User reviews

Another film adaptation of Stephen King's masterpiece 'Salem's Lot, one of the scariest novels ever written. Presented by TNT as a two part mini-series.

Ben Mears returned to ‘Salems Lot, the small New England town where he was born, hoping to write the novel that just might put to rest what had happened to him as a boy in the old Marsten House. Unfortunately, Richard Straker and Kurt Barlow had other ideas.

A bit different than the 1979 version, mainly due to modern computer generated enhancements and Peter Filardi's loosely adapted teleplay.

Comparing the two mini-series, neither followed the book closely, although Tobe Hooper's earlier version was the scarier. Rob Lowe was more believable as Ben Mears than David Soul, but neither Lance Kerwin nor Dan Byrd fit the book's impish image of 11 year old Mark Petrie. Donald Sutherland's Richard K. Straker character never had a chance to develop, but it could never have compared to James Mason's portrayal, he was much more sinister.

The second part was filled with great performances by the cast and fantastic special effects and was far more enjoyable to watch with Rutger Hauer as vampire Kurt Barlow, while James Cromwell as Father Callahan gave the best performance.

I'm just gonna tell it like I feel it is: This re-make of Stephen King's well-known tale of vampires deserves the same rating as the original '79 made-for TV version. A lot of people say stuff like "It's not as scary as the original...", but they forget that they saw the original when they were kids. I'm pretty sure that when you show the scene were Rutger Hauer (with fangs & contact lenses) is crawling around on the ceiling (in this new version) to any kid, it will scare the living daylights out of it. The story moves at an okay pace and is actually constructed like one big flashback. Decent performances from the whole cast (Donald Shutterland is pretty evil in this one) and characters with enough background to make them interesting. I also had the feeling that near the end, there were a lot more vampires than in the original '79 version. The whole town seemed to be infected. A solid three-hour movie, worthy of your time.

Just watched the DVD and was gripped from beginning to end. Why all these bad comments? King's book reaches into the well worn bag of Vampire clichés and recreates the myth. Instead of a wild, exotic location, his vampire tale happens in our own back yard - small town USA. The movie, like the book, details characters - typical types, but uniquely drawn to perk our interest - setting up ordinary and recognizable patterns of action and behavior. Enter the vampire; strange things happen, the patterns shake and change; the town goes from sunlit Americana to moonlit nightmare. This movie changes many of King's original notions, but maintains the heart and soul of his book. The first fifteen or twenty minutes, introduced by the Lowe character with a steady and pointed commentary,

brilliantly introduces the story's characters while it's signaling the movie's main conflict. For me, this was seamless storytelling; convincing, entertaining, and, with the overall dark mood reflected in the words and Lowe's voice, a foreshadowing that's all the more ironic because what we're looking at is so ordinary. Being a TV mini series, the film makers didn't have to cram the book into a two hour box. Time is taken to develop characters, relationships; action unfolds at a pace that seems steadily natural - nothing is pushed. Knowing more about the characters means we feel more for them when bad things happen. At least, I did. Rob Lowe's measured, low key performance anchors the movie. I believed he was a writer, who's guarded, repressed nature was rigidly calculated as if all things in life progressed like words in a well written sentence. I found all the Vampire stuff genuinely spooky - mainly because it all seemed so sad. With only a few misguided gestures along the way (the incest bit, for one, seemed unnecessary), this director focused the movie with care and respect. Even when "bad" characters are "changed" we feel a kind of empathy that is all but nonexistent in Horror movies these days. Maybe watching it in one sitting, as I did, with no interruptions, is why I could follow and appreciate things that others (based on the majority of these comments) seemed to miss. My opinion is firm: this is a great movie.

King's material so rarely makes it to the screen properly. I've all but given up hope on seeing anything from him in the theater or on television that is worth watching.

He's a master of horror, drama, and suspense. A writer that our grandchildren will likely study in school; as we've studied so many classics in different genres. But when our grandchildren take those college-level classic literature courses, I do hope they leave out the details on the screen-adaptations of such "classics" as Pet Semetary or Maximum Overdrive or Christine...

That said, there are a few gems that stick out - in the horror genre. I'm not going to debate the merits of Shawshank or The Green Mile or Stand By Me. We all know that those are ... different.

The Stand was butchered. They had the right idea, at least - not to try to tell the story in 2 hours. But they were on the right track. The Storm of the Century was decent. But that was written specifically for television.

