The glowing crosses worked for me as they’re in the book. But my take is: THE POSITIVES: 1: Looks great, with a great colour palette and nice cinematography. A few nice transitions too. 2: The vampires are fast, vicious, and they kept the glowing eyes from the original. 3: Has the feel of an 80’s / 90’s vampire flick and you’re never short of action as it easily fills its (just shy of) two hours run time. 4: The silly demonic voices on the trailer were actually just on the trailer for the most part. 5: It’s better than the truly horrendous 2004 Rob Lowe version. 6: That’s it really. THE NEGATIVES: 1: Jerusalems Lot should be a character as much as the people who live there, as portrayed in the original novel and film. This was sorely neglected. 2: The script and dialogue in general is atrociously bad. ‘B’ Movie bad. Literally appalling in a lot of scenes. 3: The pacing of the film is ruined by its stupidly short run time. No space to breathe between scenes as it bounces from one major element of the story to the next at a frenetic pace. 4: Zero character development. They merely get over a whole heap of time where Ben and Susan get to know each other by skipping it with ‘One Week Later’ after Ralphie Glick gets taken. It’s cheap and makes you question why they bothered making a ‘feature film’ in the first place. 5: Pilou Asbaek as Straker was dreadful. He hammed it up much like his Greyjoy character in Game of Thrones. The one saving grace is he barely had time to appear on this rushed adaptation. James Mason, he is not. 6: Quick guys, we only have 2 hours fit everything in, let’s just all immediately believe in vampires so we can get this party started. (That’s how it felt anyways) 7: In their attempts to make this scary, they neglected the creepiness of the original, opting for Salem’s (jump scare a) Lot. And those jump scares barely had an effect on me. Typical modern horror play… they simply haven’t got a clue anymore. 8: Barlow. A CGI mess for the most part. You can tell Dauberman directed this as he looked like ‘The Nun’.
I think my biggest disappointment with this version was how little the Marsten house played a role. Sure, it was there, but it was basically just reduced to the setting of Barlow's resting place. The house's overall importance to the town, to Barlow, and especially to Ben, wasn't addressed at all really.
In the grand scheme of things, we must ask ourselves: what does it mean when evil takes root in a place like Salem's Lot? The Marsten House stands as a testament to the horrors that linger long after the perpetrators have gone. It absorbs the anguish and despair, amplifying the darkness that festers within. As we watch this story unfold, we are reminded that some tales deserve more respect than they receive.
It's odd because in the book it's all Ben can think of when he's not with Susan, having dinner with her parents, hanging with Mike and Weasel, or helping to find Ralphie Glick. The Marsten House is supposed to be a beacon of evil that infects the town much like the vampirism that spreads like wild fire
You hit the nail on the head with the pacing being very off. As much as I didn't care for the Rob Lowe adaptation, I missed the slow burn that we saw. I will say that I appreciated some of the set pieces, namely the drive in and treehouse, but I didn't appreciate the way that they tried to spell everything out, and yet missed so much. One quick note : I really appreciate the addition of the harmonica. It added a plausibility to why Danny actually goes looking for Ralphie.
With all the negative comments and reviews that I have seen about this delayed adaptation and the reasons for those negative reviews being a strong factor in deciding whether or not to see this film, I have decided to pass it by! I have not seen it and now, have no intention of doing so at all! I have the original 1979 classic (and its magnificently eerie soundtrack by Harry Sukman in a double CD package), and I have read the novel at least four times through the years (my favorite book by King), so I am quite content to let this latest incarnation of the story go to wherever forgotten films vanish to! The trailers didn't even excite me when I first saw them! As far as I am concerned, the Warner Company screwed this film up royally! NOW, we all know why it was delayed so many times... they must have believed that it was rubbish from the start!
That's too bad. I just recently finished the book and rated it as one of the best ones I'll read this year. I loved the pace, getting to know the town and the characters, and the slow (and continuous) build up of tension. Constant tension and dread. It haunted me for days. It's an amazing vampire story and it's disappointing that they turned it into yet another one of the typical "jump scare" types. They aren't as frightening to me as the ones where you are constantly on edge even though nothing is happening or has yet happened; the ones where your brain creates its own scenarios from the gloomy atmosphere. I'll still watch it when I get an opportunity and see what scenes appeal to me.
