So there are times when we see Barlow clearly and he does look "scary", but this movie didn't make me feel the fear or the tension or the suspense. So even though he looks creepy I still felt nothing because the movie did a bad job creating that horror atmosphere imo.
In the book Father Callahan loses the battle because he lies to Barlow. He agrees to throw away the cross and face Barlow man to man, faith against faith, but he reneges when Mark is let free. Callahan shows that he believes in the object of the cross more than he believes in the God that the cross represents, and so he loses the battle and succumbs to Barlow. This is not portrayed adequately in any filmed version of the novel.
@GATURKS please read or audiobook it is a masterpiece there's so much in the book none of the movies used although 1979 version was true to the book and definitely is a masterpiece 2 the 2004 version is also not bad n 2024 was the worst in my opinion but I still watched it 3 times the book is INCREDIBLE
In the book, Barlow was a heavily Dracula-inspired vampire with charisma and gravitas. Making him a Nosferatu-style monster who grows and snarls takes away from the character, even though I did enjoy the scarier scenes from the 1979 miniseries. If there's one praise I have for the 2024 version, it's beautifully shot.
@@PsychesGamingAddiction he can be terrifying, but he still has the grace and eloquence of a vampire lord. It doesn't work as well when you turn him into a simple beast who bares fangs and roars.
@@FiveSigma72 when I was a kid I was scared of David from The Lost Boys and Jerry from Fright Night. They could seem human, but soon turned into undead killers. I think the mimic vampire is the scariest.
The movie just felt rushed Salems lot would be better as a mini series maybe 6 episodes, I think a lot of this movie was left on the cutting room floor 🤔 did enjoy the Majorie Glick scene the face through the sheet was pretty creepy
Ironically I think midnight mass is the best Salem lot adaptation even though it’s not a adaptation though it’s still about a vampire invading and infecting a town. Yeah the main thing that frustrated me about this movie is the lack of creeping terror. In the book the infestation begins slow and builds up until you realize the entire town infected whereas here it just seems to happen overnight. It’s the lack of subtlety. This is best examplified by the sheriff leaving where in the book he doesn’t have the nerve to say what’s going on but know enough to get the hell out of dodge whereas here he just flat out says vampires
The drive in is also a really stupid add in cause it really makes you think the vampires are just morons being technically out in the open and in one spot. There is just sort of bleak nihilism missing in this movie. In the book technically no one wins. I mean Barlow gets what he wants but he doesn’t get to enjoy it. But The town is beyond saving and the only solution Ben and mark have is to get the hell out of dodge. I feel like I good compromise would be killing Barlow and coming to the realize the only way to stop the vampires would be to burn the town down and could have ended with them driving away from the burning town. I felt like that would’ve been a good way to end it instead of the easy solution
@@zach1997ismtown population on the opening sign was like 1200 but we get maybe 30 flaming randos for the "peak" the more I think about this the more bummed out I get lol
You're absolutely right about the sacrifice of Ralphie Glick; Matt later says,after doing his research, says he rather suspects no one will ever see Ralphie again. He was an offering to the "dark father" even Barlow has his master.
This gutted me honestly. Salem’s Lot is a contender for my favorite King story, and this movie was missing pretty much everything I love about it. No suspense, no terror, and the town itself feels dead upon arrival. Less than 2 hours is criminal, they cut so much content that it made the movie feel like it was trying to be a blockbuster instead of a dark, suspenseful slow-burn.
I think it important that we know the characters. That was my biggest problem with the new version, that we don't really know or care about these people.
I read Salem's Lot in '78 when I was 10 years old. Scared the shit outta me for years. I've read it again since then and if they were going to put this on screen then it should've been at least a six part series. Maybe that's too much to ask but it would've fleshed out characters (including the town) much better.
The first cut of the 2024 adaption of "Salem's Lot" was said to be in excess of 3 hours. The shortened running time is probably due to a studio mandate. This is apparent in how the film moves at a breakneck pace with and quieter moments (e.g. scenes where no one is talking) have been removed. I strongly suspect that the longer cut is far superior and scarier. The shortened version just feels far too condensed and moves too quickly.
This movie needed to be a mini series to explore everything including the buildup and introduction to all the characters. The history of the town and the Marsten house, including Hubie and Birdie Marsten themselves could have been explored. This version never even mentioned Ben Mears childhood and finding Marsten's dead body. No scenes with Ruthie Crocket even though she was in the credits. I feel like there's a longer version out there I hope is released. Even the 1979 mini series was cut down to 2 hours for the theatrical version over sees in 1980 and similarly faster paced skipping a lot of footage going almost straight to the vampires.
One of my favorite parts of the book that is in any of the adaptions is the letter from Barlow to the hunters. It is a wonderful insight into Barlow, his age, his sophistication, and paints him a light of gentile intelligence blended with a sociopathic need for cruelty and violence. Barlow wasn't a mindless monster, but a well educated one with centuries of honed experience behind him.
Just watched it and completely agree. It was okay but it's a rushed 'highlights' of King's novel with next to no characterizations and lacking the highly effective setpieces and supreme creep factor of Tobe Hooper's '79 version. I didn't find it remotely scary and the cast were just okay with exception of the kid playing Mark who was excellent and by far the best thing about the film. And yeah, Barlow and Straker here made very little impression on me. Straker is barely in it and Barlow is a much less effective version of what Reggie Nalder did in '79. Overall not terrible but just kinda thin and forgettable. For a really good version try the 1995 BBC audio drama with Hellraiser's Doug Bradley as Barlow. Brrr.
i read Salem's Lot when i was eleven, and had to sleep with my parents the first night, and i never delivered newspapers again. Oddly enough, no screen adaptation has ever come even close. And not that i regard film and television with the same degree of artistic appreciation as the written text, i just would have thought a solid adaptation of this work would have been a no brainer given how well crafted the source material is. A true horror story, it is an homage to classical folklore and Stephen King's finest work in my opinion, hands down.
