I don't think the writers of this film understood Matt Burke's death in the novel and it's implication. Matt Burke was Stephen King's version of Van Helsing. In the novel after Matt is confronted by the vampire Mike Ryerson and revoked his invitation he has a heart attack. He spends the last chapters he is in, in the hospital. He has the local librarian bring him piles of books on vampires and becomes the main researcher of the group since he was stuck in the hospital (also the hospital was in another town making him relatively safe from the vampires). Matt dies when he has a second heart attack. Ben calls to talk to Matt and was informed by the hospital that Matt had died. Ben felt that Matt dying of natural causes meant that God himself was turning his back on the town. It was very deeply impactful. The 2004 version likewise disrespects that and also ruined Callahan by having Callahan murder Matt. I didn't like that Matt went to the Marsten House and got turned in place of Susan. I would have understood if they were going to somehow have Susan survive or she somehow just died without being turned, but she gets turned anyway. Also the Matt Burke of the novel would have never went to the Marsten House. In the novel when Susan suggest to just go to the Marsten House and be done with it, Matt said "Are you sure you are ready to put your head in the lions mouth." Noting that Straker was not a vampire and could overpower them and tie them up as wake up snack for Barlow. Or that Barlow might have set traps designed to hold any intruders there until sunset. As we know Susan completely ignored his advice. I completely disagree with them having Susan and Matt swap places like that.
@srichardf I strongly disagree with that decision as well. While I really liked the actor who plays Matt in this adaptation, we never get to see the character develop in the way that he does in the novel. That was a large element that was missing from this film. In the film, they imply that since Matt sees Straker dancing with Susan's mother, he sneaks off to the Marsten house, thinking it's safe. I don't believe the Matt from the novel would have done this. I don't think he would have gone up there without backup. Even without Straker, around, he probably would have assumed that Barlow had booby trapped the place. Thanks for commenting!
I wonder what the re-shoots were about? Mark Petrie had grown noticeably from beginning to end. My guess is that the reshoots were filmed to beef up the action, which probably took away from character development given the running time. It seemed there was a longer story underneath everything. Ben and Susan getting more screen time was a highlight. Barlow was a disappointment. Wish Parkins would have been given a little bit more because I like that actor.
@someothercharacter My guess is that you're probably right about the action sequences. I'm assuming that's why they cut the Barlow-Callahan confrontation in favor of the tree house sequence, which was a decent idea by itself but came at the expense of a scene that shouldn't have been cut. Yes, I think they could have done something different with Parkins and made the character more effective. That line, "Have you seen any good men around here lately, Father?" must have stung Callahan. It was a nice character touch. 1
Ok, I need to put my input on this movie. The original is one of my favorite movies of ALL TIME. I really have been waiting for this adaptation and to be honest I kind of enjoyed it in a weird way. Nothing will ever touch Tobe Hoopers so let's just start there. I will go over what I enjoyed the most in the original and what I enjoyed in this one. For starters James Mason stole the show in the original! The way he looked and spoke & the black suits and one liners like "Good evening", "Because I'm a stranger, and a little bit odd." or "You will enjoy Mr. Barlow and he will enjoy you." You felt lots of dread especially his anxious mannerisms. Mason would look very nervous at times. Here it does feel like Straker was happy and on Broadway lol. "Mr. Barlow, Mr. Barlow I have a gift for you!" Or whatever it was he said in that scene. But unlike the other movie I always wanted to see more which we got. I really think what I enjoyed were little things I always thought about seeing in the other movie. One of my favorite scenes in the OG was the graveyard scene. The fact that Mike was seeing Danny Glicks open eyes calling him through that coffin just got me! Damn! Especially when he opened it and he was staring straight at him. Plus I always wondered why it was day out and he rose only to theorize that he was 10 feet deep and a storm with dark clouds was over head. They put their own twist where Mike fell asleep and woke up at night which made sense bc he did take a few shots of hard liquor from the priest before hand and passed out lol. I loved the Matt burke scenes! But I obviously loved the original more especially the scene when he hears Ryerson upstairs to give us the creepiest scene of all time lol. They went into more detail in this one which I loved. I always wondered what it looked like from the outside the houses when the vamps entered. We kind of got that when Burke looked up and saw Dannys foot going into Mikes room. Very creepy scene. But even creepier was when they had to go back to Burkes house and Ben tells them that there were vamps on his roof and you see Ryerson and Glick staring at them and in a way "guarding" the house. I don't know if that was a way Barlow was telling us that he got Burke but it was effective. Or Marjorie telling them that they had one fewer in their circle, something I really couldn't make out at the time but was said by Ben when they see the vampires on the roof! I didn't see Ralphie as a vampire I don't think right? You said it was Barlow who got Danny in the back yard correct? I thought it was Ralphie bc of the sound of the harmonica. IDK it was just a hand from above...need to watch it again. Loved the treehouse scene bc those were all the kids from the classroom but as you said not at that moment! Totally agree. They should have gone more into Ned Tibbets or Floyd instead of him just biting Susan in the end. That jailhouse scene in the OG was incredible. Speaking of twists Susans mother not liking Ben and let Ned bite her own daughter was kinda cool, but i didn;t like how she was the new caretaker. But what I did like is how she blew away Dr. Cody bc I thought her acting was completely out of place and absolutely sucked! She deserved that ending. The drive in idea with the cars was cool in my opinion but as you pointed out that was NOT the whole town. That should have been a sub ending where Barlow escapes the drive in where he heads back to the Marstan house where they do a very similar root cellar ending. Because lets me honest the end of the OG where they all awake as they are drilling Barlow with the stake was the best!! I completely understand they can't just copy the complete other movie but they should pay homage! I think they should have used the same contact lenses for the eyes instead of cgi and made the vamps sound like they were slurring like the OG to make it as creepy as the first, it's not that hard to figure out what made the original a masterpiece. So again I have mixed feelings but I will definitely rewatch!!! Thx
I was so let down by this movie. Salems Lot is easily one of my favorite novels, and I absolutely loved the filmed versions that came before this, to include Chapelwaite. From the first mention of this film til the trailer, I was so pumped. And honestly for myself, from the intro credits forward, i just felt it all crumble away. Bad pacing, no character building, Barlow, missing big story pieces... it just hurt me. I honestly didnt even want to finish it, but I pushed through & immediately washed it away with another movie. It had so much potential. Maybe someday someone will get it right.
I've mentioned to a few others that I was probably more generous with this review than I ought to have been, as I saw some things in it that could have worked if done with some real craftsmanship. It was a chore to get through the second half of it, where it just descends into a popcorn flick. The ending is completely ridiculous and even insulting. Yes, maybe some day we'll get a Midnight Mass-style treatment of Salem's Lot.
Great point including Chapelwaite to who posted that. The prequel which was the short story Jerusalem’s lot. This is the only true retelling they should have put it out as. A 10 hour story arc is the way to do it and plenty of projects do this. Chapelwaite was brilliantly done. Not perfect but damn good. Atmospheric and creepy along with great acting. The new version at after Covid for 21 months. Never a good sign as well as deciding to make it fit into under 2 hours. Lord of the Rings would have been a trip taking 9.5 hours over 3 movies and try making a 110 minute movie. This was a terrible movie. So-so acting. The sheriff leaving as they talk about him and he is catapulted through the church window up 15 feet high and lands at their feet as their reaction was “ told you he wasn’t any help” was so bad. 😆🤦♂️🥴 King in a speech Tia college lecture said a few things then said “ constant reader give the movie some time before I comment too much. But before that said his role as executive producer was in name only and he was ignored. And only said “ I knew we were in trouble when Susan’s mom was the most violent character.
