Save your money for something good and enjoyable

An Exercise In Nonsense

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

I don't understand the complaint that it's not scary. I just watched it as an uninterrupted three-hour movie, and I found it gripping, atmospheric and scary the whole way through. I never saw it on TV, so I have a guess why people may not have found it scary there: commercials. If it was shown in two parts then each part was 1½ hours stretched out by 30 minutes of commercials to fill a 2-hour block, and there was at least a 24-hour break between halves. With that much interruption and delay it couldn't help but be watered-down. The directing, acting, and visuals were all first-rate. I'll recommend it enthusiastically to my friends.

King's classic story of vampires in Salem's Lot was remade as a two-part story on TNT in the summer of 2004. The movie was number one in programming both nights it originally aired, beating basic cable by garnering four million viewers. It's a shame that cable programming doesn't provide more original or adapted movies like Salem's Lot but it's Sharknado or other fake reality shows getting the nod. Mikael Saloman representation of Salem's Lot was quite the pleasant surprise, the Marsden house looked great and the collection of characters were an appropriate mix and screen time.If you're looking for something that stays 100% true to King's writing this is definitely not for you. The film wasn't necessarily rated based on this factor but I was taken aback by how many changes were made to the storyline. Otherwise the script had a great pace, for being over three hours long, it's easy to sit and watch the film in one sitting. Rob Lowe and Donald Sutherland were phenomenal catches for the film and they certainly had a part in carrying the film. Salem's Lot (2004) has it's pitfalls, tacky scenes with special effects and bad dialogue but it was an enjoyable movie that's worth taking a peak.

I haven't read the Stephen's King book or seen the 1979 Tobe Hooper's TV movie. From what I see this movie (or mini-series) is rather loosely adapted from the book. The story was heavily rewritten and the characters were updated for modern audiences ( Afghanistan , black homosexual). Those followers of King's novel will probably hate this movie. Those who have not closely read the novel will have a better chance of enjoying it. I didn't liked the movie not for the changes it made to the book ( loose adaptation can still be great movies - "The Shining") , but because of other problems.A frustratingly large amount of important events either take place inexplicably off-screen, or are simply bypassed and ignored. Lots of things are left unexplained. Even at three hours the plot somehow feels both rushed and bloated. The supporting cast is too large and poorly developed. The dialogues are weak too.The directing is also a problem . The mood changes from serious with attempts at social commentary to campy , from black humor to (not so) scary.This movie (or mini series) had 25 mln budget , yet there is nothing remarkable about production values and the special effects are rather poor. The music also feels cheap , especially the "dark" rock music.Good actors like Donald Sutherland and Rutger Hauer are wasted , because they have very little screen time . The leading star Rob Lowe is mediocre at best , same goes for James Cromwell and Andre Brauer. Samantha Matis (love interest) and Robert Mammone (doctor) were not bad.It's not the worst horror movie I've seen. It was mildly entertaining and engaging. There was a good movie here somewhere. At least it's better than "Dreamcatcher". I give it 2/10.

Let me start off by saying this isn't terrible. If you're bored there are worse ways of spending 3 hours than watching this. The trouble is, it's not terribly good either. I applaud the producers for attempting to work as much of the book into the screenplay as they could, and the location is excellent, with a decent smattering of special effects to boot. However, the bad far outweighs the good. Let's start with the good points. The location is great, on a par with the 1979 masterpiece, giving a real feeling of small town isolation. And the Marsten house looks suitably creepy and foreboding. The music is good, and the special effects are above average for a TV mini series of it's era. A few of the cast do a great job, James Cromwell is excellent as Father Callahan, Dan Byrd does OK as a shell-shocked Mark, and Julia Blake is a wonderful Eva. That's about it for the good stuff. Onto the bad. The series' biggest failing for me was the decision to drag it into the present. By setting the story in modern times with the internet and mobile phones, the the idea that a small community like this could just collapse under the visit of vampires without any outside help being summoned is ludicrous. Some of the casting choices and changes to the characters are poor. I've enjoyed Rob Lowe in many movies but the role of Ben Mears didn't suit him at all. David Soul brought a lot of passion and intense emotion to his 1979 portrayal, whereas Lowe only has two emotions through the entire series, bored and scared. The use of a narration from Lowe throughout is another bad idea. The character changes are disastrous. Matt Burke is now a gay man for some reason, Doctor Jimmy is a sleazeball who beds one of his married patients, and worse of all Larry Crockett is a child abuser who is sleeping with his daughter, the town 'Goth' Ruthie Crockett. Worse still is the relationship between Ben and Susan. In the book and 79 mini series their gentle romance and meeting of minds made you ache for Ben when Susan is turned. In this series there is zero chemistry between the leads and there is absolutely no romance, save for a few small chats about literature and a possible vacation to New York. When Susan is turned Ben hardly seems bothered and neither do we. The only interesting side character is Dud Rogers, the local hunchback who lives on the town garbage dump, but he is used so fleetingly it's hardly worth it. Another waste is the use of heavyweight actor Donald Sutherland as Straker, who is completely lacking in any menace whatsoever. Rutger Hauer is also wasted as Barlow, taking up about 5 minutes of the total screen time. All in all this is watchable fair, but doesn't warrant repeat viewings. It's neither captivating or remotely scary, which is kind of missing the whole point.