Salem's Lot Reviews

Do you like the book? The original Mini-series?

If you did, then a few words of caution would perhaps be best. There have been some pretty radical alterations to the source text in this adaptation. Without wishing to go into 'spoilers', let's just say some characters have changed and the plot has been re-configured to allow for these changes. You may not find them for the best. If you're willing to put aside some of your expectations, you'll have a reasonably good few hours with this disc. If you're not, well...

Anaemic Remake!

Salem’s Lot was the earlier best seller written by Stephen King. It pretty much covered the same themes that are associated with his books: - inner demons, small town secrets (usually set in Maine) and rites of passage subtext. A screen adaptation was inevitable.

Unfortunately, (as is the case with most King novels) that adaptation would be translated to the small screen. Although having certain guidelines stacked against you for the sake of network TV, the 79 version directed by Tobe Hooper of ‘Texas Chainsaw’ notoriety proved that a TV miniseries could be downright scary and just at home with the crème de la crème of 70’s horror classics.

So what we have here is supposed to be a definitive 2004 resurrection of the original novel? Well, for beginners where in heaven or hell did that new prologue come from? Secondly, it’s different to the era that the original story was set! Putting aside any anachronisms, its safe to say that this version doesn’t hold a steak to the 79 version when it comes to the scare factor. As soon as horrific events start unfolding, the whole thing seems like a tamed, toothless re-imagining. Anything resembling tension could quite easily be cut through with a blunt wooden steak!

In a corpse shell, this TV remake should never have seen the light of day. A full-blooded silver screen re-vamp would have been more of an invite.

[Highly rated reviewer]

undemanding viewing

I didnt quite know what to expect of this version of salems lot,i watched it on an afternoon with a freind,it has some great actors in it,rutger hauer,donald sutherland,james cromwell,rob lowe,who were all largely wasted,barlow the vampire wasnt scary enough,donald sutherlands character,was similar to max von sydows character in Needful Things,and if im right didnt donald sutherland and rutger hauer appear in the original buffy movie?

Tobe hoopers original 1979 version which was a Tv mini series and then recut into a film,still remains far superior to this day,rent that or buy it.

Salems (p)lotless

This film doesn't quite match the atmospheric suspense as the original. In what promised to be a much awaited remake tended to let us down in more way's than one! This film drags along with very few menace and chills and tries to copy the first, but to no avail. Rutgar Hauer as a too human-like vampire didn't impress as much, as did the original Nostferatau.

(I) Really Could Do Better....

One of Steven King's truly great books, Salem's Lot is dark, tragic, claustrophobic & gruesome, and like all of King's best efforts explores the central characters to a such a degree that you feel real empathy. I know that it is nigh on impossible to translate such empathy from book to screen, but nonetheless when I saw a remake of Salem's lot was available I was seriously excited at the prospect. What a disappointment.....

the start was one of the few good bits, being in effect a prologue based on the books epilogue/final chapter and I thought was a nice touch. but from then on it just lost its way. Where was the fear?? Buffy is scarier than this. Seriously. Where was the sense of a relationship developing between Ben & Susan, with us safe in the knowledge of how tragically it would end?? Who in hell thought Rutger Hauer would make a suitable Barlow??? all bouffant hair and beer gut? Give me a break. A truly dreadful piece of casting.Donald Sutherland liekwise (although I have to admit I would struggle to take Donald Sutherland seriously playing himself). All of the areas which were crying out for a 'behind the sofa' moment were utterly lacking-with the notable exception of the scene involving Marjorie Glick in the morgue which was well done and reasonably spooky.

That apart, just as something was about to happen it cut to the next scene to my growing frustration.

The only element which was an improvement on the original were the flashbacks which went some way to explaining Ben's obsession with the house. Otherwise totally disappointing, I'm afraid to say.

Lot of Vampires

A respectable adaptation of Steven Kings novel, there are some notable changes from the book but it tries hard to recreate the same tone. Its recognisable as a TV adaptation just as the previous version and as such the story is a little too drawn out and overly long. By the time the vampires do start to make an appearance it seems somewhat rushed when this should have been the focus of the movie. While the vampire effects look great the director struggles to maintain an atmosphere of horror. We've seen vampires in movies so many times before and this provides nothing new to the genre. Nevertheless it is an enjoyable story and one that will at least keep you entertained for a few hours.

Fantastic

This series is a must for any Stephen King Fan, I loved this. Will defo watch again.

Get out the original with David Soul!!

No scary effects, boring and doesnt add to the plot. the original with David Soul, although made yrs ago is much, much scarier!

Can't beat a classic

It was a decent attempt at remaking a classic and it was ok to watch. Donald Sutherland was just too cheerful and happy looking to play Mr Straker, compared to the cold, sinister Mr Straker played by James Mason.

The Nosferatu-type creature 'Mr Barlow' in the original was also much scarier than the Mr Barlow that talks and looks less scary in this remake.

I found original Salem's Lot to be much scarier than this TVmini series . The special effects were good as you would expect in this day and age, however by changing the storyline around, I felt they missed out essential parts that made the original more terrifying. With the classic being so good, I was expecting even more from this movie but was left somewhat disappointed. It just shows you can't beat a true classic.

But if you are bored on a rainy night this may be worth watching.

Too Long.......

A 2 hour movie stretched to 3. No-one seems too comfortable in their roles, particularly Rob Lowe. Sutherland and Cromwell are always good value though.

And more crutially, not scary in the least !!