User Reviews

The script makes a couple of artistic choices -- emphasizing how basically everyone in the Lot has a dirty secret, or aren't as pure as they appear to be, thus creating an opening for Barlow to enter -- and re-framing King's original "The town is yours, and you are the town's" chapter epigrams as Mears' monologue. The vampire effects and horror portions fall mostly flat (with partial exceptions for the Ralphie-in-hospital and Floyd-in-vent bits). Feels like this remake didn't have anywhere left to go without directly mimicking the first (1979) adaptation -- which is getting a little dated, yes, but still grabs the viewer in a deep, wide-eyed place.

Rob Lowe let slip in his memoirs, years later, that Rutger Hauer (Barlow) came to the set woefully unprepared, hadn't studied his lines, actually improvised some whack-job narrative about "I used to be a cowboy" during the Mears-and-Barlow coffin confrontation, requiring director Salomon to admonish the Dutchman for not taking his role seriously. Pretty sure Hauer is reading his lines off the coffin-lid in that final sequence, and, well, that pretty much summarizes his commitment and stage-presence throughout the rest of the film. This adaptation isn't a total failure, but it's in the middle or bottom half of King celluloid.

Well, what can I say, apart from disappointing.

Although this version of the book took on a different slant, and referred to characters missing from the 1979 version,I personally do not think it was for the better.

Unfortunately, I found Rob Lowe's performance as Ben Mears unconvincing, Donald Sutherland seemed to have been taking some form of medication and made Straker seem more like Father Christmas than terrifyingly chilling, Susan was unrecognisable from the book or 1979 version (now working as a waitress in her family's café rather than teaching at Holly Elementary), and as for Matt Burke, what can I say apart from his part obviously made the film politically correct.

The ridiculous upbeat version of 'Painted Black' at the end of the film was the worst thing and made a mockery of the whole story, it would have been far better to stick with something chilling that would have done this version justice.

I didn't find this a compelling film to watch like the 1979 version and it seemed to miss some of the 'edge of the seat' ingredients which the first one had.

I always thought a new version would be different, however in my opinion was certainly not better. All of the characters in the original were more believable and better cast.

I just live in hope that the next version is not only horrifying, chilling and full of suspense, but manages to be more true to the book.

I still think David Soul rocks, sorry Rob!

New Salem's Lot adaptation is surprisingly awful, in spite of its strong cast and the fact that it's based on maybe Stephen King's best horror novel.

What went wrong?

Well, let's see. While adapting the novel as a two part 4 hour (with commercials) mini-series might make sense from a business standpoint creatively it means keeping way too many unnecessary characters and subplots. This Salem's Lot has too much build up and, unfortunately, not much in the way of pay-off.

The dialogue is consistently hackneyed and unconvincing--a supposedly playful early exchange between Rob Lowe and Samantha Mathis in a diner actually made me wince. Mathis who is usually a likable and reliable actress appears particularly lost here, without the slightest idea of how to play the material. She seems to be doing an impersonation of a very bad 1950's B movie actress, which I doubt was the intention.

Rutger Hauer and Donald Sutherland are both good but neither has nearly enough screen time to register as an effective villain.

The biggest sin probably is that this version of Salem's Lot just isn't scary. The vampires aren't creepy at all and the digital effects used to create images of them flying and turning to dust upon being staked are awful and give the monsters a too artificial feeling that makes them seem more cartoon than flesh and blood threat.

The most telling scene here is the one where Danny Glick wakes to find a dead schoolmate floating outside his second floor bedroom window. This sequence was the scare highlight both of the novel and of Tobe Hooper's far better filming of the material. Here the scene isn't scary at all--there's no atmosphere, no creepiness, not much sense even that the bedroom is on the second floor. The whole scene is completely mishandled, like everything else in the movie.

Strangely, after the head vampire is dispatched the film seems to turn more into a Dawn of the Dead rip-off than a vampire film, with the remaining townspeople shuffling through the streets like zombies. I have no idea what the filmmakers thought they were doing.

My recommendation would be to avoid this crap and either read the book or rent the much better Tobe Hooper version.

"'Salem's Lot" is a modern-day adaptation of Stephen King's novel/remake of Tobe Hooper's 1979 TV-movie. This film centers around the small Maine town of Jerusalem's Lot, nicknamed 'Salem's Lot by the locals. Writer Ben Mears (Rob Lowe) returns to his small hometown in search for inspiration of his next book. A mysterious antique dealer, Straker (Donald Sutherland) has also come to town, and moved into the Marsten house - an eerie mansion with a dark past that overlooks the town. With his newfound girlfriend, Susan (Samantha Mathis), Ben comes to slowly realize that the small town of 'Salem's Lot is being taken over by vampires. And with the help of Matt Burke (Andre Braugher), Susan, and others, he must stop the evil forces before the entire town becomes populated with the undead blood-drinkers.