My feelings and thoughts echo yours, Dave. Salems Lot is my favourite King book and I was massively disappointed in this movie. I was holding out hope that we would have the mounting dread, slowly seeing the Lot become vampire infested, that slow burn…zero payoff. They did Father Callahan dirty, he would’ve been great for the DT series/films. But where I noticed there were a lot of cuts was when Mark knew about Barlow and Straker when planning how to deal with the vampires: where did he learn about them?! Sad we had to wait so long for such a disappointment…
That bit with Mark got me too, but I think Danny said the same line Mike Ryerson used in the next scene - ‘Master Barlow wants to meet you’ - and so Mark went from there
@@DaveReadsKing I’d be open to watch a director’s cut if such a thing ever happens. Are you still planning to watch in theatres since you had originally planned to, or is the disappointment too much? 😅
@media_hobbit great question! Yes, I am - I’m curious to see if it works better on a giant screen and I feel it’s my duty to support new King in a cinema
Having read it three or four times, I guess my brain was able to comprehend the film easily. There were some creepy, unnerving moments, which were affective enough to make me feel uneasy whilst walking home through the twists and turns of the dark streets of Brighton after leaving the cinema. My favourite scene in the book involves vampire children and a doomed school bus driver ,but very sadly this is not in this, or the 1979 film adaptations. Does anyone know if the other two versions of Salem's Lot have the school bus scene as I find it wickedly amusing .
have you watched series - chapelwaite, with adrian brody as the lead? it's based on short story 'jerusalem's lot' in this case we got 10 episodes each 50 mins for not enough material, they had to add things to fill it up the show is quite great, and tense too but it feels like h.p. lovecraft writing, less dracula related
I still cant wait to see this movie but there seems to be a massive Gulf between directors of old (hooper romero craven etc) and these new guys who seem to lack the skills to build tension and dread, films today seem to disappoint unfortunately. Good review👍
ugh, you know what it was that wasn’t clicking for me? Even though it was a horror novel, Salems Lot was still a lot of fun to read, the characters were well developed and I enjoyed it. Even though this adaptation kept fairly true to the book for the first half, it was just so rushed and for whatever reason the actors were just so bleak to watch… so serious and depressed. Not only did it not develop the characters, it didn’t even seem like they liked each other, unlike the strong friendship they developed in the book. It was just a big old bummer. Too bad too, because it looked great… the cinematography was beautiful and the 70s vibe was really cool. I had been so excited to see it not be set in a modern era. I liked the 70s miniseries better honestly, and thought the vampires looked creepier in that then this CGI cartoon vampires. I liked your point about it being overly-cut, and I think the fat cats running HBO/Max/WB May have taken something good and ruined it alongside all their other bad decisions. This adaptation did not make me want to subscribe to Max, it made me want to cancel my subscription (along with a host of other bad decisions they’ve made).
When the sheriff came flying through the church window I laughed my ass off. I shouldn't be laughing in a movie like this. I noticed some balloons in one scene that made think of Pennywise.
Nice! I would say the other two previous adaptations are both stronger than this movie so, if you loved the new one I think you’ll really enjoy the others!
8:17 I liked how Ben Mears looked, too. That was one part of the novel this terrible remake got right. I’ve chuckled to myself reading comments from others complaining Mears looked wrong because he wasn’t a blond actor.
Dave you said it best when you said bang bang bang sugar rush!! That’s the best way to describe this movie. What a disappointment. No chemistry between the characters, nothing really mattered, and father Callahan got a worse treatment in this than the original. That’s saying a lot! I watched the rob lowe one today and it made me feel better! Actually I prefer the the rob lowe version! WOW!
Reading it for the first time this month. I’ll absolutely watch the film even if it’s trash. My wife and I love watching bad movies every now and then 😂 I also read misery as my first King book and didn’t like the film. Wish the film was longer. I wanted the pacing to slow down a bit and string along that suffering feeling.
Well, I watched it and I’m still waiting for a film adaptation about a novel called Salems Lot- you know, the novel about the death of a small town of 1300 people. Very long and character dense novel, Salems Lot.
