loktar
Its really shame people rate this movie so low, i mean yeah true not so many movies can be good as book and honestly you cant perfectly transfer book to a movie, but to give so many bad review's just because of that is stupud..
If you can get over that you will like movie cuz its damn good, and actors did pretty good job...
Bottom line dont listen to bad reviews watch a movie give it a chance and you will see how good it is.
skybrick736
King's classic story of vampires in Salem's Lot was remade as a two-part story on TNT in the summer of 2004. The movie was number one in programming both nights it originally aired, beating basic cable by garnering four million viewers. It's a shame that cable programming doesn't provide more original or adapted movies like Salem's Lot but it's Sharknado or other fake reality shows getting the nod. Mikael Saloman representation of Salem's Lot was quite the pleasant surprise, the Marsden house looked great and the collection of characters were an appropriate mix and screen time.If you're looking for something that stays 100% true to King's writing this is definitely not for you. The film wasn't necessarily rated based on this factor but I was taken aback by how many changes were made to the storyline. Otherwise the script had a great pace, for being over three hours long, it's easy to sit and watch the film in one sitting. Rob Lowe and Donald Sutherland were phenomenal catches for the film and they certainly had a part in carrying the film. Salem's Lot (2004) has it's pitfalls, tacky scenes with special effects and bad dialogue but it was an enjoyable movie that's worth taking a peak.
lourdesmeinhold
Wow...What an atrocious movie! Doesn't hold a candle to the original made for TV movie directed by Tobe Hooper. This new version of Salem's Lot is poorly written, badly acted & terrible special f/x. What a waste of time but glad I was able to see it so that I could be subjective. Don't waste your time on that drivel; find a copy of the original Salem's Lot starring David Soul as Ben Mears. That version has some truly scary scenes that involve Danny Glick appearing at Mark's window and of course who can forget the great character actor Geoffrey Lewis rocking back & forth in Matt Burke's spare bedroom. Yikes! The best scene though is when Marjorie Glick come to life on the mortician's table. Unlike the 2004 film (which actually plays for campy comic relief) the original SL is waaaaaay scarier. That movie still frightens the hell out of me to this day.
funnygy
Stephen King's "'Salem's Lot" is my all-time favorite book, and I remember being thrilled back in 2003 when I read that a new TV movie adaptation was being made. While I have always liked the original mini-series directed by Tobe Hooper, I felt that it lost much of the subtext in King's novel and turned it into just another vampire tale. This was understandable, of course, since it was made for network TV in the late 1970s. What it lost in subtext, however, was made up for by high production values and some hair-raising scares. The producers of this new adaptation apparently had similar feelings, and tried to infuse their version with more of the novel's underlying themes. However, they got a bit carried away with that end of it, and the resulting film suffers greatly as a result. This "'Salem's Lot" comes off like an ambitious high school student's English term paper written the night before it was due; i.e. there are a few good ideas here and there, but they get lost along the way only to be hastily revisited towards the end.The main problem here is the hokey, overwrought dialogue. The first 2/3 of the film contains far too much talk about "the evil found in small towns." King's novel generates excellent, fluid prose out of these ruminations; the film turns it into so much mumbo-jumbo that will quickly have you rolling your eyes. And because the characters seem to spend so much time talking about it, there's little opportunity for the audience to see it. In fact, it almost seems like the story gets in the way of the film's themes, rather than expressing them. By the time we do get to a good point in the story, it's crammed in so tightly that it's hard to tell what is going on.The muddled characters are another drawback. Too often the protagonists of the story are unnecessarily antagonistic towards each other, so that there never seems to be any bond between them. In the second half of the film, it seems unnatural that they are all joining together to hunt down vampires, since they don't really seem to like each other very much. And then there's Straker. He is supposed to be Barlow's servant, as Renfield was to Dracula; but here he just seems like some sort of weirdo, and it doesn't even seem like he and Barlow have anything to do with each other. It's almost like they're roommates, both living in the same creepy old house, but only out of convenience. The best characterization is that of Barlow, but unfortunately he also has the least screen time of all the leads.Rob Lowe is bland and uninteresting in the crucial lead role of Ben Mears. He just seems to sleepwalk through his performance, which is surprising since I read he aggressively pursued the role. Watching the film I got the impression that he didn't seem that interested in the project. (Maybe he had jet lag from traveling to Australia?) The rest of the cast is so-so. The one actor who really got my attention was Dan Byrd as Mark Petrie. He seemed far more nuanced then just about anyone else on screen. Rutger Hauer was an excellent choice for Barlow, but as mentioned above, he doesn't get much chance to demonstrate it.Additionally, there are many parts of the story that just don't make sense. Why does Straker need to drown Ralphie Glick before taking him to Barlow? Why do the vampires all fly up after being killed? How is Eva Prunier involved with bringing Straker and Barlow to the town? Why does Royce McDougall cough like he has a chest cold when he is becoming a vampire? Why exactly does Susan go to the Marsten House by herself? Why would Ben think that's where she went when he can't find her? Is Father Callahan supposed to be possessed by Barlow when he kills Matt Burke? And why in the world does he go to Detroit, of all places?!This rendering of "'Salem's Lot" has a few nice touches, particularly in the final reel. Unfortunately, they are few and far between for the majority of the film. The producers seem to have forgotten that, at the end of the day, this is supposed to be a horror film. Hooper's adaptation emphasized that end of it, with plenty of scares and atmosphere, but discarded most of the novel's underlying themes. This version, on the other hand, seems to sacrifice scares in favor of focusing on the themes. Perhaps another set of filmmakers will someday bring the best of both these visions together and make a truly effective film version of Stephen King's excellent novel.
