Chirphymium
It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional
Lollivan
It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.
Ortiz
Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.
alexanderdavies-99382
It is never an easy task in adapting a Stephen King novel. His books include many details regarding plot and characters, with many intricate components. A sterling job has been done in bringing the bestselling book of "Salem's Lot" to the small screen. The mini series had to be a long one in order to include the various characters and plot details. The production also succeeded in that there is no foul language included, any sexual content is both mild and minimal and the violence serves a purpose. Regarding the fact that there were two different versions of "Salem's Lot" - one for television and one for the cinema - the only one to see, is the mini series. It has a superior narrative and a more thorough plot. In addition, the majority of the production is a flashback. David Soul plays a successful writer who returns to the town of his childhood so he can write a book based upon the notorious Marsden house. He is a man who is persecuted by an experience he had as a boy and it concerns entering the Marsden house. Soul does quite well as Benjamin Mears but James Mason gives the best performance as Straker the antiques dealer and guardian to his undead master. A plague and a wave of vampirism is about to be unleashed upon the town of Salem's Lot. The plot really warms up after about 30 minutes. Before then, all the main characters are depicted as we discover what their role in the story is. The atmosphere and suspense is well maintained throughout and looking at the location where the mini series was made, I can actually envision there being vampires roaming the countryside that surrounds Salem's Lot. There are so many great scenes. Amongst them, the scene where Lew Ayres is paid a visit at home by an undead creature of the night, children vampires stalking their prey, David Soul fending off a female vampire at the local morgue etc. As Mears, Soul displays much vulnerability and isn't exactly a "superhero" kind of character. He finds himself thrown into the position of being the hero but he isn't afraid to display his fear regarding the horrible events that take place. The ending could have been a bit better and I feel it was rushed. The Count should have come into the series a bit earlier. This is an intelligent and thought-provoking bit of television and it bears repeated viewing.
skybrick736
First things first when it comes to Salem's Lot, make sure the three- hour extended version is watched for the full experience of a fabulous film. Otherwise any shortened version that exist out there will be choppy and convoluted. There is a vast amount of defined characters, who performed great for their part, and weren't silly to the point it would hamper the movie. There is a handful of recognizable actors and actresses that aren't mainstream (Bonnie Bedelia, Ed Flanders, Geoffrey Lewis, Fred Willard) but are fantastic with a shared role. What horror fans like most about Salem's Lot however is the effect of Kurt Barlow, the vampire. There are always the mimicked comments on message boards and reviews that say "This is how vampires are supposed to look" and "This is way better than the Twilight vampires", its frankly true. Tobe Hooper will be more always more well known for Poltergeist and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre but its Salem's Lot, which I personally find to be his best work.
Smoreni Zmaj
Great adaptation of Steven King that is struggling to escape from 3 hours of boring movie. Everyone who knows at least bit of King will recognize his background here, even those who did not read this book or even knew about it. Story is completely Kingish and it's very good. Acting, music, scenography, everything is great. But nevertheless I fell asleep during watching this movie and I had to rewind few times. Story simply does not contain enough material for 3 hours movie. If they took more details from the book 3 hours wouldn't be nearly enough, but when they reduced the book to minimum there was not enough left to fill 3 hours. I suppose they intended to build tense atmosphere slowly and gradually, and maybe in 70's movie was accomplishing that goal, but today, or at least for me, this was extremely boring experience.6/10
thesar-2
When a movie is terrible, I hear online/podcast reviewers say "I watched it, so you don't have to" and mean: they took the bullet for you. I agree with them, today.28 minutes into the extremely over-long Salem's Lot, I almost gave up. I didn't want to. I've wanted to see what this was all about since I was a kid, especially since I've viewed practically every other Stephen King adaptation. Even a lot of the sequels to said films. But, damn, this one was extremely tough to get through.More than a decade before King novels were turned more into miniseries or even TV series than theatrical releases, King's second book was adapted into a mind-boggling 3-hour miniseries and it felt every bit of that TV-vibe. Quick cuts, commercial timing, low-rent horror…all there. And distracting, too.The movie SHOULD have been in theatres, Rated R and cut to 90 minutes tops from 184 minutes. Literally, there was an easy hour and a half that could've been either cut or condensed to make it effective and work on the big screen. But, that didn't happen. So we got……a movie that was remade many years later as (also Stephen King's) Needful Things, only they replaced the villain and close setting with Nosferatu.Truthfully, there were some scary moments, some decent acting – mostly (only?) by the future sometimes Mrs. McClane, sometimes Ms. Gennaro and the multiple story lines helped keep my interest…occasionally. But, overall, it's totally not worth the three freaking hours.I was just thinking: maybe I should've seen the 2004 remake, instead and saved time. Egad, that's over three hours as well. Forget you.***Final thoughts: Day 9 Movie in the Can! I'm watching a NEW-2-ME horror movie every day of October 2016 and this one fascinated me with the cover/poster since I was such a little one. Plus, as I said above, I wanted to see it just to check it off my King Film List. Well, mercifully, I finally did get the experience behind me and now I don't even need to read the book…already read the superior (story of) Needful Things, anyways.