There needs to be a term for these type of ‘horror’ films - popcorn horror or horror lite or something. They’re more like bland theme park rides, relying on jump scares, the occasional joke, and nothing that makes the audience consider bigger concepts. They’re all so forgettable down the line. Like so many other modern horror films this has several moments where characters act in completely unrealistic ways. We’re supposed to believe that 11 yr old kid wasn’t scared going off to fight vampires alone? Just stupid.
Just found out about a scene where the little kid drives a car through the wooden stilts of the drive-in screen and it collapses on the vampires. Sounds like a comedy. I'll pass on this one.
The first 80% was rushed, terrible, but I liked the ending, yes, not even close to the book, it was different from other vampire movies. I just don't understand, the disrespect to King over the years. So many streaming channels, and this, The Dark Tower were just butchered. This could have been a 6-8 mini series! Love your channel!!
Well, that’s disappointing 😮💨 I was really looking forward to watching this. I think I’ll wait and see where it lands in Australia (if it leaves Apple+ that is) as I couldn’t be bothered adding yet another subscription service just for this. Fingers crossed the 3hr directors cut will become available at some stage.
The transition you mention from the Bible to the jelly sandwich was jarring in a bad, puzzling way, thanks for mentioning. On the positive side, there was a funny transition when Susan realizes that the sexy man in her office is author Ben Mears and she's blown it with him, and it cuts to the next scene where Eva Miller tells Ben "Just jiggle it a little", referring to the door key. A terrible movie though.
I see the 2024 Salem's Lot as a whistle stop tour of King's source material. The characters are there, albeit many not explored in any depth. Even Weasel gets a look in, and his single line reflects perfectly the lazy nature of the character from the book. Dauberman's film delivers the visual highlights of the novel which, if it was delivered in its full form would frankly, be boring. Apparently there's another hour of footage sitting at Warner Brothers. A three hour version would be great. As for a two hour movie, given the source material, the movie was nowhere near as bad as some TH-camrs have been saying it is. Comparing this version to the two that have gone before is a folly. Not one Salem's Lot adaptation thus far has been loyal to source. This version to me felt like a comic book adaptation of the material, the onus being on the more visual aspects of the novel. And to this degree, it works. I enjoyed the movie for what it was. Stephen King's Dracula via Lost Boys and Fright Night. Suck it up fanboys. It is what it is.
Watched it last night and was so disappointed by it. It reminded me of a heavily edited version of the story - as if it's come from a Readers Digest edit of the book (my nan had many of the Reader Digest Edited version books lol). Everyone is disjointed and under used or missing from the story. Barlow had me laughing they went for the Smurf interpretation of him and not the book version where he steals the scene with his wisdom and manipulation. I hate to say it but the 2004 TV version was way way better than this version 😂. The thing with the original and the 2004 - showed what the town was like - unlikeable, corrupt and the Marsden house spreading it's perceived evil over the town. This version had none of that and throws you into the story at what feels the half way mark. All the key scenes are either not there or not taken advantage off. Disappointing - Midnight Mass did this way better than this film and Midnight Mass isn't even Salem's Lot yet captured the feel and atmosphere so well of the Story. The look of the film was good, the silhouette scene was good reminded me of Bram Stokers Dracula scenes) However, not once did I feel any dread or concern for the characters as they seemed super efficient in everything and need very little convincing. It would of worked way better as a two parter film as Salem's Lot is complex and has so many characters and subtext it needs two parts to tell it effectively. I love the book not a fan of the original film esp Smurf Barlow but the original drips with atmosphere and Mike in the rocking chair in the bedroom (the best portray) which I wish the 2004 TV version should of incorporated. I wrote this before I watched your video and you referred to my main issue of Reader Digest Edited books 😂 great minds think alike
Couldn’t agree more. Way too rushed. There was no payoff when things were revealed. All the sudden all the characters knew it was vampires right when there started to be some tension. Classic Hollywood ruining what could’ve been a good film.
It's Tik Tok's fault. The average attention span of a human today is what 3 minutes? Sad. My 16 year old daughter and myself enjoyed the movie though. I have to add that I have not seen the original nor read the book so I didn't have anything to compare it to. We're going to go back and watch the original movie sometime soon. Thanks for the review.
