Customer Reviews:
"You'll enjoy Mr Barlow, and he'll enjoy you...".......2008-03-12
Salem's Lot is that rare thing - a made-for-TV movie that is better than it should have been. It's almost and probably is Tobe Hooper's finest work by far, and one of the best vampire films ever made. The use of gore is almost non existant, so slasher movie lovers will be left feeling thirsty for more.
The film here is shown in its entirety. This is the 2 part, 3 hour TV movie. I myself remember the VHS copy which was the cinema version of the film, with an hours worth of cuts and edits. However, the cinema version was slightly more 'extreme' than the TV version, but was missing some vital elements of the story in order to keep the running time to just under 2 hours.
It's very well made, and still maintains the element of suprise shocks with the over-use of mist and fog effects, garish make-up, and traditional horror movie sounds. Of course, this is part of its charm, and the deliberate over-use of the elements is what makes this a proper horror film. Horror doesn't mean gore. It's the ability to scare and to shock, and Salem's Lot does just that. It's an assault on the senses.
I won't mention the story because all the other reviews have already covered that. I will say that it is different from Stephen King's story in lots of ways, and the more recent Salem's Lot with Rob Lowe is more accurate in telling the original story.
I have fond memories of this film from when i was a child. I first watched this in the mid eighties when i was about 8 or 9, and this became one of my favourite films of all time. Those who have never seen this film and are viewing it for the first time, i can't help but think may be disappointed because people sometimes expect too much. If you've never seen it, bare in mind it was made in 1979 primerily for TV. It is well above average for a TV movie, like i said earlier, and if you're happy with the fact that this is very low indeed on gore, and slightly camp in its approach, you'll be just about ready to watch one of the greatest slices of television that America has ever produced.
Just don't open the window if you hear someone scratching on the glass...
Old horror.......2007-12-27
Where do all these reviewers come from? This film is still kind of scary, but it is a very old movie. The vampire thing is having less and less effect especially from a film as old as this one. Respect to King, but this film is way past its sell by date. Only buy if you want a movie that is made in around the 70s which contain horror effects that don't work as well as they used to..and script that seems cheesy. I can imagine this movie being scary when it first come out on the cinema. But for today...save your money. Check out my other reviews..bye
My favourite horror.......2007-11-27
Work this out then. I detest vampire films, yet Salems lot is my favourite horror film as its not a blood in your face type film. Its creepy, with a typical 70's-80's horror film feel to it. James Maison is just sublime in character. The Marston house is the scariest house of all scary houses yet we only get to see its inside on small occassions. The music is top drawer and maintains itself throughout the film in an creepy atmospheric way.
Excellent.
CREEPY FOR IT'S DAY.......2007-11-16
This was a pretty creepy film and as an impressionable teenager,. i started going to bed with onions (didn't have garlic) strung round my neck.
It's a predictable 'vampires move to small town' storyline but was a darn good watch at the time.
The Best.......2007-10-31
I remember watching this film as a young lad some 25 years ago and thinking that nothing else in the world could be as good or as scary. I had no idea who Mr. King was at the time but boy, I was about to. When anyone went into the Marston House in this movie I thought my chest was going to explode with fear and I lived the adventure with them. How could Ben Mears have even thought about moving in there? And then there was James Mason. My goodness, how on earth could he be so friendly and so sinister at the same time. And don't even get me started on Barlow. He haunts me even now.
It might have been 25 years ago when I first saw this but I have watched it countless times since and still shudder in the right places. This film and story leave you thinking that it is watching you and could still catch you by surprise.
I was far too young to be a King fan, but I begged my parents to let me read the books after watching this. How many more films make ten year old kids want to read?