In 1979, Tobe Hooper brought his made-for-TV movie "'Salem's Lot" to television screens, and the film has been remembered as a horror classic - and it is. It's a great movie. However, I was not really opposed to a remake/new adaptation, because the 1979 film left out large elements that the book contained, and I would have liked to see some things that Hooper didn't use in his film. Luckily, this movie did that. "'Salem's Lot" is probably one of my favorite Stephen King novels, and I know the book pretty well, and was happy to see that this film rendition of the story brought some things from the book that the previous movie left out. The script here is solid and a bit closer to the novel, but also different in ways. The story is told in between a present subplot (that which wasn't in the novel), somewhat like the "Carrie" remake was. It takes place in modern times, so the nostalgia factor is missing, although the small-town feel is still fairly present, and the wintry backdrop adds to the film's chilly feel.

Anyway, the bottom line is that this script is fairly faithful to the book (I'm not going to nit pick the differences though, I'm not expecting it to be translated word for word from the novel), but modern. I was really happy that it brought in characters from the book that weren't included before. The only downfall to it's modern-day setting is that old-fashioned nostalgic feel the original had, but I wasn't unhappy with this. This version has plenty of excellent scenes and some pretty scary moments that took me by surprise, even though I already knew what was going to happen. The computer generated effects are made use of for a few scenes that were done in much more simplicity before, and while I think a couple things were a bit over done, it still wasn't bad. The setting and atmosphere is dark and appropriately eerie, and the re-vamped town and the Marsten house are both well done.

For being a television film, this movie boasts a pretty impressive cast. Rob Lowe makes a more fitting Ben Mears than David Soul did (not that he was awful), in my opinion. Andre Braugher nails the role of the small-town high school English teacher, and Samantha Mathis (of "American Psycho") is sweet and likable in the role of Susan. Donald Sutherland (of the suspense classic "Don't Look Now") is excellent as the mysterious Straker, and Rutger Hauer plays the Mr. Barlow that I imagined in the book (the 1979 film made him into a more Nosferatu-type vampire). Dan Byrd (of "The Hills Have Eyes" remake), while a little old for the Mark Petrie role, plays it well - then again I think the character was written to be a bit older in this film. James Cromwell is also notable in the role of the drunken Father Callahan. Solid acting, overall. As for the ending of this movie, it is a bit strange, but I also kind of liked it at the same time.

Overall, "'Salem's Lot" is a great modern adaptation of King's story, and a very entertaining film. It's a mini-series movie, as was the 1979 film, so it's lengthy (about three and a half hours), but it was worth it. Great story (based on a great book), some good chills, and solid acting make this one worth a watch, especially for fans of the novel and/or the 1979 movie. I prefer the original very slightly, but this version is so close in my eyes that it's almost irrelevant. Recommended, but expect a modern-day telling of the story. Some reviewers on here are slamming this movie, but I really couldn't find much of anything wrong with it. 9/10.

What were they thinking? This is terrible, I suppose they tried and it may have even worked had they subtitled this 'masterpiece' a film loosely based on characters from Stephen King's Salem's Lot: Any resemblance either to the 1979 film or the novel is purely incidental.

Where do I start? The names are the same, but the characters seem to have been pulled from an entirely different book also called Salem's Lot not the classic by Stephen King. Here are some head scratching examples, Ben Mears witnesses Hubie Marsten's murder of his wife and his subsequent suicide, why? What is the point of this? It adds absolutely nothing to the film. The hopelessly miscast Rob Lowe's Ben Mears writes about Afghanistan (what?) Matt Burke is black and gay (why?) Father Callaghan joins the vampires and murders Matt Burke (Good grief) Dr. Cody has an affair with one of his patients and is blackmailed (Hey?) Mark Petrie is a troubled child from a single parent family (mamma mia!) Am I supposed to sympathise with him, I can't think of more contrived rubbish.The characters seem to be cardboard cut-outs from some awful daytime soap opera not real people. So when they die, you don't really care.The acting is atrocious, there is no chemistry whatsoever between the actors. The editing is deplorable, it's almost like watching a music video on MTV from some terribly bland and anonymous band.

I realise that books and films are two totally different mediums and it's not always possible to replicate what's in print on screen, but surely it's not that difficult. For heaven's sake, this is your basic vampire story, why the social commentary? Why rewrite the story? Why change the characters? I can only assume Stephen King was paid a hefty fee to give the go-ahead for this ham-fisted butchering of his classic novel. I had my problems with the 1979 film, but it now looks like a classic compared to this effort.

