Salem's Lot Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
In a small town, evil spreads quickly.
Ben Mears, a writer returns to the small Maine town of Jerusalem's Lot (also known as Salem's Lot), where he spent the first few years of his life, to write a book. Little does he or the townfolk realize that a couple of other new residents are coming...Straker, a antiques dealer, and his partner and master Barlow, a ancient and malevolent vampire bent on making Salem's Lot his new home.
| Rob Lowe | Ben Mears |
| Andre Braugher | Matt Burke |
| Donald Sutherland | Richard Straker |
| Samantha Mathis | Susan Norton |
| Robert Mammone | Dr. James Cody |
| Dan Byrd | Mark Petrie |
| Rutger Hauer | Kurt Barlow |
| James Cromwell | Father Donald Callahan |
| Andy Anderson | Charlie Rhodes |
| Robert Grubb | Larry Crockett |
| Steven Vidler | Sheriff Parkins |
| Penny McNamee | Ruth Crockett |
| Brendan Cowell | Dud Rogers |
| Christopher Morris | Mike Ryerson |
| Todd MacDonald | Floyd Tibbits |
| Mikael Salomon |
6.10 out of 10 (2110 votes)
Visitor Reviews
What was that all about?!!
posted on 10 Aug 2009Well, what can I say, apart from disappointing.Although this version of the book took on a different slant, and referred to characters missing from the 1979 version,I personally do not think it was for the better.Unfortunately, I found Rob Lowe's performance as Ben Mears unconvincing, Donald Sutherland seemed to have been taking some form of medication and made Straker seem more like Father Christmas than terrifyingly chilling, Susan was unrecognisable from the book or 1979 version (now working as a waitress in her family's café rather than teaching at Holly Elementary), and as for Matt Burke, what can I say apart from his part obviously made the film politically correct.The ridiculous upbeat version of 'Painted Black' at the end of the film was the worst thing and made a mockery of the whole story, it would have been far better to stick with something chilling that would have done this version justice.I didn't find this a compelling film to watch like the 1979 version and it seemed to miss some of the 'edge of the seat' ingredients which the first one had.I always thought a new version would be different, however in my opinion was certainly not better. All of the characters in the original were more believable and better cast.I just live in hope that the next version is not only horrifying, chilling and full of suspense, but manages to be more true to the book.I still think David Soul rocks, sorry Rob!
TNT hits a triple
posted on 23 Jul 2009I wouldn't say this is a home run for TNT, but as far as "made for TV" movies go (not counting the wonderful HBO ones) TNT does a really good job at remaking "'Salem's Lot".The story, for those who don't know already, is one of the "evil comes to town" kinds of stories where vampirism is the new chic bubonic plague that begins to infest the town of "Jerusalem's Lot". Big bad vampire guy moves in (Rutger Hauer doing a bit of a serious spin on his old "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" role) and bad things start to happen.Rutger's right hand man is Donald "Crazier every year you see him" Sutherland. The hero is the tragic character Ben Mears, played by Rob "Why did I leave West Wing again?" Lowe. Rob does a great job by the way which leads me to...First, the acting. I really thought everyone did a great job all the way around. Complete with an, "Oh my god that really IS Samantha -Pump Up The Volume- Mathis!" Apparently the beautiful Mathis found time to jump out of the Witness Protection Program to turn up in this rendition of "Salem's" only moments before rapidly fading into obscurity once more. Rutger Hauer is an old fave of mine.. he's so good at being bad and I wish he could find better roles. James Cromwell... well what can I say about the guy who always makes me feel like he could be everyone's grandfather. Another stellar actor. I don't like quite what they do with his character and after you view it, if you want to know why I say that, email me and I'll let you know.And Andre Braugher... god I love this guy. He's an amazing actor and I curse ABC for getting rid of "Gideon's Crossing". Braugher, you rule the earth, let it be known. I also don't like how they handle his character here either, again if you want to know why email me and I'll explain.Total running time is 3 hours but with commercials it will probably be a total of 4 hours (2 hours each night I'm guessing). I think once you see it you might agree that they probably even cut out some other stuff in order to come in on time.. and that's a shame. I hope there might be a director's cut of this to come later because some things happen that are just flat out not explained. Pretty odd for a 3 hour long film where some issues are still not given explanation.. but ah well.So the story... well it's not the book but it is, in its own right, a very good rendition with albeit a crappy ending. I think it's kind of a requirement that most (not all, but MOST, so no flames) anything related to Stephen King has an ending that sucks wind. BUT, the key here is creepiness. The box art to the DVD I have is very "Silent Hill"-ish.. for those familiar with the game series. And the movie has that feel too. It's very dark, very brooding and at times very creepy. And let's hear it for TNT! They make vampires creepy again! Gone are the efforts to romanticize vampirism... no fops running around with a powdered face biting necks like a more annoying, invasive form of flatulence... no no, these vampires that infest the Lot are creepy vampires. This is not a SCARY show, but I bet you it will creep you out a bit here and there. It did for me.All in all, nicely done TNT. I do applaud your efforts and despite some minor squabbles with it here and there I think you guys turned in a really good piece of work that you should be proud of. I give it a 7 out of 10. It's worth your time to catch once... but that'll probably be about it. My only recommendation to those who will view it is forget the book, understand that this is still a made for TV film.. and just try to enjoy it and you'll be fine.
