Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Blake Rivera If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

lathe-of-heaven I've pretty much given up trying to understand what people here consider good films or find entertaining. Seriously...I was not expecting much because the original 1979 version is a bit of a minor classic in a way. And truthfully, MOST Stephen King adaptations are pretty poorly done. BUT... I was quite amazed at how involving and engaged I was with the way they did the story. It was not done in the same traditional mold as the original mini-series, and it was somewhat 'updated' in some ways which some may consider unnecessary. But, even so, the quality of the writing, acting, and direction were quite good, really. And most surprising was ol' Rob Lowe did a pretty decent job!At first I was kind of put off by both Donald Sutherland and Rutger Hauer playing the parts of Straker and Barlow (mainly because of strong images of James mason and 'Nosferatu' from the original) But, after reflecting on it, I do feel that using them DID work in this updated version, making them seem a bit more contemporary as opposed to the traditional feel of the original version - and I really DO like Rutger Hauer anyway : )So, if you can buy into the updating of the story, mood, and look of the film and you appreciate good writing, acting and execution of the story (which happens RARELY with Stephen King) then you should indeed enjoy this gripping, updated version of the classic story!

princessktina Whether you've read the book or not, this film is abysmal. For those who have read the book, the casting of this film couldn't get much worse. None of the characters really stay true to King's portrayal of them and the only decent acting comes from Rutger Hauer (Barlow) and Andre Braugher (Matt). The rest of the characters couldn't be further from the book and as such, ruin the film. Donald Sutherland who is otherwise a good actor is let down a lot in this film as he doesn't reflect the character of Straker whatsoever in appearance or manner. The acting on the whole borders on funny and this goes for the make up and special effects as well. The characters are about as deep as a paddling pool and at best the whole film is like a very low budget TV series. There's no real horror in it, even when the child is at Mark's window which is a truly harrowing scene in the book, there's nothing particularly chilling about it, perhaps only the music. By all means read the book, which is fantastic, but don't waste your time with the film.

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.

brigada109 So, we all know and cannot disagree with the genius that Stephen King is. However, the effort to adapt a film from a book is always hard...as it was proved again with Salem's Lot. The characters were good I must say and Rob Lowe did a good job, however, it's not quite good when the actor that plays the young boy was far more impressive. The atmosphere was quite impressive, there was something about the little town that was quite scary, even though everything seemed normal at the surface. I must admit though that its tough watching it in one sitting and I found myself pausing the film and taking a long break in the middle of it. It had a childish sense to it but in a good way and I think that's why it got to me. It reminded me of how it was to watch horror films as a young kid and get impressed and thrilled by anything.