User reviews

Excellent horror flick from Tobe Hooper who gave us Poltergeist (that's Poltergeist 1, the GOOD one)...Lifeforce, Nightmares, The Mangler, Dark Skies, The Others, and so many more!

Written for TV by Paul Monash, screenwriter who adapted the marvelous TV series, "V," and directed by one of the Masters of Horror, Tobe Hooper, this movie (in the extended version) closely follows Stephen King's original literary work much better than expected.

While there are campy moments, and the effects could have been much, MUCH better (it WAS post-Star Wars, after all), there are edgy, frightening moments; moments where you literally hold your breath, if you've allowed yourself to be drawn into the movie. Riddled with "scare you" and "edge of the seat" moments, this film, while a bit dated, is still scary.

I previously owned the "cut" version which aired on cable in 1979.

In writing this review, I purchased the full-length version and I must say that I was delightfully surprised. This version was so much better, followed the original work more closely, and added the depth of character development which the "short" version completely obliterated.

In the wake of the remake to be aired in 2004, I thought a fresh viewing of this movie was in order, and so it was. If you have never seen "Salem's Lot" in its 184 minute presentation, please do. It's a classic in the horror genre and will enrich your perspective of the plot by 100%.

Suspenseful and actually scares you from time to time.

It rates an 8.4/10 from...

the Fiend :.

First let me suggest to see the original miniseries version if at all possible. The "movie" version is horribly chopped. The remaining pieces don't fit together and leave gaping holes (such as, "what happened to Susan?")

Salem's Lot is an almost unknown milestone in horror films. This superb combination of the talents of Tobe Hooper and Stephen King bridges the gap between the Hammer-style films of the 60's and the modern vampire films. Two things to especially note:

(1) This takes place in Everytown, USA and the cinematography reflects the ordinary turned extraordinary (which is the same effect achieved by Bram Stoker's original writing for the audience of his time.) It begins looking almost like a Rockford Files episode and goes dark from there. But even the climax in the evil Marsten house looks *real*, just as you would imagine an old decrepit house to look. You can almost smell the dust. Hey, this was the seventies, the decade of naturalistic lighting. Everything coming out of Hollywood now looks just that - like Hollywood.

(2) It is a shame that anyone today viewing Salem's Lot already knows that is about vampires because when it first aired on TV, the unknown aspect is what made the first half so creepy. Now you just sit there waiting for the vampires to show up. (If I thought that even one person might read this without knowing it was about vampires, I wouldn't write this.) The advertising for the show made no mention of vampires and the effect worked well. I was ten years old when I first saw this. I had seen at least a dozen other vampire flicks - Noseratu, Lugasi, the Hammer films - and I had no clue that this was about vampires. All I knew was that something creepy was going in this town and it was getting creepier and creepier. Only in the second episode when you see someone get bit in the neck did it finally click, "Oh my god, they're vampires." You realize it right about the same time that the main characters do. Highly effective.

Also, superb performances by David Soul, Lew Ayres, James Mason.

The story is pretty interesting and is build up well. The miniseries does an amazing job on building up the atmosphere when the vampires arrived. I really like how the vampirism spreads throughout the townsfolks. The creepiness factor really works well when the vampire shows up because it gives off a eerie vibe to it. And the climax is pretty suspenseful. There's a few flaws with this miniseries. One is that some scenes feels unnecessary and I didn't get the point of it. Also the main vampire doesn't appear a lot and only shows up 2 hours into the miniseries. While he doesn't appear a lot, he's definitely the scariest vampire I ever seen. He looks so freaky and is really threatening villain. The vampire makeup effects are really well made. I really like how the makeup looks so creepy with it's yellow eyes and Barlow blue face. The atmosphere is the best part of the movie. The miniseries does an amazing job building up the suspense to it and the vampire scenes are really effective to be creepy.

The successful writer Benjamin "Ben" Mears (David Soul) returns to his hometown Salem's Lot, Maine, expecting to write a new novel about the Marsten House. Ben believes that the manor is an evil house that attracts evil men since the place has many tragic stories and Ben saw a ghostly creature inside the house when he was ten. Ben finds that the Marsten House has just been rented to the antique dealers Richard K. Straker (James Mason) and his partner Kurt Barlow that is permanently traveling.

