aside from the fact that the writers tried to ham handedly bring the story into the 21st century with allusions to the internet, the gulf war, et al. (which seem stuck in there more than anything else) this simply wasn't scary. in fact, it wasn't even creepy. the original movie, while flawed, at least was creepy. in this one, the character of straker is turned from an elegant older gentleman who generates an aura of menace into a crazy wild haired old man that just as well may wear a sign around his neck saying "haha, i'm a bad guy!" there is no chemistry between ben mears and sue norton. the marston house doesn't seem to project the image of a "sounding board for evil" that king described in the novel.
rutger hauer was somewhat effective as barlow, but was largely a disappointment because he was underutilized. while barlow may have not had a lot of appearances in the book, the ones that he did have were memorable.
finally, the special effects were just far too cliché'd. all the business of vampires climbing walls and ceilings...what is that supposed to be? scary it isn't.
i long for someone to take a steven king story and be genuinely creepy with it. all of these horror genre directors are so "in your face" with the supernatural and with their effects that they seem to forget that the most terrifying things are the things that you can't see or see dimly for most of the time, and when they are seen full face, they must project the appropriate menace in order to answer the buildup.
thus, another bad vampire movie bites the dust. trust me, you're better off with buffy the vampire slayer. the writing is certainly better!