Which brings us to my point - Salem's Lot. A great book. A good original film (given the era...not so great anymore). And now, this new version. Fans of King decry just about anything that taints their memory of the original work. Me, I'm just happy to see it done decently after so many disappointments. This new version is pretty good. There are plenty of changes ("updates") to the story and characters - and the fans have whined incessantly about it. But they were necessary to avoid anachronistic cheese and to help the viewer relate better to the characters. The story is well-paced and it actually looks really good. There is a notable lack of campy filler and the usual dung that litters the majority of King's past films/series.

All in all, I give it 7 out of 10. Well worth the watch.

I saw this for the first time recently aft revisiting the 1979 classic n its bad sequel. Saw the 174 mins version. This one is devoid of the atmosphere, the spookiness, the levitating vampires, the grave scene, etc. This one reduced the footage of the character Richard Straker.

The novel and original miniseries were both set in the 1970s which added more atmosphere but this version updated the story to take place in the 2000s n ruined it completely.

In the 1979 version, James Mason played the character of Richard Straker awesomely. His character was jovial and charming hiding his sinister evil nature. His sudden super human strength shocked audiences. In the 1979 version, Straker was the main antagonist and a more prominent villain than Barlow. In this version, Donald Sutherland as Richard Straker wasnt given more footage (maybe cos of the fees). In this version, Straker lacked the mysterious charm. In this version, they showed Barlow for few mins and then they sidelined him. While in the older version, Barlow was introduced shockingly n suddenly.

The Marsten House was essentially a character in its own right. The house in the older version on top of a hill with desolation all around it n overlooking the town of Jerusalem's Lot was indeed a character. This version ruined the house too.

In the older version, the character of Mark Petrie, an intelligent and resourceful child, is played by Lance Kerwin in a convincing manner. In the older version, Petrie's obsession with movie monsters and horror films is noteworthy. This version has unnecessary flashbacks shot in shaky cam red color stuff. This version removed the cemetery n added the dumping ground. I hope the new version by James Wan n Gary Dauberman concentrate on the atmosphere n they make vampires terrifying rather than caricatures.

After attacking the priest Donald Callahan (James Cromwell) in a homeless shelter and falling with him from the window of a high floor on the street, the successful writer Ben Mears (Rob Lowe) tells his motives to his nurse in the hospital. His story begins when he returns to his hometown Jerusalem's Lot to write a novel and defeat the ghosts of his traumatic childhood past in the Marsten Mansion. However, he realizes that evil lives in 'Salem's Lot, and the place is crowded of vampires. He fights against his fears and skepticism, and with the support of some local friends, they battle against the vampire leader Kurt Barlow (Rutger Hauer) to get rid off evil.

"'Salem's Lot" is a great vampire movie, one of the best I have recently seen. I have not read Stephen King's book, but the story is very well developed, in a suitable pace. The locations are much appropriated, the cast has good performances and although having three hours running time, the film keeps the interest until the very last scene. I liked the conclusion, with good beating evil and without redemption of any character. "'Salem's Lot" as an excellent surprise, and in my opinion the bad reviews are unfair. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Mansão Marsten" ("The Marsten Mansion")

First off, let me say that I have read the original novel and seen the 1979 miniseries. Both are great in their own right. The novel is scary and foreboding. The '79 movie captures that feeling even though it changed a good amount of the story.

This 2004 adaptation doesn't attempt to mimic the feelings the '79 movie conveyed. In my opinion, this is a good thing. Although many posters seem to indicate they want to see the same scenes that were in the '79 version, what would this accomplish? The '79 version is on tape, so if you want to be scared in the same way, watch that.

The critics I've read so far have criticized this film for not being close to the novel. I guess I had a different expectation. I have long since given up on the expectation that novels translate perfectly to film. This does not happen (the rare exception being Lord of the Rings, yet even that had changes). Nevertheless, here are their main arguments. I'll respond to each one:

1) The ending of Father Callahan. - This is a 3 hour movie, and as such, plot points and characters need to be wrapped up. While Father Callahan may survive in the novel (only to reappear in The Dark Tower), this would leave more questions than answers to those who are watching the miniseries and getting the story for the first time. Remember how ridiculous the truncated version of the '79 movie ended--without knowing what happened to Susan? Films need to wrap up their loose ends.

2) The modernization of the story. - Salem's Lot was set in the mid-seventies not for any particular reason but only because that was when King wrote it. Obviously the original film took place in the seventies (as it was shown in 1979). Why must the new miniseries take place in the 70s? There's nothing in the book that requires the 70s to be the setting, and more people will be able to adapt to the current time. They don't sacrifice any of the story elements to do this. But since we are modernizing it, we do need to add some modern touches (i.e. email, cell phone, etc.) None of these take away from the story.