A Horror Movie With No Horror -- How Can This Be?
posted on 15 Jun 2009Having watched "Salem's Lot" that had David Soul as the main character, I wanted to see this remake for comparison. Many said that it was truer to the book than the 1970's version. That may be the case, but two very important things were missing: 1) the true character development and depiction and 2) the element of horror. When a movie tries to portray suspense and horror, viewers should be left with some feelings of uneasiness. The original "Salem's Lot" did that for me. The remake just left me with my mouth open.I remember the original "Salem's Lot" with Danny Glick coming to Mark's window in the fog. The music, the fog, and the claustrophobic atmosphere of the scene were chilling. I was a kid when I watched the original and I begged my parents to cut the limbs on the tree outside my window so they'd stop scratching against the window when the wind blew. And you could sense in Mark the fear of what he was afraid was happening and the pain of having lost his friends. In the remake, the scene seemed almost done for good measure. I also remember Barlow entering the prison cell in a fog to get Tibbits. Just watching Tibbits face showed enough horror without any gore. Watching him crawl through the ventilation in the remake was simply comedic.In the original, I could understand Mark going up to the "house" to try to kill the vampire. After all, Barlow had killed his parents. In this remake, Mark was a brave little vigilante to go up to the house in advance of his mother getting killed. It would have made sense for him to go to kill Barlow "after" Barlow had murdered his mother. Then, that may have been to much like correct.To delve into the character revisions would require too much investment in time. I was surprised to see how Ben Mears had been redefined from revered and misunderstood to being the object of animosity and misunderstood. Matt Burke's redefinition from a believable elderly, white male to a young, gay black male smacked of literary license gone mad. Burke's revision helped add a level of poor taste to the scene with him walking in on Mike, who had been turned into a vampire. "You want to touch me." In the original, the character told Matt Burke, "Look at me." That's what vampires want you to do -- look at them. Homoerotic or not, the scene added no value.Anyone who watched the original remembers "The Master." Granted, Barlow looked very Nosferatu, that was quite effective. When he came through Mark's house and was just a cape on the floor before rising up to kill the parents, that was shocking to see something so horrific. When Barlow came into the house in the remake and was clinging to ceiling, I felt let down. And Rutger Hauer is such a great actor. And changing Straker from a smarmy, secretive watch dog to a severely underutilized Straker that was practically cast as a cameo was just wrong.While it is impossible to have a movie conform in totality to any book, style can never replace substance. The remake of this movie could have used the mild Alfred Hitchcock flare of the original to instill fear in viewers while indeed focusing on the major characters as the book did to tell a captivating story. If I were a post teenager who had never seen the original, I would have been clapping my hands and pumping my fist in the air at the wonderful display of CGI graphics and fast-editing (ala Danny Glick's little brother quickly fading in and out when Danny was in the hospital).With the removal of some superfluous scenes -- the beginning with Mears homeless style having his episode with the priest -- and continuity -- read above comment about Mark going to the Marsten house for the kill before he had a reason to do so -- what was a tolerable movie could possibly have been an okay movie. For the 70's I can accept the flaws that came with movie production during that time as compared to today's movie-making. But to try to best a movie of that time and fall short, well, it's a shame.
