Truly Dreadful Film

Lack of good storyline.

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

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

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

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.

So, we all know and cannot disagree with the genius that Stephen King is. However, the effort to adapt a film from a book is always hard...as it was proved again with Salem's Lot. The characters were good I must say and Rob Lowe did a good job, however, it's not quite good when the actor that plays the young boy was far more impressive. The atmosphere was quite impressive, there was something about the little town that was quite scary, even though everything seemed normal at the surface. I must admit though that its tough watching it in one sitting and I found myself pausing the film and taking a long break in the middle of it. It had a childish sense to it but in a good way and I think that's why it got to me. It reminded me of how it was to watch horror films as a young kid and get impressed and thrilled by anything.

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..