3) It's not scary / doesn't scare me as much as the '79 version. - Again, the '04 version isn't attempting to imitate the earlier film, and rightfully so. We don't need a shot by shot of what made the '79 classic horror (and it is) - this is how the remake of "Psycho" got panned. The original is a classic, and you can't remake a classic. So instead the director here (Saloman) decided to focus not so much on the fear but on another aspect of King's novel that was not focused on in the '79 version, and that is the entity of the town itself. The '79 version eliminated, combined, and truncated many characters, so that in the end, the only really main ones were Ben, Mark, Susan, and Straker. It worked, but this was a far cry from King's novel. The 2004 version gives us much more, including Dr. Cody, Dud, Ruthie, Father Callahan (in a larger role), Barlow (in the real role), and many other minor characters (i.e. the bus driver).

To sum up - No, it's not scary, but it isn't trying to be. There's a '79 version that did that very, very well. We didn't need them to remake that; it's good on its own. What we needed was an interesting story. Salem's Lot '04 gives us that. Don't expect it to win any Emmys, but hearing people say they wasted 4 hours of their lives makes me laugh. This is one of the best adaptations of a King work, and there are far, far worse.

And at that, it wasn't that bad as some people have stated. It was made for TV like the original and you can't say it wasn't entertaining as it was meant to be made. I don't smell any Oscars but I kept that channel on. Slighty lengthy though. Row Lowe's performance was wobbly. Some parts were obvious acting and other parts were pretty strong. I liked the adolescent character. Brave young guy with a cool personality. They must have had a pretty good budget to have some of the actors that they had in it. Donald Sutherland, James Cromwell and Rutger Hauer to name a few. Saw the original for the first time maybe a few months before I saw this one. It was kind of cool how that worked out. That way I was really able to compare them both.

I read the book before seeing either movie. I was a little disappointed in the 1979 version because of differences between the original story and the screenplay. Overall, I thought it was pretty good for TV. The original cast was wonderful.

This version is boring. Although it has SOME good acting talent on board, I think it is miscast. No one is scary...sleepy, perhaps, but nothing really frightening at all.

The general impression is that this version was done on the cheap. "'Salem's Lot" is a great story by a great writer and deserves better than this. Personally, I'm sticking with the older version.

It's an obvious fact that adapting a book is a hard thing to do. First of all because you have to transcend (or descend, as a matter of fact) into another medium with your "creation" and thus changes occur. Generally, for the worse and that is mainly because you can not make something badly written look much better on a screen and also because by adapting a novel, or anything else actually, you have to make sacrifices. And stories usually may not be sacrificed.

Now, Salem's Lot ain't necessarily a brilliant book, so I'd have guessed long ago that it won't really do for a good movie. It's fun and nearly exciting up to the point where you find out that it's...just another story. I won't really bother saying about what, because that'd be like reaping the only special trait of this thing.

But the film is a very good adaptation of the book. It's not only loyal to its source, but it also seems to convey the characters pretty faithfully to what I imagined them to be. Now, of course, that isn't necessarily a good thing...my point of view and grasp of the characters may very well differ from anyone else's way of seeing them. But, interpretations laid aside, I firmly believe that as an adaptation of the book, the film does very well. The only thing I felt should've been more elaborate is the love story, because it lacked a certain spark which the book did offer.

However, a film is a film and may not be viewed only regarding its faithfulness to its source material, mostly because "the source material" doesn't refer only to a book or short story, but ultimately to the core of the movie, it's pulsating heart, if I may call it so. As long as the story pushes the film forward, it's fulfilled its purpose. Out of a more stylistic angle, what kind of impressed me were the lights. The atmosphere was all dark and gloomy and when those lights were shining through the window...man, that was quite a sight!

Rob Lowe is an individual I had only seen in one movie prior to this one and it just so happens that it was another Stephen King movie, 1994's The Stand. I've yet to watch it all, but I find it funny that I never really imagined Lowe like a talking dude. Now that I finally heard his voice (well, I did hear him in The Stand, but only for a few lines up to now) I felt a bit overwhelmed...especially at the beginning, with his voice over. Sure, I got used to hearing it, but I asked myself many times during the film how convincing it sounded. In the end, I guess it was a rather normal voice.

The weakest link in this film ends up being the dialog. I was just terrified while listening to some of the lines those poor actors had to regurgitate and it only rarely happened that something more elevated came out of their mouths. Oh yeah, and about what are they actually talking? I'd say it's simply a homecoming story...although the movie does hint toward acts such as "rediscovering himself" and also, within a certain limit, redemption. But it remains too shallow in these regards.