The Richie Boddin kid does come back as a vampire in the source material when the vampire kids attack Charlie Rhodes on his own school bus. This scene is not featured in Tobe Hooper's version, but it is featured in Mikael Solomon's 2OO4 version, were I thought it was quite well done. Andy Anderson plays Charlie Rhodes in that version. I'm betting this scene is not in the new one? Or Charlie Rhodes? 🤔
@johnbleakley4125 No, there's no mention of Charlie Rhodes in this one. I'm wondering if they might have shot such a scene and it was left on the cutting room floor. A couple other characters are also left out or just mentioned in passing, including Cullen and Bonnie Sawyer. Susan refers to them when she and Ben are at the drive-in. Given the limited runtime they had to work with, that was a good way to do an overview of the town's more notable characters, although it's just too quick.
@@TheAtlanteanArchiveactually Charlie Rhodes school bus does appear briefly, I do believe, but no sign of the driver himself! Hoping to one day see Dauberman's director's cut, all three hours of it! Perhaps they'll give it its own individual blueray release at some point, or maybe even include it as an extra on the blueray?? No sign of the young Ben Mears that was apparently supposed to be in it, played by Gavin Maddox something or other and no sign of another child character called Pirate Hat, played by an actor called Andy Anderson (no relation to Andy Anderson, who played Charlie Rhodes in Mikael Solomon's 2OO4 version, as far as I know!).
@@TheAtlanteanArchive I think it's either cut from the movie (because it feels like lot of scenes were cut), or he could have cameo in that scene when vampire kids are surrounding the tree house.
@johnbleakley4125 You're right! Come to think of it, I do remember seeing the school bus now. It was pretty quick (like everything else-LOL), but I remember it. I assume that the 3-hour cut will probably turn up on the DVD release. Max would be wise to stream it.
@@TheAtlanteanArchiveI'd love to see the three hour directors cut. I think we all would! But I enjoyed the movie twice recently at my local cinema, in Manchester, as I'm in the UK. A fine movie, dispite the cuts! Glad they did father Callahan's alcoholism story line. It's in the source material. Pity they didn't follow the source material more, but I still highly recommend the movie and really enjoyed it !! I'd give it 8 out of 1O. 🙂✌️
Just finished watching. Straker sure does chew up the scenery, doesn’t he? In fact, Straker’s character felt like a metaphor for the entire movie - a little over the top, and generally lacking the subtlety and development that makes the story great to begin with. How you do all that in the allotted run-time is a different question. Would love to see a 3-4 part mini-series a la “Midnight Mass”, but unfortunately I don’t think we’ll be getting that anytime soon.
@EtaoinShrdlu33 The Midnight Mass treatment is really the only way to go with this if they want to do it right but I'm not holding my breath there, either. I forgot to mention this in the spoiler section of the review, but the creepy scene I referenced with regard to Straker was the part where he offers the Glick boys a lift. His manner and the way he stares at them is effective, but, yes, otherwise he's chewing that scenery with gusto. LOL
From what I gather, the test audience (May 2022) liked the drive-In sequence which was shorter, and not part of the original ending of the movie. In June 2022 six days of new filming occurred at the rebuilt drive-in set in order to film more action and Barlow's new death sequence.
I'm guessing they came up with the drive-in sequence as a sort of homage to older horror films and the classic horror film era, but it didn't work for me at all.
Thank you for the review. I agree with a lot of the points you mentioned. That faceoff between Barlow and Father Calaghan was a letdown, and especially since that was supposed to be a key scene. The big ending at the drive-in was just ok for me, but I wish there was something better.
@onacanilao I keep coming back to that: how much better they could have done with so much of this. People who have never read the novel, watch this, and then go and try to read it are going to be in for a real shock.
Pilou Asbaek played Straker. He played Euron Greyjoy in "Game of Thrones." And come on, Stephen King film alum William Sadler as Gillespie.... Who couldn't love him?
I'm surprised Mark wasn't already the historical youngest mayor in America from the outset of the movie. And he certainly should've been given the starring role character and placed first in the opening credits the way they built up his invincibilty. In short, mark petrie and the character playing him is the giant elephant in the room that none of these 2024 modern day reviewers want to tak about for fear of being called racist in these trying distorted times. I made it through this version of Salem's Lot with a knot in my gut...angry at what I was seeing...then I rushed to see what others had to say about it. You can see how practically every reviewer twisted and turned themselves into knots while trying NOT to say the obvious. Which is: Salem's Lot used to be a great story before the left got hold of it and ruined it voluntarily with forethought of malice...and that from here on out they will be deliberately going forward to destroy every piece of modern art they can get their hands on with their progressive goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion. There, it had to said.
They did a lot of goofy stuff with Marks' character, apparently trying to channel The Lost Boys and other 80s-type films where kids take on monsters with improvised tools, but it fell flat here. I've told others here that the scene where they had him reading vampire comics and writing up his list under the covers made me laugh out loud. It reminded me of Kevin McCallister drawing up his battle plan to take on Harry and Marv in Home Alone. It was totally ridiculous. I have to admit that I probably held back a little with Mark's character, not because of the actor's race but because I felt a little funny coming down on a child. I complimented his ability to handle what they gave him in about the best way anyone could have. Someone else here referenced the comment I made about my concern that they would turn Susan into Captain Marvel and sideline Ben, and pointed out that they really turned Mark into Captain Marvel instead. I have to agree. The 1979 adaptation is a master class in atmospheric horror. By comparison, this was a mess.
Was the marston house real or cgi?? The 1979 house was awooden facade put over a small house and 2004s marston house was a wooden house built for the movie
This movie was a heartbreaker in some ways. I liked the cast but man they fumbled the bag on this one. I don't like how they handled some of the characters in their fates (Matt/Father Callahan), and this really should've been a miniseries.
@Tek-Knight5592 The miniseries treatment is the only way to do this thing justice. Even if this movie had been longer, though, it wouldn't have fixed some of the stuff they did wrong with the story and production. Then again, I suppose I'm biased because I just don't like the way modern horror and action movies are made, for the most part.
Overall, i thoroughly enjoyed it. There was a fine sense of menace and threat, and some good set-pieces. But there's a definite 'rushed' feeling to the latter half of the movie. I hope that one day we do get to see the longer, original cut.
It's the things they did well with this that make me miss what we'd didn't see. I'm watching certain scenes thinking, "Yes, more of this, please." I would like to see the extended cut as well.