3 Salem's Lots
posted on 03 Jun 2009Stephen King wrote the wonderful Salem's Lot back in the 70's and it was truly chilling. It had all the classic elements of good and evil and was colored by some fascinating characters and some real Bram Stoker moments. It contained a young writer named Ben Mears who was trying to come to terms with a fearful past, a seductive head vampire named Barlow, and his barbaric art collecting partner named Straker.It was converted into a terrifying miniseries and directed by Tobe Hooper who would later return with Poltergeist. It starred David Soul as the writer Ben Mears, James Mason as the less savage and more brilliant and cultured art dealer Straker, and Reggie Nalder as the horrid and anything but seductive Barlow. Several characters were shortchanged like the alcoholic Father Callahan or just omitted like Dud Rogers, the hunchback from the junkyard. The emphasis in that version was placed more on horror than character development.The new version, though crudely updated, does manage to connect the Marsten House better with the multiple character stories of the townspeople. There are definite differences as well as character changes and composites from the book and the previous miniseries. However, this version rang truer to me to the book than the 1979 miniseries but it wasn't as frightening.Ben Mears comes to town to write a book on the roots of domestic evil and gets more than he bargained for. It seems the eerie Marsten House was once a home to a child killer named Hubey Marsten and his wife. An evil force lay within that house and has attracted more evil.Director Mikael Salomon places the house above the town making it a more effective conduit to all the townspeople's fear. The house is more massive and forbidding than in the 1979 version and the Cinematography by Ben Nott is sharp, cold, and forbidding. The time of year was moved to a more crisp and cold winter.Rob Lowe's portrayal of Ben Mears is actually more fascinating than the main character in Stephen King's book as well as David Soul's interpretation in the 1979 miniseries. We understand his fear of the Marsten House more through flashbacks as well as an added subplot in the past about a child who was murdered there. Guilt has been added to his fear and that gives his character more of an edge.The role of Straker is now occupied by Donald Sutherland. His interpretation, like James Mason's, is still very cultured but does conceal a very creepy and mischievous side. You truly can't pin down what he's going to do next and his taunting of the ill fated Susan Norton, played by the beautiful Samantha Mathis, is disturbing to watch.Barlow is now the handsome and seductive creature he was in the book played to perfection by Rutger Hauer. His seduction over the weak willed Father Callahan, James Cromwell in another perfect piece of casting, is one of the high points of this new version.Andre Braugher does nicely as the town school teacher Matt Burke. This character was played in the 1979 version by Lew Ayres and was an exact match to the novel. This time he's more complex, homosexual, and more a devil's advocate to Ben Mears. Braugher's acting has always been strong and here he shines very powerfully in the scene where he confronts a vampire for the first time. His fear is genuine and the mark of a very skilled actor.Rounding out the cast is Samantha Manthis as the brave and sweet Susan Norton who takes a liking to Ben. Her performance is more heartfelt and not at all distant like Bonnie Bedelia's from the 1979 version. Dan Byrd is quite a departure from the Mark Petrie Lance Kerwin played. He's more of a punk and the worst casualty of this update. Robert Grubb plays Larry Crockett, who is now incestuous and more trouble, Steven Vidler plays the tough and yet terrified of the truth sheriff. His character is a lot more interesting here than in the book and the previous miniseries. Julia Blake and Martin Vaughan play Eva Prunier and Ed "Weasel" Craig. Their relationship grows to be quite moving despite the fact that Barlow is turning most of the townspeople into Vampires.The fates of some characters have changed and others have had their motivations altered. Overall, Peter Filardi does a nice job with the dialogue especially the narration of Ben Mears. The ending narration is surprisingly heartfelt and even a bit reminiscent of Thornton Wilder's Our Town.Watch this new version if you want more character development, good acting, a better story and special effects. If you want to be more frightened rent the 1979 version. If you want to experience real fear please buy the Stephen King book. He's not called the master of horror for nothing
Extremely Disappointing, Alright,But Could have Been More...