Rob Lowe has all the intensity of a bassett hound. Moping through the movie with sad puppy-dog eyes, he slowly comes to the realization that there are, gulp, vampires in Salem's Lot. The acting in this movie is horrible, it's as though the director told the actors to ad-lib everything, and to do it in a snarky California accent and roll their eyes all the time. This is Maine? I don't think so, especially since it was filmed in Melbourne.

There are basically three special effects in the entire four-hour movie, and not even good effects at that. Even Barlow's death was disappointing. Look, this is 2004, you fx guys have access to the most sophisticated equipment since the dawn of movie-making, and the only thing you can come up with is the vampire gently disappearing into the ceiling in a puff of smoke? What a rip.

Who wrote the screenplay? "Did you bring a stake"? One of the characters actually asks that, with all the sincerity that an unknown actor can muster. Only James Cromwell manages to elevate himself above the mess, gamely uttering his lines in his rough but convincing voice.

The 1979 version is far and away much scarier than this remake. It is more atmospheric and concentrates on the story and the plot, as well as building the characters. Barlow is scary, especially in the kitchen scene. In the remake, Barlow isn't scary at all, you don't believe for one moment that he's a vampire; he just looks like some angry drifter. In the original, James Mason could make your flesh crawl by raising an eyebrow, but Donald Sutherland looks like a high-school math teacher on a bender. I'm convinced the director ordered Sutherland to eat nine boxes of krispy kremes before filming.

This movie is a huge disappointment.

This is not a bad movie at all, and proves once more that it takes a lengthy movie (or miniseries if you like) sometimes to depict properly of Stephen King's novel. This is the case on this movie, where all those sub-stories of different characters are more or less properly developed as well as decent acting and proper directing makes this Stephen King novel based movie a definitely watchable.

Salem's Lot is about a writer who visits back his childhood small town to write his next book but only to find out there are mysterious events happening suggesting a connection between his moving into this town and disappearing but then to reveal it is connected to much more evil being.

I would recommend this to everyone who enjoys horror flick.

While this version of Stephen King's epic vampire novel, "'Salem's Lot", is by no means perfect, it is better than the 1979 TV movie tho James Mason as Richard Straker will be hard to beat in any version ever attempted ... it is also better than the rating on here or on the competitor's site, Rotten Tomatoes ...

Rob Lowe does an excellent job handling the lead role and his voice-overs of various passages make me want to hear him read a King novel for an audio book ... he has a perfect touch with the voice-overs and that hooked me before he was halfway thru his opening speech over the scenes driving thru "the Lot" ... he also does a fine job portraying Ben Mears, perhaps it's obvious to others but he is much better than David Soul who played the role as he played all his roles: he's a 'hunky blonde' and that's all he needs to be ... Lowe puts out a top drawer effort and it's obvious he worked to get it right ...

some of the complaints are about changes made to the original book and everyone is entitled their opinion of course but the film makers tried to update the work a bit since it wasn't set in the '70s any longer and bringing in some 'modern problems' such as a black gay teacher in what is obviously a predominantly white town ... and as Lowe's voice over explains, this is just fine as long as he, the English teacher Matt Burke, keeps his alternative lifestyle out of the classroom and up in Lewiston (if i am recalling the line correctly ... at least meaning that he go to the nearest 'big city' to 'be gay' and probably 'be black' as well) ... this is how it still is these days even in smaller towns throughout the USA sad as it is to say ... but it gives this version an updated feel and i don't see why it would be a problem ...

as far as other casting goes, Rutger Hauer and Donald Sutherland as the "antiques dealers" Kurt Barlow and Richard Straker respectively, do a great job portraying the vampire and his 'watchdog' as Straker is described .... Barlow in the '79 version is a nothing character, nothing more than a manikin really ... and while Mason is hard to beat, Sutherland gives it a very creepy and energetic reading and it works nearly as well as the smooth and aristocratic style Mason applied to the same work ... Hauer of course gives a performance better than the manikin in the original but aside from that, he gives it a nice smooth-talking vampire style at first but when it comes to the physical power of the vampire he really kicks it up (with the help of special effects for the 'ceiling crawling' scene) and makes it work perfectly ...

and while Lance Kerwin did a very good job in the original, Dan Byrd gives Mark Petrie, the poor kid who teams up with Mears to try and beat the vamps, a whole different feel and makes it a strong and important part ... i haven't seen him in much else since but this role showed a lot of promise with his talent ...

overall, this is a very good TV-quality translation of a King novel into film ... TV has certain restrictions that the big screen doesn't have but i doubt that any studio is going to risk this film being made as two parts which is what it needs to be to fit in all of the story (it's not King's thickest novel but there is a ton of story jammed between the covers) ... perhaps they'd risk it for "the stand" but it seems "'salem's lot" is getting to be a bit overlooked in the King lexicon which is unfortunate since it is the best vampire book i've ever read ... this film is one of the best vampire movies as well and considering the restrictions with TV, i think it's a very good effort

***SPOILERS!!!***

Oh dear. Where do I start with this horrific remake offering of the 1979 classic based upon Stephen King's 1975 novel 'Salem's Lot? I guess the beginning is good enough.

