davidhp
This adaption of Salem's Lot was not needed - it did not improve on the 1979 version and the characters don't seem to fit with the characters from the book at all. The vampire is not close to being scary like in the 1979 version or the book - it was truly an evil entity that was definitely not human not in this version - it talks too much with the lines that its human servant were supposed to speak. Donald Sutherland failed as the human servant to the vampire and did not project the out right evilness of the character in 1970 or the book. This was supposed to be a horror film and it delivers some chills but loses out on the big chill by humanizing the vampire.
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.
mikereilly_1999
I have been a Stephen King fan all of my life, and rank "Salem's Lot" and "The Stand" as his two essential, indispensible works. I read Salem's Lot at the ripe age of 8 (over three decades ago) and even after becoming an e-book lover still keep a paperback copy on the shelf so I can appreciate it in all of its yellowing-paged-original-glory.I saw the original "Salem's Lot" miniseries with David Soul and Lance Kerwin when it originally aired on television in 1979 and thought nothing could ever compare to the feelings of terror that it provoked in me. The scenes where Ralphie Glick (and later on Danny Glick) appear in the windows as vampires have haunted me to this day - and I was unsurprised to hear that many of my generation felt the same way.So I was with some excitement that I viewed this 2004 remake of the story, to see what was done with the tale. After having read the comments and reviews I must admit I was skeptical that it was adapted to the screen successfully. As things turned out, it was a decent piece of work. Not as good as the book or the first movie, but it had some strong components.This film doesn't start out particularly strong. I spent the first hour shocked at the sluggishness with which the plot moved, envisioning how I would trash it in this online review, frankly. The original story was set in Maine in the 1970's, and the advent of cell phones, e-mail and other technology seems so foreign to the story. I am also a fan of keeping as true to the original tale as possible - changing Matt Burke from an aging white man to a younger gay black man was an odd, though acceptable, course of action, but having Dr. Jimmy Cody involved in a sleazy affair with teenaged Sandy was an offense.However, as I watched past the weak beginning I could see some strong roots of this tale beginning to take hold. David Soul was a capable Ben Mears, but Rob Lowe outshined him, I feel. I could tell Lowe had really studied the character and tried to present his personality as realistically as he could. And while beautiful Bonnie Bedelia was believable as Susan Norton in the original film, Samantha Mathis takes the lead in this one. The 1979 miniseries transformed Jimmy Cody's character into Susan Norton's father, who was a bit player at best. It was good to see a real adaptation of Jimmy Cody - a likable and reliable figure in the book - show up in this movie. This isn't to say every cast member was an improvement; certainly Christopher Morris's Mike Ryerson doesn't belong in the same room as the character played by Geoffrey Lewis in the 1979 film - who was so frightening when he returned from the dead in Matt's house, unlike Morris's weak and confused appearance.Straker was magnificently played by James Mason in 1979. Donald Sutherland did his best in this role, but fell a bit short. However, Rutger Hauer's Barlow - though given a pitifully small amount of screen time - is far truer to the book than Reggie Nalder's "Nosferatu" version. One of the strongest elements of the book was Barlow's charming, intelligent, charismatic personality. His booming laughter, his easygoing guile, his believable role as the Master was better represented by Hauer, though woefully underutilized. I believe Hauer appeared in all of 3 scenes.Then there is the working relationship between Ben Mears and Mark Petrie. Of course the level of detail the book offers into the curious pairing of these two, so much alike, can't be fully transferred to the screen, but the manner in which all of their allies drop one by one, leaving these two as the sole survivors responsible for saving what's left of the town, seems a credible fit.An odd turn of events twists Father Callahan from a pathetic failure who flees the town into a pathetic failure who replaces Straker as Barlow's human sidekick doesn't ring true at first. However, after further inspection it seems to fit an appropriate niche. Who better to turn into a vampire's living henchman than a doubtful priest? The plot twist serves as an intro to the movie as well as providing material for the denouement and I think ultimately it works.Overall, I didn't find the sense of stark terror that I did in the original book and movie, but I found nearly comparable levels of suspense and intrigue. Some of the vampire scenes were a bit cheesy - Ed and Eva's "wedding" for instance, but I appreciated the fact that some elements not in the first film adaptation - Charlie Rhodes and his school bus from hell, for instance - were included this time around.In summary, some elements worked well, and others bellyflopped, but it was a valiant effort and a mixed bag of success. Worth the viewing to see how it compares to the book and first movie.
princessktina
Whether you've read the book or not, this film is abysmal. For those who have read the book, the casting of this film couldn't get much worse. None of the characters really stay true to King's portrayal of them and the only decent acting comes from Rutger Hauer (Barlow) and Andre Braugher (Matt). The rest of the characters couldn't be further from the book and as such, ruin the film. Donald Sutherland who is otherwise a good actor is let down a lot in this film as he doesn't reflect the character of Straker whatsoever in appearance or manner. The acting on the whole borders on funny and this goes for the make up and special effects as well. The characters are about as deep as a paddling pool and at best the whole film is like a very low budget TV series. There's no real horror in it, even when the child is at Mark's window which is a truly harrowing scene in the book, there's nothing particularly chilling about it, perhaps only the music. By all means read the book, which is fantastic, but don't waste your time with the film.