posted on 18 May 2009When I first heard they were re-doing Salem's Lot, I was excited. I knew the original was well done for a 1970's t.v. mini series. As well as could be expected. It stayed reasonably close to the book and offered some pretty good chills. Having said that it was lacking. First and foremost having a vampire that looked like Max Schreck/ Nosferatu. The next was that the effects were lacking. Other than that it was similiar to the story. Now we come to 2004's Salem's Lot. I decided not to compare and judge it on it's own and that included how similiar to the book. I must say I was left wanting. First off, the beginning. In the book, if memory serves me correctly Ben Mears was telling his story to a priest, not attacking him, where both ended up in the hospital. Next, it appeared to me that there was a combining of characters in the new version,much more so than the original. Where Ben Mears was a horror/fiction writer returning home they had the newer one being some kind of obstinate controversial writer who saw only the bad side of people. It seems like Horrorwierd always has to have our soldiers be some kind of killers of civilians in movies like the ones mentioned in Mears' book in Afghanistan. It wasn't needed and was the PC swipe at our soldiers, something that had no importance or place here. The story seemed rushed, especially in the second half. Yes, the effects were better and the Marsden house was creepier, but the series lacked. In the book there was a kind of love interest between Ben and Susan, but this one was more confrontational and they did not click as a couple. They decided to make Ben's old teacher a gay man instead of a life long bachelor as well. The story while updated was not updated for the better. There were some nice references to Cujo,and Stand By Me, other Stephen King works. The references were very good and witty. I was disappointed the first night I saw this, but decided to wait and watch the second night to reserve judgement. It did not improve. The highlight for me was seeing the kids on the bus climbing on the ceiling before getting the bus driver. That was haunting. But with a town full of vampires, towards the end you would have thought it was a Night of the Living Dead vampire movie. I am extremely disappointed. It was only fair at best, alright, but it could have been so much more....
Entertaining for Laymen
posted on 12 May 2009I just finished watching the entire "miniseries" in one sitting and thought it was entertaining.
It's by no means a classic, but there were some genuine scares and moments when I felt for
the characters on the screen.Of course, I'm not some rabid Stephen King fanboy, frothing at the mouth because the
filmmakers dared change one word of the holy text upon which this was based.
Nor am I a
huge fan of the 1979 version, which I've seen bits and pieces of. If I were either, I expect I
would have had the same problems as a lot of the "purists" had. (Take the recent version of
"The Lathe of Heaven" which was MUCH worse than the 80's PBS version despite a better
budget and modern effects. I HATED the newer version.)
Missed Opportunity
posted on 10 May 2009I had high hopes for this, but TNT let me down... badly. The original Tobe Hooper miniseries moved quickly, had a memorable theme song, and delivered up some decent scares. This version makes stupid changes for no good reason... turning characters black and gay (just to be "PC"), making the vampires spin around and turn to dust ala Buffy and Blade (through ridiculous CGI), drastically changing the ending, and reducing Straker's death to a pointless offscreen one --- as one of only two main villains, making his death a "throw away" is a terrible idea. The music is overblown and sounds like it belongs in a different movie --- the film ends with an awful cover of the Rolling Stones's "Paint It Black". Not terribly creative. At least The Devil's Advocate had the good sense to use the original Stones version, not some cheap cover by a talentless but trendy metal band.Rutger Hauer is good (but poorly dressed) as the vampire Barlowe, playing him more like the eloquent Count Dracula of the book than the silent (but scary as hell) Nosferatu of the original miniseries. Many parts are badly miscast --- most of the acting is bland and does nothing to inspire you to care about the characters --- particularly Rob Lowe. Donald Sutherland (looking more like Santa Claus than a credible villain) is nowhere near as good at inspiring fear as James Mason was as Straker in the original. James Cromwell is great as Father Callahan. This new miniseries is banal, boring, convoluted and insulting to Stephen King's greatest book. I wasn't scared once during this bloated mess, yet jumped out of my seat at least twice when watching the original, and felt unnerved throughout --- even though it wasn't a particularly faithful adaptation. This one tries to be more faithful but then throws it all away by making stupid changes --- the same kind of "Politically Correct" nonsense and "ooh, let's make it dark and gritty and throw in lots of junky CGI effects" that ruined the new Battlestar Galactica miniseries. Doesn't Stephen King have enough clout to get script approval? Where is the quality control? The TNT version of Salem's Lot is a travesty of missed opportunities... all it makes me want to do (besides tear my hair out in bored frustration) is reread the book or watch the original Tobe Hooper version... Nosferatu and all.