I worry that if The Talisman ever gets done in our lifetime it could wind up being a bam bam bam in your face what's next what's next what's next style like this one.
Really? Critics panned it. I haven't seen it yet but I plan on watching it after reading your comment. Doesn't she go to an alternate universe or something like in the Dark Tower series?
It was really excellent. A bit too slow in the middle, but overall a great, high-quality show. Pretty faithful to the novel, and the few changes they did were clever.
@josebro352 it’s absolutely fantastic - the critics probably haven’t read the book and so don’t appreciate it. And yes, there is another world they travel to…just like in the novel
Salem's Lot is the only Stephen King book I've read and it was because of the 1970s TV series, which I think is one of the greatest horror movies of all time. They changed some things from the book in that series that made sense, namely changing Barlow from a regular looking bloke that speaks to a Nosferatu looking vampire that doesn't. It not only works because it is much scarier looking, but Barlow instead takes on this spectral force ever lurking in the background, and so it punctuated his final reveal.
I watched it last night and like you it was the most disappointing movie I’ve seen of a King movie. I liked the cast, the set design and Barlow, but damn, story wise they really screwed the pooch.
Maybe by myself but I thought this remake was terrible...you had to have read the book or watch any of the other previous Salem's Lot to realize just what the hockey sticks was going on in this movie. It was all over the place zero-character development. Salem's Lot is one of those books you can't condense in an hour something movie it needs to develop so you know why things are happening the way they are on screen. Stephen King is meticulous in his writing and the words he chose to describe a scene in his book. It was worst than the god awful badly acted "Return to Salem's Lot."
@@DaveReadsKing Yeah it wasn't as bad as Return to Salem's Lot but it had that same scenes thrown together all jumbled here and there order that made no sense.
If anything, this new version of the story made me appreciate thr 1979 miniseries more. This new version is oddly goofy and feels like the story on fast-forward. ⏩
How is expressing disappointment at a poor-quality, but highly-anticipation movie being a crybaby? And surely receiving generally bad reviews isn’t being ‘in vogue’, it’s just a sign of a bad movie? What value are you adding with a snarky comment like this?
The glowing crosses worked for me as they’re in the book. But my take is:
THE POSITIVES:
1: Looks great, with a great colour palette and nice cinematography. A few nice transitions too.
2: The vampires are fast, vicious, and they kept the glowing eyes from the original.
3: Has the feel of an 80’s / 90’s vampire flick and you’re never short of action as it easily fills its (just shy of) two hours run time.
4: The silly demonic voices on the trailer were actually just on the trailer for the most part.
5: It’s better than the truly horrendous 2004 Rob Lowe version.
6: That’s it really.
THE NEGATIVES:
1: Jerusalems Lot should be a character as much as the people who live there, as portrayed in the original novel and film. This was sorely neglected.
2: The script and dialogue in general is atrociously bad. ‘B’ Movie bad. Literally appalling in a lot of scenes.
3: The pacing of the film is ruined by its stupidly short run time. No space to breathe between scenes as it bounces from one major element of the story to the next at a frenetic pace.
4: Zero character development. They merely get over a whole heap of time where Ben and Susan get to know each other by skipping it with ‘One Week Later’ after Ralphie Glick gets taken. It’s cheap and makes you question why they bothered making a ‘feature film’ in the first place.
5: Pilou Asbaek as Straker was dreadful. He hammed it up much like his Greyjoy character in Game of Thrones. The one saving grace is he barely had time to appear on this rushed adaptation. James Mason, he is not.
6: Quick guys, we only have 2 hours fit everything in, let’s just all immediately believe in vampires so we can get this party started. (That’s how it felt anyways)
7: In their attempts to make this scary, they neglected the creepiness of the original, opting for Salem’s (jump scare a) Lot. And those jump scares barely had an effect on me. Typical modern horror play… they simply haven’t got a clue anymore.
8: Barlow. A CGI mess for the most part. You can tell Dauberman directed this as he looked like ‘The Nun’.
Good comment. You're right, it seemed like the characters just decided to believe in vampires overnight.
Great summary - thanks!
I think my biggest disappointment with this version was how little the Marsten house played a role. Sure, it was there, but it was basically just reduced to the setting of Barlow's resting place. The house's overall importance to the town, to Barlow, and especially to Ben, wasn't addressed at all really.