Great job ❤ especially linking the book and all the movies. Great details. As a reader of the book in highschool, before ever seeing the '79 adaptation, (and before the '04 one released) I appreciate the detailed comparisons
I think everyone has to remember this version was shot as a three hour movie Director was forced to edit it down for whatever reason to two hours that’s why it’s missing so much
Ive yet to watch this version. But the '79 series? Good Lord, that mini series messed me up. Of course, i was only 10 years old. But the Window scenes? I was completely paralyzed with fear. Ive always lov3d the fact that my parents were movie lovers themselves and were very liberal in what they let me watch, and im sure they thought it being on TV made it even more tolerable. Nope! Between this and Jaws, I was a basket case. Lol
Loved the 79 version but was sad it left out the father Callaghan story line, and the hunt for Barlow in different places. Always though the role of Barlow was downplayed because they had such a big named actor as James Mason to play Straker. Masons wife played Majorie Glick in 79 I think 🤔
Great video! I noticed in one of your comments, to one of your comments. That you mentioned that you wanted to watch all of the Nosferatu movies before the Christmas release of Robert Eggers version. However, you also mentioned that you really aren't interested in watching the original 1922 version. That would be an epic mistake in my opinion. Max Schreck, who brilliantly plays Count Orlock in the film. Is absolutely one of the most creepy & honestly, almost "supernatural" vampire performances ever put to the medium of celluloid. I would highly, highly recommend beginning your Nosferatu film journey with the viewing of this utter silent cinema masterpiece! Please don't deprive yourself of such a classic. Again, thanks for your interesting & insightful book/film analysis. Really great job, keep up the stellar work!
I must have made a typeo because I am definitely going to watch the 20s version and an very excited for it! No way I would skip that! And thank you 🤗 I'm glad you like my videos
Great video! There were a few ideas that i liked in this new adaptation, but several parts just soured my mood. Ive never read the novel, so all i can really compare this new adaptation to is the 1979 series. Absolutely loved that one.
I really loved the intro credits of the movie with the blood trailing along the map spliced with little snippets of the town. A lot of work went into those credits to make it artful. Shame the rest of the movie isn’t like that.
Sad that this wasn't a good adaptation. I love Salem's Lot even though my introduction to it was the 2004 adaptation (which has a special place in my heart, like the best kind of guilty pleasure). I completely agree that if they weren't going to do something different, there was no need for adapting it once again.
I read the book as a 16 year old back in '93, and while I can't really remember the details of the book all these years later, I do remember it was the first time I was ever scared by anything I'd ever read. My bedroom window used to have a tree branch that would rub against the glass when it was really windy and that didn't help my fear when reading either.
i haven't read Salem's Lot but one thing I did like about this movie is how the characters believed each other and weren't dumb fodder like most horror movies
Seems to me, with the limited 10-12 episode series formats being so popular because of streaming,that would have been the way to go. You could be exposed to all the rich little subplots in the novel
Also this version of Salem's Lot had a lot of production issues, it was suppose to be released years ago. It was plagued with edits and reshoots until it finally got a streaming release. I am wondering if some of the things that really felt missing weren't in things that were edited out of the film. Such as the law enforcement guy. He was barely in it but the movie acted like it was a big deal when he wanted to just run and leave town etc.
Still my all time fave KIng book. I re-read it every five years or so and I'm always blown away how he encapsulates small-town American life within the first 50 pages or so (something I'm an expert in being from a large city in the UK).
I thought the character of mark derailed the movie, with the performance and how he can’t feel fear, and the fact that it all the sudden makes it a kid movie. Mark completely changed the vibes to more light hearted
Yup, the '79 version was the best adaptation-only really hampered by the limitations of the time period. I think the story would benefit from an 8 episode or so limited series, if only to spend more time with the characters & the workings of the town.
Agreed! I get tired of them dragging books out into series when they don't need to be. But this is one of the exceptions where it would be perfect for a show! The 79 and 04 versions were smart enough to realize that.
Great review and agree with your points. Also interesting point of view about the question why does it have to be a loved one to kill a vampire when in the climax, they're killing the vampires all over the place at the drive in I kinda felt the radio bbc drama version of salems lot is right up there with the 1979 film
As someone that hasn't read the book or seen the original 1979 mini series I went into this movie cold and I really enjoyed this movie, yeah the biggest positive i can give this movie is that the vampires are actually scary at least in my opinion and as a huge vampire fan I was satisfied with the vampires in this movie, but on a negative side this movie goes back quick like really quick which is crazy because this movie is almost 2 hours long and again this is coming from someone that hasn't read the book or seen the original 1979 mini series but all in all this movie was very solid in my opinion and i do plan to watch the 1979 mini series now.
When you say you don't see anything wrong with people inventing a meaning other than the one intended by the author, you're unintentionally destroying the power of Literature. If I said, "Don't touch the trigger" and you decided instead that I said, "All triggers are cool," then we'd quickly have serious problems. Literature is communication. If you don't understand it, read it again. If intention is unimportant, then why bother writing or communicating at all?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I get what you're saying, and agree that if the author has a clear message, it shouldn't be ignored. The example you gave doesn't really make sense for what I mean though. I'm talking about people getting symbolism/meaning from something that on the surface could be seen as just an entertaining story. Not taking something that is said and just misunderstanding it the way your example kind of implies. Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts! It's an interesting discussion to have.
Very interesting. I like the books that makes me think and contemplate.. i doubt i would have read many books, if i thought they all had an absolute, set in stone, meaning.
