Salem

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.....

Just watched the DVD and was gripped from beginning to end. Why all these bad comments? King's book reaches into the well worn bag of Vampire clichés and recreates the myth. Instead of a wild, exotic location, his vampire tale happens in our own back yard - small town USA. The movie, like the book, details characters - typical types, but uniquely drawn to perk our interest - setting up ordinary and recognizable patterns of action and behavior. Enter the vampire; strange things happen, the patterns shake and change; the town goes from sunlit Americana to moonlit nightmare. This movie changes many of King's original notions, but maintains the heart and soul of his book. The first fifteen or twenty minutes, introduced by the Lowe character with a steady and pointed commentary,

brilliantly introduces the story's characters while it's signaling the movie's main conflict. For me, this was seamless storytelling; convincing, entertaining, and, with the overall dark mood reflected in the words and Lowe's voice, a foreshadowing that's all the more ironic because what we're looking at is so ordinary. Being a TV mini series, the film makers didn't have to cram the book into a two hour box. Time is taken to develop characters, relationships; action unfolds at a pace that seems steadily natural - nothing is pushed. Knowing more about the characters means we feel more for them when bad things happen. At least, I did. Rob Lowe's measured, low key performance anchors the movie. I believed he was a writer, who's guarded, repressed nature was rigidly calculated as if all things in life progressed like words in a well written sentence. I found all the Vampire stuff genuinely spooky - mainly because it all seemed so sad. With only a few misguided gestures along the way (the incest bit, for one, seemed unnecessary), this director focused the movie with care and respect. Even when "bad" characters are "changed" we feel a kind of empathy that is all but nonexistent in Horror movies these days. Maybe watching it in one sitting, as I did, with no interruptions, is why I could follow and appreciate things that others (based on the majority of these comments) seemed to miss. My opinion is firm: this is a great movie.

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.

I'm just gonna tell it like I feel it is: This re-make of Stephen King's well-known tale of vampires deserves the same rating as the original '79 made-for TV version. A lot of people say stuff like "It's not as scary as the original...", but they forget that they saw the original when they were kids. I'm pretty sure that when you show the scene were Rutger Hauer (with fangs & contact lenses) is crawling around on the ceiling (in this new version) to any kid, it will scare the living daylights out of it. The story moves at an okay pace and is actually constructed like one big flashback. Decent performances from the whole cast (Donald Shutterland is pretty evil in this one) and characters with enough background to make them interesting. I also had the feeling that near the end, there were a lot more vampires than in the original '79 version. The whole town seemed to be infected. A solid three-hour movie, worthy of your time.

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!