Absolutely - and doubly frustrating because the house itself looked great!
In the grand scheme of things, we must ask ourselves: what does it mean when evil takes root in a place like Salem's Lot? The Marsten House stands as a testament to the horrors that linger long after the perpetrators have gone. It absorbs the anguish and despair, amplifying the darkness that festers within. As we watch this story unfold, we are reminded that some tales deserve more respect than they receive.
It's odd because in the book it's all Ben can think of when he's not with Susan, having dinner with her parents, hanging with Mike and Weasel, or helping to find Ralphie Glick. The Marsten House is supposed to be a beacon of evil that infects the town much like the vampirism that spreads like wild fire
14:07 “This feels like an average to bad adaptation of the Readers Digest version of Salems Lot”: beautiful summary.
Thanks! I was pleased with that!
I knew from the start that a two-hour film could never do justice to this story with its huge cast of characters.
I think it *could* be done…but not like this!
I don't understand why the guy who works at the dump isn't in either film adaptation. Those were my favorite segments in the novel.
He’s in the 2004 one!
@@DaveReadsKing Ha! I didn’t even know there was a 2004 one. I’ll check it out!
@chrisp4039 enjoy!
Dud Rodgers. He gets turned by Barlow personally. In fact, isn't his turn the first time we see Barlow in the flesh in the book?
The main problem was Mark-y Sue being soooo perfect. And vampire chests are clearly made of tissue paper.
Who is Mark-y Sue? Do you mean Mark, or Susan? Or both?
You hit the nail on the head with the pacing being very off. As much as I didn't care for the Rob Lowe adaptation, I missed the slow burn that we saw. I will say that I appreciated some of the set pieces, namely the drive in and treehouse, but I didn't appreciate the way that they tried to spell everything out, and yet missed so much. One quick note : I really appreciate the addition of the harmonica. It added a plausibility to why Danny actually goes looking for Ralphie.
Good point about the harmonica 👍
With all the negative comments and reviews that I have seen about this delayed adaptation and the reasons for those negative reviews being a strong factor in deciding whether or not to see this film, I have decided to pass it by! I have not seen it and now, have no intention of doing so at all! I have the original 1979 classic (and its magnificently eerie soundtrack by Harry Sukman in a double CD package), and I have read the novel at least four times through the years (my favorite book by King), so I am quite content to let this latest incarnation of the story go to wherever forgotten films vanish to! The trailers didn't even excite me when I first saw them! As far as I am concerned, the Warner Company screwed this film up royally! NOW, we all know why it was delayed so many times... they must have believed that it was rubbish from the start!
Fair enough!
That's too bad. I just recently finished the book and rated it as one of the best ones I'll read this year. I loved the pace, getting to know the town and the characters, and the slow (and continuous) build up of tension. Constant tension and dread. It haunted me for days. It's an amazing vampire story and it's disappointing that they turned it into yet another one of the typical "jump scare" types. They aren't as frightening to me as the ones where you are constantly on edge even though nothing is happening or has yet happened; the ones where your brain creates its own scenarios from the gloomy atmosphere. I'll still watch it when I get an opportunity and see what scenes appeal to me.
👍👍
My feelings and thoughts echo yours, Dave. Salems Lot is my favourite King book and I was massively disappointed in this movie. I was holding out hope that we would have the mounting dread, slowly seeing the Lot become vampire infested, that slow burn…zero payoff. They did Father Callahan dirty, he would’ve been great for the DT series/films. But where I noticed there were a lot of cuts was when Mark knew about Barlow and Straker when planning how to deal with the vampires: where did he learn about them?! Sad we had to wait so long for such a disappointment…
That bit with Mark got me too, but I think Danny said the same line Mike Ryerson used in the next scene - ‘Master Barlow wants to meet you’ - and so Mark went from there
@@DaveReadsKing I’d be open to watch a director’s cut if such a thing ever happens. Are you still planning to watch in theatres since you had originally planned to, or is the disappointment too much? 😅
@media_hobbit great question! Yes, I am - I’m curious to see if it works better on a giant screen and I feel it’s my duty to support new King in a cinema
Having read it three or four times, I guess my brain was able to comprehend the film easily. There were some creepy, unnerving moments, which were affective enough to make me feel uneasy whilst walking home through the twists and turns of the dark streets of Brighton after leaving the cinema. My favourite scene in the book involves vampire children and a doomed school bus driver ,but very sadly this is not in this, or the 1979 film adaptations. Does anyone know if the other two versions of Salem's Lot have the school bus scene as I find it wickedly amusing .