I agree, it wasn’t amazing, but I did appreciate how they treated some of the the crucifix scenes. Some might find it hokey, but as a hardcore vampire movie fan, I love it when protagonists are equipped with these specific 'tools' to fight evil. I always feel so empowered in these scenes. The little kid in me just loves it! I thought the moment when Burke used the cross against the vampire at his house (the cemetery guy-forgot his name) was well done. You could really feel the power of the cross pushing the evil away. When it comes to horror, I love the folklore surrounding the evil forces, and even though we all know the 'rules,' I actually wish the movie had gone into more detail about it. I hated how they decided to just gloss over all that like we're supposed to know everything about vampires because if that's the case, why the hell make the movie? I almost cringed when the little boy (who was the best character in the film) put his yeti in the holy water fountain - i was like, we've seen that so many times! But yeah, overall it was just okay. I did appreciate the cinematography and some other elements, though.
Yeah and I thought the way the crosses glowed was cool. That was a detail from the book too, like they could feel the power emanating from the crosses. I saw another reviewer who was confused though because he was like, I guess crosses don't work for Barlow since it didn't protect the priest. So the movie didn't seem to do a good job conveying why the cross failed for him in that instance.
@@WhytheBookWins Oh wow I actually didn't read the book and I love that detail is an original element in the book. RE Barlow, I actually did think that myself--that maybe Barlow was too "strong" for the cross, but you are right! It's because the priest lost his faith!
I remember when the Beatles came to America. It was the slow death of days for our parents. It was everything Stephen King described about the small town: it was the small minds of a generation ill equipped for change. Years later, the crew that hosted and brought the soon to be world sensations to America recalled feeling a sense of dread, feeling as if... well, as if... the Beatles weren't the Beatles.
I've read the book six times. It's a brilliant story, well told and so claustrophobic at times it's breathtaking. The Tobe Hooper and David Soul adaptation takes a few liberties for the sake of screen scares but only a few and they work. So I'm a devotee on both counts. I watched this 2024 version last night and it is utterly awful in every regard. They should be embarrassed about this awful sub standard Scooby Doo episode. Just avoid it.
Wow, I watched the 1979 version when it was originally on tv on two successive Sundays. I disliked scary things way back then but,alone at home my 2 year old asleep and my husband playing in the NHL, I watched it alone. Oh my, I remember it and everything that went on in and around it way back when. It scared the bejesus out of me. It took me years to re-watch and by then found it silly. Will watch the one on MAX tonight just to see the difference. The book by far I read much later was better as it usually is. Thank you for letting me remind myself about David Soul and the young boy back in 1979. 😊 and me being so scared and my husband once he knew I watched it found it funny to scare me a few times-I didn’t find it funny.
Apparently the original cut of the new movie was 3 hours long and had a lot more backstory of the Marston House. It'd be interesting to see the full version.
I think Mike Flanagan's Midnight Mass was a good version of a Salems Lot type of story adaptation in film. It really played up the relationship between a priest and vampire.
I’m in the minority, but I really liked this movie. I thought it was fun. I personally think the best Stephen King adaptations are the ones that don’t really stick to the book that much, specifically the supernatural books (sorry), see The Shining, IT, Stand By Me and Shawshank Redemption. I could never get into the other 2 Salem’s Lot adaptations, so in my mind, this was my favorite adaptation.
I'm glad you liked it! You make an interesting point about the best adaptations of King's supernatural books are the ones that don't try to be super faithful. I had never made that connection with the most faithful adaptations that work well are the non-paranormal ones!
This is true special with his early novels that are filled with so much character depth and flash backs. The whole first section of The Shining is filled with flashbacks laid out to tell the whole story of Jack and Wendy's relationship. And while it has been awhile since I read it I remember a good deal of Salem's Lot is just character drama and the Barlow doesn't show up on the page until half way through the book or somewhere near the end.
to me, this movie was awesome in many ways, having only seen the 70s version back when I was a kid - and having strong imprints of that on the back of my head - and having read the book around the same time. I find all your criticism on point, and I believe a lot of this movie could have been lost on the cutting floor. It seems rushed, while still managing the slow pace at times that this would need. There are some visually stunning scenes here, the end sequence with the shadow moving in. My favourite is the one where straker is following the kids into the woods like the predator he is. This made my blood freeze. I hope there will be a recut release of this movie, as I have high hopes this could do a lot better.
I understand that part of film adaptation is compromise and that not everything is going to make it in but like you stated some of the omissions just made this film feel hollow. There were some really cool moments and clever ideas like the church sequence towards the end and I though the cinematography at parts was excellent. But to me the biggest offense is the treatment Barlow and Straker get in this film they just feel flat and devoid of the charm and malice that made them so frightening in the book. Anyway great video!
As a teen I saw the 70s Salems Lot, It was a great ride. After that movie I’ve really liked isolationist types of films. Ravenous comes to mind. I saw the movie again as an adult, it’s still really good. Thanks for the advice, I won’t be watching the new one. I should have learned my lesson after watching the remake of The Fog.
As someone who's never read the book or seen any previous film adaptations, this 2024 remake was my introduction to the story and I thought it was just okay. The scene where danny gets sacrificed was horrific and definitely unsettle me, but that's near the beginning of the movie and seemed like it was setting the stage for the horrors to follow, but it never gets to that level again. So yeah, I thought it started strong but weakened over its runtime and by the end I felt a bit disappointed. But overall I was entertained and thought it was an enjoyable halloween flick... but nothing special. I 100% agree Mark was awesome and by far the most memorable character and best part of the whole movie!
I thought is was scary, and clever. It looked great. And many of the actors are giving very good performances. But it is thin dramatically. The ending, while exciting, is smarmy rather than moving.
