FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

loktar Its really shame people rate this movie so low, i mean yeah true not so many movies can be good as book and honestly you cant perfectly transfer book to a movie, but to give so many bad review's just because of that is stupud.. If you can get over that you will like movie cuz its damn good, and actors did pretty good job... Bottom line dont listen to bad reviews watch a movie give it a chance and you will see how good it is.

dcarsonhagy Just watched this (believe it not) for the first time. There was disappointment around just about every bend. This particular adaptation (because the first was done in 1979) was weak in story, characterizations, and acting. I read with some amazement another reviewer's take on this and could not believe his/her reasoning. He tried to say this particular version wasn't trying to be scary...and at least he got something correct.The book was one of the most frightening novels I have ever read, and the first miniseries managed to capture the horror; well, at least until the vampire was finally introduced. That went down hill quickly after that point, but up to that point, was pretty much a by-the- book film.I will let each viewer decide what they think. Check out the first one, which stars David Soul, James Mason, and others. Then check the "updated" one--complete with cell phones. It isn't even close.Suggested for mature audiences, this one has some language and very minimal violence.

kluseba Salem's Lot is another television adaption of a Stephen King novel and definitely too long with a running time of three hours even though the ending definitely lacks of details and seems to be produced in a hurry. It's not a very thrilling movie but it has some entertaining moments, some intriguing characters and a solid acting. Note that the movie features legendary and skilled actors such as James Cromwell, Rutger Hauer and Donald Sutherland. Even though they don't always shine in this production, it's interesting to see them all together in this mini-series.The movie kicks off as a documentary when the sleepy town called Jerusalem's Lot is introduced by the protagonist. The introduction is definitely too long and bores a lot after an interesting opening sequence.The movie tries to introduce several story lines with different characters. Some of them are interesting like the love story of Eva and Ed but some are also quite boring like as the fate of the police officers. The movie feels a little bit stretched and lacks focus at some points.The second half of the movie has some thrills, some action elements and feels overall more dynamical. The main problem is that the ending of the movie is too predictable to surprise, convince or grab any attention.In the end, I can't really recommend this production as there are almost as many weak as there are strong points. If there's nothing else to watch late on television, it's a good choice but a purchase or loan is definitely not necessary.

liamforeman I own the original Salem's Lot on DVD, so when I saw this at the store I decided to buy it. I enjoyed the remake of The Shining and was hoping for a more in depth and psychological thriller. God was I wrong. I've read the book, and I'm okay with artistic license, so that wasn't the problem. This film was just a disaster. It was not scary, it was not a thriller, it didn't frankly keep my interest. Problem number one. Rob Lowe. I know he can do better than this. His narrative was grating, so wordy and pointless. I also swear he is wearing a hairpiece or wig in this. He was just going through the motions in this one, unfortunately. I never understood the lack of chemistry with "Susan". He was supposed to be in love with her, but they got along like bickering siblings. So when he offs her in the end, it was like "So?". At least David Soul and Bonnie Bedelia had some chemistry and you could feel the pain when he killed Bonnie. Number two. Matt Burke. He is supposed to be Rob's old English schoolteacher. He is like a year older than him? Made no sense. Number three. The acting. These were most likely locals who decided to try acting just for this movie. The Glick brothers were the absolute worst. Just horrible horrible acting. Dud was just that. I was embarrassed for his cerebral palsy portrayal. Awful. Number four. Straker. If I were a vampire and trusted my life to someone to watch me, well, Straker would be the last guy on earth i'd entrust that to. He was crazy, made public spectacles, and called attention to himself. Didn't make sense. Oh well. This was such a disappointment. Horrible acting, so many plot problems. I mean why were the vampires at the end walking around like zombies? Dud could move in a flash, and now it's Night of the Living Dead? A total mess.