disgusting, overrated, pointless

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

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.

I've pretty much given up trying to understand what people here consider good films or find entertaining. Seriously...I was not expecting much because the original 1979 version is a bit of a minor classic in a way. And truthfully, MOST Stephen King adaptations are pretty poorly done. BUT... I was quite amazed at how involving and engaged I was with the way they did the story. It was not done in the same traditional mold as the original mini-series, and it was somewhat 'updated' in some ways which some may consider unnecessary. But, even so, the quality of the writing, acting, and direction were quite good, really. And most surprising was ol' Rob Lowe did a pretty decent job!At first I was kind of put off by both Donald Sutherland and Rutger Hauer playing the parts of Straker and Barlow (mainly because of strong images of James mason and 'Nosferatu' from the original) But, after reflecting on it, I do feel that using them DID work in this updated version, making them seem a bit more contemporary as opposed to the traditional feel of the original version - and I really DO like Rutger Hauer anyway : )So, if you can buy into the updating of the story, mood, and look of the film and you appreciate good writing, acting and execution of the story (which happens RARELY with Stephen King) then you should indeed enjoy this gripping, updated version of the classic story!

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.

I own the original Salem's Lot on DVD, so when I saw this at the store I decided to buy it. I enjoyed the remake of The Shining and was hoping for a more in depth and psychological thriller. God was I wrong. I've read the book, and I'm okay with artistic license, so that wasn't the problem. This film was just a disaster. It was not scary, it was not a thriller, it didn't frankly keep my interest. Problem number one. Rob Lowe. I know he can do better than this. His narrative was grating, so wordy and pointless. I also swear he is wearing a hairpiece or wig in this. He was just going through the motions in this one, unfortunately. I never understood the lack of chemistry with "Susan". He was supposed to be in love with her, but they got along like bickering siblings. So when he offs her in the end, it was like "So?". At least David Soul and Bonnie Bedelia had some chemistry and you could feel the pain when he killed Bonnie. Number two. Matt Burke. He is supposed to be Rob's old English schoolteacher. He is like a year older than him? Made no sense. Number three. The acting. These were most likely locals who decided to try acting just for this movie. The Glick brothers were the absolute worst. Just horrible horrible acting. Dud was just that. I was embarrassed for his cerebral palsy portrayal. Awful. Number four. Straker. If I were a vampire and trusted my life to someone to watch me, well, Straker would be the last guy on earth i'd entrust that to. He was crazy, made public spectacles, and called attention to himself. Didn't make sense. Oh well. This was such a disappointment. Horrible acting, so many plot problems. I mean why were the vampires at the end walking around like zombies? Dud could move in a flash, and now it's Night of the Living Dead? A total mess.