Agree, they could do it like Fright Night. The facade Barlow shows is the charming, mysterious European, but the reality is the Nosferatu. Perhaps quickly shifting as he actually bites the victim so in the final seconds the horrifying aspect is revealed.
Very rarely watch movies (don't own a television 📺 no time) but HUGE fan of Kings Novels Pet Semetary Salem's Lot and Gerald's Game and knew there was no way they could make a great movie version of the book in 2 hours and could look at the pre-views and knew it would pardon the expression suck!!!
I’ve never read Salem’s Lot nor have I seen its adaptations. At most I’ve watched some TH-cam videos on it and listened to my dad talk about it. So when my dad said let’s watch the new HBO movie I said sure. It started out good, then got goofy (the crosses made me laugh), then frustrating to the point I started yelling at the tv. I did however watch all of it, not once did I take out my phone. Though I started checking out near the end. Personally I fond myself wishing the story was following the teacher and Mark. I didn’t really care about the author or Susan lol. My dad called it “weird, like it’s an abbreviated copy.”
You should do a review of the French Book La Motocyclette, which was made into the movie The Girl on a Motorcycle with Alain Delon and Marianne Faithful
*Attention horror movie fans who's seen all 3 Salem's Lot movies & read or know of the book* Salem's lot movie-character/movie ranking: Salem's lot 1979,2004& 2024: Paste and post in comment section! Ben Mears: Mark Petrie: Kurt Barlow: Richard Striker: Susan Norton: Jason Burke: Ralphie Glick: Danny Glick: Mike Ryerson: Movie Dog: Larry Crockett: Ruthie Crockett: Bonnie Sawyer: Cully Sawyer: Constable Parkins: June Petrie: Ted Petrie: Marjorie Glick: Henry Glick: Eva Miller: Gordon "weasel" Phillips: Dr Cody/Dr Bill Norton: Ned/Floyd Tebbets: Ann Norton: Father Callahan: Deputy Nolly/Officer Taylor: Ben Mears Vehicle: Ben/Susan romance: Ben/Mark chemistry: Ben/Jason Burke dynamic: Salem Lot town: Marston House: Best movie Easter egg (what?): Movie special effects/wardrobe/filming: Chilling/terror/scariness: Movie score/soundtrack: True to book story: Overall Story flow: Movies Epilogue: Favorite version of film:
It's been a very long time since I've read the book so I didn't remember a lot to compare to. One thing that really annoyed me in the movie was how the whole town were suddenly vampires. No build up to it whatsoever. I don't recall how it was in the book but I kept thinking of my all time favorite King novel, Needful Things. How the destruction of the town was this slow build up that they needed to do here. I guess having a movie length run time didn't help.
The novel was SO creepy when I first read it. I love how King let us get to know the town and people in it before he slowly but surely let us know something awful was happening in Salem's Lot. Great suspense. And the 1979 movie was like that too. Everything happened way too fast in the new film.
Agreed! I've noticed in King books like this, Pet Sematary, The Shining, the fist half tends to be character development before then really getting into the horror (there are of course bits in the first half that give us a look into the horror to come but that isn't the focus so much). It works so well because when the scary stuff starts happening, I am so invested and it makes such an impact on the reader!
Good review. I read the book 21 years ago and it’s King’s second best for me. I really liked the ‘79 mini-series and loathed this film. Mark in this film, seemed like he belonged in another film like IT rather than this film. I appreciate you going over the book - since it’s been a minute for me. Also, the house burning down footage in the ‘79 version was stock footage from another film.
I think it’s due to the studio or whomever - I have a feeling due to lack of imagination- “Hey, we got the guy who adapted IT, let’s try for that success again!” With Mark - I think they saw it as their chance to go after that type of feel and audience. Also the look of the film is similar to the IT films.
King went back and forth retconning a lot of stuff to do with Salem's lot - there's a prequel that talks about early settlers being worshippers of subterranean cthulhuesque cosmic monstrosities, as if the Lot was always a place of evil power? And then he blended his novel characters into the Dark Tower stuff, particularly Father Callahan and the whole race of immortal Barlow type vampires as a demon race linked to the other vamps in Dr Sleep and the entities in the shining... I kinda wonder if the repeated attempts at rebooting Salems Lot is a push by some rich studio guys to try and kickstart the Dark Tower extended universe or something?" A lot of King adaptations have really not been the best. The only REALLY shit scary one IMHO is The Night Flyer (which coincidentally you can watch for free on TH-cam here th-cam.com/video/VbzDBIchy9c/w-d-xo.html)
My mind could be playing tricks on me but wasn't the sacrifice to whatever was in the ground, "The Worm" or whatever it was in the short story prequel in Night Shift?
I couldn't remember anything about the original, I've never seen the 2004, and I never read that book, even though I read all the other 80's Stephen King books. I only know the story from pop culture. I liked the movie well enough, but I'll never seek it out again. If I ever do watch it though, it'll be to cheer Mark on while he takes care of business while the other guy holds his backpack for him. Go Mark!!
It's been a long time since I've seen that one but I remember loving it! It spoils me fun to do a video comparing that with the remake with Colin Farrell.
Thank you, Laura, I was not really interested in seeing this adaptation and you summed up my reason succinctly by asking 'why? What reason was there to even make this adaptation'? As always, think you for being the voice of reason, although I do disagree with you with every exception you took with the book. It is still - from cover to cover - one of my top 5 Stephen King books of all time. *Also have to disagree with you on the hunt for Dracula in the book. I agree with King in that respect, as well. Sure the suspense was more action-oriented than drawing-room in the first 3/4 of the book, but I appreciated the need for the relentlessness of the 'hunt', showing that Britain will seek out and destroy all that threaten their nation. Especially since Dracula was written at the height of distrust of foreigners in England, due to the influx of immigration into the country at that time - especially London - and Dracula was their biggest fear come to light: foreigners taking over the country. Anyway, thank you again for another great 'cautionary' video.
