Salem's Lot (2004)

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.

I've pretty much given up trying to understand what people here consider good films or find entertaining. Seriously...I was not expecting much because the original 1979 version is a bit of a minor classic in a way. And truthfully, MOST Stephen King adaptations are pretty poorly done. BUT... I was quite amazed at how involving and engaged I was with the way they did the story. It was not done in the same traditional mold as the original mini-series, and it was somewhat 'updated' in some ways which some may consider unnecessary. But, even so, the quality of the writing, acting, and direction were quite good, really. And most surprising was ol' Rob Lowe did a pretty decent job!At first I was kind of put off by both Donald Sutherland and Rutger Hauer playing the parts of Straker and Barlow (mainly because of strong images of James mason and 'Nosferatu' from the original) But, after reflecting on it, I do feel that using them DID work in this updated version, making them seem a bit more contemporary as opposed to the traditional feel of the original version - and I really DO like Rutger Hauer anyway : )So, if you can buy into the updating of the story, mood, and look of the film and you appreciate good writing, acting and execution of the story (which happens RARELY with Stephen King) then you should indeed enjoy this gripping, updated version of the classic story!

As a huge Stephen King fan, this 'mini-series' had the potential to top Tobe Hooper's TV-movie in terms of both frights and accuracy, but fails to do either. As a huge wuss when it comes to horror movies, it's not an unpleasant way to waste an afternoon. The performances range from mailing it in (I'm looking at YOU, Donald Sutherland and Rob Lowe) to borderline bizarre and against the original character (James Cromwell and Rutger Hauer). The amount of disregard for the original material is so overtly disrespectful I had a difficult time in viewing this movie from anything other than a critical perspective. Credits, score, directing, and special effects make this corny enough for TNT, because they know (melo)drama, but it is screenwriter Filardi who I have the hardest time understanding. Why are so many of the great scenes from the novel tainted by this melodrama screen writing? As the saying goes, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' I believe there is hope for an actual mini-series of the novel which could be both faithful and clever-but I'm not holding my breath.

Whether you've read the book or not, this film is abysmal. For those who have read the book, the casting of this film couldn't get much worse. None of the characters really stay true to King's portrayal of them and the only decent acting comes from Rutger Hauer (Barlow) and Andre Braugher (Matt). The rest of the characters couldn't be further from the book and as such, ruin the film. Donald Sutherland who is otherwise a good actor is let down a lot in this film as he doesn't reflect the character of Straker whatsoever in appearance or manner. The acting on the whole borders on funny and this goes for the make up and special effects as well. The characters are about as deep as a paddling pool and at best the whole film is like a very low budget TV series. There's no real horror in it, even when the child is at Mark's window which is a truly harrowing scene in the book, there's nothing particularly chilling about it, perhaps only the music. By all means read the book, which is fantastic, but don't waste your time with the film.