I wasn't going to watch this new version because I love the original so much,but after watching your review I might watch it now. You're right about James Mason ,he was wonderful in the original
Well, go in with lowered expectations. If you've seen my full video, then you'll know exactly what happens and my overall disappointment with it. Let me know what you think. But nobody is better than James Mason and Reggie Nalder. 🦇🦇🦇🥃🥃🥃
Hey mate, it was good talkin to ya in the comments. I appreciate the feedback. Yeah the new Salems Lot was pretty good, maybe it could have been better but I just love scary movies no matter shyte or not 😂
Aye, glad you enjoyed it. Great cinematography and some cool suspense. But, for me, it just comes apart in the second half. But, hey, it's another vampire movie! 🦇🦇🦇🥃🥃🥃💪
Great review Kilty as always !!! What made the book & the 79 version so great was the slow burn , Felt it would have been much better as a 8-10 hour mini series like the watcher, could have explored all the characters backgrounds more in depth & would generate more interest in the story & lore ! What was your opinion on the Rob Lowe/Rutger Hauer version ? I personally liked that version
The Lowe/Hauer/Sutherland take is the most faithful, by far. I like the cast and the detail and some creepy moments. But, for me, it lacked shocks and despite the Barlow accuracy, I really missed Nalder's pure nasty badass vampire.
Me and me son watched the 79 version, and me son said ' that was a good 3 hr movie & kurt barlow is the scariest vampire I've seen,I said tell me about it,when I saw that back in the day barlow scared the fuck out of me 😂,we'll be watching the new version soon,I have been listening to the new soundtrack on Spotify & it sounds good 👍, cheers brother 🥃🥃🥃
Hauer's take is the most faithful to King's character of Barlow, but Nalder's is, by far, the most terrifying and iconic. Alexander Ward's nanosecond copy n paste is an absolute travesty, as we see him in this version. We know who and what he is - so do something with him. They allow him to talk but give him nothing to say! I can imagine the three hour cut may well have some actual vocal interplay. If so, it's possible that it didn't work. But give it a watch and your opinions could well be different.
Good review…. The film sorely let me down… but then warners cut an hour off it. Doubt we will ever see that though. I didn’t mind the crucifixes glowing cos that’s in the book. I found this film pretty much like you did lol ;-)
Do they glow in the book?? God, I'll have to go back and check. Been a long time since I read it. There was definite potential for this to be a fine and thrilling adaptation, but chopping it up has robbed it of momentum, character and a proper narrative. We know there is a flashback sequence with young Ben encountering Hubie Marston (played by Uber screen monster, Derek Mears) that has been removed. Much more has clearly been cut away. However, I would suspect that not even Dauberman's full three hour version could hold a candle to Hooper's seminal take. Cheers 😈🦇🥃🥃
i downloaded it a few days ago,excellent quality and sound,Wasn't sure if I was going to like it,or thought,it's going to nowhere near as good as the 79 version,and to begin with as I was I thought this feels like a tv film,but as it progressed I found myself to my surprise enjoying it more than I thought I would.but I have to say I didn't know whether it was meant to be a dark comedy,at least that's how I looked on it.
It's definitely a fun vampire flick as it stands. But the original 3 hour cut could possibly remove the frustrating and rushed narrative and lack of character development. Really needed a better Straker and more Barlow. Cheers 🦇🥃🦇
I can't put the link on here, mate. It would get removed. But you just need to search for free movie streaming sites plus the title. You will find it. 👍👍👍
I loved it. It did rush through the movie. Thats my only complaint. They should have made it a two parter. Those vampires are creepy. I will definitely be rewatching it. Ps peanut butter and jam is a great combo.
This cut-down version is a game of two halves for me. Great moody build-up in the first. Messy, rushed, muddled and lacklustre in the second. As I've been saying ever since, Dauberman's full cut is bound to rectify some of this. We know of certain scenes that were filmed and subsequently chopped that would definitely improve the story and the characters - but it is clear that the studio did not share such thoughts. The film tested badly, presumably with much of that extra hour in there, so perhaps the film still didn't work. I wonder if we'll ever get the chance to find out for ourselves. As it stands, this is fun but immediately forgettable. This could have been the best of both worlds - Barlow with the Nalder/Nosferatu look and with the ability to talk as he does in the book. But, as depicted here, he has nothing worthwhile to say, and nothing remotely exciting to do. Glad you enjoyed it, though, laaa. 🥃👍🎃🦇🦇🦇
I liked it, was it great? It was okay, it was fun to watch. I like how it kept the original parts that scared the crap out of me as a kid but expanded on them some. Like the trances and I loved how they came out of the shadows and appeared on rooftops etc.
Yeah, it brought in a nice 30 Days of Night aspect with the rooftop vamps. I'd love to see the original 3 hour cut, which would go some way to improving continuity and character development - but I doubt that extra hour will be reinstated. Cheers 🦇🦇🦇
Barlow is an utter waste of time in this. They give the ability to talk but give him nothing to say. Straker lacks menace and just goes nowhere fast. Like the film, itself.