In the book Father Callahan promises to throw his cross away, if Barlow lets Mark go. But when Mark is released,Callahan does not throw away his cross. This causes him to think too much and doubt his faith.
79 is best 2024 is 2....I been thinking about what the deal is between the 2 versions.....the only thing .....79 has a very serious feel even when nothing is vampire it has a serious tone....what i think 2024 did well 1 Straker he was very proper and posh but he was up front sinister how he stole Ralphie, I think that was moore creepy. 2 the harmonica bit..it was pretty chilling how Ralphie was toying with Danny then the attack was from above and if they figured how to give it that serious over bearing tone that 79 had it may have been better. we would be afraid of going out side in fog vrs windows if we saw this when we young. 3 I really liked how they did Mike setting in the bar in the dark...and then burke was talking to him that part where he was holding his breath right befor he said I am sacared" was really awesome.....then we see the window being shut and Mikes eyes are glowing just a tad bit red. .....here is a thought if the would have done the eyes like in blade runner i think it would been cool kinda like shinning a light in a dogs eye per say .... well that is what I thought hit the hardest.
There were good parts to this new adaptation, but there were so many scenes that ruined the pace and atmosphere of the narrative that had me asking why is this here, taking me completely out of the story. I'll have to rewatch the 1979 movie again to make a good comparison. I preferred the 2004 mini-series.
I actually think that vampire bites being treated with traditional medical equipment isn't too jarring. In the book, Dr. Cody explains that vampires' garlic aversion may be just an allergic reaction they have, rather than something paranormal or otherworldly. It's pointed out that even if the vampires are supernatural creatures, they are corporeal and still have to follow some laws of nature. So a vampire's venom being countered with medicine like how snake venom can be treated actually makes sense to me (although I do wish holy water was used in that scene). As for my thoughts on the movie versus the book, the book is obviously superior to the film for a couple simple reasons that can't be easily mended with good acting, cinematography and visual effects. First of all, when reading Salem's Lot for the first time, it's not explicitly made clear that vampires are invading the town. Rather, characters pick up on clues over time and realize the truth. Due to the fact that movies are a visual medium, we're able to see clearly that "Oh, that is a vampire." The characters (and to a lesser extent, the reader), discover this over time and build intrigue in the novel, which was a huge draw for many people I presume. Secondly, the story of Salem's Lot needs a lot more time to brew. A single movie can't accomplish the same tension, even a rather long one. It baffles me that they decided to release this on a streaming service and make it a movie. If it was a movie, why did it not release in theaters? Did WB not have enough faith in it? And again, if you release it on a streaming service, it makes way more sense to make it a miniseries, to hook viewers and retain attention for weeks rather than a movie under 2 hours. Overall, those are my thoughts. Great video! I'll definitely check out more of your channel after this.
Much prefer the book. I find book Barlow far superior because he is charming as hell. Bastard infected a whole just by knowing where to bite and took it all as a game . He is what I expected Bram Stoker's Dracula to be... Man that book was a disappointment ! Salem's Lot as a story runs circles around it...
Yes, the book wins and the '79 version film (year of my birth 😁) is the best. This is the best vampire story ever since Dracula, for I like the classic vampires and the old school vampire-hunters with crucifixes, holy water and wooden stakes. So piety, here is no sequel to Salem's Lot. And it could be go more in the background of Jerusalem's Lot, for King hisself gave enough aspects and ideas because the town is pure evil itself. I like to play with mythologies and religions, so Salem's Lot would be perfect for further stories I think. As like Dracula, he never die and the best sequel to Bram Stoker is by Freda Warrington "The Undead". And maybe it would very interesting to combine Dracula with Salem's Lot... foc Barlow aka Beichen comes from slavic backgrounds, right? 😉
I understand why Warner had to keep the run time to an hour and a half since the movie was planned to be released theatrically. But when they decided to release it on Max, they should have shot more scenes to fill it out. It felt like a rough outline of the story, and not the complete story.
I’m suprised by all the hate for this movie. Movies are subjective though. I enjoyed it a lot BUT this felt rushed and felt unfinished. Should have been a 3 to 6 episode miniseries to flush out the book.😢 It is similar to other shows though like From and mid night mass
The "English men not liking the outsider" idea doesn't really work. Two of the group opposing Dracula aren't English. Quincy Morris is American and Van Helsing, who alerts everyone and convinces them of the threat is Dutch.
We've now had Pet Sematary, Firestarter, and SL remakes, and they've all been severely lacking compared to the originals, the originals were flawed, yet they make even worse versions, the film industry is most strange.
The body snatchers comparison was *chef kiss* I agree that Dracula loses steam in the last part (albeit one could argue it's very important for the characters, especially Lucy vs Movie Lucy which changed her dramatically here). After all, Murnau and Herzog's Nosferatu movies don't have similar parts but focus more on the creeping evil with a sudden destruction.
Thanks! And I still need to watch all of the Nosferatu movies! I'm planning on doing that closer to the release of the new movie really excited to watch the original.
As far as this version goes, it seemed to have an act 1 and act 3, but no act 2. The story of what happens to the town is not in this movie. As to the other versions, I barely remember the 2004 version except that Rutger Hauer and Donald Sutherland should have switched roles. The 1979 version was quite suspenseful and for TV it's pretty damned scary. Compared to the other two I'd have to say it is the best version, but I do have a major problem with it and with this new one. Those of you who have read the book can correct me if i'm wrong, I have read the damn thing 3, 4, maybe even 5 times, and I do not remember Kurt Barlow looking like Count Orlock from Nosferatu. I do remember⁵ Werner Herzog's version of Nosferatu being released that same year and the mini-series ripping it off. In the novel Barlow appeared to be an ordinary man. I think he even had interactions with some of the towns people. I would expect it was some network executive's idea to rip-off Nosferatu. It's cheapens the show and made it less than what it should have been. So basically there's no really good film version of 'Salem's lot.