I think the movie looks really good and i am really looking forward to seeing it! Just on a different subject,buddy. Has anyone ever told you you look and sound like the late-great Dennis weaver?(aka McCloud)? 🤔 Great review!! 🙂✌️
No, I've never been told that before! I've had two random people tell me that I look like Rick Grimes from The Walking Dead, though. One of them was a girl in a Sonic drive-through who actually did a double take when I pulled up to the window. LOL Let me know what you think after you watch it. Thanks for watching and commenting! Now I need to go pull up a Dennis Weaver video. 😄
Poor Dauberman was hamstrung by the studio. Agree 100% on Straker. Reminded me of CIrcus ringleader. Barlow was a major disappointment. The make up and contact lenses from 1979 were far more sinister and impactful than this CGI enhanced disaster of a Barlow. Didn't like the speaking either. It more humanized him rather than the brilliant roar/hissing combination from the 1979 Barlow, who was more like a monster. I understand that's actually more in line with the novel, but after seeing the 2 versions, I prefer the non verbal. Mark should have shown a least a little fear and trepidation for being only 11. And been a little more somber after seeing his parents killed. I don't think they made a connection between Barlow and the Marsten house so how did Mark know to go there? Why did everyone go to the morgue without a cross or holy water knowing they were going there to see if Marjorie Glick rises from the dead? Wouldn't you go overboard with crosses, garlic, holy water just in case? None of them seemed anxious she could potentially rise from the dead as a vampire. It was very casual, huh, lets see what happens. Mark under the blanket looking at the comic was very Lost Boys. Overall the tone of the movie was not dark and sinister like 1979. Even the musical score from 1979 was dreadful. And that's fine if thats the tone Dauberman was going for. It just doesn't make for a creepy movie. It was more like Fright Night or Saturday the 14th.
Great thoughts! Thanks for commenting. The scene where they had Mark reading vampire comics and writing up his list under the covers made me laugh out loud. It reminded me of Kevin McCallister drawing up his battle plan in Home Alone. I couldn't take it seriously, and it insulted the audience to a degree as well. Mark is big into horror stuff, so he obviously knows about vampires, and so does the audience. It was weird and unnecessary. The Marjorie Glick sequence was handled strangely. They way they were bungling around with the cross...again, I couldn't take it seriously. It was so awkward and neither funny nor frightening. Meanwhile, the '79 sequence is a classic horror moment. As for Mark and the Marsten House, my guess is that, being a small town, the fact that the stranger in town had just bought it was something he probably knew, so he put that together. They did so much goofy stuff with his character, though, and I can't forgive them for shortening the Barlow/Callahan confrontation in favor of the treehouse sequence. So much waste...
Great Deep-DIve! Pretty much eye to eye on everything - thought the Drive-In sequence was as awful as I suspected it might be. The last 1/3 of the movie really fell apart - I don't like comedy and action in my horror films - tone has to be consistent. About the only thing I disagree with you on is Eva Miller. She was funny, I did laugh, but not what I'm looking for in a horror film. I liked the faded beauty of the original character better but certainly didn't miss the goofy Weasel plotline Eva's tied to. What I would really like to see with Salem's Lot is a fan crafted edit of the original mini-series. It's SO CLOSE to being a masterpiece - just need some technical refinement. to elevate it from 70's budget television to feature film quality.
I liked the original Eva Miller better as well. "Faded beauty" is a very good way of putting it. She was great. The scene where she looms over Bonnie Bedelia, looking like she's marking her somehow, is a great moment of understated horror. Bonnie looks genuinely spooked in that scene. Yeah, the last third of this one totally falls apart, and I don't like humor mixed with horror either. It may work from time to time with movies like Fright Night and The Lost Boys, but it's mostly annoying and those are not really favorites of mine either. I would love to see a remastered version of the '79 Salem's Lot. Not an extensive remaster, but some tweaks are definitely needed, such as where Reggie Nalder's contact lenses get skewed and the Danny Glick window scene where you can see the boom lift under him. Thanks for commenting!
Like you the 79 version is my favorite horror film and I watch it every October. I liked this movie but certainly didn’t love it. I’m hopping we get the three hour cut. There just wasn’t time to develop any of the characters. The lack of the Marsten house really hurt the story. The ease in which they stabbed vampires in the heart was laughable.
@brentcooper4345 Yes, that over-the-top, comic book-type action stuff takes me totally out of a movie. The lack of the Marsten house was a big deal. It's basically like Castle Dracula and has a lot of personal meaning for Ben. All of that went right out of the window. Thanks for watching and commenting!
At best it was a just okay generic vampire movie. Salem's Lot it is not. The themes, the feeling, the atmosphere, and pacing just are not there. And what they've done to the characters is pretty much criminal.
I have to agree. There were a few decent things, but they mostly flubbed those, and the things that were bad were really bad. I was probably more generous with the review than I really should have been. Thanks for commenting!
@darkstar6909 Some of the character decisions made a lot of sense given the runtime limitations. For instance, in the novel, Susan is a schoolteacher, but in this one, she works at the real estate office. Well, given the fact that they had to get her and Ben together so fast, it makes sense that when Ben comes to town looking for a place to stay, she's working at the office and they meet right away. Other decisions didn't make as much sense.
I enjoyed Salem's lot. I will disagree with you,I thought the second half was stronger than the first. I thought the first half of the film was ***rushed***. Admittedly, the film plays like salem's lot greatest hits. It's strongest when it veers away from source material (finale). The characters aren't underdeveloped but if you've seen any of the Salem's Lot (70s, 2000s) you can fill in the blank and make this an enjoyable watch.
That's fair. Other than the main character introductions, they pretty well hurry through the town and the story setup. Susan's descriptions to Ben at the drive-in was a clever way of trying to cover some of that territory, but the limited runtime forced them to pole-vault over a lot of middle ground. Those who have read the novel or seen any of the previous versions will appreciate the touch, but those who aren't familiar with it at all will lose some nuance.
Ha! Yeah, that's pretty much the case. The scene where they had him reading vampire comics and writing up his list under the covers made me laugh out loud. It reminded me of Kevin McCallister drawing up his battle plan to take on Harry and Marv in Home Alone.
Master?!! Master?!! ... I brought you a Sacrifice!!! Gee whiz couldn't Pilou have hammed it up abit more? I thought he was excellent as Straker, but i much prefer James Mason's chilling portrayal in the fabulous Tobe Hooper version, but i realy did enjoy the remake. All the performances were good, i thought. But i think they should have stuck to the original ending in the source material, were Ben and Mark locate Barlow in Eva Millers boarding house and stake him. This is also the ending in the 2OO4 version. And the Tobe Hooper version has them locate Kurt Barlow in the Marsten House, then Ben stakes him. But the ending at the drive-in was ok in the new one, but im not particularly crazy about it. But its kinda ok, i guess.
95% of the book was thrown out of this. What a hot mess this was. I actually think it would have done well in cinemas and make it's money back. People who never read the book and who have never seen the tobe Hooper film would probably like it. The middle section was actually really good and scary with the teachers house. Not as good as the book or original film
"Hot mess" is a good description. I've told some others here that I was probably more generous with this review than I should have been. So much hokey, absurd, comic book action stuff and scare scenes that weren't scary at all. The creepiest scene in the whole thing was Straker staring at the Glick boys as they were walking into the woods, and that probably got under my skin because I had someone make a grab for me from a car when I was a kid. They threw out so much good stuff from the book and substituted stuff that didn't work at all.
@@TheAtlanteanArchive my favorite part in the book, the original film and this is the whole time Ned is at Matt's house and when he comes back. Almost every review of this thinks the walk in the woods is the creepiest part. So you're not alone.
I was very disappointed with this movie. It has couple of really cool shots and artistic frames, but overall it was huge letdown. Characters were paper thin, and they rushed from scene to scene, and the fact that characters have some information that they clearly shouldn't makes me think there's lot longer version out there and lot of chunk has been cut from the movie. The logistics and time frame also doesn't make lot of sense in some scene, again, most likely because lot of scenes were either trimmed or cut out completely. Lastly, I didn't like Markey Sue, it was to the point of absurdity how little kid has the authority over adults and Barlow was huge letdown. He looks descent (reminded me of Reapers from Blade 2), but in this version he also shows up for like minute in climax and dies off abruptly. For a powerful ancient evil that's suppose to be threat, he kinda dies like a wimp.
