El misterio de Salem's Lot

King's material so rarely makes it to the screen properly. I've all but given up hope on seeing anything from him in the theater or on television that is worth watching.

He's a master of horror, drama, and suspense. A writer that our grandchildren will likely study in school; as we've studied so many classics in different genres. But when our grandchildren take those college-level classic literature courses, I do hope they leave out the details on the screen-adaptations of such "classics" as Pet Semetary or Maximum Overdrive or Christine...

That said, there are a few gems that stick out - in the horror genre. I'm not going to debate the merits of Shawshank or The Green Mile or Stand By Me. We all know that those are ... different.

The Stand was butchered. They had the right idea, at least - not to try to tell the story in 2 hours. But they were on the right track. The Storm of the Century was decent. But that was written specifically for television.

Which brings us to my point - Salem's Lot. A great book. A good original film (given the era...not so great anymore). And now, this new version. Fans of King decry just about anything that taints their memory of the original work. Me, I'm just happy to see it done decently after so many disappointments. This new version is pretty good. There are plenty of changes ("updates") to the story and characters - and the fans have whined incessantly about it. But they were necessary to avoid anachronistic cheese and to help the viewer relate better to the characters. The story is well-paced and it actually looks really good. There is a notable lack of campy filler and the usual dung that litters the majority of King's past films/series.

All in all, I give it 7 out of 10. Well worth the watch.

All,

Sad but true, Stephen King novels cannot be turned into movies without losing some of the authors original intent. The 2004 attempt to bring 'Salems Lot to the "little screen" suceeded in some aspects, but failed miserably in others. Where as the 1979 version of the film scared the living be-Jesus out of us (I still cannot sleep with the shades open at night), I can truthfully say that I don't think I ever read our 18th century or earlier vampire villain Barlow screeching something like a person who has had one to many Macnonalds cheese burger at 4:00 in the morning (wheeeee). I don't know about the rest of the known universe, but I've always envisioned Barlow as a blood thirsty sophisticant. An individual of unspeakable evil, yet a person cultured and refined. I don't think Rutger was able to achieve that definition. It seemed to me that he carried his role from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (Donald Sutherland????) over to this production. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed most of Rutgers' work, Blade Runner especially, but I really think he kinda missed the mark with this role. As far as meeting in the middle. I think the 2004 version of the film somewhat stayed true to the original book, but lacked the overall psychological punch of the 1979 version. Which leads you to the question...Can we ever achieve a fine balance with regards to a Stephen King novel brought to the big or small screen.....

First off, let me say that I have read the original novel and seen the 1979 miniseries. Both are great in their own right. The novel is scary and foreboding. The '79 movie captures that feeling even though it changed a good amount of the story.

This 2004 adaptation doesn't attempt to mimic the feelings the '79 movie conveyed. In my opinion, this is a good thing. Although many posters seem to indicate they want to see the same scenes that were in the '79 version, what would this accomplish? The '79 version is on tape, so if you want to be scared in the same way, watch that.

The critics I've read so far have criticized this film for not being close to the novel. I guess I had a different expectation. I have long since given up on the expectation that novels translate perfectly to film. This does not happen (the rare exception being Lord of the Rings, yet even that had changes). Nevertheless, here are their main arguments. I'll respond to each one:

1) The ending of Father Callahan. - This is a 3 hour movie, and as such, plot points and characters need to be wrapped up. While Father Callahan may survive in the novel (only to reappear in The Dark Tower), this would leave more questions than answers to those who are watching the miniseries and getting the story for the first time. Remember how ridiculous the truncated version of the '79 movie ended--without knowing what happened to Susan? Films need to wrap up their loose ends.

2) The modernization of the story. - Salem's Lot was set in the mid-seventies not for any particular reason but only because that was when King wrote it. Obviously the original film took place in the seventies (as it was shown in 1979). Why must the new miniseries take place in the 70s? There's nothing in the book that requires the 70s to be the setting, and more people will be able to adapt to the current time. They don't sacrifice any of the story elements to do this. But since we are modernizing it, we do need to add some modern touches (i.e. email, cell phone, etc.) None of these take away from the story.

3) It's not scary / doesn't scare me as much as the '79 version. - Again, the '04 version isn't attempting to imitate the earlier film, and rightfully so. We don't need a shot by shot of what made the '79 classic horror (and it is) - this is how the remake of "Psycho" got panned. The original is a classic, and you can't remake a classic. So instead the director here (Saloman) decided to focus not so much on the fear but on another aspect of King's novel that was not focused on in the '79 version, and that is the entity of the town itself. The '79 version eliminated, combined, and truncated many characters, so that in the end, the only really main ones were Ben, Mark, Susan, and Straker. It worked, but this was a far cry from King's novel. The 2004 version gives us much more, including Dr. Cody, Dud, Ruthie, Father Callahan (in a larger role), Barlow (in the real role), and many other minor characters (i.e. the bus driver).

To sum up - No, it's not scary, but it isn't trying to be. There's a '79 version that did that very, very well. We didn't need them to remake that; it's good on its own. What we needed was an interesting story. Salem's Lot '04 gives us that. Don't expect it to win any Emmys, but hearing people say they wasted 4 hours of their lives makes me laugh. This is one of the best adaptations of a King work, and there are far, far worse.

Another film adaptation of Stephen King's masterpiece 'Salem's Lot, one of the scariest novels ever written. Presented by TNT as a two part mini-series.

Ben Mears returned to ‘Salems Lot, the small New England town where he was born, hoping to write the novel that just might put to rest what had happened to him as a boy in the old Marsten House. Unfortunately, Richard Straker and Kurt Barlow had other ideas.

A bit different than the 1979 version, mainly due to modern computer generated enhancements and Peter Filardi's loosely adapted teleplay.

Comparing the two mini-series, neither followed the book closely, although Tobe Hooper's earlier version was the scarier. Rob Lowe was more believable as Ben Mears than David Soul, but neither Lance Kerwin nor Dan Byrd fit the book's impish image of 11 year old Mark Petrie. Donald Sutherland's Richard K. Straker character never had a chance to develop, but it could never have compared to James Mason's portrayal, he was much more sinister.

The second part was filled with great performances by the cast and fantastic special effects and was far more enjoyable to watch with Rutger Hauer as vampire Kurt Barlow, while James Cromwell as Father Callahan gave the best performance.

aside from the fact that the writers tried to ham handedly bring the story into the 21st century with allusions to the internet, the gulf war, et al. (which seem stuck in there more than anything else) this simply wasn't scary. in fact, it wasn't even creepy. the original movie, while flawed, at least was creepy. in this one, the character of straker is turned from an elegant older gentleman who generates an aura of menace into a crazy wild haired old man that just as well may wear a sign around his neck saying "haha, i'm a bad guy!" there is no chemistry between ben mears and sue norton. the marston house doesn't seem to project the image of a "sounding board for evil" that king described in the novel.

rutger hauer was somewhat effective as barlow, but was largely a disappointment because he was underutilized. while barlow may have not had a lot of appearances in the book, the ones that he did have were memorable.

finally, the special effects were just far too cliché'd. all the business of vampires climbing walls and ceilings...what is that supposed to be? scary it isn't.

i long for someone to take a steven king story and be genuinely creepy with it. all of these horror genre directors are so "in your face" with the supernatural and with their effects that they seem to forget that the most terrifying things are the things that you can't see or see dimly for most of the time, and when they are seen full face, they must project the appropriate menace in order to answer the buildup.

thus, another bad vampire movie bites the dust. trust me, you're better off with buffy the vampire slayer. the writing is certainly better!