Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

loktar Its really shame people rate this movie so low, i mean yeah true not so many movies can be good as book and honestly you cant perfectly transfer book to a movie, but to give so many bad review's just because of that is stupud.. If you can get over that you will like movie cuz its damn good, and actors did pretty good job... Bottom line dont listen to bad reviews watch a movie give it a chance and you will see how good it is.

davidhp This adaption of Salem's Lot was not needed - it did not improve on the 1979 version and the characters don't seem to fit with the characters from the book at all. The vampire is not close to being scary like in the 1979 version or the book - it was truly an evil entity that was definitely not human not in this version - it talks too much with the lines that its human servant were supposed to speak. Donald Sutherland failed as the human servant to the vampire and did not project the out right evilness of the character in 1970 or the book. This was supposed to be a horror film and it delivers some chills but loses out on the big chill by humanizing the vampire.

mikereilly_1999 I have been a Stephen King fan all of my life, and rank "Salem's Lot" and "The Stand" as his two essential, indispensible works. I read Salem's Lot at the ripe age of 8 (over three decades ago) and even after becoming an e-book lover still keep a paperback copy on the shelf so I can appreciate it in all of its yellowing-paged-original-glory.I saw the original "Salem's Lot" miniseries with David Soul and Lance Kerwin when it originally aired on television in 1979 and thought nothing could ever compare to the feelings of terror that it provoked in me. The scenes where Ralphie Glick (and later on Danny Glick) appear in the windows as vampires have haunted me to this day - and I was unsurprised to hear that many of my generation felt the same way.So I was with some excitement that I viewed this 2004 remake of the story, to see what was done with the tale. After having read the comments and reviews I must admit I was skeptical that it was adapted to the screen successfully. As things turned out, it was a decent piece of work. Not as good as the book or the first movie, but it had some strong components.This film doesn't start out particularly strong. I spent the first hour shocked at the sluggishness with which the plot moved, envisioning how I would trash it in this online review, frankly. The original story was set in Maine in the 1970's, and the advent of cell phones, e-mail and other technology seems so foreign to the story. I am also a fan of keeping as true to the original tale as possible - changing Matt Burke from an aging white man to a younger gay black man was an odd, though acceptable, course of action, but having Dr. Jimmy Cody involved in a sleazy affair with teenaged Sandy was an offense.However, as I watched past the weak beginning I could see some strong roots of this tale beginning to take hold. David Soul was a capable Ben Mears, but Rob Lowe outshined him, I feel. I could tell Lowe had really studied the character and tried to present his personality as realistically as he could. And while beautiful Bonnie Bedelia was believable as Susan Norton in the original film, Samantha Mathis takes the lead in this one. The 1979 miniseries transformed Jimmy Cody's character into Susan Norton's father, who was a bit player at best. It was good to see a real adaptation of Jimmy Cody - a likable and reliable figure in the book - show up in this movie. This isn't to say every cast member was an improvement; certainly Christopher Morris's Mike Ryerson doesn't belong in the same room as the character played by Geoffrey Lewis in the 1979 film - who was so frightening when he returned from the dead in Matt's house, unlike Morris's weak and confused appearance.Straker was magnificently played by James Mason in 1979. Donald Sutherland did his best in this role, but fell a bit short. However, Rutger Hauer's Barlow - though given a pitifully small amount of screen time - is far truer to the book than Reggie Nalder's "Nosferatu" version. One of the strongest elements of the book was Barlow's charming, intelligent, charismatic personality. His booming laughter, his easygoing guile, his believable role as the Master was better represented by Hauer, though woefully underutilized. I believe Hauer appeared in all of 3 scenes.Then there is the working relationship between Ben Mears and Mark Petrie. Of course the level of detail the book offers into the curious pairing of these two, so much alike, can't be fully transferred to the screen, but the manner in which all of their allies drop one by one, leaving these two as the sole survivors responsible for saving what's left of the town, seems a credible fit.An odd turn of events twists Father Callahan from a pathetic failure who flees the town into a pathetic failure who replaces Straker as Barlow's human sidekick doesn't ring true at first. However, after further inspection it seems to fit an appropriate niche. Who better to turn into a vampire's living henchman than a doubtful priest? The plot twist serves as an intro to the movie as well as providing material for the denouement and I think ultimately it works.Overall, I didn't find the sense of stark terror that I did in the original book and movie, but I found nearly comparable levels of suspense and intrigue. Some of the vampire scenes were a bit cheesy - Ed and Eva's "wedding" for instance, but I appreciated the fact that some elements not in the first film adaptation - Charlie Rhodes and his school bus from hell, for instance - were included this time around.In summary, some elements worked well, and others bellyflopped, but it was a valiant effort and a mixed bag of success. Worth the viewing to see how it compares to the book and first movie.

A_Chimp First out, I have to say that this show contains perhaps the worst editing I've ever seen. There will never be a reason to release an extended version of this debacle, as the original is the "every frigging scene ever shot" version. Were the editors constantly drunk, on strike, cut out of the budget or just fled the scene when they realized what was coming from the cameras? Or were they just forced to fill the drama out with every piece of crap they could come up with, to fill out the two incredibly drawn out episodes with the promised TV time? The progress of the story is so slow and dull that I actually considered turning the whole thing off at least four times and I regret I didn't. The subplots are aggravatingly numerous, surprisingly ill-timed - thanks again, non-existent editors - dragging the tempo down to a constant freezing point and of nothing but the "Who the frigging cares!", "Just stop this!" and "For the love of... *sigh*" kinds. To make matters even worse, you feel no sympathy whatsoever for the incredibly non-believable soap opera characters. And to put the stake in the heart, basically every single (non-believable) character has the standardized main flaw of having the rationality of a drunk ship rat, making you almost wish just everyone will perish before you do.For classifying itself as a horror movie, it really set the question in my head if this wasn't really a parody that I was watching. As it's my firm belief it certainly wasn't the intention of being so, I can only conclude this show was downright laughable and amateuristic in basically every important element.My final question is; did any of the actors choose to participate in this show for any other reason than the money? You probably just have to read the pathetic manuscript to realize what was coming. Perhaps they didn't.