@njmfff Yes, Barlow was an enormous disappointment. As ancient, clever, and powerful as he's supposed to be, he turns into a total joke in this. The director says that the original cut of the film was three hours long, so a longer version definitely does exist. Whether we'll get to see it is debatable. They don't have anything to lose by at least making it a DVD extra.
There is a 3 hour cut of this movie according to the director that is were all the character development probably is, the money men probably cut it down to a bear bones action movie just to make a quick buck
That would make sense. They released a still image of Barlow gripping Father Callahan by the chin, and we didn't see this in the movie, so I'm guessing that they shot more for that scene and then cut it, which is sad because this is one of the best scenes in King's novel. Barlow v Callahan/Darkness v the Light...and we get 30 seconds?
It's hard to say on that one. As long as they don't have any extra production that needs to be done (score added, etc), it could come out fairly quickly. My guess is that they'll wait and see how well the truncated version does first, and then maybe add the extended cut to a DVD release. Or they may release the extended cut separately to cash in more.
@@TheAtlanteanArchive Thanks. I'm looking forward to watching it. Oddly enough I remember buying the uncut version of the David Soul miniseries back in the 90s. It was a double VHS tape that came in a larger box. It was cool because it had a lot of scenes that were cut from the original, Ben and Mark in the church in Mexico with the tainted holy water being the most prominent. Hope we see the new one soon!! 👍
Yeah definitely very disappointed. Waited 2 years for this and now we know why. If you are a true fan of the 1979 Tobe Hoopers version you will hate this. Just a few cons the Marsten house was not a character at all. Straker although the actor did a weird take on it and it is what it is was just a complete waste. He maybe had a total of 2 mins screen time. The cgi with the vampires and the fog took me right out of this movie. They used cgi with Barlow I mean come on. It wasn’t scary at all! The window seen with Danny was terrible compared to 1979. You can have great actors but combined with all the poor decisions it makes for a bad movie.
Yep, bad CGI, cartoonish action sequences, goofy dialogue, and story choices that made no sense... It pales in comparison with the '79 version. Barlow goes down like a total punk and the ending is ridiculous. And you're right: the Danny Glick window scene here was not scary at all. Such a disappointment in so many ways.
@@AndrewDyson-u2u Unfortunately, no. I have Disney +, and they have a bundle deal that includes Max for maybe $4 more than I'm paying now, so I upgraded to watch this. So I'm not out much, fortunately. Without ads costs substantially more.
@@TheAtlanteanArchive I admire your loyalty to this criminal cartel sir; I guess these idiots wonder why subscribers drop away in droves and go to torrent sites instead...
@@TheAtlanteanArchiveThe master wants you! .. throw away your cross!! Face the master !! Faith against faith!! Could you do that? Is your faith enough? 🤔
Isn't it obvious buddy? Callahan is an alcoholic in the source material and it's pretty obvious in the new movie he's a problem drinker. As a recovering alcoholic myself, I'm glad they addressed the characters drink problems in the new movie. Very well played by John Benjamin Hickey, I thought. James Cromwell was fabulous as the troubled priest in the 2OO4 Mikael Solomon version. And James Gallery in Hooper's original was given very little actual screen time, but I guess he was kinda ok in the role. I've seen the movie twice on the big screen in Manchester, UK, where I live. I was very impressed with it. But it's so obvious it's been cut. None of the characters even questions vampirism. They are all to willing to accept vampires are on the loose in Jerusalem's Lot. But I think we need to see Dauberman's three hour directors cut, although a friend of mine, who works for Warner Bros, has recently told me the 3 hour cut no longer exists, as it was destroyed, so nobody will ever get too see Dauberman's director's cut. Apparently. 😬
🦇🩸 As far 'Salem's Lot '24 being a faithful & balanced adaptation of it's Original Source Material, it Fails Utterly in almost every regard. (RE-READ) Every couple of years I return to "The Lot' & re-read this favorite Story of Stephen King: the one which spring-boarded him into the position to write the runaway Hits: 'The SHINING' & 'IT'. And I can tell you that 'SALEM'S LOT 2024 is a Total Letdown of a film: in terms of a Balanced Adaptation of not only the Story & Feel of the Novel, but also of the Characters & their Relationships, and how they intrinsically affect one another & in relation to the story's biggest character; The Town itself; and the Dark History which shrouds it, and by extension, it's inhabitants. 'SALEM'S LOT True Fans & Purists pretty much unanimously & invariably agree: his should have been a 8-10 Episode Mini-series: and the 1800's set Jerusalem's Lot 10 Episode Mini-series (which felt like "Butter Scraped Over Too Much Bread") _should _*_definitely_*_ have been the _*_100 minute runtime Film_*_ instead._ 🚫🧛♂🚫 The only thing more of a Letdown in the titular Mr. BARLOW himself: who feels like a comic book character of an Idea of a generic Vampire. All around a huge disappointment which needs to be rectified by someone not only talented enough, but by someone who cares enough about the source material to do it justice. ( D-minus or 1.5 out of 5)( D- 1.5/5 )🚫🧛
On the whole, I was probably more generous in this review than it deserves, likely because I can see some things that had promise and could have worked better if they had just given them time. Other things, however, were just bad story choices and can't be remedied. Cutting the Barlow-Callahan confrontation in favor of the new tree house sequence was criminal. I also laughed out loud at the scene where Mark is under the covers compiling his vampire-killing strategy because it reminded me so strongly of Kevin McCallister drawing up his battle plan to fight Harry and Marv in Home Alone. Mark is big-time into horror and already knows all of that, as does the audience. It's a goofy moment that insults the audience's intelligence and it cost us in terms of other scenes. Again, we get 30 seconds of Barlow v Callahan for this kind of thing? I meant to mention this in the review but forgot. I never saw the Jerusalem's Lot miniseries ("Chapelwaite," isn't it?), but I've heard mixed reviews. Yes, we need a longer miniseries to do this well. You're absolutely right on that. I'd like to see it done with a Midnight Mass approach. That show was well-written, well-acted, took its time, and gave us something truly memorable. Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. I return to the novel every few years as well.
I don't think the writers of this film understood Matt Burke's death in the novel and it's implication. Matt Burke was Stephen King's version of Van Helsing. In the novel after Matt is confronted by the vampire Mike Ryerson and revoked his invitation he has a heart attack. He spends the last chapters he is in, in the hospital. He has the local librarian bring him piles of books on vampires and becomes the main researcher of the group since he was stuck in the hospital (also the hospital was in another town making him relatively safe from the vampires). Matt dies when he has a second heart attack. Ben calls to talk to Matt and was informed by the hospital that Matt had died. Ben felt that Matt dying of natural causes meant that God himself was turning his back on the town. It was very deeply impactful. The 2004 version likewise disrespects that and also ruined Callahan by having Callahan murder Matt.
I didn't like that Matt went to the Marsten House and got turned in place of Susan. I would have understood if they were going to somehow have Susan survive or she somehow just died without being turned, but she gets turned anyway. Also the Matt Burke of the novel would have never went to the Marsten House. In the novel when Susan suggest to just go to the Marsten House and be done with it, Matt said "Are you sure you are ready to put your head in the lions mouth." Noting that Straker was not a vampire and could overpower them and tie them up as wake up snack for Barlow. Or that Barlow might have set traps designed to hold any intruders there until sunset. As we know Susan completely ignored his advice.