The bus scene is my favourite and, yes, it is in the 2004 version!
@@DaveReadsKing Thanks, that's valuable info.
have you watched series - chapelwaite, with adrian brody as the lead?
it's based on short story 'jerusalem's lot' in this case we got 10 episodes each 50 mins for not enough material, they had to add things to fill it up
the show is quite great, and tense too
but it feels like h.p. lovecraft writing, less dracula related
I’ve not watched it yet - saving it for when I get there covering it for this channel
@@DaveReadsKing great! not so many reviews on this one, even from other king's related channels
I still cant wait to see this movie but there seems to be a massive Gulf between directors of old (hooper romero craven etc) and these new guys who seem to lack the skills to build tension and dread, films today seem to disappoint unfortunately. Good review👍
Thank you!
Thank you for this review... I'm now off to watch your 19 reasons to watch the original!
😊😊
ugh, you know what it was that wasn’t clicking for me? Even though it was a horror novel, Salems Lot was still a lot of fun to read, the characters were well developed and I enjoyed it. Even though this adaptation kept fairly true to the book for the first half, it was just so rushed and for whatever reason the actors were just so bleak to watch… so serious and depressed. Not only did it not develop the characters, it didn’t even seem like they liked each other, unlike the strong friendship they developed in the book. It was just a big old bummer. Too bad too, because it looked great… the cinematography was beautiful and the 70s vibe was really cool. I had been so excited to see it not be set in a modern era. I liked the 70s miniseries better honestly, and thought the vampires looked creepier in that then this CGI cartoon vampires.
I liked your point about it being overly-cut, and I think the fat cats running HBO/Max/WB May have taken something good and ruined it alongside all their other bad decisions. This adaptation did not make me want to subscribe to Max, it made me want to cancel my subscription (along with a host of other bad decisions they’ve made).
💯💯
When the sheriff came flying through the church window I laughed my ass off. I shouldn't be laughing in a movie like this. I noticed some balloons in one scene that made think of Pennywise.
Oh good catch on the balloons! And yeah, that scene made my eyes roll so far back into my head I could see the top of my spinal cord
❤❤❤❤❤ just watched the new version and I loved it I have not seen the original but I read the book last year and loved it
Nice! I would say the other two previous adaptations are both stronger than this movie so, if you loved the new one I think you’ll really enjoy the others!
8:17 I liked how Ben Mears looked, too. That was one part of the novel this terrible remake got right. I’ve chuckled to myself reading comments from others complaining Mears looked wrong because he wasn’t a blond actor.
😂
Dave you said it best when you said bang bang bang sugar rush!! That’s the best way to describe this movie. What a disappointment. No chemistry between the characters, nothing really mattered, and father Callahan got a worse treatment in this than the original. That’s saying a lot! I watched the rob lowe one today and it made me feel better! Actually I prefer the the rob lowe version! WOW!
😂😂
Reading it for the first time this month. I’ll absolutely watch the film even if it’s trash. My wife and I love watching bad movies every now and then 😂
I also read misery as my first King book and didn’t like the film. Wish the film was longer. I wanted the pacing to slow down a bit and string along that suffering feeling.
👍👍
Well, I watched it and I’m still waiting for a film adaptation about a novel called Salems Lot- you know, the novel about the death of a small town of 1300 people. Very long and character dense novel, Salems Lot.
😂😂😂 you’re not alone!
Spot on review! I thought the exact same.
Great minds… 🤷🏻♂️😂
Terribly disappointed in Father Callahan's fate.
Loved those chunky glowing crosses though. The teacher revoking his invitation was well done 👍
I’m with you on Callahan - what a waste!
