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.

skybrick736 King's classic story of vampires in Salem's Lot was remade as a two-part story on TNT in the summer of 2004. The movie was number one in programming both nights it originally aired, beating basic cable by garnering four million viewers. It's a shame that cable programming doesn't provide more original or adapted movies like Salem's Lot but it's Sharknado or other fake reality shows getting the nod. Mikael Saloman representation of Salem's Lot was quite the pleasant surprise, the Marsden house looked great and the collection of characters were an appropriate mix and screen time.If you're looking for something that stays 100% true to King's writing this is definitely not for you. The film wasn't necessarily rated based on this factor but I was taken aback by how many changes were made to the storyline. Otherwise the script had a great pace, for being over three hours long, it's easy to sit and watch the film in one sitting. Rob Lowe and Donald Sutherland were phenomenal catches for the film and they certainly had a part in carrying the film. Salem's Lot (2004) has it's pitfalls, tacky scenes with special effects and bad dialogue but it was an enjoyable movie that's worth taking a peak.

SteveResin Let me start off by saying this isn't terrible. If you're bored there are worse ways of spending 3 hours than watching this. The trouble is, it's not terribly good either. I applaud the producers for attempting to work as much of the book into the screenplay as they could, and the location is excellent, with a decent smattering of special effects to boot. However, the bad far outweighs the good. Let's start with the good points. The location is great, on a par with the 1979 masterpiece, giving a real feeling of small town isolation. And the Marsten house looks suitably creepy and foreboding. The music is good, and the special effects are above average for a TV mini series of it's era. A few of the cast do a great job, James Cromwell is excellent as Father Callahan, Dan Byrd does OK as a shell-shocked Mark, and Julia Blake is a wonderful Eva. That's about it for the good stuff. Onto the bad. The series' biggest failing for me was the decision to drag it into the present. By setting the story in modern times with the internet and mobile phones, the the idea that a small community like this could just collapse under the visit of vampires without any outside help being summoned is ludicrous. Some of the casting choices and changes to the characters are poor. I've enjoyed Rob Lowe in many movies but the role of Ben Mears didn't suit him at all. David Soul brought a lot of passion and intense emotion to his 1979 portrayal, whereas Lowe only has two emotions through the entire series, bored and scared. The use of a narration from Lowe throughout is another bad idea. The character changes are disastrous. Matt Burke is now a gay man for some reason, Doctor Jimmy is a sleazeball who beds one of his married patients, and worse of all Larry Crockett is a child abuser who is sleeping with his daughter, the town 'Goth' Ruthie Crockett. Worse still is the relationship between Ben and Susan. In the book and 79 mini series their gentle romance and meeting of minds made you ache for Ben when Susan is turned. In this series there is zero chemistry between the leads and there is absolutely no romance, save for a few small chats about literature and a possible vacation to New York. When Susan is turned Ben hardly seems bothered and neither do we. The only interesting side character is Dud Rogers, the local hunchback who lives on the town garbage dump, but he is used so fleetingly it's hardly worth it. Another waste is the use of heavyweight actor Donald Sutherland as Straker, who is completely lacking in any menace whatsoever. Rutger Hauer is also wasted as Barlow, taking up about 5 minutes of the total screen time. All in all this is watchable fair, but doesn't warrant repeat viewings. It's neither captivating or remotely scary, which is kind of missing the whole point.

Ric Scott I read the book before seeing either movie. I was a little disappointed in the 1979 version because of differences between the original story and the screenplay. Overall, I thought it was pretty good for TV. The original cast was wonderful.This version is boring. Although it has SOME good acting talent on board, I think it is miscast. No one is scary...sleepy, perhaps, but nothing really frightening at all.The general impression is that this version was done on the cheap. "'Salem's Lot" is a great story by a great writer and deserves better than this. Personally, I'm sticking with the older version.