Yeah in the video I talk about how in the book Barlow looked like a man. I didn't realize one of the Nosferatu movies came out that same year-they definitely seemed to have copied that look. Thanks for commenting your thoughts!
I thought the book was OK and the movie was surprisingly good. Not sure why people LOVE this book so much. It was fine. Not scary, not his best story. Maybe back in the 70's it could have been considered scary. Now days it seems kind of bland and unmemorable.
Yeah, the 2024 movie loses so much of the book that there's nothing much to scare anyone with. Most of my favorite scenes and characters are gone: the cruel school bus driver and the wonderfully eerie way all the children show up as vampires to have their revenge is one of my favorite scenes, and the entire section with the garbage dump caretaker and his love of shooting rats is gone ( as well as the much better use of the rats later on for the threat in the trap in the Marsten House basement, as King originally wrote. In the book as released, the knives are the threat in the trap, but King wanted to explain where the rats went from the dump by having the entire stair trap swarming with rats, and having the person who falls into the trap be torn apart by rats and try to crawl up the stairs and cry out for help, only to have a rat leap into his mouth and rip his tongue out. The editor of the hardcover was nauseated, and asked King to tone the trap down, so he lined the trap with knives. ). The only thing that remains from the book that I loved in the movie is Father Callahan losing his faith and Barlow hissing how sad it is to see a man of God lose his connection to his power. That's the only time in the movie that Barlow is actually creepy.
I could have sworn that this was supposed to have been a mini series when it was first announced. I wouldn't be surprised that it probably was at some point. Then the studio butchered it, and used covid as an excuse. Having said all that, I'll still give it a shot. Just for the fact that Salem's Lot adaptations has always had mixed opinions. Hell, i know a few book readers who said that the source material is actually boring and overrated. In these situations it's best to just see for yourself 🤷🏾♂️
Yeah I've heard there is at least a 3 hour cut, I wouldn't be surprised if there was talk of it being a show initially. And yeah, it's all very subjective! I agree it's always best to check things out for yourself and form your own opinion.
Since Wicked is coming out in cinemas, i would love for you to compare it to the book. I know you dont like fantasy, but it doesnt read like one. It's dark, gritty, and tackles issues like racism and politics
Oh boy, there's more than 2 versions of Invasion of the Body Snatchers You have the 2 versions you watched, but there's also Body Snatchers in 1994 & Invasion with Nicole Kidman in 2007 that adapt the story. The Faculty & Assimilate are loose adaptations.
@@WhytheBookWins ahh okay will check that soon. I just discovered you so will look more into it. I'm not sure if you've done Anne Rice, especially with the TV shows being done but love seeing the comparisons people do for those films
How can you possibly compare the two? King's novel is a sprawling character exercise with numerous back stories and sub-plots. Gary Dauberman's film is a two hour whistle stop tour of the more visceral aspects of the narrative. A page faithful adaptation of Salem's Lot would make for a very boring cinema exercise. The modern take on the source is all juice and no pith. Not one of the adaptations thus far have honoured King's original source work and from a personal standpoint, that's not a bad thing. After all, what was Salem's Lot other than a rip off of Bram Stoker's Dracula?
So there are times when we see Barlow clearly and he does look "scary", but this movie didn't make me feel the fear or the tension or the suspense. So even though he looks creepy I still felt nothing because the movie did a bad job creating that horror atmosphere imo.
It's amazing what good pacing can do for a story.
Absolutely! Lack of atmosphere was another huge issue. I didn't believe the characters were ever afraid to their core.
@@WhytheBookWins When you mash up 30 days of Nights + the Nun + the Blade II you sorta get Mr Barlow 2024.
It's too much story to condense into an hour and 50 minutes
In the book Father Callahan loses the battle because he lies to Barlow. He agrees to throw away the cross and face Barlow man to man, faith against faith, but he reneges when Mark is let free. Callahan shows that he believes in the object of the cross more than he believes in the God that the cross represents, and so he loses the battle and succumbs to Barlow. This is not portrayed adequately in any filmed version of the novel.
Thank you for explaining! That makes sense.
I never read the book, but that storyline is amazing 😮!
@GATURKS please read or audiobook it is a masterpiece there's so much in the book none of the movies used although 1979 version was true to the book and definitely is a masterpiece 2 the 2004 version is also not bad n 2024 was the worst in my opinion but I still watched it 3 times the book is INCREDIBLE
In the book, Barlow was a heavily Dracula-inspired vampire with charisma and gravitas. Making him a Nosferatu-style monster who grows and snarls takes away from the character, even though I did enjoy the scarier scenes from the 1979 miniseries. If there's one praise I have for the 2024 version, it's beautifully shot.
i always got the impression from reading the book that Barlow was a mix of Draculas charm and nosferatu's horrible appearance.
@@PsychesGamingAddiction he can be terrifying, but he still has the grace and eloquence of a vampire lord. It doesn't work as well when you turn him into a simple beast who bares fangs and roars.
No version of Dracula invaded my dreams as a 12 year old the way Hoopers version of Barlow did. Tobe knew what he was doing.
@@FiveSigma72 when I was a kid I was scared of David from The Lost Boys and Jerry from Fright Night. They could seem human, but soon turned into undead killers. I think the mimic vampire is the scariest.