I have read 'Salem's Lot more than a dozen times and it has never failed to draw me in and entertain me. It has never been a "scary" book for me, the only one of King's books that drew me in enough for that was The Shining, but I always enjoy the images that it conjures. I enjoyed the original 'Salem's Lot with David Soul, Bonnie Bedelia, Lew Ayers, James Mason, et al, very much. It had a good script, was well paced for the most part, well chosen actors who could actually act, scares, good FX and suspense. It strayed from the book but was close enough that the omissions were a minor distraction one only looked for to nitpick. Overall, I would give it a B+ and that was well deserved for four years after the novel hit the shelves.

When this mini-series started on TV I had to wonder if I actually was watching the right movie. The beginning is so foreign to the book and the original movie that it doesn't even register as 'Salem's Lot until Ben Mears' name is mentioned. In the book the writer and the boy are in Los Zapatos, Mexico trying to recover from their ordeal in Jerusalem's Lot. The movie begins with Ben trying to kill the priest. Give me a break! The priest, Father Callahan lives and shows up in The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower for crying out loud. And that is only the first glaring deviation from the novel, but certainly not the last, that dooms this movie from the start.

The most outrageous character change is Matt Burke. In the novel he is an elderly teacher at the local high school. In the original movie he is played admirably by Lew Ayres but in this remake he is a black man and that would be an acceptable politically correct nod to our time but what was up with the "alternative lifestyle" (read: gay) garbage? The narrative by Lowe states he is accepted as long as he stays in the closet. Being gay adds nothing to the story or his character but was deemed important enough to tell us about. Who cares? Certainly not me.

So many other characters were butchered so badly it would take forever to name them all but Father Callahan must be mentioned. In the novel he loses his faith and does succumb to Barlow's ministrations but he runs away from Barlow and his parish. He DOES NOT become Barlow's new familiar. This seemingly explains the opening of the movie although this revelation is left for the last 15 minutes and leaves one wondering about the opening for the entire movie. And that is the crux of this worthless mini-series' problem. Someone suggested it was paced too fast but I don't think that is it. Continuity is.

You might find this movie mildly entertaining if you've never read the novel or seen the original movie however it isn't marketed towards newbies. It is made to generate interest from established King fans and fails miserably. In the mini-series Ben Mears is said to have found Birdie Martsten in the bathroom of the Marsten house and then witnesses Hubert Marsten hang himself. In the novel Marsten kills his wife in THE KITCHEN and hangs himself in 1939. Ben enters the house, being nine years old, and sees Hubert hanging in an upstairs bedroom a full 12 years AFTER the deed. It is not until he is in his 30's that he returns to Jerusalem's Lot to confront his demons.

Things like this were explained in the original movie but were embellished for the mini-series to no good end. I never once felt terror for anyone in the movie. In fact, the "scariest" moment came when Mark is in the boarding house kitchen, appropriate music is playing to denote suspense and burnt toast pops up out of the toaster. There is nothing before that to draw a person in to such a point that a "gotcha" like that might work and that pretty much explains why this movie bites nothing but the big one. (pun intended).

I am not a big fan of remaking movies or reworking characters into today's world. The one notable exception was the remake of the ghastly 1980 Stanley Kubrick vehicle 'The Shining'. Don't get me wrong Jack Nicholson is a great actor and Shelley Duvall may be the penultimate Olive Oyl but Wendy Torrance she ain't. The mini-series had the time to let us all know that Jack Torrance was ALREADY crazy when he entered the Overlook. The hotel just helped him walk a little farther down that road. 'Salem's Lot did absolutely nothing to explain, enhance or improve upon the original movie. Save the three hours of your life this thing consumes and read the book. If you can't do that then watch The Shining mini-series instead. You will be spending your time wisely compared to watching this dreck.

OK, we all understand that when you adapt a novel for a movie, there are going to be cuts and changes. For King fans, The Stand is a perfect example of how it can be done well. This version of Salems Lot....oh my. Entire sections of the book were completely changed. Starting with the intro, which never existed in Kings mind. I think the most horrific change, aside from the 20 minutes at the end which never existed in the novel, was Sue Norton not being staked in the basement, so that she could be around for a 10 minute monologue on love in the end. If you know nothing about the novel, it might be an OK movie. But if you watch movies based on books expecting to see a true representation of the novel, then all I can say is stay away from this one.