Subject: I have found a DVD that I think you would enjoy
|Salem's Lot - The Miniseries|
Actors: Rob Lowe, Andre Braugher, Donald Sutherland, Samantha Mathis, Robert Mammone
Director: Mikael Salomon
Genres: Horror, Television, Mystery & Suspense
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 ho... more »
Similarly Requested DVDs
Member Movie Reviews
Margaret S. (morgan2010) from GLENVIEW, IL
Reviewed on 9/1/2009...
Like so many movies in the 80's-early 90's, this is a non-computer graphics, but stunt filled movie. It uses suspense, and character interaction...and I love it. Stephen King's story, Salem's Lot(which this is adapted from), it the best vampire evil story I have ever read. And while the tv movie could have been longer and more involved, it was still great. In the book though Rob Lowe doesn;t die ( so he and the boy could have come back to fight the vampires another day). Oh, and by the way, while we're on vampire movies, "Twilight", the vampire love story sucks! ( This all steams from that stupid Buffy the vampire show).
1 of 2 member(s) found this review helpful.
Severen | USA | 09/12/2005
(1 out of 5 stars)
"***Warning: Spoilers Ahead***
I've always loved the novel and the 1979 miniseries. When I heard they were doing a remake in 2004, I couldn't wait! Then I found out Rob Lowe was starring. Eeeh, he was in "The Stand" a decade earlier and that managed not to suck. So I gave him the benefit of the doubt and tuned in. And in all fairness to Rob Lowe he can hardly be blamed for how awful it turned out.
Now I can understand changing around elements for "dramatic purposes" and "updating" and "adapting for television". Let's not forget the novel was written and published in the 1970's when there were no cellphones, laptop computers or Internet. It seems the fellow who adapted the novel, Peter Filardi, and went hog-wild with it. The end result is that the only the movie characters have in common with their book counterparts are the names. Ben Mears was once held captive by the Taliban? Matt Burke is gay? Susan Norton is a waitress? Did Filardi even read the novel? Then there is the problem of the very minor characters getting way, way, waaayyyy more screen time than they deserve, as in they shouldn't have been in the movie at all. Sandy McDougall, Dud Rogers, Charlie Rhodes and Ruthie Crockett are all very minor throw-away characters who don't deserve a place in the movie. Ruthie didn't even have any dialogue in the book for crying out loud!!! What is so special about these characters that they managed to get on screen and take away precious time from the real characters? This is reason why Barlow is reduced to a cameo, because Peter Filardi felt the inexplicable need to cram in as many characters as possible.
My biggest complaint is the way they handled the scene where a vampire Mike Ryerson comes back to Matt Burke's house. Instead of being a terrifying encounter with the undead it winds up a truly bizarre homo-erotic/necrophiliac encounter so completely drained of any suspense that left me scratching my head and wondering 'what the hell was that about'? Hey people, if it ain't broke don't fix it! If you had $25 million to spend on this movie why didn't you hire a writer who could actually write a suspenseful scene!! Stephen King should sue! Excuse me, I'm going to watch the 1979 version and try to put this slop out of my memory for good."
Can't stand up to the original
J from NY | New York | 08/29/2006
(1 out of 5 stars)
"Rob Lowe is mildly okay as Ben Mears, but his performance goes nowhere near David Soul's angst ridden, really convincing portrayal from the 1979 original. Donald Suterland is disappointing, and I don't think it needs to be said that his performance is less than spectacular, even absurd. He's no James Mason.
Rutger Hauer gives a better performance than this series deserved. His portrayal of King's Barlow is more accurate than the Nosferatuesque Reggie Nalder, but somehow this seems to work to the film's detriment rather than benefit. Rent the original film, or miniseries. I had high expectations, maybe that they'd build on the original a little, but it's just rushed, badly acted, trying too hard to be modern, and in general, a waste of time."
This was 'salem's Lot? Purleeze.
Callidice | UK | 10/20/2004
(1 out of 5 stars)
"'Salem's Lot is easily the most terrifying of Stephen King's novels. A dark and evil tale that scares the crap out of you. The 1979 version although annoying to purists (including myself) for the monsterfication of Barlow and some dodgy scriptwriting had one thing in common with the novel - it too was terrifying, it positively traumatised some viewers.
Bottom line: This is no more frightening than a tame episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it's an absolute pile of rubbish..... I find it extraordinary that a director can take such extraordinary material and turn it into something so utterly pedestrian.... and make no mistake here... the main problem was not the script, nor even the acting but the direction.
Three of the major scenes in the book and '79 version were ruined by the director here -- Danny Glick at the window, Marjorie Glick in the mortuary and the return of Mike Ryerson. How can you possibly ruin these scenes? A child holding the camera couldn't ruin these scenes.
Thoroughly disappointing, even more so because now Salomon has queered the pitch for everyone else -- no one else will be able to make this again for the next twenty years."