The movie just felt rushed Salems lot would be better as a mini series maybe 6 episodes, I think a lot of this movie was left on the cutting room floor 🤔 did enjoy the Majorie Glick scene the face through the sheet was pretty creepy
Ironically I think midnight mass is the best Salem lot adaptation even though it’s not a adaptation though it’s still about a vampire invading and infecting a town.
Yeah the main thing that frustrated me about this movie is the lack of creeping terror. In the book the infestation begins slow and builds up until you realize the entire town infected whereas here it just seems to happen overnight. It’s the lack of subtlety. This is best examplified by the sheriff leaving where in the book he doesn’t have the nerve to say what’s going on but know enough to get the hell out of dodge whereas here he just flat out says vampires
The drive in is also a really stupid add in cause it really makes you think the vampires are just morons being technically out in the open and in one spot. There is just sort of bleak nihilism missing in this movie. In the book technically no one wins. I mean Barlow gets what he wants but he doesn’t get to enjoy it. But The town is beyond saving and the only solution Ben and mark have is to get the hell out of dodge. I feel like I good compromise would be killing Barlow and coming to the realize the only way to stop the vampires would be to burn the town down and could have ended with them driving away from the burning town. I felt like that would’ve been a good way to end it instead of the easy solution
Agreed.
I'll need to watch Midnight Mass!
Very well put though! I totally agree.
@@WhytheBookWinsmidnight mass is awesome!!
@@zach1997ismtown population on the opening sign was like 1200 but we get maybe 30 flaming randos for the "peak" the more I think about this the more bummed out I get lol
You're absolutely right about the sacrifice of Ralphie Glick; Matt later says,after doing his research, says he rather suspects no one will ever see Ralphie again. He was an offering to the "dark father" even Barlow has his master.
This gutted me honestly. Salem’s Lot is a contender for my favorite King story, and this movie was missing pretty much everything I love about it. No suspense, no terror, and the town itself feels dead upon arrival. Less than 2 hours is criminal, they cut so much content that it made the movie feel like it was trying to be a blockbuster instead of a dark, suspenseful slow-burn.
I think it important that we know the characters. That was my biggest problem with the new version, that we don't really know or care about these people.
Yeah, I wasn't feeling attached to them.
I read Salem's Lot in '78 when I was 10 years old. Scared the shit outta me for years. I've read it again since then and if they were going to put this on screen then it should've been at least a six part series. Maybe that's too much to ask but it would've fleshed out characters (including the town) much better.
The first cut of the 2024 adaption of "Salem's Lot" was said to be in excess of 3 hours. The shortened running time is probably due to a studio mandate. This is apparent in how the film moves at a breakneck pace with and quieter moments (e.g. scenes where no one is talking) have been removed. I strongly suspect that the longer cut is far superior and scarier. The shortened version just feels far too condensed and moves too quickly.
This movie needed to be a mini series to explore everything including the buildup and introduction to all the characters. The history of the town and the Marsten house, including Hubie and Birdie Marsten themselves could have been explored.
This version never even mentioned Ben Mears childhood and finding Marsten's dead body. No scenes with Ruthie Crocket even though she was in the credits. I feel like there's a longer version out there I hope is released.
Even the 1979 mini series was cut down to 2 hours for the theatrical version over sees in 1980 and similarly faster paced skipping a lot of footage going almost straight to the vampires.
Yeah i was really surprised they cut Ben's backstory with the house!
One of my favorite parts of the book that is in any of the adaptions is the letter from Barlow to the hunters. It is a wonderful insight into Barlow, his age, his sophistication, and paints him a light of gentile intelligence blended with a sociopathic need for cruelty and violence. Barlow wasn't a mindless monster, but a well educated one with centuries of honed experience behind him.
Yeah so true. The letter also felt very Dracula-esque.
Just watched it and completely agree. It was okay but it's a rushed 'highlights' of King's novel with next to no characterizations and lacking the highly effective setpieces and supreme creep factor of Tobe Hooper's '79 version. I didn't find it remotely scary and the cast were just okay with exception of the kid playing Mark who was excellent and by far the best thing about the film. And yeah, Barlow and Straker here made very little impression on me. Straker is barely in it and Barlow is a much less effective version of what Reggie Nalder did in '79. Overall not terrible but just kinda thin and forgettable. For a really good version try the 1995 BBC audio drama with Hellraiser's Doug Bradley as Barlow. Brrr.
Oh that would be interesting to hear this as a radio series! Thanks for commenting 😊
i read Salem's Lot when i was eleven, and had to sleep with my parents the first night, and i never delivered newspapers again. Oddly enough, no screen adaptation has ever come even close. And not that i regard film and television with the same degree of artistic appreciation as the written text, i just would have thought a solid adaptation of this work would have been a no brainer given how well crafted the source material is. A true horror story, it is an homage to classical folklore and Stephen King's finest work in my opinion, hands down.
Great job ❤ especially linking the book and all the movies. Great details. As a reader of the book in highschool, before ever seeing the '79 adaptation, (and before the '04 one released) I appreciate the detailed comparisons
Thanks! Glad you liked my comparison 😊
The bigger question is why....why would Hollywood decide to remake Tobe Hooper's masterpiece? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Well I wanted the Book adapted , not the old mini series remade...
It's not a remake
If you are not a big King reader, Father Calahan shows up in another novel and explains why he failed against Barlow, and is given a redemptive arc
I read he comes up in one of The Dark Tower books! I want to get into that series at some point.
I was looking to see if anyone wrote this, seemed a lot of people who read Salem's lot,and not so much dark tower series
@@WhytheBookWinsI loved the who series but petered out a lil on the 3rd book,took like a year to finish that one as where I flew through the rest
I think everyone has to remember this version was shot as a three hour movie
Director was forced to edit it down for whatever reason to two hours that’s why it’s missing so much
Yeah very true.