not like the book, but a decent movie
posted on 10 Apr 2009Although trying to compare it to the book will give you nothing but grief, the 2004 version of Salems Lot was way better than the '79 version, in my opinion. The old one just moved sooooo slowly. I lost interest in it before the movie was half over. Donald Sutherland always plays a good character, and King fans will notice more than one repeat actor from other King films:Lowe, from the stand, and Sutherland from Needful things.BTW, what exactly is Straker babbling to Eva about in the antique shop. Are we supposed to assume he has known her before or knows something about her past he should not know?
A Standout among made-for-TV vampire movies
posted on 10 Apr 2009"Salem's Lot", Starring Rob Lowe, James Cromwell, Rutger Hauer, Donald Sutherland, and Andre Braugher, was a very enjoyable made-for-TV film. The performances were excellent, the sets and lighting striking, and the overall mood good.The cast: Rob Lowe is solid as Ben Mears, but the standouts are, natch, the villains - Rutger and Sutherland. As Straker, the vampire Barlow's business partner/henchman, Sutherland gives one of the best performances I believe I've seen him give in his impressive career. Of particular creepiness is his encounter with Eva Prunier at his antique store: he obviously knows Eva's "dirty little secret" from her youth and is happy to taunt her about it in her own first language, French, which he speaks quite beautifully. (Some of you native speakers of the language may disagree, but it sounded great to this girl who only studied the language for a couple of years in high school). She is so disturbed that she runs out the door, to which Straker responds with a "don't ask me what's wrong with her" shrug and puzzled look on his face. Hauer, meanwhile, as Barlow, is MUCH better than the Nosferatu wannabe in the original TV film. He is more like the character described in the book - intelligent, articulate, handsome, a seducer rather than an attacker. He makes the proposition of becoming one of his "children" seem appealing and like the rational thing to do.Now, onto makeup and effects - both leaps and bounds over the first. The eyes and fangs are effective, and shots of the vamps prowling around at night are eerie. The scene where a vampirized Floyd Tibbits (sp?) comes after Ben by crawling through a vent which no human body should be able to fit into is also an effective scare.All in all, a definite "9 out of 10", especially for made-for-TV films. Recommended to my fellow King/vampire fans.
Superior Production
posted on 23 Mar 2009Say what you will about this Made for TV attempt, it received three awards nominations and references two other King works; Cujo and The Body (known by film fans as "Stand By Me").The opening film noir style is reminiscent of an age of Innocence; a detail I enjoy. The graphics sporting those opening credits are craftily done.While this is a more faithful adaptation, the element of horror is all but gone and is, instead, replaced with a slow-building suspense which lessens itself with occasional scene breaks and slight humor. Unfortunately the suspense never quite gains any true momentum and the result is a muted climax.That having been said, the performances in this attempt are light-years ahead of those in the 1979 extended Made for TV movie, much less the watered down, cut to bits theatrical release.While some of the characters we all know and love (or love to hate) from the 1979 versions are gone from this variant, the characters given are quite well developed and very well portrayed.I thoroughly enjoyed this version, however, for a better horror, I must recommend the 1979 Made for TV edition. It is much more atmospheric and is the full movie. The theatrical version was cut to bits. I really like this M4TV work, and I love the updated effects and extended story, but for a real horror movie, check out the original.It rates an 8.3/10 on the M4TV Scale.It rates a 7.4/10 on the Movie Scale from...the Fiend :.
New 'Salem's Lot a taught, atmospheric, and faithful adoption of King book superior in nearly every way to 1979 miniseries.
