Rating: 
Summary: The Best Vampire Movie!!!
Review: This is the scariest vampire movie ever made! It is long, but it is worth sitting through! It's oldie, but it is one of the scariest movies ever made! I would recommend this and The Shining, Pet Sematary, and Carrie. Buy or rent today!
Rating:
Summary: Great!
Review: This is the only scary vampire movie. This is Tobe's best work. His 2nd best is Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and 3rd is Poltergeist. This is a very scary movie, but it's kindof long, but who cares it is great. Salem's Lot is the best t.v. horror film ever made! Excellent. King's best movie!
Rating: 
Summary: Hiss hissssss Don't Open Your Window !
Review: As a 9 year old boy in 1979 watching the 2 part-mini series left me with haunting images of Mr. Barlow and the boys scraping at the windows !Most recently, I did not realize that my 3 year old nephew had walked into the room at the moment Barlow makes his shocking appearance in the jail cell;the little guy ran out of the room screaming and crying (traumatized I guess)!It was then I realized that this is the stuff that gives young kids nightmares; this movie could still pack a creepy punch! Come every October I still have to watch this video. Remarkable effects for the late 70's without cgi (computer graphic imaging). However, look carefully at the scene where one of the Glick boys is floating away from the window and you can see the black-cloth pedestal or chair on which he was perched to give that "floating" effect!That said, Salem's Lot remains one of my all-time favorite Stephen King novels adapted for television (anything else made by King for t.v. was unwatchable).It was scary and horrifying without the use of blood and gore. There were a few dark humored whimsical scenes such as the affair between the town's real estate agent and his secretary and the dialogue scene between the town drunk and the dim witted yet sarcastic constable. The best performances were by the late James Mason as the culturally refined yet sinister Mr. Straker along with Bonnie Bedelia as the love interest for Soul's character. Bedelia played the part pretty good, especially when she meets her final fate in the Marsten mansion; she was every bit terrified ! As for Lance Kerwin and David Soul's somewhat so-so performances one must remember that Soul was fresh off the set of Starsky and Hutch and teen actor Kerwin had done a few other t.v. flicks. One can see where the casting director had to use familiar and famous-for-the- moment faces to market the mini-series effectively for television. Could their have been better actors chosen for these two roles ? Yes. Still, Soul and Kerwin did their best !... As for the dvd transfer, it's about as good as one can expect.Unfortunately, there is no widescreen format as it was intended only for televison (though,it may have been released in theatres internationally). The surround channels don't carry much revealing effects. As for extras, I would have enjoyed seeing interviews with the actors and the behind-the-scenes make-up and special f/x (what was the true identity of the real actor behind Barlow (actor Reggie Nalder)! Just as I was scared to look out my bedroom window at night after seeing Amityville Horror (red glowing eyes scene), ditto for Salem's Lot's vampires scraping at the windows !...
Rating: 
Summary: More Than It Could Chew
Review: Stephen King's bestseller SALEM'S LOT is a surprisingly complicated novel that first presents a detailed portrait of normal life in a small New England town--normal life that is gradually perverted when the town becomes infested by the undead. And with a cast that includes such memorable performers as James Mason, Lew Ayres, Elisha Cook Jr., and Marie Windsor, this 1979 two-part television special seemed to a great deal going for it. Unfortunately, however, director Tobe Hooper and his screenwriters are unable to find a way to streamline the novel's numerous characters and subplots into any dramatic whole, and the result is a film that constantly references a host of characters, events, and ideas but seldom to any real effect. Even so, the film does have its charms. Chief among them is James Mason in one of his final performances, offering a brilliant, sinister, and wickedly witty performance as Mr. Straker, the servant of the vampire. Ayres and Bedelia are also extremely good, and although Cook and Windsor are largely wasted they are nontheless entertaining to watch. And the film does offer a few "jump in your seat" thrills: the scenes of child vampires floating outside bedroom windows are truly creepy, and the great vampire himself harkens back to the silent film NOSFERATU in a most effective way. Still, most viewers will find the film fairly tame. David Soul was not a memorable actor, the script is incredibly talky, and there are too many lose ends for the story to be satisfying. It will be of most interest to fans of King's work who would like to see how television handled this, one of his most successful novels. A word of warning: there are two versions of this film. The single video version is a condensation of the original, and it is virtually unwatchable. Stick with the full-length, two-tape version.
