Salem's Lot - The Miniseries

Amazon.com

The vampiric Stephen King tale returns to the small screen, 25 years after the first made-for-TV Salem's Lot, a Tobe Hooper-directed ratings hit. This time it's Rob Lowe as a successful writer who returns to his haunted hometown. As a kid, something awful happened to him in the spooky mansion on the hill; now that he's back, the mansion is once again buzzing with evil portents. The physical production (shot in Australia) is convincing, and it's fun to see old pros such as Donald Sutherland, Rutger Hauer, and James Cromwell cutting up in juicy roles. The storytelling, however, feels oddly disjointed, as though King's sprawl had been arbitrarily hacked away rather than adapted (a few big moments are bewilderingly left offscreen). The approach misses the basic assets of a vampire story: the disbelief, the lore, the sex appeal. Instead, it feels like a random collection of bits for short attention spans. --Robert Horton

Customer Reviews:

"Dull, Mindless, Moronic Evil...".......2007-07-06

This is the movie that the original should have been. It is superior in every way including the cast, the acting, the screenplay, the score, the character development, and the cinematography. The original pales by comparison. The mini-series is also more true to the book; this is not necessary a good thing when it comes to adapting Stephen King's novels to the screen, but in this case it is.

This is a modern-day adaptation that works. In his books SK takes myths and legends and adapts them to our times. If SK had written this book in 2004, his characters would have been using cellphones and the internet. So why shouldn't they here?

Who cares if we don't see Ben Mears at his typewriter? Like all SK books this is a long story and the producers had to pick what to include and what not to. Otherwise, this movie would have been criticised for being bloated, boring, and too long. They chose well. I have watched this movie at least 20 times and I am still seeing new things.

All of the characters in this film are more believable than those in the original. David Soul just wasn't convincing. I couldn't buy that he cared about the Marsten House. Not so with Rob Lowe. Rob Lowe's narration from his hospital bed, with flashbacks to him there, works well. "Hail Mary full of grace, help me win this stock car race..." Rob Lowe's Ben Mears is sympathetic.

Where were Dud Rodgers and Ruth Crocket, the school bus driver, or Sandy and Royce McDougall and their baby in the original? These are high-profile characters in the book that were important to the story yet were completely omitted in the 1979 version.

In addition to being better-developed, nearly all of the characters in the mini-series are more likeable and dignified. The boarding house woman in the original looks like a barfly and the sheriff comes across as a dumb country bumpkin. The teacher in the original was just a frail old man with gray hair who had little to offer.

This film's Barlow is also better, much more convincing than that 10-foot tall space alien thing in the original which was laughable.

This movie has some truly macabre and scary moments. The vampire that slithered through a narrow vent to reach his victim, breaking his bones in the process. The creatures who climbed walls and crawled upside-down on ceilings. Ben Mears' encounter with Susan at the end of the movie--this last part was left out entirely from the original except for a split second when David Soul turned to the house before setting it on fire and said, "Sorry Susan." That can't compare to the encounter between this Ben Mears and Susan Norton at the end of this movie--it is beautiful and heartbreaking. Dud Rodgers' isolation and destitution in the junkyard at night, making him vulnerable to the monster. Matt Burke's reaction when he walks into his upstairs room and sees Mike Ryerson standing in front of him--the acting is brilliant, I have never seen shock and horror conveyed so well by any actor. Ben Mears' confrontation with Barlow at the end when Barlow taunts him and Ben drives the stake through Barlow, destroying both the monster as well as the vampire within himself.

My only criticism of the movie is at the very end when it looks like Michael Jackson's Thriller video with the monster mob shuffling through the streets. That scene should have been left out, but that is a minor thing.

This is not the best horror movie I have ever seen and it may not even be the best SK mini-series that has ever been made, but it comes close. The original was not a bad movie, but it cannot hold a candle to this one.

What's the fuzz about? This is the one true version!.......2007-06-22

Most of the critics here compare this mini-series to the first movie adaption of 1979 and not to the book. And I guess most of them knew the 1979 before they read the book (if at all), and they did it as boys or girls, being scared and thrilled and loving it ever since. If it was the other way round - reading the book first and then watching the two movies (without the fond memories of thirty years inbetween) - the contest wouldn't even be close: This is by far the more faithful adaption of the original story.

Most critics keep coming up with totally irrelevant details: So Straker isn't bold anymore. Who cares? So Matt Burke is an African American and gay. What's the problem there? I find it pretty annoying that most of the detractors here are complaining about this. It's the 21st century, for christ's sake! True, King didn't put any minorities in the book, but this was the 70s, and I'm quite sure he would today.

King had a whole book to develop characters and relationships. This movie only has three hours. So to speed up character development they gave them back stories that weren't originally there: Ben was in Afghanistan, Burke is gay, the doctor had a crush on Sandy, etc. etc. It is all in sinc with the feel of the mood of the original story. This is movie making 101, actually.