posted on 27 Feb 2009As someone who generally enjoyed Tobe Hooper's 1979 mini-series of Salem's Lot, I can say without hesitation that the remake aired on TNT is superior in nearly every way to the David Soul original.First of all, the new version LOOKS better; the lighting, film quality, locations, and as would be expected, the effects, are all superior to the 1979 version. The TNT remake has the appearance of a feature film, while the '79 Tobe Hooper version has the unmistakable, cheap look of video.More importantly, the '04 version is a far more faithful adaptation of King's book, and presents in much greater depth and with greater sophistication the moral decay that lies beneath the surface of Salem's Lot.There are more characters that appeared in the book, and their individual stories provide insights into the town's history and underlying curse that are sorely missing in the '79 version. Consequently, viewers have a much better sense of the town's inescapable doom, and a more chilling, pervasive sense of dread and gloom. The best choice here was the casting of Rutger Hauer as Barlow the vampire. For some reason Tobe Hooper chose to make Barlow a blue-skinned, Nosferatu lookalike incapable of speech, and revealed him only once. For that reason, the entire production had a hollow quality, as if something important was missing, which in fact it was. King's literary Barlow was very much like Count Dracula (the story was actually a homage to the Stoker novel), seductive, articulate, and sinister in a reptilian way. While Barlow is barely seen, his presence, like Brando in the Godfather, hangs over the doomed town like some inescapable, evil presence, a living metaphor to the Marsten mansion overlooking the town. Hauer, who many will remember as the charismatic, artificial human in "Blade Runner," elevates the entire production to another level. Donald Southerland, playing the vampire's human enabler, is also inspired casting, although James Mason was equally good in the '79 original. The rest of the cast is at least equal and in many instances superior to the '79 production. The new version is not without flaws. Rob Lowe's character is given too much narration, and some of it is overwrought. The character of the priest, in what feels like an unnecessary exploitation of the church's recent scandals, is less victim of his own weaknesses as in the book, and more outright villain by story's end. Still, those are minor quibbles. All in all, this a very successful adaptation of one of King's best books, and one which should leave the author and his fans, as well as those who do not read King or normally enjoy horror, well pleased with the result.
A crying shame.
posted on 17 Feb 2009I was looking forward very much to watching this. I was still living back in England when it was televised so had to rent it. I was a huge fan of the book and of the original series/movie. I had read pretty bad reviews of this but thought, hey, if it more true to the book then it can't be that bad.OK so it wasn't terrible, but it wasn't \realy any good either.Now I haven't read the book for many years so I may be wrong, but from what I remember it really didn't really stay loyal to the book or the original.@POSSIBLE SPOILERS@ I know that in the book Barlow is supposed to be a regular looking guy but to be honest I thought the blue, Nosferatu like "master" was much more effective and pretty much made the original movie. And Barlow really didn't feature much in this remake either - I cant remember how often he was in the book anymore but I thought it was more than this.Also I know that sometimes more is less and what you don't see can actually be more frightening but I was disappointed with the lack of "vampire action" in this compared to the original. Again in the original some of the vampire scenes - such as the Vampires at the window, Dannys attack from the coffin and 'the Master's" various appearances were the images that have always stuck in my mind.Some of the characters were unconvincing, particularly Matt Burke - he just didn't seem old or knowledgeable enough to have been Mear's old teacher and mentor.Personally I also thought that it was kinda scripted like an episode of Dawson's Creek - which was annoying.On the plus side I liked the scenes where the whole town was overrun with Vampires - and the Marston House was nicely represented.Could it have been better if it was even longer, running over six episodes or more so that the various characters and the relationships between them could have been built up more?
