Salem

I loved the book when I read it in the 80's and looked forward to this movie but I was let down.

I'm not a purist and don't usually mind different interpretations of a fictional story, but the changes weren't really the worst parts, that would be the bland storytelling and the movie just felt rushed.

There was no character development whatsoever, the acting was mediocre, though Alfre Woodard stood out and I wish she was shown more as she was the best part of the movie for me, though she was hardly in it, and I can't say it enough, there was nothing really happening with the story to keep me interested.

A little backstory on anyone would have been nice, an actual view of the budding romance that was taking place to help us actually feel the main characters grief, anything at all other than the bland scenes we got.

Unfortunately an utterly forgettable film.

Not Recommended.

I believe this movie could have used another 30-40 minutes to flesh thing's out. To much rushed scenes to get to the next. More back story could have happened with the care taker which he was a waste unlike the original which was much better and very much more creepy. Could have seen how he became barlow's servent. Backstory on Barlow the master himself how he became what he is. Offer something different or adding to that what the original or remake didn't have that set's it apart not saying it would be better then the original but hold up as very worthy remake. I still enjoyed it but just something to think about for people wanting to do remake's.

The movie had some decent scares. The acting was solid but the plot was rushed and, something I'll never understand, they felt the need to rewrite one of the greatest writers of our time. Too many storylines were dropped while others were strangely created. I just wish the story had been properly developed which is where an episode series would have been appropriate. The Marsten house murdee backstory could have been given some time, as well, as that's a great subplot and explanation as to why Barlow and Straker choose the house/location. Barlow's makeup was beautiful done, however, so that's something. Do films still do test audiences? It doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

Having read the novel several times and seeing the 1979 tv-series a number of times over the years, I was really looking forward to this. Well, it was disappointing. I realize it's a lot to ask to have to cram the book into a two-hour film, a lot of story and character background had to be sacrificed. All of our main characters are there, some visibly altered to suit 21st century norms, but not well fleshed out. A bunch of liberties are taken with the storyline as well, some for no clear reason, it seems. I guess if you have never read the book, you wouldn't know what you're missing. But the most heinous thing about this film is simple: if you're the least bit of a horror movie fan, It's Not Scary. Like, at all. Give it a watch if you like, but the broth of this soup is quite thin.

I have t read the book so I can't compare it to that. I loved the look of the vampires. There was definitely good creepy atmosphere. Good action scenes. It had the makings of a good horror movie, I just think it would have fared better as a mini series. We needed more time to get to know these characters better. More time to develop these relationships. I think Lewis does a really good acting job with what he's given but his character needs more development. His backstory doesn't play into the story in any way, except for a vague "only the outsiders win" kind of way. Like I thought him being a writer (besides being the obvious Stephen King stand in) would serve a purpose, like maybe he's the one to do research, but no. The only other thing we know about him is that his parents died when he was a kid and that serves no purpose either. He's kind of nothing character. Again, at least Lewis does a good job with what little is given to him. But as said, I think a mini series would have been better to give more time for the characters.