Customer Reviews:
The vampire us still the enemy because he is foreign.......2007-12-16
This recent (2004) TV film is adapted from Stephen King's novel Salem's Lot. This adaptation had been waited for and expected by many years since the first old adaptation and especially the scandalous second episode that had transformed Jerusalem's Lot into a blood farm for a community of vampires. This adaptation is very faithful to the novel though it adds a different end in concentrating the hatred against vampires onto the probably catholic priest who had been obliged to drink some of the vampire's blood, going as far as making the main character trace him in New York and kill him, though in a traditional way, which makes us doubt he will die. The second element in this film is the great dynamism, the upgrading and updating of the world that has cell phones and other modern technology. This gives to the film a modern look and feel and that is good and bracing. The characters are also speaking today's language and behaving in today's fashion. The film has also gotten rid of some of the gross surreal if not supernatural elements in the very looks of the two culprits, the vampire and his ghoul. They look so much more human than in previous adaptations. But I remain doubtful about the message of the film, or of the novel. The vampire is in no way regenerated and the myth is taken in exactly the same terms as it had always been taken, or nearly, up to Anne Rice's rewriting of it. I think this vision is making the audience get used to the necessity to kill and destroy the foreigner because he is the very image of evil, even if he does not look evil at all. This adaptation also has the merit of lightening the sentimental side of things, the various love affairs and the innuendo about such possible sexual perspectives. Everything is better concentrated on the vampire and his action and conquest of the town.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
Pleasantly surprised........2007-10-31
I was a real fan of the original movie and then the book. The wrong way round, I know, but I was only ten and then along came this. Now I really hoped for something brilliant but didn't quite get that. I expected absolute trash but didn't get that either. What I thought we got was a fairly faithful take on the book and a stand up good try at re-making what I think is the best horror flick of all time. I quite like modern re-makes because they give you something new even if it is just a change of cast - I watch stage plays with different casts all the time. Some are better than others but we don't suggest there should only ever be one version. So I was pleasantly surprised to enjoy Rob Lowe and his mates running around The Lot and giving me the chance to hide behind the furniture all over again. Go on, give it a chance.
love it.......2007-05-21
i simply love this version of salem's lot.i was a big fan of the 79 version,but i was always disappointed with how they made the character of barlow into a nosferatu,when in fact in the novel he was a charming but utterly evil humanesque vampire.true,it's still not exactly like the novel,i would've preferred to see the vampire baby etc,and more use of the danny glick character,and the eva and weasel storyline was a bit sugary and the larry crocket incest thing was totally uncalled for,and i didn't like the way they handled the father callahan character,but it's still better than tobe hooper's version,as far as being faithful to the novel goes.i also wish that they'd made better use of rutger hauer as barlow.they could've kept the bonnie sawyer/corey affair in there,instead of changing it to the cody/Mcdougal affair,then we would've seen more of barlow.even though the hooper version had a sense of dread throughout the movie,this one is even darker in my opinion,and i love the soundtrack,especialy when ben is walking to the soup kitchen during the opening scenes.
i have to say that i think that the guy who plays floyd tibbets is great,as well as rob lowe.rob lowe IS ben mears.
anyway,i love this,despite it's faults,so i recommend it to anyone who's read the book and who's a fan of king.
thanks for reading this and i hope it helps.
Stephen.
I DONT CARE WHAT THE OTHER REVIEWS SAY!.......2007-02-25
I will be the first to admit that alot of vampire films are shockingly poor, some, a rare few, shine out like the first rays of the morning sun to show others how to do it and Stephen King's Salem's Lot is one of them.
I enjoyed the original 'Salem's Lot alot and infact the ONLY part of this film I didnt enjoy was the changes to the Barlow character, I LOVED the Nosferatuesque Mr Barlow from the David Soul version, Rutger Hauer (bless him) can not do vampire lords (see the original Buffy the Vampire Slayer for proof) the other thing I didnt like was the way the Barlow died, the CGI work was poo (again, the original looked better!)
But other than that, this was an excellent retelling of an excellent story and it should be given a chance.
Quality Sound.......2007-01-28
This version is nothing like the original novel! It has been updated - post Afghan war; Ben is a non fiction wrier, characters text and email each other, Ben's landlady did rude things with Huby 'Marsten'; the gimp of the dump is cured etc. As such it's a good version of a great story, made more so by the superb 5.1 digital sound - this really cranks up the shorror which hits you from all sides. If you want a real fright get the uncut audiobook, stick it on your ipod, and listen as you fall asleep. It's not better than the David Soul version, it's different!