Rating:
Summary: An campy pleasure to watch
Review: Director Tope "Poltergist" Hooper has brought Stephen King's 'Salems Lot to life in such a way that you'll be rolling on the floor with laughter. The story begins with Ben Mears dipping a glass into some holy water and watching it glow, a signal of evil things are approaching (I think or something). Later, we watch as Mears is returning to his childhood hometown in southern Maine-Jersuleums Lot, called 'Salems Lot by the locals. Before long, strange phenomena begin taking place and people start to disappear. The events all seem linked to the town's new inhabitants, an elussive Mr. Barlow and his partner Straker have come to town and taken up residence in the infamous Mastern House of 'Salems Lot. Before long, many of the town's recent dead rise and begin seeking human victums- at night. Dispite its seemingly frightening themes, this movie has none of the old horror that the book inspired in readers prior to the movie's release. There are a few scenes that are frightenng, such as when Danny Glick sets up in his coffin suddenly, his eyes glowing and fangs barred. Straker and the vampire Barlow look nothing like the characters created and described by King. Barlow has a bald head that looks like a Green Easter egg with elf ears. Rather than being a suave, cultured European noble, he's a goony, mewling monster that makes gremlin-like snarling noises and hisses when his coffin is opened. He doesn't even speak in the whole film. There are so many scenes in this film that are made out to be frightening and horror-elicting that come off as hilarious in a twisted sort of way. Truely, this film could have been great material for Mystery Science Theater.
Rating:
Summary: Defiantely worth buying
Review: This is the only good vampire movie! It is really scary. It may not be exactly like the book, which is why the average rating is 4 stars, but it is really good! This is scary, and most of my friends who don't get scared in anything had nightmares for weeks. See it by yourself, in the dark for the ultimate experience!!! Salem's Lot is the best Stephen King book based movie! It is also the scariest King Film!
Rating:
Summary: The best vampire movie ever made, period
Review: This is one of the most singularly terrifying, mesmerizing, suspenseful, subtle, and masterfully done films in the history of the horror genre, and you shouldn't expect any Anne Rice-homoerotic-13 year old goth ... from this one, because there isn't any. Having read King's book, I would say that this far exceeds the novel in terms of generating actual fear as opposed to (god forbid) what King wanted, another well spoken Dracula (instead of the absolutely horrifying Nosferatu figure played by Reggie Nalder, which we don't see till the ending sequences of the film.) David Soul does a far more convincing job as Ben Mears than Christopher Walken as the psychic protagonist in the Dead Zone. Mason does the best job I've ever seen as an "aiding the evil" character in a motion picture as Straker, the antiques dealer with an unpleasant agenda, and the soundtrack itself (which I wish they would release on a CD), along with the almost mutant like but not at all campy vampires (livid green skin, glowing, beady eyes, etc), make the film.. The book is great, but this is simply miles ahead of it in terms of mood, atmosphere, and the performances of the actors and actresses in general. The ludicrous thing is that it is generally written off as one of the worse translations of King to film, when in fact it is the best, leaving the book itself in the dust. This still ranks as one of my favorite horror movies, and along with "The Haunting" (1964), is my favorite. The motion picture version doesn't allow, (although it is still excellent), the proverbial vampiric tension to rise as the miniseries version does. There is a horror in this film difficult to articulate. Hooper and King's evaluation of it are simply wrong, based upon a book that, while entertaining, is basically another version of Dracula. This is the real thing.
Rating:
Summary: Makes You Afraid To Look Out Your Window!
Review: This is a surprisingly scary movie that's best watched late at night! Though the plot is basically the same as any other vampire flick (strange deaths occur in a small town and someone finds out its vampires but hardly anybody believes him so he takes matters into his own hands), "Salem's Lot" delivers the goods and is at times, very scary, both as in "creepy feeling" scary and "jump right out at you" scary. I've seen both the full length miniseries and the theatrical movie, and I'd have to side with the miniseries as the better of the two; though slow at times, it also includes much more into the story and gives better character developement. A must-buy for any horror fan!
Rating:
Summary: Stephen King's Tale of Vampires
Review: Stephen King's novel Salem's Lot was interesting although not incredibly unusual vampire fare but it did have a great deal of development as to the motivation of each character in the book. When you strip all those layers away . . . what you have left is this movie. It's a classic tale of a vampire who comes into town creating upheaval and naturally it's a child who is the first to understand what's going on but nobody believes HIM. If you're a fan of Stephen King and expecting something of the caliber of "The Shining" you're going to be disappointed with this one. If you're a fan of vampire or horror films, this movie might be for you if you like the real tried and true formula film with things that go bump in the night. Don't go into this film expecting big things because they just aren't there. This is just a good old fashioned horror film based on the work of a remarkable author and if that's what you're looking for this one will be fine. Enjoy a good old-fashioned scare fest.
Rating:
Summary: This is one hell of a scary movie.....
Review: If you are looking for a close movie with the book you may want to look someware else, but is you just want to see a really good vampire movie thi9s is for you. Salem's Lot is based on the novel by Stephen King and although it does not stay right with the book it is done so well that it really doesn't have to. The fact that it was a TV movie just helps it becouse it is the kind of movie that a younger audience can enjoy, I myself saw it at age ten.
|
