Salem's Lot - The Miniseries

Arrived early.Great TV movie. And in this one, Barlow speaks! (As it should be, book-wise)Worth your time and money.

Very well done remake

Every night is MOVIE NIGHT at home:)

Beginning the story in Detroit with Father Callaghan feeding the homeless, only to be confronted by Ben Mears among them was a fascinating addition. If only I didn’t feel like we were missing a major part of the storyline between the events in ‘Salem’s Lot and that starting point.Some of the changes in this version of ‘Salem’s Lot didn’t appeal to me. It was a delight to have Ben Mears’s flashbacks included in the story. They were effective and creepy. I just wish they’d been closer to the ones in the book.Rob Lowe was an outstanding Ben Mears. He infused considerable pathos and passion into every soft spoken line, including his narrative voice overs. His interactions with Mark, Susan, Matt, Jimmy, Floyd, Callaghan, Straker, and Barlow and the nurse he confided his story to were riveting, leaving me hungry for more.I wasn’t sure how well I liked the change in Ben Mears’s character, the shift from his focus on the Marsten House to the town of ‘Salem’s Lot its. I didn’t like the change in his books, either, although I understood the reasoning behind the change, to make both him and his works more contemporary.In spite of all this, Ben Mears’s character was a compelling one, whom I found myself liking and sympathizing with.I’m not sure how well I liked the changes in Mark Petrie either. I really enjoyed the depiction of him in the novel as a slight, almost pretty boy whom was a lot braver and stronger than anyone guessed by looking at him. Turning him into a self assured punk, poor and fatherless, yet exuding an alpha like aura of leadership over the boy’s age took away some of the softness of his appearance and the underlying strength which made him an appealing character to me. The young man who played this version of Mark did an excellent job, though. He met Rob Lowe and matched him in power of performance. He brought depth and additional tension to the highly charged confrontations with Barlow.It was great to have Barlow played as a character rather than simply a silent monster, although Rutger Hauer isn’t whom I would have pictured or chosen in the role. He did a remarkable job, nonetheless, bringing strength and moral ambiguity to his interactions with many of the characters, all the while remaining a terrifying villain.Donald Sutherland was more overtly wicked than James Mason was in the role of Richard Straker years ago in the 1979 movie. He brought a certain measure of dark, playful humor to the character. His confrontation with Ben, half flirtatious and laced with adversarial amusement is one of my favorites in the movie.Three of the changes I thorougly enjoyed involved Matt Burke, Susan Norton, and Eva. The alteration in Matt not only brought a touch of rainbow diversity to ‘Salem’s Lot, but he served as a foil for Ben Mears as well as a mentor, opposing him alternately with optimism and cynicism when they were first getting acquainted. These made an interesting foundation in their relationship when the two of them later turned to vampire hunting.Susan showed a lot more spunk, coming closer to the book version of the character. She participated in intellectual conversations with Ben, matching wits with him, becoming much more interesting as a romantic interest and well rounded a character.Eva was simply breathtaking. A lovely, aging matriarch, a lady in the truest sense of the word, she embodied the heart of ‘Salem’s Lot and the corruption at its heart. Her secrets, along with her darkest moment brought a touch of the elements I enjoyed most in ‘Return to Salem’s Lot’, reminding me of many of the genteel ladies who’ve appeared in Anne Rice’s novels.It was a delight to see Jimmy Cody and Father Callaghan resuming larger roles in the plot. Callaghan was much darker, more interesting, and fit well within the revised plot, although I still feel like a part of that plot is missing. I also found his moment of racism while possessed gratuitous and unnecessary.I could have done without the changes to Jimmy, although the actor playing him did a marvelous job. He had some great scenes with Ben, which are among the better quiet moments.Certain plot changes rolled my eyes, others intrigued me, and homages to other works of pop cultural supernatual horror made me smile. For my overall enjoyment and the quality of the movie, I give ‘Salem’s Lot four stars.

I purchased this DVD because I am a HUGE FANATIC of "Salem's Lot", the novel, it is my absolute favourite Vampire tale. I am a long~time aficionado of the subject, and Stephen King wrote a bloody MASTERPIECE. I have viewed many times,{and own}, both film versions, they are both contenders; albeit not without the inevitable flaws.Spoiler alert~The Rob Lowe version, has strengths} His hair is closer to BLACK, which is the colour of Benjamin Mears in the novel. Stephen King references this numerous times. Much of the dialogue is from the novel. The Vampires are fairly well depicted. Surprizingly, Rutger Hauer's performance {at least in what I call "the kitchen scene}, is quite effective.Including Dud Rogers was great.Spoiler alert~Weaknesses} Updating the story to 2004, was in my opinion, a mistake because it inevitably altered the storyline. It could have easily been set in the 1970's when the story was published and when the first film was made. The contrived "beginning", and "end", were completely unnecessary.Eliminating Mark Petrie's father and Susan Norton's as well, makes no sense to me.All summed up, I am a fan of both versions for different reasons, which is the very reason that I purchased them.

I own the origonal,with David soul and lance kerwin. I was a kid when it came out. I am old now, and I love this remake. If you have not seen it...give it a shot. You'll probably like it.😁

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!!!

I don’t watch it anymore but sometimes I think about watching this movie again thanks Amazon.

If you liked the book this is a very close representation.

Just not a good movie! The book was way better!

I thought the original Tobe Hooper version took liberties with King's original (extremely scary) text... but at least it was good. This one might as well have changed the name and made itself an original B-vamp movie.It's clear that what the writer/director mean to do is modernise the book and compare the vampire's evil with contemporary evils (including Afganistan, for example). So they've made changes.But the result is a really shoddy movie that doesn't seem to know what it's doing. It takes an hour before I recognised a scene from the book - characters, places etc that you are familiar with have been changed beyond recognition to pander to the rather redundant and overloud message. The scriptwriter should have been shot - nobody uses the purple prose that you hear coming out of the mouths of Rob Lowe et al! It occasionally sounds like a critique of the book combined with an essay on 'horror as metaphor' that has been dramatised.The actors try with what they have, and Rutger is heaps better than his vamp act in Buffy! But altogether it's a wasted movie - especially as long as it is.A real shame and a completely missed opportunity.

good thanks .