I completely disagree with them having Susan and Matt swap places like that.
@srichardf I strongly disagree with that decision as well. While I really liked the actor who plays Matt in this adaptation, we never get to see the character develop in the way that he does in the novel. That was a large element that was missing from this film.
In the film, they imply that since Matt sees Straker dancing with Susan's mother, he sneaks off to the Marsten house, thinking it's safe. I don't believe the Matt from the novel would have done this. I don't think he would have gone up there without backup. Even without Straker, around, he probably would have assumed that Barlow had booby trapped the place.
Thanks for commenting!
I wonder what the re-shoots were about? Mark Petrie had grown noticeably from beginning to end. My guess is that the reshoots were filmed to beef up the action, which probably took away from character development given the running time. It seemed there was a longer story underneath everything. Ben and Susan getting more screen time was a highlight. Barlow was a disappointment. Wish Parkins would have been given a little bit more because I like that actor.
@someothercharacter My guess is that you're probably right about the action sequences. I'm assuming that's why they cut the Barlow-Callahan confrontation in favor of the tree house sequence, which was a decent idea by itself but came at the expense of a scene that shouldn't have been cut.
Yes, I think they could have done something different with Parkins and made the character more effective. That line, "Have you seen any good men around here lately, Father?" must have stung Callahan. It was a nice character touch.
1
If it's October, it's time to watch my favorite - the 1979 version of Salem's Lot.
Time well spent!
Ok, I need to put my input on this movie. The original is one of my favorite movies of ALL TIME. I really have been waiting for this adaptation and to be honest I kind of enjoyed it in a weird way. Nothing will ever touch Tobe Hoopers so let's just start there. I will go over what I enjoyed the most in the original and what I enjoyed in this one. For starters James Mason stole the show in the original! The way he looked and spoke & the black suits and one liners like "Good evening", "Because I'm a stranger, and a little bit odd." or "You will enjoy Mr. Barlow and he will enjoy you." You felt lots of dread especially his anxious mannerisms. Mason would look very nervous at times. Here it does feel like Straker was happy and on Broadway lol. "Mr. Barlow, Mr. Barlow I have a gift for you!" Or whatever it was he said in that scene. But unlike the other movie I always wanted to see more which we got. I really think what I enjoyed were little things I always thought about seeing in the other movie. One of my favorite scenes in the OG was the graveyard scene. The fact that Mike was seeing Danny Glicks open eyes calling him through that coffin just got me! Damn! Especially when he opened it and he was staring straight at him. Plus I always wondered why it was day out and he rose only to theorize that he was 10 feet deep and a storm with dark clouds was over head. They put their own twist where Mike fell asleep and woke up at night which made sense bc he did take a few shots of hard liquor from the priest before hand and passed out lol. I loved the Matt burke scenes! But I obviously loved the original more especially the scene when he hears Ryerson upstairs to give us the creepiest scene of all time lol. They went into more detail in this one which I loved. I always wondered what it looked like from the outside the houses when the vamps entered. We kind of got that when Burke looked up and saw Dannys foot going into Mikes room. Very creepy scene. But even creepier was when they had to go back to Burkes house and Ben tells them that there were vamps on his roof and you see Ryerson and Glick staring at them and in a way "guarding" the house. I don't know if that was a way Barlow was telling us that he got Burke but it was effective. Or Marjorie telling them that they had one fewer in their circle, something I really couldn't make out at the time but was said by Ben when they see the vampires on the roof! I didn't see Ralphie as a vampire I don't think right? You said it was Barlow who got Danny in the back yard correct? I thought it was Ralphie bc of the sound of the harmonica. IDK it was just a hand from above...need to watch it again. Loved the treehouse scene bc those were all the kids from the classroom but as you said not at that moment! Totally agree. They should have gone more into Ned Tibbets or Floyd instead of him just biting Susan in the end. That jailhouse scene in the OG was incredible. Speaking of twists Susans mother not liking Ben and let Ned bite her own daughter was kinda cool, but i didn;t like how she was the new caretaker. But what I did like is how she blew away Dr. Cody bc I thought her acting was completely out of place and absolutely sucked! She deserved that ending. The drive in idea with the cars was cool in my opinion but as you pointed out that was NOT the whole town. That should have been a sub ending where Barlow escapes the drive in where he heads back to the Marstan house where they do a very similar root cellar ending. Because lets me honest the end of the OG where they all awake as they are drilling Barlow with the stake was the best!! I completely understand they can't just copy the complete other movie but they should pay homage! I think they should have used the same contact lenses for the eyes instead of cgi and made the vamps sound like they were slurring like the OG to make it as creepy as the first, it's not that hard to figure out what made the original a masterpiece. So again I have mixed feelings but I will definitely rewatch!!! Thx
I was so let down by this movie. Salems Lot is easily one of my favorite novels, and I absolutely loved the filmed versions that came before this, to include Chapelwaite. From the first mention of this film til the trailer, I was so pumped. And honestly for myself, from the intro credits forward, i just felt it all crumble away. Bad pacing, no character building, Barlow, missing big story pieces... it just hurt me. I honestly didnt even want to finish it, but I pushed through & immediately washed it away with another movie. It had so much potential. Maybe someday someone will get it right.
I've mentioned to a few others that I was probably more generous with this review than I ought to have been, as I saw some things in it that could have worked if done with some real craftsmanship. It was a chore to get through the second half of it, where it just descends into a popcorn flick. The ending is completely ridiculous and even insulting.
Yes, maybe some day we'll get a Midnight Mass-style treatment of Salem's Lot.
@@TheAtlanteanArchive Good lord the ending. Insulting is a great way to put it. Thank you for your work.
I’m washing the bad taste out of my mouth by re-reading the book.
@@TheAtlanteanArchivemaybe. A limited series is the only way to do justice to the themes in the novel- not to mention all the characters.
Great point including Chapelwaite to who posted that. The prequel which was the short story Jerusalem’s lot. This is the only true retelling they should have put it out as. A 10 hour story arc is the way to do it and plenty of projects do this. Chapelwaite was brilliantly done. Not perfect but damn good. Atmospheric and creepy along with great acting. The new version at after Covid for 21 months. Never a good sign as well as deciding to make it fit into under 2 hours. Lord of the Rings would have been a trip taking 9.5 hours over 3 movies and try making a 110 minute movie. This was a terrible movie. So-so acting. The sheriff leaving as they talk about him and he is catapulted through the church window up 15 feet high and lands at their feet as their reaction was “ told you he wasn’t any help” was so bad. 😆🤦♂️🥴
King in a speech Tia college lecture said a few things then said “ constant reader give the movie some time before I comment too much. But before that said his role as executive producer was in name only and he was ignored. And only said “ I knew we were in trouble when Susan’s mom was the most violent character.
The Richie Boddin kid does come back as a vampire in the source material when the vampire kids attack Charlie Rhodes on his own school bus. This scene is not featured in Tobe Hooper's version, but it is featured in Mikael Solomon's 2OO4 version, were I thought it was quite well done. Andy Anderson plays Charlie Rhodes in that version. I'm betting this scene is not in the new one? Or Charlie Rhodes? 🤔
@johnbleakley4125 No, there's no mention of Charlie Rhodes in this one. I'm wondering if they might have shot such a scene and it was left on the cutting room floor. A couple other characters are also left out or just mentioned in passing, including Cullen and Bonnie Sawyer. Susan refers to them when she and Ben are at the drive-in. Given the limited runtime they had to work with, that was a good way to do an overview of the town's more notable characters, although it's just too quick.