Customer Reviews:
Superb Horror flick.......2006-05-26
I would rate this film as one of the best vampire flicks ever. The prison scene is incredible, you can actually see and feel the fear in the poor blokes eyes. Whether it is the TV or full version this is definitely one to have in your horror film collection. Don't watch this one alone and without curtains on your windows......you never know what might come knocking.
Without A Doubt, The Full Length Version is Far Superior!.......2005-09-07
I was fortunate enough to see the full length feature version of Salem's Lot on TV back in 1981. I was utterly enthralled by the film and thought it was an absolutely brilliant and terrifying adaptation of Stephen King's book.
I bought the video, but unfortunately it was the "cut" version and I have watched it many times since. The result being, that over the years I had forgotten how the original version went and so I decided to go on a pilgrimage and buy and watch the Full Length Version again.
For the second time in my life I was completely blown away by it! OK! Yes it is looking a little dated now and is obviously not as terrifying as it was 26 years ago, but some of the scenes that were cut from the original were pure gems, especially with regard to the films continuity.
The one scene that I think should never have been removed at all was the first visit by Ralphie to his brother Danny.
This scene made such an impact, because of the strange mixture of feelings it stirred up in me. Beginning with deep sadness and a strong sense of loss at the fact that this little boy was now a vampire and to complete and utter horror when you realised that poor old Danny was doomed. This grief for Ralphie's lost innocence was made even more poignant when after the window was opened and he floated into the room, the toy aeroplanes hanging from the ceiling were the first things you noticed.
Prior to 1979, vampires had always been fully consenting adults, and this film turned all preconceived ideologies about vampires completely on its head.
With this first visit, he did not look completely corrupted, as if he wouldn't be fully "evil", until he had tasted blood, and God how I hoped he wouldn't, despite "knowing" that he would. He looked euphoric and excited as if he had some wonderful secret to share with his sibling and the scene ended with the camera still focussed on Ralphie grinning elatedly at being reunited with Danny. It only became apparent that Danny had been bitten when he ended up in the hospital, no attack by Ralphie on Danny was shown in this first scene.
The second scene between the two brothers that was shown in both films was the one where Danny is in the hospital and once again Ralphie appears at the window. The contrast between Ralphie's features and demeanour in this scene compared with the first were startlingly different this time he looked evil, but driven, like a Junkie looking for a fix. I found his "neediness" particularly disturbing and the way he raised his head in triumph before anchoring his fangs firmly into Danny's neck.
A good choice of actors made a strong cast.
Notably;
James Mason was a vicious and chilling Straker, and made the role his own.
Lew Ayres a highly credible Jason Berk.
David Soul was a plausible and charming Ben Mears.
Bonnie Bedelia convinced me she was terrified when caught by Straker at the house.
Fred Willard gave a great performance as Larry Crockett
Brad Savage was a highly amusing Danny Glick (more so recently as the film has dated).
Julie Cobb, Geoffrey Lewis, Lance Kerwin, Barney McFadden, Marie Windsor; Reggie Nalder,
All gave truly impressive performances.
BUT!
Star of the show for me though, purely for the scenes I have recounted above was
Ronnie Scribner for a truly convincing and mesmerising performance as Ralphie Glick.
Without A Doubt, The Full Length Version is Far Superior!.......2005-09-07
I was fortunate enough to see the full length feature version of Salem's Lot on TV back in 1981. I was utterly enthralled by the film and thought it was an absolutely brilliant and terrifying adaptation of Stephen King's book.
I bought the video, but unfortunately it was the "cut" version and I have watched it many times since. The result being, that over the years I had forgotten how the original version went and so I decided to go on a pilgrimage and buy and watch the Full Length Version again.
For the second time in my life I was completely blown away by it! OK! Yes it is looking a little dated now and is obviously not as terrifying as it was 26 years ago, but some of the scenes that were cut from the original were pure gems, especially with regard to the films continuity.