On the whole, Salem's Lot ain't crappier than other Stephen King adaptations. Actually, by comparison, it's quite acceptable. But globally it's a sub par movie.

This was a great movie for fans of vampire films who are sick of the recent trend of Gothic tragedy films inspired by Anne Rice. I like Anne Rice but every now and then I want to see a movie where the vampires are evil and frightening. The interesting thing about this movie was that it actually succeeds in making vampires scary and ominous. Modern cinema has become so obsessed with the idea of vampires as a sexual metaphor that they've forgotten that they were originally meant to be figures of fear. This movie goes back to that in a great way. It's hard to think of vampires as being scary when you consider all the weaknesses they have and the fact that everyone knows what those weaknesses are, but this film takes that into account and still keeps them more frightening than any other vampire film ever has. This isn't a perfect movie though. It's incredibly long and the small town it's set in is filled with every depressing small town cliché you could think of. And although it makes vampires scary that doesn't mean it's a really terrifying movie, it's just as scary as a vampire movie can get. So if you want to see a movie that shows how frightening vampires can be check this one out.

Stephen King's novel gets adapted again for TV by play writer Peter Filardi. Same story line of course, but most of the original characters in the 1979 version have taken on different personalities. Ben Mears(Rob Lowe)is a troubled man hounded by his memories. Mears is a Pulitzer Prize winner that comes back home to Jerusalem's Lot to garner fodder for another novel. His main interest is buying the old house on the hill that spawned horrid happenings causing his childhood nightmares. The house has been sold to a mysterious antique dealer(Donald Sutherland)who is believed to be using the haunting house as a vampire haven for his partner Kurt Barlow(Rutger Hauer). The top notch cast assembled includes: Andre Braugher, James Cromwell, Samantha Mathis and Robert Grubb. If King was not too fond of the earlier version starring David Soul; I wonder how he feels about this one? After all is said and done...the novel is a hell of a lot better than both TV adaptations.

Mini-series remake of the classic 1979 mini-series may follow Stephen King's novel better at times, but fails to be scary.

Writer returns to his home town and must turn vampire hunter when the locals start becoming creatures of the night.

This is a moderately entertaining re-envisioning of the original film, but it's far from being flawless though. While in parts this version rings truer to King's novel than the 1979 mini-series, it also differs greatly too. Yet another flaw is the fact that this film, like so many remakes, is constantly (and annoyingly) reminding the audience of it's modernization. Yes, we know that computers and the internet exist, must we be reminded of it in every other scene? And yet another flaw lies with the characters, none of whom come off nearly as likable or well-rounded as they do in King's novel or the original mini-series.

But despite my griping I must admit I enjoyed this remake. The atmosphere was good, as were the filming locations. The CGI FX weren't too bad, although they pale in comparison to the makeup FX of the first mini-series. The music score was nice and there was the occasional touch of style in the direction.

The cast was OK, but the performances were very uneven. Young Dan Byrd and James Cromwell were the best of the lot.

All around this remake is OK, King fans might find it of interest, but this fan will gladly take the original mini-series over this one.

** 1/2 out of ****

There is a very short list of classic novels centering on the vampire mythos. Of course the most famous is "Dracula" by Bram Stoker (1897); probably the deepest and most philosophical is "Interview with the Vampire" by Anne Rice (1976); but the most disturbing may be in fact "Salem's Lot" by Stephen King. While Dracula was an ancient monster wreaking havoc on Londoners in late 19th-century Britain, King's tale involves the dark little secrets of a New England town whose residence become ripe fodder for a highly-intelligent demon. The point of King's story I believe is how the unspoken and unexamined behavior of a small town become easy prey to dark forces.

The recent rendition of Salem's Lot into a made-for-cable film starring Rob Lowe, Samantha Mathis, Andre Braugher, Donald Sutherland, Rutger Hower and Dan Byrd is a bit closer adaption to King's original story than the television-movie of the 1970's which starred David Soul and James Mason. Looming above the town is an old "haunted mansion", the Marsten House. The House itself is a character like the others, which the more recent adaption exploits a bit further than its 1970's counterpart, although the house is menacing in that adaption as well. In many scenes in this recent adaption, the House looms in the distance, as if watching the events unfold from on-high, a spooky version of the Eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg of Great Gatsby fame.