@@TheAtlanteanArchiveactually Charlie Rhodes school bus does appear briefly, I do believe, but no sign of the driver himself! Hoping to one day see Dauberman's director's cut, all three hours of it! Perhaps they'll give it its own individual blueray release at some point, or maybe even include it as an extra on the blueray?? No sign of the young Ben Mears that was apparently supposed to be in it, played by Gavin Maddox something or other and no sign of another child character called Pirate Hat, played by an actor called Andy Anderson (no relation to Andy Anderson, who played Charlie Rhodes in Mikael Solomon's 2OO4 version, as far as I know!).
@@TheAtlanteanArchive I think it's either cut from the movie (because it feels like lot of scenes were cut), or he could have cameo in that scene when vampire kids are surrounding the tree house.
@johnbleakley4125 You're right! Come to think of it, I do remember seeing the school bus now. It was pretty quick (like everything else-LOL), but I remember it.
I assume that the 3-hour cut will probably turn up on the DVD release. Max would be wise to stream it.
@@TheAtlanteanArchiveI'd love to see the three hour directors cut. I think we all would! But I enjoyed the movie twice recently at my local cinema, in Manchester, as I'm in the UK. A fine movie, dispite the cuts! Glad they did father Callahan's alcoholism story line. It's in the source material. Pity they didn't follow the source material more, but I still highly recommend the movie and really enjoyed it !! I'd give it 8 out of 1O. 🙂✌️
I just found you . I love your voice. Very comforting ❤
@@Ronnie-ji5dt Thank you! I appreciate that. If you like listening to me, I have several story readings on this channel that you may enjoy.
Just finished watching. Straker sure does chew up the scenery, doesn’t he? In fact, Straker’s character felt like a metaphor for the entire movie - a little over the top, and generally lacking the subtlety and development that makes the story great to begin with. How you do all that in the allotted run-time is a different question. Would love to see a 3-4 part mini-series a la “Midnight Mass”, but unfortunately I don’t think we’ll be getting that anytime soon.
@EtaoinShrdlu33 The Midnight Mass treatment is really the only way to go with this if they want to do it right but I'm not holding my breath there, either. I forgot to mention this in the spoiler section of the review, but the creepy scene I referenced with regard to Straker was the part where he offers the Glick boys a lift. His manner and the way he stares at them is effective, but, yes, otherwise he's chewing that scenery with gusto. LOL
From what I gather, the test audience (May 2022) liked the drive-In sequence which was shorter, and not part of the original ending of the movie. In June 2022 six days of new filming occurred at the rebuilt drive-in set in order to film more action and Barlow's new death sequence.
I'm guessing they came up with the drive-in sequence as a sort of homage to older horror films and the classic horror film era, but it didn't work for me at all.
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. I've been on the fence about this one for quite a while.
@PeculiarNotions I'm glad it was helpful. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Thanks for this excellent breakdown 👍
@paulbirkbeck1790 I'm glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for watching and commenting!
@@TheAtlanteanArchive my pleasure
Thank you for the review. I agree with a lot of the points you mentioned. That faceoff between Barlow and Father Calaghan was a letdown, and especially since that was supposed to be a key scene. The big ending at the drive-in was just ok for me, but I wish there was something better.
@onacanilao I keep coming back to that: how much better they could have done with so much of this. People who have never read the novel, watch this, and then go and try to read it are going to be in for a real shock.
Pilou Asbaek played Straker. He played Euron Greyjoy in "Game of Thrones." And come on, Stephen King film alum William Sadler as Gillespie.... Who couldn't love him?
He was very good as Gillespie. I wish we had seen more of him.
I'm surprised Mark wasn't already the historical youngest mayor in America from the outset of the movie.
And he certainly should've been given the starring role character and placed first in the opening credits the way they built up his invincibilty. In short, mark petrie and the character playing him is the giant elephant in the room that none of these 2024 modern day reviewers want to tak about for fear of being called racist in these trying distorted times. I made it through this version of Salem's Lot with a knot in my gut...angry at what I was seeing...then I rushed to see what others had to say about it. You can see how practically every reviewer twisted and turned themselves into knots while trying NOT to say the obvious. Which is: Salem's Lot used to be a great story before the left got hold of it and ruined it voluntarily with forethought of malice...and that from here on out they will be deliberately going forward to destroy every piece of modern art they can get their hands on with their progressive goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion. There, it had to said.
They did a lot of goofy stuff with Marks' character, apparently trying to channel The Lost Boys and other 80s-type films where kids take on monsters with improvised tools, but it fell flat here. I've told others here that the scene where they had him reading vampire comics and writing up his list under the covers made me laugh out loud. It reminded me of Kevin McCallister drawing up his battle plan to take on Harry and Marv in Home Alone. It was totally ridiculous.
I have to admit that I probably held back a little with Mark's character, not because of the actor's race but because I felt a little funny coming down on a child. I complimented his ability to handle what they gave him in about the best way anyone could have. Someone else here referenced the comment I made about my concern that they would turn Susan into Captain Marvel and sideline Ben, and pointed out that they really turned Mark into Captain Marvel instead. I have to agree.
The 1979 adaptation is a master class in atmospheric horror. By comparison, this was a mess.
Was the marston house real or cgi?? The 1979 house was awooden facade put over a small house and 2004s marston house was a wooden house built for the movie
It was a real house in the town of Clinton, Massachusetts.
@paulbirkbeck1790 That's an excellent question. If it's CGI, it's the best effect in the movie. Now you've got me wondering...
@josebro352 thanks man glad to hear it was real
@@TheAtlanteanArchive iv just found out the marston house was built for the movie it's just a prop, sorry guys😒
This movie was a heartbreaker in some ways. I liked the cast but man they fumbled the bag on this one. I don't like how they handled some of the characters in their fates (Matt/Father Callahan), and this really should've been a miniseries.
@Tek-Knight5592 The miniseries treatment is the only way to do this thing justice. Even if this movie had been longer, though, it wouldn't have fixed some of the stuff they did wrong with the story and production. Then again, I suppose I'm biased because I just don't like the way modern horror and action movies are made, for the most part.
Overall, i thoroughly enjoyed it. There was a fine sense of menace and threat, and some good set-pieces. But there's a definite 'rushed' feeling to the latter half of the movie. I hope that one day we do get to see the longer, original cut.
It's the things they did well with this that make me miss what we'd didn't see. I'm watching certain scenes thinking, "Yes, more of this, please." I would like to see the extended cut as well.
