Sick Product of a Sick System

People are voting emotionally.

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

There is a very short list of classic novels centering on the vampire mythos. Of course the most famous is "Dracula" by Bram Stoker (1897); probably the deepest and most philosophical is "Interview with the Vampire" by Anne Rice (1976); but the most disturbing may be in fact "Salem's Lot" by Stephen King. While Dracula was an ancient monster wreaking havoc on Londoners in late 19th-century Britain, King's tale involves the dark little secrets of a New England town whose residence become ripe fodder for a highly-intelligent demon. The point of King's story I believe is how the unspoken and unexamined behavior of a small town become easy prey to dark forces.The recent rendition of Salem's Lot into a made-for-cable film starring Rob Lowe, Samantha Mathis, Andre Braugher, Donald Sutherland, Rutger Hower and Dan Byrd is a bit closer adaption to King's original story than the television-movie of the 1970's which starred David Soul and James Mason. Looming above the town is an old "haunted mansion", the Marsten House. The House itself is a character like the others, which the more recent adaption exploits a bit further than its 1970's counterpart, although the house is menacing in that adaption as well. In many scenes in this recent adaption, the House looms in the distance, as if watching the events unfold from on-high, a spooky version of the Eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg of Great Gatsby fame.Rob Lowe in a solid performance in the wake of his years on "The West Wing" plays Ben Mears, a native-born of the town Jerusalem's Lot who returns to his place of birth and, as we'll learn, his coming-of-age. Mears has been away from the town for over two decades, nurturing a successful writing career in New York. (Many aspects of Mears ring of Stephen King who was also brought up in a small New England town.) The writer has returned from his hustle and bustle life in the Big Apple to write about the town, and, as it turns out, about incidents which occurred when he was on the verge of adolescents.Aside from the story of the vampires is the parallel story of the corruption of the town, such as a father abusing his daughter, then threatening the local garbage service who employs a crippled man who he believes had been with this daughter. A lower-middle class couple residing in a trailer park are not caring adequately for their baby, and they use blackmail schemes to raise money. Charlie Rhodes is an abusive school bus driver. He enacts "justice" by forcing children he believes are either misbehaving and/or simply doesn't like, to get off his bus and walk home.When Mears returns to Salem at the beginning, he meets Susan Norton (Samantha Mathis), a college graduate who had been corresponding with Mears through emails about her choice of academic studies. (Which is a bit of an upgrade from the original book and original film adaption. Online selling is also discussed.) Mears learns the Marsten House has been bought by two mysterious gentlemen in the antiques trade, Richard Straker (Donald Sutherland), and the mysterious Mr. Barlow who, according to Straker, is constantly on buying trips in Europe. They open a shop in Salem's Lot.Brothers Ralphie and Danny Glick, and their friend Mark Petrie (Dan Byrd), decide to see pictures hidden in the glove compartment of their school bus driver who had been abusing them, possibly as a blackmail scheme. The plan fails and the boys end up running for the lives through the woods near the town. Ralphie Glick disappears and Danny Glick is found by Father Callahan on one of the nearby roads. Danny is in hospital and shortly thereafter is paid a visit by Ralphie, the former making the mistake of a letting his ghostly brother pay him a visit. Later, Danny Glick, floating outside the window of Mark, asks to be invited in.The creation of the vampires spreads like a virus, somewhat akin to Invasion of the Body Snatchers. A few characters realize what's happening, including Mears, Dr. Cody, the schoolteacher Matt Burke, and love interest Susan Norton. They realize the evil is emanating from the Marsten House but they must unravel what's happening before it's too late. There is something strange and sinister about their new resident, Richard Straker. A very well-done and satisfying adaption of Stephen King's classic of mortal good versus supernatural evil. This recent version is a bit more faithful to the original book, including the portrayal of Barlow which is closer to King's original vision than the Nosferatu-like character in the 1970's version.

After seeing 111 vampire films ranging from 1922's Nosferatu to the latest Dracula Untold, I checked this one out.James Cromwell and Rutger Rauer delivered terrific performance, and the creepy atmosphere of the small town was well depicted.My favorite scene is where the main villain broke into Mark's home and snapped Mark's mommy's neck, BEAUTIFULLY...Wait! Plot hole. A vampire is unable to enter a person's house unless invited. So how did the vampire break in?Besides, how come the main villain was so easily dispatched? And how did Ben and Mark, a teenager, alone hunt down all the vampires and prevent the vampirism from spreading? What happened to the small town after these two "Van Helsings" burned down the house and fled the vampire infestation? So much the film failed to explain. The "Walking Dead" like vampire apocalypse never happened.Even though the film is not as horrifying as 30 Days of Night, it is still passable, better than Twilight at least.Feb. 12, 2015 update: After watching the 1979 version, one can sure say, compared to the old version, this 2004 remake is absolute crap. At least the old version has a story that makes sense.

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.

I held off on watching this mostly because of the bad reviews here.OK the 1979 TV version might be classic and a lot closer to the book. This one is deviates more from the book. The teleplay author took some creative licenses here and there et al.As other reviewers pointed out Matt Burke is a homosexual in this version but he isn't over the top nor is there too much attention on this in the story.Despite some six years since 2004 when it was originally aired, I found it pretty entertaining. The key characters are there, and still feels like Stephen King. If you've seen the 1979, read or listened to the book then give this spin a chance..