying tone of dread that permeates through the town. However, the expanded scope does also undercut many of the scariest elements of the original story and movie adaptation. The extended run-time isn't really used to enhance any of the story's scarier beats and moments, and the mini-series overall isn't as dependent on traditional kinds of scares that generate good on-screen horror. More than anything, the Salem's Lot miniseries from 2004 works better as a character drama than a horror story, whereas the original novel (and prior film adaptation) found a healthier balance between those elements.

Salem's Lot (1979)

89% on Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer Score

The best adaptation of Salem's Lot to be produced for film or television is still the first one made, which originally aired only a few years after the novel was published. Directed by Texas Chainsaw Massacre's Tobe Hooper and initially released as a two-part miniseries event on CBS, Salem's Lot finds a strong balance between underlying dread, character expansion, and genuine scares. The expanded run-time makes room for plenty of strong character beats, without overstaying its welcome as Chapelwaite eventually did. The adaptation's approach to the Nosferatu-esque Kurt Barlow remains iconic decades later, and helped influence countless other vampire narratives.

Hooper's steady approach to the material never feels rushed, while the seasoned horror director's handle on the scares gives the adaptation many of its most memorable moments. Perhaps the best scenes in any adaptation of Salem's Lot can be found in this version, including a haunting version of the undead Ralphie Glick that remains one of the most unsettling beats in the entire Stephen King canon. More than anything, this version of Salem's Lot is the scariest version of the story brought to screen. Hooper's approach benefits from a purposefully unnatural take on vampire mythology that is innately unsettling and frightening.

Hooper's Salem's Lot never holds back on the unwordly qualities of Barlow. While the drama and acting is very much of its time and can feel dated at times, it fits into the slightly grungey approach that Hooper brought to his other horror films. James Mason delivers a memorably chilling performance as Richard Straker, leading a solid cast in recreating the original plot with a fittingly creepy amount of atmosphere and fright. 1979's Salem's Lot is the closest adaptation to match the heights of the original novel, and still stands out as the best adaptation of the classic horror story.

Sources: Den of Geek