I think the movie looks really good and i am really looking forward to seeing it! Just on a different subject,buddy. Has anyone ever told you you look and sound like the late-great Dennis weaver?(aka McCloud)? 🤔 Great review!! 🙂✌️
No, I've never been told that before! I've had two random people tell me that I look like Rick Grimes from The Walking Dead, though. One of them was a girl in a Sonic drive-through who actually did a double take when I pulled up to the window. LOL
Let me know what you think after you watch it. Thanks for watching and commenting! Now I need to go pull up a Dennis Weaver video. 😄
@@TheAtlanteanArchive never heard of a Rick Grimes from the walking dead lol is he a zombie? Lol 😅✌️
@@johnbleakley4125 Before his morning caffeine, yes. 😄
Poor Dauberman was hamstrung by the studio. Agree 100% on Straker. Reminded me of CIrcus ringleader. Barlow was a major disappointment. The make up and contact lenses from 1979 were far more sinister and impactful than this CGI enhanced disaster of a Barlow. Didn't like the speaking either. It more humanized him rather than the brilliant roar/hissing combination from the 1979 Barlow, who was more like a monster. I understand that's actually more in line with the novel, but after seeing the 2 versions, I prefer the non verbal. Mark should have shown a least a little fear and trepidation for being only 11. And been a little more somber after seeing his parents killed. I don't think they made a connection between Barlow and the Marsten house so how did Mark know to go there? Why did everyone go to the morgue without a cross or holy water knowing they were going there to see if Marjorie Glick rises from the dead? Wouldn't you go overboard with crosses, garlic, holy water just in case? None of them seemed anxious she could potentially rise from the dead as a vampire. It was very casual, huh, lets see what happens. Mark under the blanket looking at the comic was very Lost Boys. Overall the tone of the movie was not dark and sinister like 1979. Even the musical score from 1979 was dreadful. And that's fine if thats the tone Dauberman was going for. It just doesn't make for a creepy movie. It was more like Fright Night or Saturday the 14th.
Great thoughts! Thanks for commenting.
The scene where they had Mark reading vampire comics and writing up his list under the covers made me laugh out loud. It reminded me of Kevin McCallister drawing up his battle plan in Home Alone. I couldn't take it seriously, and it insulted the audience to a degree as well. Mark is big into horror stuff, so he obviously knows about vampires, and so does the audience. It was weird and unnecessary.
The Marjorie Glick sequence was handled strangely. They way they were bungling around with the cross...again, I couldn't take it seriously. It was so awkward and neither funny nor frightening. Meanwhile, the '79 sequence is a classic horror moment.
As for Mark and the Marsten House, my guess is that, being a small town, the fact that the stranger in town had just bought it was something he probably knew, so he put that together. They did so much goofy stuff with his character, though, and I can't forgive them for shortening the Barlow/Callahan confrontation in favor of the treehouse sequence.
So much waste...
Great Deep-DIve! Pretty much eye to eye on everything - thought the Drive-In sequence was as awful as I suspected it might be. The last 1/3 of the movie really fell apart - I don't like comedy and action in my horror films - tone has to be consistent. About the only thing I disagree with you on is Eva Miller. She was funny, I did laugh, but not what I'm looking for in a horror film. I liked the faded beauty of the original character better but certainly didn't miss the goofy Weasel plotline Eva's tied to. What I would really like to see with Salem's Lot is a fan crafted edit of the original mini-series. It's SO CLOSE to being a masterpiece - just need some technical refinement. to elevate it from 70's budget television to feature film quality.
I liked the original Eva Miller better as well. "Faded beauty" is a very good way of putting it. She was great. The scene where she looms over Bonnie Bedelia, looking like she's marking her somehow, is a great moment of understated horror. Bonnie looks genuinely spooked in that scene.
Yeah, the last third of this one totally falls apart, and I don't like humor mixed with horror either. It may work from time to time with movies like Fright Night and The Lost Boys, but it's mostly annoying and those are not really favorites of mine either.
I would love to see a remastered version of the '79 Salem's Lot. Not an extensive remaster, but some tweaks are definitely needed, such as where Reggie Nalder's contact lenses get skewed and the Danny Glick window scene where you can see the boom lift under him.
Thanks for commenting!
Like you the 79 version is my favorite horror film and I watch it every October. I liked this movie but certainly didn’t love it. I’m hopping we get the three hour cut. There just wasn’t time to develop any of the characters. The lack of the Marsten house really hurt the story. The ease in which they stabbed vampires in the heart was laughable.
@brentcooper4345 Yes, that over-the-top, comic book-type action stuff takes me totally out of a movie. The lack of the Marsten house was a big deal. It's basically like Castle Dracula and has a lot of personal meaning for Ben. All of that went right out of the window.
Thanks for watching and commenting!
At best it was a just okay generic vampire movie. Salem's Lot it is not. The themes, the feeling, the atmosphere, and pacing just are not there. And what they've done to the characters is pretty much criminal.
I have to agree. There were a few decent things, but they mostly flubbed those, and the things that were bad were really bad. I was probably more generous with the review than I really should have been. Thanks for commenting!
I was taken back a bit by the changes to the various characters and the adding of others but overall it wasn't a bad movie
@darkstar6909 Some of the character decisions made a lot of sense given the runtime limitations. For instance, in the novel, Susan is a schoolteacher, but in this one, she works at the real estate office. Well, given the fact that they had to get her and Ben together so fast, it makes sense that when Ben comes to town looking for a place to stay, she's working at the office and they meet right away. Other decisions didn't make as much sense.
Mrs Glick !❤
It is available on Blu-ray
@@michaelnance6730 The new one? I know that the 79 version is on Blu-ray.
I enjoyed Salem's lot. I will disagree with you,I thought the second half was stronger than the first. I thought the first half of the film was ***rushed***. Admittedly, the film plays like salem's lot greatest hits. It's strongest when it veers away from source material (finale). The characters aren't underdeveloped but if you've seen any of the Salem's Lot (70s, 2000s) you can fill in the blank and make this an enjoyable watch.
That's fair. Other than the main character introductions, they pretty well hurry through the town and the story setup. Susan's descriptions to Ben at the drive-in was a clever way of trying to cover some of that territory, but the limited runtime forced them to pole-vault over a lot of middle ground. Those who have read the novel or seen any of the previous versions will appreciate the touch, but those who aren't familiar with it at all will lose some nuance.
Mark became Capt. Marvel, he was a Mark-y Sue
Ha! Yeah, that's pretty much the case. The scene where they had him reading vampire comics and writing up his list under the covers made me laugh out loud. It reminded me of Kevin McCallister drawing up his battle plan to take on Harry and Marv in Home Alone.
@@TheAtlanteanArchive Kevin McCallister taking on vampires movie; here's my money - take it!
Master?!! Master?!! ... I brought you a Sacrifice!!! Gee whiz couldn't Pilou have hammed it up abit more? I thought he was excellent as Straker, but i much prefer James Mason's chilling portrayal in the fabulous Tobe Hooper version, but i realy did enjoy the remake. All the performances were good, i thought. But i think they should have stuck to the original ending in the source material, were Ben and Mark locate Barlow in Eva Millers boarding house and stake him. This is also the ending in the 2OO4 version. And the Tobe Hooper version has them locate Kurt Barlow in the Marsten House, then Ben stakes him. But the ending at the drive-in was ok in the new one, but im not particularly crazy about it. But its kinda ok, i guess.
95% of the book was thrown out of this. What a hot mess this was. I actually think it would have done well in cinemas and make it's money back. People who never read the book and who have never seen the tobe Hooper film would probably like it. The middle section was actually really good and scary with the teachers house. Not as good as the book or original film
"Hot mess" is a good description. I've told some others here that I was probably more generous with this review than I should have been. So much hokey, absurd, comic book action stuff and scare scenes that weren't scary at all. The creepiest scene in the whole thing was Straker staring at the Glick boys as they were walking into the woods, and that probably got under my skin because I had someone make a grab for me from a car when I was a kid. They threw out so much good stuff from the book and substituted stuff that didn't work at all.
@@TheAtlanteanArchive my favorite part in the book, the original film and this is the whole time Ned is at Matt's house and when he comes back. Almost every review of this thinks the walk in the woods is the creepiest part. So you're not alone.
