Rating: 
Summary: the best horror movie ever!
Review: This movie, is not just scary, it is suspenseful. I liked the full version one. I tend, to get attached to horror movies anyways. But, if you like vampire movies, then you have to see this one. The "movie" version, is okay, but is a little slow. But I would recommend it, for dvd.
Rating: 
Summary: Better than the book
Review: Though the vampire legend has been done to death (pun), it's still worth seeing this product of the '70's. I remember finding it quite scary when it first aired on TV, when I was about 12 years old. Having been exposed to the Hammer Horror version of vampires for years prior to first seeing this, I was profoundly disturbed about a scene in the movie in which a traditional vampire warding technique did not work. It was also rare (at that time) to see vampires in a movie set in the modern day.Twenty-something years later, this movie doesn't *quite* stand the test of time. The hair is funny. The clothes are funny. There's a Bicentennial play going on at the local school. The vampires -- outside of Barlow -- move slow and pose a bit. Still, viewing the movie gives one a sense of nostalgia. It's also interesting to see this movie and realize how much Ann Rice changed the view of vampires since the mid-70's. Had this movie been made today, it wouldn't have been virtually devoid of... content the way it is. There's one scene in which a guy catches another guy cheating with his wife, but that's about it. In contrasting the book and the movie, I think it's a shame that the character of Jimmy, the young doctor, was eliminated, but in many respects, the movie is much, much is better. There are simply too many characters in the book who serve little purpose. In the movie, the main character, Ben, has more of a personality and is actually a bit creepy himself at times, especially when he becomes totally rabid near the end when a staking has to be done. Barlow is a true incomprehensible beast in the movie, not a seducer as he is in the book. He's a Nosferatu, not some sexy guy with an accent who's dressed for a dinner party. Straker, Barlow's henchman, is the real antagonist in the movie, not the master whom he serves. You wonder who's really in control here. Susan, Ben's love interest, seems a bit smarter in the film. The timing of certain things comes at the end of the movie rather than before the climax as it does in the book, and that makes the story stronger, IMO. Lastly, the ending of the two works is totally different. The movie's ending is more downbeat than the book's ending, but that seems fitting in light of all that Ben and Mark, the pre-teen monster buff, have gone through by story's end.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent vampire movie!
Review: This is one of the best ones, if you get the DVD that is. Don't get stuck with the shortened VHS version. The story is about a writer returning to his home town at the same time as a vampire has arrived to suck his way through it. THere are some creepy moments in this film that you will never forget. It's a TV mini series so it IS a bit long, but it is worth the watch. The vampire is in the style of the old Nosferatu, the creepiest style of Vampire. If this movie doesn't scare you, give up on vampire movies!
Rating:
Summary: When the Hunter Becomes the Game of the Hunt
Review: I had not liked the short film version of this novel. I found it too short, too schematic, too caricatural, too allusive and not explicit enough. The book was more or less betrayed, and the book was good. I had had the full length film, in two episodes obviously for television, for quite a few years, but I had never watched it. I finally did yesterday. And I was amazed. All the dislikes I had about the short version disappeared and it opened a whole field of new reflections. First the vision of the vampire is very traditional. He is a beast, coming from some « Germanic » country, but also very « English », since his ghoul is from London. He is also very close in his looks to Nosferatu. He is a beast that has to be destroyed and the whole film is the plain story of its destruction. Yet the vampire comes here because he is attracted by the Marsten House that is haunted by some previous monster who apparently kidnapped children, though we don't know what he did with them. That's a change on the myth. Vampires are attracted by evil, in a house here, but also in the whole village because the influence of the house can be felt everywhere. The second change is in the destruction-team. It is led by a writer who was born in the village and who actually visited the haunted house when a kid. The second member is a young teenager who is both the writer and conceptor of the school pageant on the theme of the revolurionary war in the village and the cult of freedom. He is also an addict of horror stories and lore. But so far the hunt is quite classical. The destruction is too : a stake in the heart, and then fire. But at this very moment the whole thing capsizes. The hunters become the hunted. The « children » of this vampire survive the death of their father and the fire and they become the chasers, the hunters, and the two destroyers of the nest have to be on the run and stay on the run because the new-born vampires keep their mortal attractions, hence the girl-friend of the writer is chasing him to reestablish her love affair, and the friends of the teenager, all the villagers who had been reborn will go on chasing the boy till they are all destroyed. It is this inversion of the chase, of the hunt that is the typical mark of Stephen King on the theme. That also leads to a change in the traditional tale : vampires build some kind of a society dominated by their master and composed of all of the master's creations and creatures. This goes towards what Anne Rice did, though we always stay outside this vampire society and always keep the human point of view, the point of view of the victims, of the hunters (but are they the real hunters ?). Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, Paris Universities II and IX.
