Salem's Lot - The Miniseries (2004)

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 hometown. As a kid, something awful happened to him in the spooky mansion on the hill; now that he's back, the mansion is once again buzzing with evil portents. The physical production (shot in Australia) is convincing, and it's fun to see old pros such as Donald Sutherland, Rutger Hauer, and James Cromwell cutting up in juicy roles. The storytelling, however, feels oddly disjointed, as though King's sprawl had been arbitrarily hacked away rather than adapted (a few big moments are bewilderingly left offscreen). The approach misses the basic assets of a vampire story: the disbelief, the lore, the sex appeal. Instead, it feels like a random collection of bits for short attention spans. --Robert Horton Amazon.com

great modern adaptation

I was impressed with the updated take on the original. As an adult, watching the original made me laugh, this definitely brings new life to the story. August 5, 2008

People, please. It's true to the novel

Don't bother comparing the 1979 version and the 2004 version. While the 1979 version scared the bejesus out of me (and still does, I'm 40 years old), The Rob Lowe version, while not nearly as scary, pretty much follows the book as it's written. I bought the 1979 version from Amazon (loved it), read the book, then watched the 2004 version and couldn't believe how well it was done. Put aside your vitriol-if I didn't actually READ THE BOOK and only saw the Hooper version, I'd say this sucked, too. But I feel the 4 hours dedicated to the 2004 version does a much better service to the novel. You won't be disappointed! June 26, 2008

A Very Good Modern Adaptation Of A Classic Horror Tale!!

I remember the original 1979 TV version of this modern gothic
vampire mini-series (starring David Soul) that was well-recieved
and scared the you-know-what out of me as a 15 yr old kid!!
So when TNT first aired this more modern version in 2004,
I was kinda skeptical and prejudiced towards it because
like a lot of people, I kind of hate it when studios of today
try to "remake" a classic of the past, because it usually doesn't
make the grade! I must say though, I was pleasantly suprised and
loved the way they implemented the newer technology for special effects which made it even more scary!
They also tweeked the original story as far as content,
giving it a more contemporary spin, even though it still
keeps its evil in a small town premise.
Rob Lowe and a stellar cast of good actors did an excellent job in my opinion of bringing this tale to a new generation of short attention
span horror fans. Of course, there will be those who prefer
the original..which still has it's charm, though the special
effects are laughable looking at them through today's eyes!
All-N-All though, I would and did pay money to add this
to my DVD collection! March 24, 2008

better than you think

I see alot of people saying that this is not as good as the original. Are you kidding! Did these people ever see the original. It was the most boring movie I have ever seen in my life. The vampires look like something you would see in a comic book. I had to stop is becuase U couldnt watch it any more. The newer version has its falws, but it is much better thatn the trash they gave us in the original February 6, 2008

Give it a second chance

When it first aired I thought the the Salem's Lot re-make was a dud. But I watched it again and thought that it was pretty good. Certainly worth another look.
Put the original out of your mind. Let the re-make stand on its own. Does it compare to the book? Forget that too. King's books are very visual. If you have read a book of his it is like watching a movie. Several movies based on his books have not done well because, I suspect, the reader has too strong of a mental image of what the movie should look like. Judge this on its own merits, which are considerable.
Lowe gives a solid performance as Ben. His voice over, though not King's words, is good and gives a nice feel to the film. The sets are superior to the old version and add to the growing creepiness of a twon being take over by evil. They also do a really good job of making the house an evil character. James Mason did fine job portraying the evil minion. Donald Sutherland gives the role his own interpretation and is really creepy.
Over all this movie deserves a second look. Let it stand on its own as a vampire movie. December 30, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...