There needs to be a term for these type of ‘horror’ films - popcorn horror or horror lite or something. They’re more like bland theme park rides, relying on jump scares, the occasional joke, and nothing that makes the audience consider bigger concepts. They’re all so forgettable down the line. Like so many other modern horror films this has several moments where characters act in completely unrealistic ways. We’re supposed to believe that 11 yr old kid wasn’t scared going off to fight vampires alone? Just stupid.
I actually really like you just putting the word horror in inverted commas - that does it for me!
I am so hoping this is just another thing we disagree on, like The Stand! But thanks for the heads up if not.
🤞🤞🤞
Just found out about a scene where the little kid drives a car through the wooden stilts of the drive-in screen and it collapses on the vampires. Sounds like a comedy. I'll pass on this one.
Yeah, it ain’t great!
The first 80% was rushed, terrible, but I liked the ending, yes, not even close to the book, it was different from other vampire movies. I just don't understand, the disrespect to King over the years. So many streaming channels, and this, The Dark Tower were just butchered. This could have been a 6-8 mini series! Love your channel!!
Thank you! And some very good points here!
Well, that’s disappointing 😮💨 I was really looking forward to watching this. I think I’ll wait and see where it lands in Australia (if it leaves Apple+ that is) as I couldn’t be bothered adding yet another subscription service just for this. Fingers crossed the 3hr directors cut will become available at some stage.
🤞🤞🤞
Basically if you are a fan of the 1979 Tobe Hooper version don’t waste your time!! It’s frustrating
It is, but I still always advocate checking out a new King release - some people will, and do, love this new one!
The transition you mention from the Bible to the jelly sandwich was jarring in a bad, puzzling way, thanks for mentioning. On the positive side, there was a funny transition when Susan realizes that the sexy man in her office is author Ben Mears and she's blown it with him, and it cuts to the next scene where Eva Miller tells Ben "Just jiggle it a little", referring to the door key. A terrible movie though.
I thought Eva Miller was good value throughout
I see the 2024 Salem's Lot as a whistle stop tour of King's source material. The characters are there, albeit many not explored in any depth. Even Weasel gets a look in, and his single line reflects perfectly the lazy nature of the character from the book. Dauberman's film delivers the visual highlights of the novel which, if it was delivered in its full form would frankly, be boring. Apparently there's another hour of footage sitting at Warner Brothers. A three hour version would be great. As for a two hour movie, given the source material, the movie was nowhere near as bad as some TH-camrs have been saying it is. Comparing this version to the two that have gone before is a folly. Not one Salem's Lot adaptation thus far has been loyal to source. This version to me felt like a comic book adaptation of the material, the onus being on the more visual aspects of the novel. And to this degree, it works. I enjoyed the movie for what it was. Stephen King's Dracula via Lost Boys and Fright Night. Suck it up fanboys. It is what it is.
I would disagree, I think it’s been cut so much that it doesn’t work, it isn’t enjoyable and it does a disservice to the book.
Watched it last night and was so disappointed by it. It reminded me of a heavily edited version of the story - as if it's come from a Readers Digest edit of the book (my nan had many of the Reader Digest Edited version books lol).
Everyone is disjointed and under used or missing from the story. Barlow had me laughing they went for the Smurf interpretation of him and not the book version where he steals the scene with his wisdom and manipulation. I hate to say it but the 2004 TV version was way way better than this version 😂.
The thing with the original and the 2004 - showed what the town was like - unlikeable, corrupt and the Marsden house spreading it's perceived evil over the town. This version had none of that and throws you into the story at what feels the half way mark. All the key scenes are either not there or not taken advantage off. Disappointing - Midnight Mass did this way better than this film and Midnight Mass isn't even Salem's Lot yet captured the feel and atmosphere so well of the Story.
The look of the film was good, the silhouette scene was good reminded me of Bram Stokers Dracula scenes) However, not once did I feel any dread or concern for the characters as they seemed super efficient in everything and need very little convincing. It would of worked way better as a two parter film as Salem's Lot is complex and has so many characters and subtext it needs two parts to tell it effectively.
I love the book not a fan of the original film esp Smurf Barlow but the original drips with atmosphere and Mike in the rocking chair in the bedroom (the best portray) which I wish the 2004 TV version should of incorporated.