Ben meets the divorced teacher Susan Norton (Bonnie Bedelia) that is living with her parents and they have a love affair. Ben also gets close to her father Dr. Bill Norton (Ed Flanders) and his former school teacher Jason Burke (Lew Ayres). When people start to die anemic, Ben believes that Straker's partner is a vampire. But how to convince his friends that he is not crazy and that is the truth?

"Salem's Lot" is a long movie of 183 minutes running time with a deceptive conclusion. The story is slowly developed but the problem is the silly conclusion. Susan goes to the Marsten House knowing how dangerous the place is following Mark in an irrational attitude. The clumsy Ben has the whole day to go to the vampire lair but he goes near the sunset. Ben drops the glass of holy water in an awful cliché. Bill goes with him totally unarmed in another stupid attitude. The end of the story in Ximico, Guatemala has no explanation. Why are the vampires chasing them? My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): Not Available

As it really is a wonderful and suspenseful vampire tale! Stephen King - not normally my favorite horror writer - has created one of the absolute BEST modern vampire tales in this story, and this mini-series translation is absolutely true to the feel of his tale! Instead of splatterfest effects , this show hinges itself on a high-tension spiderweb of plotlines and sets up the vampire more as a behind-the-scenes controlling evil. The terror here is not in seeing the monster, it is in NOT seeing him and knowing that he and his minions are out there, somewhere, plotting and planning with the heros stumbling blindly after them like toddlers in the dark. Give this show a chance! It may just scare you!

I recently read Stephen Kings novel (one of his first major successes), so I thought of checking out this mini-series. It's by now more than 40 years old, and that of course shows. The pace is slower than we are now used to (the overlong almost three and a half hours didn't help with that) and the special effects are modest.

But director Tobe Hooper created a pleasantly creepy atmosphere, building up the tension gradually but very effectively; the photography is at times great (the scene of the undertaker on the graveyard for instance); the eerie musical score is exactly right; and there is some solid acting, especially by David Soul and by old school actor James Mason, who excels in his aloof and over-civilized attitude. Some scenes, like the floating vampires by the windows, now make a rather simple impression, but the make-up of the master vampire, like a Nosferatu in colour, is absolutely top-notch scary!

The series follows the novel pretty closely, they only brought back the amount of characters a bit, probably to keep everything more surveyable. The epilogue is essentially different from the book and comes a bit out of the blue, but as an (open) closure to the movie it worked fine enough.

Stephen King's repertoire of books turned into films isn't all that good on the whole, but the list does have a few solid entries; and Salem's Lot is one of them. The cut that I saw was the cinema version, which has been cut down from the three hour TV version. Because of this, the film is overlong in places and incoherent in others; but if you ignore that little fact, what you have here is a nice little vampire flick. The story takes place in the small town of 'Salem's Lot'. If I were to name a town, I wouldn't call it 'Salem's Lot' because with that name, something evil is bound to happen. It's like calling your town 'Werewolf Creek' or 'Demonic Possession Falls' - you just wouldn't do it! Anyway, Salem's Lot becomes a town of vampires after the local weirdo orders a strange package from somewhere. The plot follows a writer that has gone back to Salem's Lot to finish his book. Once murders start occurring, the inept police sergeant suspects the local weirdo, but the writer has more imaginative ideas about what's going on...and sees that it may be down to vampires!

The special effects in Salem's Lot are very cheesy - so cheesy, in fact, that I got the impression that they were like that on purpose. The way that the small town is presented is good, and it gives director Tobe Hooper lots of chances to create an atmosphere around the story. He handles the atmosphere side of the film with great skill, and that makes up one of the film's best assets. There's a reason why many fans consider this Hooper's only good movie besides The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and the atmosphere is probably it. The story does take a while to get going, but the way that it introduces the characters is good and through it's atmosphere and the way that the story moves; the film never gets boring. I haven't read the book of 'Salem's Lot', so I cant comment on how the film relates to the writing; but I can say that it's nice to see the man that is probably the best contender to the crown of 'modern master of horror' handling a story about vampires in a traditional way. I loved the way that King didn't try to distance the story from the genre clichés, and it's nice to see a 'true' vampire film. Overall - good stuff and highly recommended!