The one scene that I think should never have been removed at all was the first visit by Ralphie to his brother Danny.
This scene made such an impact, because of the strange mixture of feelings it stirred up in me. Beginning with deep sadness and a strong sense of loss at the fact that this little boy was now a vampire and to complete and utter horror when you realised that poor old Danny was doomed. This grief for Ralphie's lost innocence was made even more poignant when after the window was opened and he floated into the room, the toy aeroplanes hanging from the ceiling were the first things you noticed.
Prior to 1979, vampires had always been fully consenting adults, and this film turned all preconceived ideologies about vampires completely on its head.
With this first visit, he did not look completely corrupted, as if he wouldn't be fully "evil", until he had tasted blood, and God how I hoped he wouldn't, despite "knowing" that he would. He looked euphoric and excited as if he had some wonderful secret to share with his sibling and the scene ended with the camera still focussed on Ralphie grinning elatedly at being reunited with Danny. It only became apparent that Danny had been bitten when he ended up in the hospital, no attack by Ralphie on Danny was shown in this first scene.
The second scene between the two brothers that was shown in both films was the one where Danny is in the hospital and once again Ralphie appears at the window. The contrast between Ralphie's features and demeanour in this scene compared with the first were startlingly different, this time he looked evil, but driven, like a Junkie looking for a fix. I found his "neediness" particularly disturbing and the way he raised his head in triumph before anchoring his fangs firmly into Danny's neck.
A good choice of actors made a strong cast.
Notably;
James Mason was a vicious and chilling Straker, and made the role his own.
Lew Ayres a highly credible Jason Berk.
David Soul was a plausible and charming Ben Mears.
Bonnie Bedelia convinced me she was terrified when caught by Straker at the house.
Fred Willard gave a great performance as Larry Crockett
Brad Savage was a highly amusing Danny Glick (more so recently as the film has dated).
Julie Cobb, Geoffrey Lewis, Lance Kerwin, Barney McFadden, Marie Windsor; Reggie Nalder,
All gave truly impressive performances.
BUT!
Star of the show for me though, purely for the scenes I have recounted above was
Ronnie Scribner for a truly convincing and mesmerising performance as Ralphie Glick.
Salem's Lot.......2005-08-14
I taped this off the television having not read the book yet. I must say it's much better than most vampire films. The vampires are pretty scary looking, especially the main vampire. Though personally I think we saw too much of that vampire. There are a few scenes that will have you jumping out of your seat but it's really one of those films that only really scares you once you've switched it off and gone to bed. The best scary films have you jumping out of your seat but also shows you very little so that your imagination can do it's worst. I can't help thinking though if I'd been born in the nineteen seventies and seen this film I would appreciate it more. I'd say that this film reaches about 31/2 on my scariness rating and only a 1 on my cheesiness rating. I'll will have to read the book at some point and I will probably have to check out the new mini series with Rob Lowe, dispite the bad reviews. I already own "Misery" (I've read the book) and "The Dead Zone" though I haven't watched either yet. I will be plus many more Stephen King films and books. Next week I'll have to tape "Pet Sematary". I recommend this film.
Original and Best!!.......2005-05-08
This DVD should be available in region 2 format so that everyone can enjoy it.I bought this from Amazon and it was sent from America(I have a multi-regional player)Although the film is old it still managed to scare the life out of me!!I have seen the film Return to Salem's Lot but it doesn't come anywhere near this brilliant original.Over 3 hours long,it represents good value for money and is an excellent adaptation of Stephen King's book.
Customer Reviews:
This was 'salem's Lot? Purleeze........2004-12-27
'Salem's Lot is easily the most terrifying of Stephen King's novels. A dark and evil tale that scares the crap out of you. The 1979 version although annoying to purists (including myself) for the monsterfication of Barlow and some dodgy scriptwriting had one thing in common with the novel - it too was terrifying, it positively traumatised some viewers.