And then Barlow. What an improvement on the first version! I mean, James Mason was a fine Straker in 1979, and Donald Sutherland is slightly overacting here. But coming from the book's Barlow I was sorely disappointed to find that Tobe Hooper had turned him into a blue skinned caricature of Max Schreck. Here we have Rutger Hauer - who was born to play King's seductive and charming villain. Again, the choice isn't even close.

So, if you don't mind having black and gay characters in your story and if you love the book, especially its non-horror aspects, this is the movie for you. Of course, you can always turn to a wooden 70s monster flick, if you like. But don't pretend it has anything to do with Stephen King.

Good But not Great.......2007-05-12

Good movie, but not nearly as good as the origional. Barlow is a jolk in this film compared to the amazing Barlow from the Tobe Hooper film, plus the Toby Hooper Salem's Lot is so much more scarier and has so many more horror elements contained within it, even the skull in the moon at the end with the burning house is so spooky. This film however did have good parts to it and was explained in more detail but it is not nearly as spooky as it should have been, too much explaining and not enough development. Over all 3/10 worth watching but not nearly as amazing as the origional which is a 10/10 spook fest.

SUCKS.......2007-04-26

Garbage. They tweaked it in every place that didn't need tweaking. Straker is no longer bald, Matt Burke is no longer caucasion, and now he's gay. The bus driver is now a vietnam vet instead of korea. In this adaptation, Ben Mears was the kid who found the bodies of Hubie Marsten and his wife. The story begins in winter instead of late summer. Ralphie Glick doesn't just go missing, he's drowned in an icey pond. Instead of Ben Mears coming to town and finding the Marsten house already sold, Crockett has already promised it to Mears, but now he's renegged and sold it out from under him. I don't see the point. They didn't just change the story, they didn't leave anything intact. It's bad. It's unwatchable, especially if you loved the book. None of the characters have Maine accents... Hmm. Could it have been filmed in... oh I dunno... AUSTRALIA PERHAPS??

Not great, but not totally bad, either!!!!!.......2007-03-23

I remember trying to watch the newer television version of Salem's Lot when it was first on TNT a few years ago, but it just didn't grab me at the time. I hate watching a mini-series on television that has a ton of commercials. Also, the little bit that I saw of the show didn't appear to be any more chilling or scary than the original version had been. For some strange reason, television and Stephen King simply don't mix very well. Almost everything by King that's been done for television has turned out to be rather mediocre at best. Some of it has been downright awful. That's not to say that I don't own the DVDs of The Stand and The Shining and Nightmares & Dreamscapes. I do. It's just that I seldom watch them, except for maybe "Battleground" in the Nightmares & Dreamscapes series. That was an EXCELLENT adaptation of a Stephen King story. The best that's ever been done for television. I wish the rest of King's stuff that's been done for television was just as good as "Battleground," but it isn't. Which brings me back to Salem's Lot. I found a good price on the DVD and decided to give the movie another chance, but without the commercials. I'm glad I did. Though the mini-series still had its share of problems, I certainly enjoyed it more this time around. Rob Lowe takes over the role of Ben Mears from David Soul, playing a writer who returns to his small hometown to write a book about evil and ends up having to fight it tooth and nail. Rutger Hauer plays the vampire, Barlow, and Donald Sutherland plays his assistant, Straker. Both of them take over the evil Marsten House that overlooks the town of Jerusalem's Lot, and it isn't long before people start disappearing. Andre Braugher and Samantha Mathis play Ben's friends and accomplices in fighting the vampires. James Cromwell plays Father Callahan, the priest who lacks the faith to destroy the evil that's taking over his town. It's been so long since I read the novel that I unable to tell just how well the newer television version actually holds up. I will say that it's difficult to find someone to root for. None of the characters appear to be very likable. Still, the special effects are well done, and both Sutherland and Hauer steal the show with their over the top performances. It's easy to see that both men were enjoying themselves and hamming it up to a certain degree. Rob Lowe does a good job with his character, but David Soul was infinitely a more likable actor in the original series. I liked it that one of the search dogs in the movie was named Cujo, though he wasn't a St. Bernard. The movie runs three hours in length, and the last third is by far the best part, though there is one scene in the middle where a vampire in a jail cell squeezes into a tiny air vent in an attempt to get to Lowe, who's in a cell that's further down the corridor. That was a cool effect! While not a 5-star film, Salem's Lot is definitely not a 1-star movie, either. I am happy that I now have it for my "Stephen King" film library. Last, the DVD doesn't have any extras on it. It would've been nice if there had been an interview with Stephen King and maybe some of the cast and crew, explaining why Salem's Lot was being remade and what they hoped to accomplish with the newer version. No such luck. It's like everyone took the money and ran!!!

DVD:

DVD

DVD