(50%) For a TV movie this is worthy of at least some acclaim as it is quite a well made piece, but the fact remains all too clear: it's way too damn long. There's a fair bit to like here from the decent cast right though to the generally good direction and decent scares, but when your 90 minute horror flick elapses even biblical epics then something is not quite right. There's some memorable scenes here, and some impressively crafted sections, but the scenes of David Soul trying the very best he possibly could in closing the stupid doors to his Jeep have always somehow always stood out in my mind as oddly very funny. If you have three hours to kill this is by far not a terrible way to spend it, and this is one of the better horror TV movies ever, but three hours is a long, long time.

I first saw "Salems Lot" when I was only 10, and 20 years later I still have the random nightmare because of it. "Salems Lot"- the book- was an excellent tale of a small - town being slowly killed - off by vampires, but the 1979 T.V. movie took the story to a whole new level. Tobe Hooper stayed true to the nightmarish Stephen King novel when he directed this movie for television. The movie is so scary (and holds - up today), because of great cast and truly terrifying scenes of goulish vampires. The actors who made up the small - town cast, looked like your everyday working - class people that you might bump into at your local supermarket. That element of quiet small - town folk mixed with the absolute horror / evil of the Stryker character (played by an unnervingly cold James Mason) and Mr. Barlow -- one of the most hideous / terrifying vampires since "Nosferatu"-- make "Salems Lot" one of the best horror movies that I've ever seen.

I give it 10 out of 10 stars!!!!!!!!!

Sure, it wasn't the scariest movie of all time. But it wasn't completely non-scary. The blue vampire jump scared me once.

Pros: Underrated.

The acting is good from most characters.

Easy to understand.

Adapts from the book fairly well.

Good story.

The ending is really good.

Etc....:

Cons: The quality is really bad, look at the godfather which is 1972, and this is 79.

Vampires look cheesy and fake.

Slow start.

Many useless scenes.

Etc..:

So, I have mixed feelings about this. Would I watch it again? Yes, but not anytime soon. I think you should give it a shot. But there are certainly better movies out there.

Stephen King's bestseller SALEM'S LOT is a surprisingly complicated novel that first presents a detailed portrait of normal life in a small New England town--normal life that is gradually perverted when the town becomes infested by the undead. And with a cast that includes such memorable performers as James Mason, Lew Ayres, Elisha Cook Jr., and Marie Windsor, this 1979 two-part television special seemed to a great deal going for it. Unfortunately, however, director Tobe Hooper and his screenwriters are unable to find a way to streamline the novel's numerous characters and subplots into any dramatic whole, and the result is a film that constantly references a host of characters, events, and ideas but seldom to any real effect.

Even so, the film does have its charms. Chief among them is James Mason in one of his final performances, offering a brilliant, sinister, and wickedly witty performance as Mr. Straker, the servant of the vampire. Ayres and Bedelia are also extremely good, and although Cook and Windsor are largely wasted they are nonetheless entertaining to watch. And the film does offer a few "jump in your seat" thrills: the scenes of child vampires floating outside bedroom windows are truly creepy, and the great vampire himself hearkens back to the silent film NOSFERATU in a most effective way.

Still, most viewers will find the film fairly tame. David Soul was not a memorable actor, the script is incredibly talky, and there are too many lose ends for the story to be satisfying. It will be of most interest to fans of King's work who would like to see how television handled this, one of his most successful novels. A word of warning: there are two versions of this film. The "edited" version is virtually unwatchable; stick to the full-length.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

This movie is an odd cross between "Peyton Place" and "Nosferatu"...and it works! Set in the small, isolated and somewhat inbred community of Jerusalems Lot (called Salems Lot by the locals) this film is more about small town dirty secrets which are really not secret at all. Everyone knows everyone else's business, gossip is a way of life and the town's mistrust of outsiders is both expected and justified when two men show up in town and a little boy goes missing. This is a story about a small town that just happens to have a vampire in it.