Bottom line: This is no more frightening than a tame episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it's an absolute pile of rubbish..... I find it very sad that a director can take such extraordinary material and turn it into something so utterly pedestrian.... and make no mistake here... the main problem was not the script, nor even the acting but the direction.
Three of the major scenes in the book and '79 version were ruined by the director here -- Danny Glick at the window, Marjorie Glick in the mortuary and the return of Mike Ryerson. How can you possibly ruin these scenes? A talentless child holding the camera couldn't ruin these scenes.
The result is very tame and unexciting, there are no thrills of fear here - the vampires of the novel and first film that chilled us to the bone are just people with fangs who disintegrate noisily ala 'Blade' when somebody raises their voice.
The small-town Stephen King thing is kind of ok but it's been done much better elsewhere - the acting carries the direction, hell, everything carries the squandered crappy direction.
Thoroughly disappointing, even more so because now Salomon has queered the pitch for everyone else -- no one else will be able to make this again for the next twenty years.
Disappointing.......2004-12-23
I thought the original Tobe Hooper version took liberties with King's original (extremely scary) text... but at least it was good. This one might as well have changed the name and made itself an original B-vamp movie.
It's clear that what the writer/director mean to do is modernise the book and compare the vampire's evil with contemporary evils (including Afganistan, for example). So they've made changes.
But the result is a really shoddy movie that doesn't seem to know what it's doing. It takes an hour before I recognised a scene from the book - characters, places etc that you are familiar with have been changed beyond recognition to pander to the rather redundant and overloud message. The scriptwriter should have been shot - nobody uses the purple prose that you hear coming out of the mouths of Rob Lowe et al! It occasionally sounds like a critique of the book combined with an essay on 'horror as metaphor' that has been dramatised.
The actors try with what they have, and Rutger is heaps better than his vamp act in Buffy! But altogether it's a wasted movie - especially as long as it is.
A real shame and a completely missed opportunity.
UK DVD:
- Saw 3 (Extreme Edition) [2006]
- Saw 4 [2007]
- Saw Trilogy
- Scream Trilogy Box Set [1996]
- Silent Hill [2006]
- Silent Running [1972]
- Sleepy Hollow [1999]
- Space: Above and Beyond [1996] (REGION 1) (NTSC)
- Stalker [1979]
- Stephen King's It [1990]
UK DVD List
UK DVD
All Horror
|
Horror
|
Categories
|
DVD
|
Video
![Stephen King's It [1990]](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000FII3MY.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
Stephen King's It [1990]
![Salem's Lot - The Mini Series [2004]](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B0009E389M.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
Salem's Lot - The Mini Series [2004]
![Stephen King's Cat's Eye [1985]](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00006JY2N.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
Stephen King's Cat's Eye [1985]
![Stephen King's The Stand [1994]](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00009V8YC.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
Stephen King's The Stand [1994]
![Rose Red [2001]](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00007L3T4.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
Rose Red [2001]
![Salem's Lot - The Mini Series [2004]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/211J0QYAR0L.jpg)
![Stephen King's The Shining [1997]](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00007L3T5.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
![Stephen King's The Langoliers [1995]](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000S3998S.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
![The Mangler 2: Graduation Day [2007]](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000QUEJS8.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
![Salem's Lot [1981] (REGION 1) (NTSC)](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31MZS0K2B9L.gif)
![Stephen King's It [1990] (REGION 1) (NTSC)](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00006FDCD.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
![Cursed [2005] (REGION 1) (NTSC)](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B0009ETDAK.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
![Don't Go In the Woods Alone [1982]](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000LP64TA.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
![The Funhouse [1981] (REGION 1) (NTSC)](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00023P4SS.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
![From Beyond the Grave [1973] (REGION 1) (NTSC)](http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000TUDBGG.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
![Salem's Lot: The Mini-Series [2004] (REGION 1) (NTSC)](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21EZihTPBqL.jpg)
![Salem's Lot: The Miniseries [2004] (REGION 1) (NTSC)](http://www.germanelectronics88.com/noimage.gif)