Be very afraid! (Of this movie)
posted on 16 Jan 2009***SPOILERS!!!***Oh dear. Where do I start with this horrific remake offering of the 1979 classic based upon Stephen King's 1975 novel 'Salem's Lot? I guess the beginning is good enough.I have read 'Salem's Lot more than a dozen times and it has never failed to draw me in and entertain me. It has never been a "scary" book for me, the only one of King's books that drew me in enough for that was The Shining, but I always enjoy the images that it conjures. I enjoyed the original 'Salem's Lot with David Soul, Bonnie Bedelia, Lew Ayers, James Mason, et al, very much. It had a good script, was well paced for the most part, well chosen actors who could actually act, scares, good FX and suspense. It strayed from the book but was close enough that the omissions were a minor distraction one only looked for to nitpick. Overall, I would give it a B+ and that was well deserved for four years after the novel hit the shelves.When this mini-series started on TV I had to wonder if I actually was watching the right movie. The beginning is so foreign to the book and the original movie that it doesn't even register as 'Salem's Lot until Ben Mears' name is mentioned. In the book the writer and the boy are in Los Zapatos, Mexico trying to recover from their ordeal in Jerusalem's Lot. The movie begins with Ben trying to kill the priest. Give me a break! The priest, Father Callahan lives and shows up in The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower for crying out loud. And that is only the first glaring deviation from the novel, but certainly not the last, that dooms this movie from the start.The most outrageous character change is Matt Burke. In the novel he is an elderly teacher at the local high school. In the original movie he is played admirably by Lew Ayres but in this remake he is a black man and that would be an acceptable politically correct nod to our time but what was up with the "alternative lifestyle" (read: gay) garbage? The narrative by Lowe states he is accepted as long as he stays in the closet. Being gay adds nothing to the story or his character but was deemed important enough to tell us about. Who cares? Certainly not me.So many other characters were butchered so badly it would take forever to name them all but Father Callahan must be mentioned. In the novel he loses his faith and does succumb to Barlow's ministrations but he runs away from Barlow and his parish. He DOES NOT become Barlow's new familiar. This seemingly explains the opening of the movie although this revelation is left for the last 15 minutes and leaves one wondering about the opening for the entire movie. And that is the crux of this worthless mini-series' problem. Someone suggested it was paced too fast but I don't think that is it. Continuity is.You might find this movie mildly entertaining if you've never read the novel or seen the original movie however it isn't marketed towards newbies. It is made to generate interest from established King fans and fails miserably. In the mini-series Ben Mears is said to have found Birdie Martsten in the bathroom of the Marsten house and then witnesses Hubert Marsten hang himself. In the novel Marsten kills his wife in THE KITCHEN and hangs himself in 1939. Ben enters the house, being nine years old, and sees Hubert hanging in an upstairs bedroom a full 12 years AFTER the deed. It is not until he is in his 30's that he returns to Jerusalem's Lot to confront his demons.Things like this were explained in the original movie but were embellished for the mini-series to no good end. I never once felt terror for anyone in the movie. In fact, the "scariest" moment came when Mark is in the boarding house kitchen, appropriate music is playing to denote suspense and burnt toast pops up out of the toaster. There is nothing before that to draw a person in to such a point that a "gotcha" like that might work and that pretty much explains why this movie bites nothing but the big one. (pun intended).I am not a big fan of remaking movies or reworking characters into today's world. The one notable exception was the remake of the ghastly 1980 Stanley Kubrick vehicle 'The Shining'. Don't get me wrong Jack Nicholson is a great actor and Shelley Duvall may be the penultimate Olive Oyl but Wendy Torrance she ain't. The mini-series had the time to let us all know that Jack Torrance was ALREADY crazy when he entered the Overlook. The hotel just helped him walk a little farther down that road. 'Salem's Lot did absolutely nothing to explain, enhance or improve upon the original movie. Save the three hours of your life this thing consumes and read the book. If you can't do that then watch The Shining mini-series instead. You will be spending your time wisely compared to watching this dreck.
Great Movie
posted on 27 Dec 2008I am a die hard Stephen King fan and have read the book and I have watched this movie probably over a dozen times. This, in my opinion, is one of the best movies out today. The actors are perfect for their parts and play the characters with absolute perfection. Rob Lowe did an outstanding job for Ben Mears and Dan Byrd played mark without a flaw. The first time i watched this film the vampired grepped the hell out of me. The film starts off a little slow than picks up as the it continues. If you like Stephen King or you just plain like Horror movies i would suggest this film. Its a long movie but worth every waking second.
As Shakespeare might have put it: "T'was full of sound and fury; signifying nothing."
posted on 23 Dec 2008(some spoilers) I admit that I never read the book all the way through. Skimmed it, at best. But, rewrites aside, I still find Tobe Hooper's 1979 original version undeniably far superior. For one thing, the music score of the original was (and still is) more haunting. And, at least, the '79 version kept the part about Guatemala from the book! As for the acting? There were only five big names in the whole cast: Rob Lowe, Andre Braugher, Samantha Mathis, Donald Sutherland, and Rutger Hauer. The first three do a credible job as the somewhat ill-fated heroes. And, the latter two co-starred in only one other vampire-movie that I know of: the original 1992 "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." But, even they cannot compensate for the relative unknowns who make up the rest of the cast! I think the best these people will be able to do is become vaguely recognizable faces in made-for-SCIFI Channel movies. Last, but not least? The emotional atmosphere of Hooper's version relied (quite successfully, in my book) on Val Lewton's old philosophy. Re: what you don't see is sometimes scarier than what you do see. Hence, Hooper's version was terrifying. This remake? More like mildly "gorifying." Which, in this case, is not necessarily a good thing. I guess the best way to sum up my feelings would be to say that Hooper's version is still four stars. While this one, in comparison, is only 2-and-a-half stars, at best.