James Mason is elegance personified as the "Renfield" character who sticks out like a sore thumb in this tight-knit community and makes himself the object of suspicion when he moves into the local haunted house and opens up an antique shop. His European accent, expensive suits and somewhat prissy manners make him a hot item of gossip. So too does the arrival of Ben Mears also cause local tongues to start wagging. Mears was born and raised in Salems Lot, having moved away as a small child. He returns as a semi-successful author and a recent widower, haunted by childhood memories of the Marsten House - the local haunted house in which James Mason now resides. Yet another outsider is Mark, a new teen in town with a morbid collection of horror movie paraphernalia. These three characters are drawn together by force as more people go missing and the small town residents, with their narrow vision, cannot accept what is really happening. It is up to the outsiders - the author who knows, the teenager who believes and the human who is a monster - to solve the mystery.

When the vampire finally appears, it is a frightening, exhilarating experience. Reggie Nalder as Barlow, the ancient Master whom James Mason serves, is a disgusting parasite, a physical homage to Nosferatu with his rat-like teeth, his long bony fingers and his hypnotic eyes. He is the frosting on the cake for this excellent film. By the time he makes his appearance, it is almost unnecessary. The paranoia has already decimated the town, and the fear of the unknown is the greatest monster of all. But though he may be unnecessary, he is not unwelcome. He is a wonderful vampire, a truly hideous beast, a fine salute to what a vampire should be - ugly, vile and obscene.

This is one of my all time favorite vampire films, right up there with Nosferatu and Subspecies. To hell with whining, pretentious vampire Pretty Boys - this is the real stuff, and it doesn't get much better than this.

Well, I had the opportunity to sit down in 2021 and watch the 1979 horror classic "Salem's Lot" once again. And of course I did so, as I hadn't seen "Salem's Lot" since my childhood. Well, I saw that 2004 remake, but it ain't no 1979 classic.

And it is surprising how well "Salem's Lot" actually still holds up 42 years later. Yeah, the movie is still very enjoyable and watchable these many years later. I will say that it was every bit as enjoyable to sit through "Salem's Lot" in 2021 as it was back when I was a kid.

The storyline, which really should need no introduction, is a very well-written story and one that definitely provides good entertainment. Needless to say that it is a surprise, as it is based on a Stephen King novel.

The 1979 "Salem's Lot" had an impressive cast ensemble, which included James Mason, Bonnie Bedelia, George Dzundza, Kenneth McMillan and Fred Willard, to mention those most recognizable. But all casted actors and actresses in "Salem's Lot" definitely put on a good performance and added to the overall enjoyment of the entire experience.

While "Salem's Lot" is listed in the horror genre, the type of horror is subtle and slow paced, so don't sit down to watch "Salem's Lot" with the intention of being assaulted by an abundance of jump scares and macabre scenes. But the slow burning horror that is used in "Salem's Lot" works quite well in favor of the storyline, as it slowly piles up and adds to the dread.

If you haven't already seen the 1979 classic "Salem's Lot", shame on you. And if you haven't, and find yourself with the opportunity to do so, you have to do it. This is a classic vampire movie.

My rating of "Salem's Lot" lands on a seven out of ten stars.

So I saw this again recently to compare to the new Max movie version, which I liked a lot. This holds up a lot. To think this was a 1970's TV mini-series is pretty incredible because of the sanitized nature of the platform. The adaptation is somewhat close to the source material. The acting is actually very good. The special effects is good for the budget and platform. The script is weak in some areas, mostly, dialogue. There are not so many horror moments considering it is Tobe Hooper's project, but the horror atmosphere is worthy. The pacing is slow at times, but that is because of the mini-series format. Worth seeing.

Tobe Hooper's SALEM'S LOT is an engrossing, riveting tale of suspense. The atmosphere makes this film. There is a foreboding creepiness that sucks you into Salem's Lot long before the true horror begins.

David Soul manages to become a vampire slayer in the tightest jeans imaginable. Even faulty jeep doors and vengeful plumbers can't hold him back from probing into the secrets of the old, suspicious New England town of Jerusalem's Lot. What compels him is as fascinating as what he uncovers.

The townsfolk range from a shapely boarding house owner to a deliciously smarmy real estate agent to a truly moving school teacher looking for a way out of nowhere. SALEM'S LOT makes you feel you are among friends, sadly, a community of doomed ones. Mood is everything. If you let it, SALEM'S LOT will get under your skin and seep into your nightmares.

