A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Oddly enough I never read the book upon which this mini-series is based, so how true it stays to the source I have no idea about. But as such, without having anything to compare it to, then I can say that it was actually entertaining.The story is about a writer returning to his hometown of Jerusalem's Lot, or Salem's Lot as the locals call it. Here he is forced to confront the haunts of his troubled past as well as the force of evil that now resides in the shunned Marsten house.They had some nice talents on the cast list, including Rob Lowe, Andre Braugher, Donald Sutherland, James Cromwell and Rutger Hauer. Personally I think that it was a shame that Sutherland and Hauer didn't have more time on the screen than they did, but they served as bait to draw in the viewers. The cast did a good job with their given roles.This is an entertaining mini-series, and even watched in one sitting the 174 minutes just fly by in no time.This 2004 version of "Salem's Lot" is well-worth watching and it is rather entertaining.

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..