Mediocre as the vast majority of the films based on King's novels
posted on 11 Dec 2008First, I have read the novel by King and as usual the novel's better than the film based on it. The novel itself is very eerie but I perceive it as in a slightly more psychological order. The film's a bit different as the director has his interpretation of the novel and the film feels less psycho-terror and works more in the area of buh!-moments of sudden fear. The director don't really succeed in that area but neither does he fail totally. There are a few moments here and there that's cool but I wouldn't dare to say the general quality are a worthy "competitor" of the novel. Rob Lowe (the main actor) are not really doing it for me here... The whole film has a mediocre touch to it, as most films based on King's novels have I'm afraid. 5/10 and if you like novels and vampires, I'd say go for the novel instead.
Shame on you TNT. . .
posted on 07 Dec 2008I picked up last year's TNT adaptation of 'Salem's Lot on DVD today. To be quite honest, it made this Stephen King fan hurt deep down inside. How is it that the 1979 made-for-TV adaptation was actually scarier than this 2004 update. The teleplay sunk everything I'd hoped for in a 'Salem's Lot remake with its senseless morphing of Matt Burke, the nonstop barrage of digital age references, and dialog so bad that I actually laughed out loud when I was apparently supposed to have been scared. I won't even get into the laughable, homo-erotic Mike Ryerson scenes that were actually two of the most frightening scenes in the Tobe Hooper original. The only highlight of the film was Rutger Hauer's portrayal of Barlow. Too bad he only had about seven minutes of screen time. ATTENTION PETER FILARDI (screenwriter): The dialog in your teleplay is so unrealistic that it almost turned a horror movie into a comedy. Shame on you TNT for greenlighting this teleplay.
So Good
posted on 03 Dec 2008I found this movie Very Good and I watched it everyday that it came on....but I feel in love with Dan Byrd who played Mark Petrie..man i swear it was love at first site..he did the part very well...I also was happy when i saw that Rob Lowe was playing in it but i don't like him that much...but i liked the Vampire parts really well and how Mark was always helping...I found that the saddest part was when Barlow killed Marks mom..that was heart breaking....and the other part was when the little boy was being held down in the water...and his brother didn't try and save him.....and the funnest part was when Mark came to school and asked the cop if he was waiting for him and the part when he flicks the bus driver off....Well this movie is a must see....
Entertaining
posted on 01 Dec 2008I have seen both versions of this movie, 1979 with David Soul and 2003 with Rob Lowe. The 1979 version did not follow the book very well and it was very cheesy. For the era, I remember it being a 'state of the art' horror flick we watched in the drive thru. I watched it again after watching the 2003 version and laughed all the way thru it. Rob Lowe's performance in the newest version isn't as good as his performance in Stephan King's made for TV version of the Stand, but he was good. Entertaining is what I would say about this movie. If you have a few hours to kill and want to be mildly scared this movie is the one. I like that they used the 'Vampire's need to be invited in" rule, in the original most of the 'vampire rules' were excluded. The newest version follows the book closer and is definitely creepy. Donald Sutherland is very convincing as a villain and the manner in which Ralphie disappeared made me leave the room. I still shudder when I think about it.
Decent flick
posted on 22 Aug 2009The commercials described it as being so horrifying that I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. Being one who enjoys scary books and movies, I wanted to see how scared I would get. I found the movie to not be as frightening as it was built up to be, but I was definitely not disappointed. I was impressed by all of the actors, especially Andre Braugher who portrayed a character that if any less of an actor played, would've been an inappropriate comedic let down. As I said, the movie wasn't wet your pants in fear, but it isn't the kind of movie that you'd want to see in the dark, alone. "Salem's Lot" is worth your time to view and something I'd spend money on when it comes to DVD.