Rating:
Summary: lioneltrains1
Review: This movie is excellent, full of suspence and hair raising action David Soul was excellent in this movie!! If you are in to horror movies this one is a excellent one and worth the money.
Rating:
Summary: KEEPS YOU ON THE EDGE OF YOUR SEAT..
Review: STEPHEN KING KNOWS HOW TO KEEP YOU ON THE EDGE OF YOUR SEAT, A GREAT VAMPIRE MOVIE. HAS A GREAT ENDING. A LOT OF ACTION AND SO-SO SPECIAL EFFECTS.
Rating: 
Summary: Salem's Lot
Review: Boring as all hell - A "sominex tablet" masquarading as a movie. Two thumbs way down...
Rating: 
Summary: many artifacts and grain
Review: movie is great...the transfer to dvd is not....many white spots - in some scenes you watch the grain and artifacts more than the movie...very disappointed...wait until they redo this one...
Rating:
Summary: Solid and atmospheric.
Review: Salem's Lot still stands as one of the best King adaptations. David Soul's interpretation of Ben Mears is almost perfect - he has an understated screen presence, and he looks and sounds like a writer - and his seriousness lends the film its tension. James Mason is very sinister; he is played sparingly and to great effect. He seems to overshadow Barlow in most of the scenes where they are together. The other characters all contribute fine, quirky roles. If you have seen Stanley Kubrick's The Killing, you will recognize Marie Windsor and Elisha Cook, Jr. as Eva Miller and Weasel Phillips. The violence in this film is negligble and mostly off-screen and implied. The shocks are numerous but far more important is the sense of atmosphere, which is very thick. Tobe Hooper's minimalist direction, Paul Monash's dialogue-spare script, and Jules Brenner's stunning (and neglected) cinematography help round out a slow-moving production. The set design of the inside of the Marsten House is creepy and effective, with everything half hidden in the shadows. Obviosuly, most of the talent in this film spent some time watching old Val Lewton productions. They also spent some time watching Hitchcock, as the last scenes inside the Marsten House quite clearly recall Psycho, from the overhead shot when Straker grabs Dr. Norton to the swinging overhead light down in the cellar. Harry Sukman's score is also reminiscent of Bernard Hermann's Psycho, and especially Vertigo, scores, but it stands on its own well enough (and is well-served with a good pair of headphones). So why the four star rating? There are some flaws, and the most noticeable is the film's insistence of examining too many of the town's characters. Many characters are combined, which is only natural thanks to the time limits of film. For instance, King's characters of Bill Norton and Dr. Jimmy Cody are combined into a single character that helps reduce confusion and move things forward without the hassle of introducing new characters that may only be in place for a short time. Fred Willard acting as real estate man and lover to Bonnie Sawyer doesn't work so well, however, and too much time is spent on setting up their clandestine romance when, instead, that time could have been well-spent on more character development for Ben, Susan or Mark. It would also have been better used with small slice-of-life vignettes that could help further establish the strangeness and small town atmosphere of Salem's Lot. As it is, there isn't much of a sense of the town at all, and the shots of the town as deserted during the second half of the movie are not very effective when the town seemed nearly dead from the start. There are some other minor failings that keep this from being a true five-star movie, but all in all, it is a quiet, subtle and inspired piece of filmmaking.
Rating: 
Summary: good movie....dvd imperfections
Review: great movie no need to explain the plot- but the dvd does have some problems....I can get past the commercial breaks and the black outs between scenes. I have a problem with the numerous scenes that have white blemishes (dots!) that continue to flash like the source tape was really old. It sometimes takes away from the film itself. Really disappointed with the dvd transfer.
|
