"'Salem's Lot" is a modern-day adaptation of Stephen King's novel/remake of Tobe Hooper's 1979 TV-movie. This film centers around the small Maine town of Jerusalem's Lot, nicknamed 'Salem's Lot by the locals. Writer Ben Mears (Rob Lowe) returns to his small hometown in search for inspiration of his next book. A mysterious antique dealer, Straker (Donald Sutherland) has also come to town, and moved into the Marsten house - an eerie mansion with a dark past that overlooks the town. With his newfound girlfriend, Susan (Samantha Mathis), Ben comes to slowly realize that the small town of 'Salem's Lot is being taken over by vampires. And with the help of Matt Burke (Andre Braugher), Susan, and others, he must stop the evil forces before the entire town becomes populated with the undead blood-drinkers.
In 1979, Tobe Hooper brought his made-for-TV movie "'Salem's Lot" to television screens, and the film has been remembered as a horror classic - and it is. It's a great movie. However, I was not really opposed to a remake/new adaptation, because the 1979 film left out large elements that the book contained, and I would have liked to see some things that Hooper didn't use in his film. Luckily, this movie did that. "'Salem's Lot" is probably one of my favorite Stephen King novels, and I know the book pretty well, and was happy to see that this film rendition of the story brought some things from the book that the previous movie left out. The script here is solid and a bit closer to the novel, but also different in ways. The story is told in between a present subplot (that which wasn't in the novel), somewhat like the "Carrie" remake was. It takes place in modern times, so the nostalgia factor is missing, although the small-town feel is still fairly present, and the wintry backdrop adds to the film's chilly feel.
Anyway, the bottom line is that this script is fairly faithful to the book (I'm not going to nit pick the differences though, I'm not expecting it to be translated word for word from the novel), but modern. I was really happy that it brought in characters from the book that weren't included before. The only downfall to it's modern-day setting is that old-fashioned nostalgic feel the original had, but I wasn't unhappy with this. This version has plenty of excellent scenes and some pretty scary moments that took me by surprise, even though I already knew what was going to happen. The computer generated effects are made use of for a few scenes that were done in much more simplicity before, and while I think a couple things were a bit over done, it still wasn't bad. The setting and atmosphere is dark and appropriately eerie, and the re-vamped town and the Marsten house are both well done.
For being a television film, this movie boasts a pretty impressive cast. Rob Lowe makes a more fitting Ben Mears than David Soul did (not that he was awful), in my opinion. Andre Braugher nails the role of the small-town high school English teacher, and Samantha Mathis (of "American Psycho") is sweet and likable in the role of Susan. Donald Sutherland (of the suspense classic "Don't Look Now") is excellent as the mysterious Straker, and Rutger Hauer plays the Mr. Barlow that I imagined in the book (the 1979 film made him into a more Nosferatu-type vampire). Dan Byrd (of "The Hills Have Eyes" remake), while a little old for the Mark Petrie role, plays it well - then again I think the character was written to be a bit older in this film. James Cromwell is also notable in the role of the drunken Father Callahan. Solid acting, overall. As for the ending of this movie, it is a bit strange, but I also kind of liked it at the same time.
Overall, "'Salem's Lot" is a great modern adaptation of King's story, and a very entertaining film. It's a mini-series movie, as was the 1979 film, so it's lengthy (about three and a half hours), but it was worth it. Great story (based on a great book), some good chills, and solid acting make this one worth a watch, especially for fans of the novel and/or the 1979 movie. I prefer the original very slightly, but this version is so close in my eyes that it's almost irrelevant. Recommended, but expect a modern-day telling of the story. Some reviewers on here are slamming this movie, but I really couldn't find much of anything wrong with it. 9/10.
In 1979, Tobe Hooper brought his made-for-TV movie "'Salem's Lot" to television screens, and the film has been remembered as a horror classic - and it is. It's a great movie. However, I was not really opposed to a remake/new adaptation, because the 1979 film left out large elements that the book contained, and I would have liked to see some things that Hooper didn't use in his film. Luckily, this movie did that. "'Salem's Lot" is probably one of my favorite Stephen King novels, and I know the book pretty well, and was happy to see that this film rendition of the story brought some things from the book that the previous movie left out. The script here is solid and a bit closer to the novel, but also different in ways. The story is told in between a present subplot (that which wasn't in the novel), somewhat like the "Carrie" remake was. It takes place in modern times, so the nostalgia factor is missing, although the small-town feel is still fairly present, and the wintry backdrop adds to the film's chilly feel.
Anyway, the bottom line is that this script is fairly faithful to the book (I'm not going to nit pick the differences though, I'm not expecting it to be translated word for word from the novel), but modern. I was really happy that it brought in characters from the book that weren't included before. The only downfall to it's modern-day setting is that old-fashioned nostalgic feel the original had, but I wasn't unhappy with this. This version has plenty of excellent scenes and some pretty scary moments that took me by surprise, even though I already knew what was going to happen. The computer generated effects are made use of for a few scenes that were done in much more simplicity before, and while I think a couple things were a bit over done, it still wasn't bad. The setting and atmosphere is dark and appropriately eerie, and the re-vamped town and the Marsten house are both well done.
For being a television film, this movie boasts a pretty impressive cast. Rob Lowe makes a more fitting Ben Mears than David Soul did (not that he was awful), in my opinion. Andre Braugher nails the role of the small-town high school English teacher, and Samantha Mathis (of "American Psycho") is sweet and likable in the role of Susan. Donald Sutherland (of the suspense classic "Don't Look Now") is excellent as the mysterious Straker, and Rutger Hauer plays the Mr. Barlow that I imagined in the book (the 1979 film made him into a more Nosferatu-type vampire). Dan Byrd (of "The Hills Have Eyes" remake), while a little old for the Mark Petrie role, plays it well - then again I think the character was written to be a bit older in this film. James Cromwell is also notable in the role of the drunken Father Callahan. Solid acting, overall. As for the ending of this movie, it is a bit strange, but I also kind of liked it at the same time.
Overall, "'Salem's Lot" is a great modern adaptation of King's story, and a very entertaining film. It's a mini-series movie, as was the 1979 film, so it's lengthy (about three and a half hours), but it was worth it. Great story (based on a great book), some good chills, and solid acting make this one worth a watch, especially for fans of the novel and/or the 1979 movie. I prefer the original very slightly, but this version is so close in my eyes that it's almost irrelevant. Recommended, but expect a modern-day telling of the story. Some reviewers on here are slamming this movie, but I really couldn't find much of anything wrong with it. 9/10.