Yeah, back when it came out. Usually I love Larry Cohen movies, but I wasn't too impressed with this one. Long time since I've seen it though. May have to revisit.
@@Kilt-ManChris never got why they had Barlow on the cover when he’s nowhere to be seen in the film 🤣 if you ever get chance there was a 90s show called Are you afraid of the dark - episode midnight madness where Nosferatu comes out the screen - scared me to death as a kid and still holds up, well worth a go!
Watched the 2024 version thought it was ok not a patch on the original the original had more character development more atmosphere Barlow was scarier in original the new Barlow looked like a scooby doo villain so 70s version for me
Might have been a much different story if Dauberman had been allowed to present his 3 hour cut. We know that a flashback scene of young Ben Mears and Hubie Marsten was filmed, and chopped out. And, clearly, there was much more removed. I still doubt this version would come close to the power of '79, which broke the mold for TV horror and pushed boundaries, but with a greater Barlow presence and more developed characters, this could've been a contender. As it stands now, it's fun but frustrating and forgettable.
Oh, for sure. This one has its great points and is certainly very evocative, but it cannot hold a candle to Tobe Hooper's version. You have to remember that Hooper pushed the boundaries of what TV would allow, and created something that affected an entire generation, and still resonates today. Dauberman, despite the best of intentions and some true creative verve, has merely presented us with another generic modern vampire thriller. Cheers 🦇😈🥃
Vampyric services 😂😂😂 love it!!
I wasn't going to watch this new version because I love the original so much,but after watching your review I might watch it now. You're right about James Mason ,he was wonderful in the original
Well, go in with lowered expectations. If you've seen my full video, then you'll know exactly what happens and my overall disappointment with it.
Let me know what you think.
But nobody is better than James Mason and Reggie Nalder.
🦇🦇🦇🥃🥃🥃
Your review is all over the face but i like your enthusiasm
Hey mate, it was good talkin to ya in the comments. I appreciate the feedback. Yeah the new Salems Lot was pretty good, maybe it could have been better but I just love scary movies no matter shyte or not 😂
Aye, glad you enjoyed it. Great cinematography and some cool suspense. But, for me, it just comes apart in the second half.
But, hey, it's another vampire movie!
🦇🦇🦇🥃🥃🥃💪
@@Kilt-ManChris Cheers to you mate🍻
Great review Kilty as always !!!
What made the book & the 79 version so great was the slow burn , Felt it would have been much better as a 8-10 hour mini series like the watcher, could have explored all the characters backgrounds more in depth & would generate more interest in the story & lore !
What was your opinion on the Rob Lowe/Rutger Hauer version ?
I personally liked that version
The Lowe/Hauer/Sutherland take is the most faithful, by far. I like the cast and the detail and some creepy moments. But, for me, it lacked shocks and despite the Barlow accuracy, I really missed Nalder's pure nasty badass vampire.
I wouldn't be surprised if the ending was setting up a prequel called Harry Houdini Vampire Slayer 😂
Hahaha, yeah 🦇🦇👍👍👍
Me and me son watched the 79 version, and me son said ' that was a good 3 hr movie & kurt barlow is the scariest vampire I've seen,I said tell me about it,when I saw that back in the day barlow scared the fuck out of me 😂,we'll be watching the new version soon,I have been listening to the new soundtrack on Spotify & it sounds good 👍, cheers brother 🥃🥃🥃
Hauer's take is the most faithful to King's character of Barlow, but Nalder's is, by far, the most terrifying and iconic. Alexander Ward's nanosecond copy n paste is an absolute travesty, as we see him in this version.
We know who and what he is - so do something with him. They allow him to talk but give him nothing to say!
I can imagine the three hour cut may well have some actual vocal interplay. If so, it's possible that it didn't work.
But give it a watch and your opinions could well be different.
Yes, will go see it .... tickets here in Belgium are getting expensive...
@@tombaker4586 Well, I hope you enjoy it 🦇🦇🦇
Good review…. The film sorely let me down… but then warners cut an hour off it. Doubt we will ever see that though. I didn’t mind the crucifixes glowing cos that’s in the book. I found this film pretty much like you did lol ;-)
Do they glow in the book??
God, I'll have to go back and check. Been a long time since I read it.
There was definite potential for this to be a fine and thrilling adaptation, but chopping it up has robbed it of momentum, character and a proper narrative.
We know there is a flashback sequence with young Ben encountering Hubie Marston (played by Uber screen monster, Derek Mears) that has been removed.
Much more has clearly been cut away.
However, I would suspect that not even Dauberman's full three hour version could hold a candle to Hooper's seminal take.
