Salem's Lot (2004)

What a waste of my time!!!

Please don't spend money on this.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Oddly enough I never read the book upon which this mini-series is based, so how true it stays to the source I have no idea about. But as such, without having anything to compare it to, then I can say that it was actually entertaining.The story is about a writer returning to his hometown of Jerusalem's Lot, or Salem's Lot as the locals call it. Here he is forced to confront the haunts of his troubled past as well as the force of evil that now resides in the shunned Marsten house.They had some nice talents on the cast list, including Rob Lowe, Andre Braugher, Donald Sutherland, James Cromwell and Rutger Hauer. Personally I think that it was a shame that Sutherland and Hauer didn't have more time on the screen than they did, but they served as bait to draw in the viewers. The cast did a good job with their given roles.This is an entertaining mini-series, and even watched in one sitting the 174 minutes just fly by in no time.This 2004 version of "Salem's Lot" is well-worth watching and it is rather entertaining.

As a huge Stephen King fan, this 'mini-series' had the potential to top Tobe Hooper's TV-movie in terms of both frights and accuracy, but fails to do either. As a huge wuss when it comes to horror movies, it's not an unpleasant way to waste an afternoon. The performances range from mailing it in (I'm looking at YOU, Donald Sutherland and Rob Lowe) to borderline bizarre and against the original character (James Cromwell and Rutger Hauer). The amount of disregard for the original material is so overtly disrespectful I had a difficult time in viewing this movie from anything other than a critical perspective. Credits, score, directing, and special effects make this corny enough for TNT, because they know (melo)drama, but it is screenwriter Filardi who I have the hardest time understanding. Why are so many of the great scenes from the novel tainted by this melodrama screen writing? As the saying goes, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' I believe there is hope for an actual mini-series of the novel which could be both faithful and clever-but I'm not holding my breath.

Let me start off by saying this isn't terrible. If you're bored there are worse ways of spending 3 hours than watching this. The trouble is, it's not terribly good either. I applaud the producers for attempting to work as much of the book into the screenplay as they could, and the location is excellent, with a decent smattering of special effects to boot. However, the bad far outweighs the good. Let's start with the good points. The location is great, on a par with the 1979 masterpiece, giving a real feeling of small town isolation. And the Marsten house looks suitably creepy and foreboding. The music is good, and the special effects are above average for a TV mini series of it's era. A few of the cast do a great job, James Cromwell is excellent as Father Callahan, Dan Byrd does OK as a shell-shocked Mark, and Julia Blake is a wonderful Eva. That's about it for the good stuff. Onto the bad. The series' biggest failing for me was the decision to drag it into the present. By setting the story in modern times with the internet and mobile phones, the the idea that a small community like this could just collapse under the visit of vampires without any outside help being summoned is ludicrous. Some of the casting choices and changes to the characters are poor. I've enjoyed Rob Lowe in many movies but the role of Ben Mears didn't suit him at all. David Soul brought a lot of passion and intense emotion to his 1979 portrayal, whereas Lowe only has two emotions through the entire series, bored and scared. The use of a narration from Lowe throughout is another bad idea. The character changes are disastrous. Matt Burke is now a gay man for some reason, Doctor Jimmy is a sleazeball who beds one of his married patients, and worse of all Larry Crockett is a child abuser who is sleeping with his daughter, the town 'Goth' Ruthie Crockett. Worse still is the relationship between Ben and Susan. In the book and 79 mini series their gentle romance and meeting of minds made you ache for Ben when Susan is turned. In this series there is zero chemistry between the leads and there is absolutely no romance, save for a few small chats about literature and a possible vacation to New York. When Susan is turned Ben hardly seems bothered and neither do we. The only interesting side character is Dud Rogers, the local hunchback who lives on the town garbage dump, but he is used so fleetingly it's hardly worth it. Another waste is the use of heavyweight actor Donald Sutherland as Straker, who is completely lacking in any menace whatsoever. Rutger Hauer is also wasted as Barlow, taking up about 5 minutes of the total screen time. All in all this is watchable fair, but doesn't warrant repeat viewings. It's neither captivating or remotely scary, which is kind of missing the whole point.

I held off on watching this mostly because of the bad reviews here.OK the 1979 TV version might be classic and a lot closer to the book. This one is deviates more from the book. The teleplay author took some creative licenses here and there et al.As other reviewers pointed out Matt Burke is a homosexual in this version but he isn't over the top nor is there too much attention on this in the story.Despite some six years since 2004 when it was originally aired, I found it pretty entertaining. The key characters are there, and still feels like Stephen King. If you've seen the 1979, read or listened to the book then give this spin a chance..