I was very disappointed with this movie. It has couple of really cool shots and artistic frames, but overall it was huge letdown. Characters were paper thin, and they rushed from scene to scene, and the fact that characters have some information that they clearly shouldn't makes me think there's lot longer version out there and lot of chunk has been cut from the movie. The logistics and time frame also doesn't make lot of sense in some scene, again, most likely because lot of scenes were either trimmed or cut out completely.
Lastly, I didn't like Markey Sue, it was to the point of absurdity how little kid has the authority over adults and Barlow was huge letdown. He looks descent (reminded me of Reapers from Blade 2), but in this version he also shows up for like minute in climax and dies off abruptly. For a powerful ancient evil that's suppose to be threat, he kinda dies like a wimp.
@njmfff Yes, Barlow was an enormous disappointment. As ancient, clever, and powerful as he's supposed to be, he turns into a total joke in this.
The director says that the original cut of the film was three hours long, so a longer version definitely does exist. Whether we'll get to see it is debatable. They don't have anything to lose by at least making it a DVD extra.
There is a 3 hour cut of this movie according to the director that is were all the character development probably is, the money men probably cut it down to a bear bones action movie just to make a quick buck
So do you think we'll ever see the uncut version? How long do those usually take to be released?
That would make sense. They released a still image of Barlow gripping Father Callahan by the chin, and we didn't see this in the movie, so I'm guessing that they shot more for that scene and then cut it, which is sad because this is one of the best scenes in King's novel. Barlow v Callahan/Darkness v the Light...and we get 30 seconds?
It's hard to say on that one. As long as they don't have any extra production that needs to be done (score added, etc), it could come out fairly quickly. My guess is that they'll wait and see how well the truncated version does first, and then maybe add the extended cut to a DVD release. Or they may release the extended cut separately to cash in more.
@@TheAtlanteanArchive Thanks. I'm looking forward to watching it. Oddly enough I remember buying the uncut version of the David Soul miniseries back in the 90s. It was a double VHS tape that came in a larger box. It was cool because it had a lot of scenes that were cut from the original, Ben and Mark in the church in Mexico with the tainted holy water being the most prominent. Hope we see the new one soon!! 👍
@@josebro352 I'm going to the cinema this Friday (uk) and I can't wait either
Yeah definitely very disappointed. Waited 2 years for this and now we know why. If you are a true fan of the 1979 Tobe Hoopers version you will hate this. Just a few cons the Marsten house was not a character at all. Straker although the actor did a weird take on it and it is what it is was just a complete waste. He maybe had a total of 2 mins screen time. The cgi with the vampires and the fog took me right out of this movie. They used cgi with Barlow I mean come on. It wasn’t scary at all! The window seen with Danny was terrible compared to 1979. You can have great actors but combined with all the poor decisions it makes for a bad movie.
Yep, bad CGI, cartoonish action sequences, goofy dialogue, and story choices that made no sense... It pales in comparison with the '79 version. Barlow goes down like a total punk and the ending is ridiculous.
And you're right: the Danny Glick window scene here was not scary at all. Such a disappointment in so many ways.
Straker miscast and misused
@@solreavir Yes. A very weird performance. Rather hammy.
You have "Max with Ads"?! Surely this garbage must be a free service?
@@AndrewDyson-u2u Unfortunately, no. I have Disney +, and they have a bundle deal that includes Max for maybe $4 more than I'm paying now, so I upgraded to watch this. So I'm not out much, fortunately. Without ads costs substantially more.
@@TheAtlanteanArchive I admire your loyalty to this criminal cartel sir; I guess these idiots wonder why subscribers drop away in droves and go to torrent sites instead...
What would you give for this rotten little boys life?
@jamesbodnarchuk3322 Such a missed opportunity with that scene.
@@TheAtlanteanArchiveThe master wants you! .. throw away your cross!! Face the master !! Faith against faith!! Could you do that? Is your faith enough? 🤔
Isn't it obvious buddy? Callahan is an alcoholic in the source material and it's pretty obvious in the new movie he's a problem drinker. As a recovering alcoholic myself, I'm glad they addressed the characters drink problems in the new movie. Very well played by John Benjamin Hickey, I thought. James Cromwell was fabulous as the troubled priest in the 2OO4 Mikael Solomon version. And James Gallery in Hooper's original was given very little actual screen time, but I guess he was kinda ok in the role. I've seen the movie twice on the big screen in Manchester, UK, where I live. I was very impressed with it. But it's so obvious it's been cut. None of the characters even questions vampirism. They are all to willing to accept vampires are on the loose in Jerusalem's Lot. But I think we need to see Dauberman's three hour directors cut, although a friend of mine, who works for Warner Bros, has recently told me the 3 hour cut no longer exists, as it was destroyed, so nobody will ever get too see Dauberman's director's cut. Apparently. 😬
Disjointed...massive dissappointment.
Game is woke modernised garbage and they skipped the first game purely because the second is more popular.
If you don’t know who Alfre Woodard is, I don’t know why you have a channel.
🦇🩸 As far 'Salem's Lot '24 being a faithful & balanced adaptation of it's Original Source Material, it Fails Utterly in almost every regard.
(RE-READ) Every couple of years I return to "The Lot' & re-read this favorite Story of Stephen King: the one which spring-boarded him into the position to write the runaway Hits: 'The SHINING' & 'IT'. And I can tell you that 'SALEM'S LOT 2024 is a Total Letdown of a film: in terms of a Balanced Adaptation of not only the Story & Feel of the Novel, but also of the Characters & their Relationships, and how they intrinsically affect one another & in relation to the story's biggest character; The Town itself; and the Dark History which shrouds it, and by extension, it's inhabitants.
'SALEM'S LOT True Fans & Purists pretty much unanimously & invariably agree: his should have been a 8-10 Episode Mini-series: and the 1800's set Jerusalem's Lot 10 Episode Mini-series (which felt like "Butter Scraped Over Too Much Bread") _should _*_definitely_*_ have been the _*_100 minute runtime Film_*_ instead._ 🚫🧛♂🚫
The only thing more of a Letdown in the titular Mr. BARLOW himself: who feels like a comic book character of an Idea of a generic Vampire. All around a huge disappointment which needs to be rectified by someone not only talented enough, but by someone who cares enough about the source material to do it justice.
( D-minus or 1.5 out of 5)( D- 1.5/5 )🚫🧛
On the whole, I was probably more generous in this review than it deserves, likely because I can see some things that had promise and could have worked better if they had just given them time. Other things, however, were just bad story choices and can't be remedied. Cutting the Barlow-Callahan confrontation in favor of the new tree house sequence was criminal. I also laughed out loud at the scene where Mark is under the covers compiling his vampire-killing strategy because it reminded me so strongly of Kevin McCallister drawing up his battle plan to fight Harry and Marv in Home Alone. Mark is big-time into horror and already knows all of that, as does the audience. It's a goofy moment that insults the audience's intelligence and it cost us in terms of other scenes. Again, we get 30 seconds of Barlow v Callahan for this kind of thing? I meant to mention this in the review but forgot.
I never saw the Jerusalem's Lot miniseries ("Chapelwaite," isn't it?), but I've heard mixed reviews.
Yes, we need a longer miniseries to do this well. You're absolutely right on that. I'd like to see it done with a Midnight Mass approach. That show was well-written, well-acted, took its time, and gave us something truly memorable.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. I return to the novel every few years as well.