Salem's Lot

Rating:
Summary: deans salems lot review
Review: this i would like 2 say is a fantastic film with all the horror and actors needed.The actors chosen in this film are extremely good, david soul as ben mears.Mr barlow - the terror of the film garded by his trusty companion straker has a very good sense in the film,with teriffic make up and special effects.This film is a true classic based on the novel by stephen king.

Rating:
Summary: A real neck, er, nail-biter.
Review: There is one thing that Salem's Lot affirmed, that the mini-series was the best format for adapting Stephen King's multi-character/multi-layered novels. Although this version deviates frequently from the source material (notably in the characterization/appearance of Mr. Barlow), it still captures the magic of the novel. The escalating vampire threat flows from the natural to the supernatural with smoothly controlled suspense, punctuated by a nice jolt of a terror here and there. Certainly there are signs of a low made-for-TV budget, but the attempts to hide them work most of the time and Tobe Hooper's direction is genre competent. The only real short coming is David Soul, a fine actor who was sadly miscast as Ben Mears (he just lacked that haunted intensity the role called for). Recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Close to my heart (or should I say, neck?)
Review: I'm not quite sure what it is about this mini-series, but I absolutely love it, and I never tire of watching it. I'm usually not a fan of vampire films (as they are by and large absolute trite), but I am a fan of well-made horror films, and "Salem's Lot: The Mini-series" is just that. One of the reasons I like this film is because the story is given time to develop, as well as certain characters--which isn't a usual characteristic of horror films. The film is well cast, well acted, contains appropriate music, is very eerie and quite scary at times. The story is actually original, as well--aside from the usual vampire aspects. Nothing particularly brilliant about "Salem's Lot: The Mini-series", but it has its own undefinable charm and is very entertaining.

If you haven't seen "Salem's Lot" yet, I highly recommend seeing the full mini-series rather than the edited film version.

One of the better Stephen King films adapted from his books.

Rating:
Summary: Pretty good...but could have been better
Review: The good news is that you get the full three-hour version of Stephen King's "Salem's Lot" here, which is a big improvement on many previous VHS releases of the mini-series.
The bad news is that you don't get much else; a theatrical trailer for the European cinema release and that's about it. And that's something of a shame, because by late '70s TV standards, "Salem's Lot" wasn't bad at all. Yeah, it could stand being re-edited to eliminate the fades for commercials, and some commentary tracks from, say, Soul or director Tobe Hooper would certainly be welcome, as would be adding some of the original TV commercials and taking another pass at the transfer in an effort to remove some of the film's graininess. But as a late '70s made-for-TV horror flick, it's actually held up pretty well - and if you pay more than ...for this you weren't trying. Still, far from the final word on this mini-series.

Rating:
Summary: Watching Salem's Lot changed my entire childhood.
Review: I, as an 8 year old child, saw this movie on TV. It was shown over 2 nights. It changed the rest of my childhood. The first night ended with a freeze frame of a child vampire's eyes as he bit a victim. This picture is burned into my mind. The second night the same child vampire scratches on another child's bedroom/hostpital window to come in, and floats into the room surrounded by fog. The music, combined with this scene, completely terrified me. After watching it, I had difficulty sleeping, as I had a window right at the foot of my bed. I just got a chill writing this, as I remember my nights spent staring at my window. I always slept with covers pulled up to my neck, no matter how hot it was out. I just watched it again as a 29 year old, and after watching it, I was jumping at sounds in my home, and turning on lights at night to go into a different room of my house, instead of just going in the dark like normal.

Definitely a movie that could affect adults, and could give a child viewer nightmares, fears, and phobias lasting a lifetime.

Rating:
Summary: So bad it should be a MST3K movie....
Review: I recently bought this based on the reviews here and based on my memory of this flick as a kid. Back then, it was pretty scary, but today, its a joke at best. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS ONE. It defines a new level of awful. The scenes are painfully drawn out, so much that it takes all the suspense out of the movie. The dialogue is painful at times, cornball, and dry. The special effects are minimal and not particularily scary. I am sure all involved with this movie would rather forget about it. It does, however, make a great movie to practice your MST3K style rips on. The 70s hair, clothes style (or lack thereof) and cliched characters kept me entertained enough to finish the movie.

For future reference - read ALL the reviews, not just the spotlight ones. Seems too many people review with the eye of a cult movie buff rather than one that the general public can relate to. Nuff said.

Rating:
Summary: Best Stephen King movie I've ever seen
Review: I have read most of Steven King's books and this movie is the
best of all his books. The most scariest of all his movies.It
is also one of the best vampire movies I've ever seen. The plot
keeps getting better and better. I watch it over and over and never get tired of it. Excellent vampire movie.

Rating:
Summary: A Classic slice of 1970s horror
Review: Better than the Stephen King novel that spawned it? I think so. The story of a small New England town falling under the evil spell of a master vampire was a miracle of a tv movie. The actors involved with this production were made for their roles. The special effects are minimal, but horrifying. This full-length mini-series bears repeated viewing. My only criticism would be that the direction was little... dry. George A. Romano was originally scheduled to take the job. The mind boggles with thoughts of the eerie directions that he would have taken the horror that is... and forever will be... Salem's Lot!

Rating:
Summary: A fine, if not dated, horror film
Review: Granted, the movie does have some 1970's made-for-t.v. freeze-frames that make it seem a little hoakey at times, but bearing that in mind, Salem's Lot: The Movie has some truly scary scenes that make it all worthwhile (and I agree with the other reviewers -- see the full miniseries if possible; the chopped up version leaves too many glaring plotholes and jump-cuts). It's not an accurate representation of the book, but it brings some of the book's scariest bits to life with an effectiveness that is residual (I've never gotten over many of the scenes) and satisfying, especially when you consider that it first aired on CBS in the 70's. Rather than focusing on how dated the film is, though, pay special attention to how director Tobe Hooper crafts the frightening scenes to create an air of dread that will leave you dreaming of the film for weeks afterward. Definitely worth any horror fan's time.

Rating:
Summary: One of the better Stephen King adaptations.
Review: Many efforts to transform Stephen King's works to the screen have been pretty lame, whether television adaptations (The Stand) or the big screen (Chistine), but others have fared better (The Dead Zone, Silver Bullet, Misery). This (at that time) modern-day vampire tale does a credible job in creating a creepy atmosphere, with some good character development. As other reviewers note, there are some tell-tale "made for television" aspects to this production, but the unedited version does provide suitable chills, and, if given a chance, can be absorbing. For my money, this is a better piece of work than 'Interview with the Vampire', special effects and 'big name' stars notwithstanding. The vampire is very similar in appearance to Max Schrenk's version in the original 'Nosferatu' (and consequently the recent 'Shadow of the Vampire' with Willem Dafoe playing the loathsome creature). Pretty good rendition of an undead vampire, all in all. How does this vampire tale stack up to the many other screen versions? Although there have been some very good vampire/Dracula tales throughout the years, none has yet to equal Hammer Films 1958 version titled 'Horror of Dracula'. It remains the pinnacle of vampire films.