The Worst Film Ever

recommended

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

How can you not like this? Suspense...the late and great James Mason? (one of his very last roles) The window scenes and the prevailing menace of he film make it worthwhile. 20 odd years ago I let my daughter ( after badgering me) watch it when she was 9 years old...and she still winds me up about it even now..could not sleep for a month ( did warn her) but that's kids... Is it cerebral?..no..is it fun?.. hell yeah.. great book and David Soul isn't half bad either. and Mr. Tobe Hooper died today, Thank you for this Tobe..and Poltergeist and Texas Chainsaw... you will be missed bud x #RIP

This is my favourite vampire movie (t.v) of all time. Although it may look a bit dated now, the scares are still the same.Widowed writer returns to his childhood town, to write a book about a haunted house. At the same time, a mysterious duo arrive in Salem's Lot. Mr Straker and Mr Barlow.What follows, is a gradual lessening of town folk, plucked from there beds in the middle of the night.Top stuff, with maybe the scariest vampire (Barlow) of all time.Watch!

When a movie is terrible, I hear online/podcast reviewers say "I watched it, so you don't have to" and mean: they took the bullet for you. I agree with them, today.28 minutes into the extremely over-long Salem's Lot, I almost gave up. I didn't want to. I've wanted to see what this was all about since I was a kid, especially since I've viewed practically every other Stephen King adaptation. Even a lot of the sequels to said films. But, damn, this one was extremely tough to get through.More than a decade before King novels were turned more into miniseries or even TV series than theatrical releases, King's second book was adapted into a mind-boggling 3-hour miniseries and it felt every bit of that TV-vibe. Quick cuts, commercial timing, low-rent horror…all there. And distracting, too.The movie SHOULD have been in theatres, Rated R and cut to 90 minutes tops from 184 minutes. Literally, there was an easy hour and a half that could've been either cut or condensed to make it effective and work on the big screen. But, that didn't happen. So we got……a movie that was remade many years later as (also Stephen King's) Needful Things, only they replaced the villain and close setting with Nosferatu.Truthfully, there were some scary moments, some decent acting – mostly (only?) by the future sometimes Mrs. McClane, sometimes Ms. Gennaro and the multiple story lines helped keep my interest…occasionally. But, overall, it's totally not worth the three freaking hours.I was just thinking: maybe I should've seen the 2004 remake, instead and saved time. Egad, that's over three hours as well. Forget you.***Final thoughts: Day 9 Movie in the Can! I'm watching a NEW-2-ME horror movie every day of October 2016 and this one fascinated me with the cover/poster since I was such a little one. Plus, as I said above, I wanted to see it just to check it off my King Film List. Well, mercifully, I finally did get the experience behind me and now I don't even need to read the book…already read the superior (story of) Needful Things, anyways.

Vampires are invading a small New England town. It is up to a novelist and a young horror fan to save it.Producer Richard Koblitz said, "We went back to the old German Nosferatu concept where he is the essence of evil, and not anything romantic or smarmy, or, you know, the rouge-cheeked, widow-peaked Dracula. I wanted nothing suave or sexual, because I just didn't think it'd work." "Salem's Lot" had a significant impact on the vampire genre, as it inspired horror films such as "Fright Night" (1985) and the scenes of vampire boys floating outside windows would be referenced in "The Lost Boys" (1987). Not to mention the antler impalement which was in both "Lost Boys" and later in "Hannibal".Sadly ,the film seems to be hard to come by. Despite being a modern classic, my library system did not have it, so I had to purchase the DVD for $15. And, frankly, that is way too much for a DVD with no special features -- not even a menu! This movie is in desperate need of a blu-ray upgrade.