I wrote this before I watched your video and you referred to my main issue of Reader Digest Edited books 😂 great minds think alike
😊😊😊
Couldn’t agree more. Way too rushed. There was no payoff when things were revealed. All the sudden all the characters knew it was vampires right when there started to be some tension. Classic Hollywood ruining what could’ve been a good film.
👍👍👍
I was not disappointed at all, but that’s only because I have not seen it, and I rarely ever watched adaptations of Stephen King novels.
Ok…good for you I guess!
It's Tik Tok's fault. The average attention span of a human today is what 3 minutes? Sad. My 16 year old daughter and myself enjoyed the movie though. I have to add that I have not seen the original nor read the book so I didn't have anything to compare it to. We're going to go back and watch the original movie sometime soon. Thanks for the review.
I worry that if The Talisman ever gets done in our lifetime it could wind up being a bam bam bam in your face what's next what's next what's next style like this one.
You’re welcome!
I think it depends on which platform it ends up on - somewhere like Netflix might be more likely to give it room to breathe and grow
The best adaptation of a stephen king book i've ever seen is liseys story
That show was beautiful
Really? Critics panned it. I haven't seen it yet but I plan on watching it after reading your comment. Doesn't she go to an alternate universe or something like in the Dark Tower series?
It was really excellent. A bit too slow in the middle, but overall a great, high-quality show. Pretty faithful to the novel, and the few changes they did were clever.
@josebro352 it’s absolutely fantastic - the critics probably haven’t read the book and so don’t appreciate it. And yes, there is another world they travel to…just like in the novel
@@DaveReadsKing I definitely plan on checking it out this week. Thank you!! 👍
I never like when the movie plot doesn't strictly follow the novel. It is a red flag not to see it.
This one does a decent job of following the plot to be fair, it just needs way more room to breathe!
Salem's Lot is the only Stephen King book I've read and it was because of the 1970s TV series, which I think is one of the greatest horror movies of all time. They changed some things from the book in that series that made sense, namely changing Barlow from a regular looking bloke that speaks to a Nosferatu looking vampire that doesn't. It not only works because it is much scarier looking, but Barlow instead takes on this spectral force ever lurking in the background, and so it punctuated his final reveal.
Barlow resembled Marilyn Manson
😂 I thought more like Voldemort if they got him from Wish, but I know what you mean!
I watched it last night and like you it was the most disappointing movie I’ve seen of a King movie. I liked the cast, the set design and Barlow, but damn, story wise they really screwed the pooch.
Heck yeah they did
Maybe by myself but I thought this remake was terrible...you had to have read the book or watch any of the other previous Salem's Lot to realize just what the hockey sticks was going on in this movie. It was all over the place zero-character development. Salem's Lot is one of those books you can't condense in an hour something movie it needs to develop so you know why things are happening the way they are on screen. Stephen King is meticulous in his writing and the words he chose to describe a scene in his book. It was worst than the god awful badly acted "Return to Salem's Lot."
Some great points here. I wouldn’t quite say it’s worse than Return to…but it’s definitely close 😬
@@DaveReadsKing Yeah it wasn't as bad as Return to Salem's Lot but it had that same scenes thrown together all jumbled here and there order that made no sense.
i just finished it, my god it was bad, it was the absolute pits
😬😬😬😬
I was disappointed because the story was rushed.
Totally - it’s been chopped to shreds in the edit
Agreed. I watched this morning and total disappointment.
Shame, isn’t it?
I honestly feel like every Stephen King fan is going to hate this movie! It is awful!
I agree that this movie sucks - but I’ve been surprised how many King fans I’ve seen online who love it!
One transitional scene was around three seconds long. Terrible.
😬😬
Rubbish.
Well, yes!
If anything, this new version of the story made me appreciate thr 1979 miniseries more. This new version is oddly goofy and feels like the story on fast-forward. ⏩
💯💯💯
looks like it’s ‘in vogue’to hate this 2024 release … what a bunch of crybabies.
How is expressing disappointment at a poor-quality, but highly-anticipation movie being a crybaby? And surely receiving generally bad reviews isn’t being ‘in vogue’, it’s just a sign of a bad movie? What value are you adding with a snarky comment like this?
Looks like it's gone woke...
*please* explain how this has ‘gone woke’…genuinely, how have you come to that conclusion?