Cheers 😈🦇🥃🥃
@@Kilt-ManChris yeah man glow in the book… I had forgotten too. Deffo lots of potential but…. It’s sad cos I really wanted to like this
i downloaded it a few days ago,excellent quality and sound,Wasn't sure if I was going to like it,or thought,it's going to nowhere near as good as the 79 version,and to begin with as I was I thought this feels like a tv film,but as it progressed I found myself to my surprise enjoying it more than I thought I would.but I have to say I didn't know whether it was meant to be a dark comedy,at least that's how I looked on it.
It's definitely a fun vampire flick as it stands. But the original 3 hour cut could possibly remove the frustrating and rushed narrative and lack of character development.
Really needed a better Straker and more Barlow.
Cheers 🦇🥃🦇
Kilt-Man can you send me a link to watch this please? Great to see you back man!
I can't put the link on here, mate. It would get removed. But you just need to search for free movie streaming sites plus the title. You will find it. 👍👍👍
@Kilt-ManChris I found it Kilt Man thanks brother 🙏 🙌 ❤️
@davidirwin2176 Great stuff! I hope you enjoy it, mate.😈😈🦇🦇🥃🥃
I loved it. It did rush through the movie. Thats my only complaint. They should have made it a two parter. Those vampires are creepy. I will definitely be rewatching it. Ps peanut butter and jam is a great combo.
...and I'm not American. I'm a fellow scouser
This cut-down version is a game of two halves for me. Great moody build-up in the first. Messy, rushed, muddled and lacklustre in the second.
As I've been saying ever since, Dauberman's full cut is bound to rectify some of this. We know of certain scenes that were filmed and subsequently chopped that would definitely improve the story and the characters - but it is clear that the studio did not share such thoughts.
The film tested badly, presumably with much of that extra hour in there, so perhaps the film still didn't work.
I wonder if we'll ever get the chance to find out for ourselves.
As it stands, this is fun but immediately forgettable.
This could have been the best of both worlds - Barlow with the Nalder/Nosferatu look and with the ability to talk as he does in the book.
But, as depicted here, he has nothing worthwhile to say, and nothing remotely exciting to do.
Glad you enjoyed it, though, laaa. 🥃👍🎃🦇🦇🦇
@@Kilt-ManChris I know many people have criticized it, but I personally loved it and will definitely be watching it again.
I liked it, was it great? It was okay, it was fun to watch. I like how it kept the original parts that scared the crap out of me as a kid but expanded on them some. Like the trances and I loved how they came out of the shadows and appeared on rooftops etc.
Yeah, it brought in a nice 30 Days of Night aspect with the rooftop vamps.
I'd love to see the original 3 hour cut, which would go some way to improving continuity and character development - but I doubt that extra hour will be reinstated.
Cheers 🦇🦇🦇
You can see they reshot most of it. The ending scene felt tacked on. Barlow had the bone structure with no menace.
Barlow is an utter waste of time in this. They give the ability to talk but give him nothing to say. Straker lacks menace and just goes nowhere fast. Like the film, itself.
Is this a movie or a mini series? cheers
Just a movie, mate.
@@Kilt-ManChris thanks
Have you seen the sequel Return to Salems lot from the 80’s? Possible review from yourself sir?
Yeah, back when it came out. Usually I love Larry Cohen movies, but I wasn't too impressed with this one. Long time since I've seen it though. May have to revisit.
@@Kilt-ManChris never got why they had Barlow on the cover when he’s nowhere to be seen in the film 🤣 if you ever get chance there was a 90s show called Are you afraid of the dark - episode midnight madness where Nosferatu comes out the screen - scared me to death as a kid and still holds up, well worth a go!
Nice review KILT-MAN but I’m going too give it a miss. 🥃🥃🥃🥃🥃🥃
Well, it has a few nice touches but they are not enough to save this from being another wasted opportunity. 🦇🦇🦇🥃🥃🥃
Watched the 2024 version thought it was ok not a patch on the original the original had more character development more atmosphere Barlow was scarier in original the new Barlow looked like a scooby doo villain so 70s version for me
Might have been a much different story if Dauberman had been allowed to present his 3 hour cut.
We know that a flashback scene of young Ben Mears and Hubie Marsten was filmed, and chopped out. And, clearly, there was much more removed.
I still doubt this version would come close to the power of '79, which broke the mold for TV horror and pushed boundaries, but with a greater Barlow presence and more developed characters, this could've been a contender.
As it stands now, it's fun but frustrating and forgettable.
i injoyed Salem's lot 2024 but the 1979 one is far Superior
Oh, for sure. This one has its great points and is certainly very evocative, but it cannot hold a candle to Tobe Hooper's version.
You have to remember that Hooper pushed the boundaries of what TV would allow, and created something that affected an entire generation, and still resonates today.
Dauberman, despite the best of intentions and some true creative verve, has merely presented us with another generic modern vampire thriller.
Cheers 🦇😈🥃
The movie is 1hr 53 minutes ... but your review clocks in at 1hr 19 minutes. Bwahahahahahaha
We're lucky I wasn't reviewing the full three hour cut! 😂👍👍