Rob Lowe in a solid performance in the wake of his years on "The West Wing" plays Ben Mears, a native-born of the town Jerusalem's Lot who returns to his place of birth and, as we'll learn, his coming-of-age. Mears has been away from the town for over two decades, nurturing a successful writing career in New York. (Many aspects of Mears ring of Stephen King who was also brought up in a small New England town.) The writer has returned from his hustle and bustle life in the Big Apple to write about the town, and, as it turns out, about incidents which occurred when he was on the verge of adolescents.

Aside from the story of the vampires is the parallel story of the corruption of the town, such as a father abusing his daughter, then threatening the local garbage service who employs a crippled man who he believes had been with this daughter. A lower-middle class couple residing in a trailer park are not caring adequately for their baby, and they use blackmail schemes to raise money. Charlie Rhodes is an abusive school bus driver. He enacts "justice" by forcing children he believes are either misbehaving and/or simply doesn't like, to get off his bus and walk home.

When Mears returns to Salem at the beginning, he meets Susan Norton (Samantha Mathis), a college graduate who had been corresponding with Mears through emails about her choice of academic studies. (Which is a bit of an upgrade from the original book and original film adaption. Online selling is also discussed.) Mears learns the Marsten House has been bought by two mysterious gentlemen in the antiques trade, Richard Straker (Donald Sutherland), and the mysterious Mr. Barlow who, according to Straker, is constantly on buying trips in Europe. They open a shop in Salem's Lot.

Brothers Ralphie and Danny Glick, and their friend Mark Petrie (Dan Byrd), decide to see pictures hidden in the glove compartment of their school bus driver who had been abusing them, possibly as a blackmail scheme. The plan fails and the boys end up running for the lives through the woods near the town. Ralphie Glick disappears and Danny Glick is found by Father Callahan on one of the nearby roads. Danny is in hospital and shortly thereafter is paid a visit by Ralphie, the former making the mistake of a letting his ghostly brother pay him a visit. Later, Danny Glick, floating outside the window of Mark, asks to be invited in.

The creation of the vampires spreads like a virus, somewhat akin to Invasion of the Body Snatchers. A few characters realize what's happening, including Mears, Dr. Cody, the schoolteacher Matt Burke, and love interest Susan Norton. They realize the evil is emanating from the Marsten House but they must unravel what's happening before it's too late. There is something strange and sinister about their new resident, Richard Straker. A very well-done and satisfying adaption of Stephen King's classic of mortal good versus supernatural evil. This recent version is a bit more faithful to the original book, including the portrayal of Barlow which is closer to King's original vision than the Nosferatu-like character in the 1970's version.

I was expecting to like this movie. Salem's Lot remains one of my favorite King books, and the earlier adaptation by Tobe Hooper was really very good. James Mason was wonderful, and a lot of other talented actors did a good job of bringing King's humor and chills to the screen.

So, if they were going to remake it, they must have had an idea of how to make it even better, right? Keep the good, and improve?

Evidently not.

Allow an analogy: Why did Peter Jackson mostly succeed with his Lord of the Rings trilogy? Because he knew he was working with wonderful material. When he respected it, the result was masterful. (When he didn't... yow!) The forces behind this can't have thought much of King's book. Perhaps they mused, "Say, Stephen King's a big name. He wrote some book about vampires in Maine, didn't he? Let's find someone who read the book and knows the names in it, then let's make up a story using those names. And let's mix some of them up!" Result? Gone are King's wry humor, deft observations, and most of the chills and thrills of the story. You won't recognize Straker, nor just about anyone else. It's just a dumb, dumb movie.

Do yourself a favor: read the book, get the full version of the Hooper movie. It's by no means perfect, but it is MUCH better than this mess.

THIS is why. As much as I enjoyed the '79 version(having gobbled the novel down in one, rather creepy afternoon in Maine of all places!) and I continue to enjoy the miniseries although I do have some arguments about Tobe Hooper's handling of the material (For instance,The Marston House is in effect, another character in the tale and all it does in this one is sort of sit there and look creepy. Not so,in this,intelligent,well-done remake,brought sharply up to date and with a more adult bent (although some of the characters,Eva Miller for one,didn't deserve to be messed with so much) but that aside, it was well done and I'm surprised at the nay-saying,but then again,to each his own taste. The atmosphere of a sleepy New England town slowly rotting from the inside was well handled as were the specially effects which I found worlds away from the original. Here, the house itself is a character in every respect and some of the changes rung on the novel were not too diverse (except for the incest angle which was unnecessary). But all in all, I waited for it to be offered on DVD to add it to my collection and would recommend it (as I have often)to those unfamiliar with King's work (yes, I'm a shill)