There are moments of true horror: the floating Glick brother window knockers, the caretaker in the creaky rocking chair, Marjorie Glick rising from the dead, the vampires vying for Mark's tender neck. Just a few great scenes in a chilling, memorable film.

SALEM'S LOT is the perfect complement to a sleepy, rainy afternoon at home alone. By nightfall, dare to leave a window ajar as the fog rolls in and the undead fatefully rise to quench their thirst.

Vampires are invading a small New England town. It is up to a novelist and a young horror fan to save it.

Producer Richard Koblitz said, "We went back to the old German Nosferatu concept where he is the essence of evil, and not anything romantic or smarmy, or, you know, the rouge-cheeked, widow-peaked Dracula. I wanted nothing suave or sexual, because I just didn't think it'd work." "Salem's Lot" had a significant impact on the vampire genre, as it inspired horror films such as "Fright Night" (1985) and the scenes of vampire boys floating outside windows would be referenced in "The Lost Boys" (1987). Not to mention the antler impalement which was in both "Lost Boys" and later in "Hannibal".

Sadly ,the film seems to be hard to come by. Despite being a modern classic, my library system did not have it, so I had to purchase the DVD for $15. And, frankly, that is way too much for a DVD with no special features -- not even a menu! This movie is in desperate need of a blu-ray upgrade.

Even with great actors starring in the re-make of Salem's Lot I was very hesitant that it would be able to even touch the original. As I guessed after watching the new re-make (which was OK and filled in some gaps to an already 3 hour original), it still couldn't hold a candle to the original.

The original captures a time when there was no internet, no cell phones. It was an eerie town, a spooky house and a time that if such an evil could infest a town, it probably would spread fast as in this film.

As naive as I am after all these years, I was actually doing searches for Salem's Lot in Maine and was surprised to know that no such place actually exist. It was just a hypothetical place created by Stephen King. However, the location was in Ferndale California where the infamous "Marsten House" still stands on a road where no other houses are and has "No Trespassing" signs everywhere. Doesn't look quite the same from what I'm told and Hollywood dressed up the outside just for the film.

Classic film, one of my brothers still refuses to watch this movie because of the memories of it scaring the hell out of him. I can't even tell you how many times I have seen it. The original actors were absolutely fantastic, David Soul, James Mason and the whole crew.

I still see the best acting in the world when Ben Mears (David Soul) is telling the story in the bar to his old school teacher (that inspired him to be a writer) about entering the house as a kid on a dare. David Soul shines on this role as if he was meant to do this part.

The same can be said about James Mason. He played the part as he was born just to do this movie.

Great movie, a classic, but why in the world does the DVD not have special features like "interviews"? I would love to see pics of the "Marsten House" today..

You take a 5-Star Horror movie and have no special features. That was my only disappointment..

First things first when it comes to Salem's Lot, make sure the three- hour extended version is watched for the full experience of a fabulous film. Otherwise any shortened version that exist out there will be choppy and convoluted. There is a vast amount of defined characters, who performed great for their part, and weren't silly to the point it would hamper the movie. There is a handful of recognizable actors and actresses that aren't mainstream (Bonnie Bedelia, Ed Flanders, Geoffrey Lewis, Fred Willard) but are fantastic with a shared role. What horror fans like most about Salem's Lot however is the effect of Kurt Barlow, the vampire. There are always the mimicked comments on message boards and reviews that say "This is how vampires are supposed to look" and "This is way better than the Twilight vampires", its frankly true. Tobe Hooper will be more always more well known for Poltergeist and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre but its Salem's Lot, which I personally find to be his best work.

I have been waiting to see this movie for a long time, but it was never streaming for free until now. I was so excited to watch it. I was ready and my gosh, was I disappointed. I found it to be extremely long and boring! A lot of folks commented how great it was, but unfortunately I did not feel the same way. I know my opinion will be popular, but I just could not get into it.

To much talking from the characters. Nothing spooky or scary. I didn't think it was as good as many made it to be.

I don't know... I expected more of a thrill more than anything, especially for this movie. What a huge disappointment.