Ive yet to watch this version. But the '79 series? Good Lord, that mini series messed me up. Of course, i was only 10 years old. But the Window scenes?
I was completely paralyzed with fear. Ive always lov3d the fact that my parents were movie lovers themselves and were very liberal in what they let me watch, and im sure they thought it being on TV made it even more tolerable. Nope! Between this and Jaws, I was a basket case. Lol
Loved the 79 version but was sad it left out the father Callaghan story line, and the hunt for Barlow in different places. Always though the role of Barlow was downplayed because they had such a big named actor as James Mason to play Straker. Masons wife played Majorie Glick in 79 I think 🤔
Yeah James Mason was the best Straker, even better than Sutherland in the 04 version.
Great video! I noticed in one of your comments, to one of your comments. That you mentioned that you wanted to watch all of the Nosferatu movies before the Christmas release of Robert Eggers version. However, you also mentioned that you really aren't interested in watching the original 1922 version. That would be an epic mistake in my opinion. Max Schreck, who brilliantly plays Count Orlock in the film. Is absolutely one of the most creepy & honestly, almost "supernatural" vampire performances ever put to the medium of celluloid. I would highly, highly recommend beginning your Nosferatu film journey with the viewing of this utter silent cinema masterpiece! Please don't deprive yourself of such a classic. Again, thanks for your interesting & insightful book/film analysis. Really great job, keep up the stellar work!
I must have made a typeo because I am definitely going to watch the 20s version and an very excited for it! No way I would skip that!
And thank you 🤗 I'm glad you like my videos
The 1979 series was a network TV masterpiece directed by Tobe Hooper.
Agreed! It was so good!
🤔💭 Just imagine if this (flawed) adaptation was *Helmed* by _Roger Eggers._
( And not *_"Spooky Clown Scare Me!"_* 🎈Gary Dauberman 🤡 )
Lance Kerwin played Mark in 1979's Salem Lot.
Great video! There were a few ideas that i liked in this new adaptation, but several parts just soured my mood. Ive never read the novel, so all i can really compare this new adaptation to is the 1979 series. Absolutely loved that one.
Thanks!
Father Callahan's return in the Dark Tower series is very satisfying.
I really loved the intro credits of the movie with the blood trailing along the map spliced with little snippets of the town. A lot of work went into those credits to make it artful. Shame the rest of the movie isn’t like that.
Yeah that was cool!
@@WhytheBookWins But what would you if you locked eyes with a gorgon?
Sad that this wasn't a good adaptation. I love Salem's Lot even though my introduction to it was the 2004 adaptation (which has a special place in my heart, like the best kind of guilty pleasure). I completely agree that if they weren't going to do something different, there was no need for adapting it once again.
The 04 one may not be the best but it was still more memorable than this one!
I read the book as a 16 year old back in '93, and while I can't really remember the details of the book all these years later, I do remember it was the first time I was ever scared by anything I'd ever read. My bedroom window used to have a tree branch that would rub against the glass when it was really windy and that didn't help my fear when reading either.
i haven't read Salem's Lot but one thing I did like about this movie is how the characters believed each other and weren't dumb fodder like most horror movies
Seems to me, with the limited 10-12 episode series formats being so popular because of streaming,that would have been the way to go. You could be exposed to all the rich little subplots in the novel
Also this version of Salem's Lot had a lot of production issues, it was suppose to be released years ago. It was plagued with edits and reshoots until it finally got a streaming release. I am wondering if some of the things that really felt missing weren't in things that were edited out of the film. Such as the law enforcement guy. He was barely in it but the movie acted like it was a big deal when he wanted to just run and leave town etc.
Still my all time fave KIng book. I re-read it every five years or so and I'm always blown away how he encapsulates small-town American life within the first 50 pages or so (something I'm an expert in being from a large city in the UK).
😆 He is definitely great at capturing that small town feel!
I thought the character of mark derailed the movie, with the performance and how he can’t feel fear, and the fact that it all the sudden makes it a kid movie. Mark completely changed the vibes to more light hearted
Yup, the '79 version was the best adaptation-only really hampered by the limitations of the time period.
I think the story would benefit from an 8 episode or so limited series, if only to spend more time with the characters & the workings of the town.
Agreed! I get tired of them dragging books out into series when they don't need to be. But this is one of the exceptions where it would be perfect for a show! The 79 and 04 versions were smart enough to realize that.
Great review and agree with your points. Also interesting point of view about the question why does it have to be a loved one to kill a vampire when in the climax, they're killing the vampires all over the place at the drive in
I kinda felt the radio bbc drama version of salems lot is right up there with the 1979 film
As someone that hasn't read the book or seen the original 1979 mini series I went into this movie cold and I really enjoyed this movie, yeah the biggest positive i can give this movie is that the vampires are actually scary at least in my opinion and as a huge vampire fan I was satisfied with the vampires in this movie, but on a negative side this movie goes back quick like really quick which is crazy because this movie is almost 2 hours long and again this is coming from someone that hasn't read the book or seen the original 1979 mini series but all in all this movie was very solid in my opinion and i do plan to watch the 1979 mini series now.
I'm glad you liked it! Thanks for sharing your thoughts 😊
@@WhytheBookWins No Problem 😊🙌
When you say you don't see anything wrong with people inventing a meaning other than the one intended by the author, you're unintentionally destroying the power of Literature. If I said, "Don't touch the trigger" and you decided instead that I said, "All triggers are cool," then we'd quickly have serious problems. Literature is communication. If you don't understand it, read it again. If intention is unimportant, then why bother writing or communicating at all?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I get what you're saying, and agree that if the author has a clear message, it shouldn't be ignored.
The example you gave doesn't really make sense for what I mean though.
I'm talking about people getting symbolism/meaning from something that on the surface could be seen as just an entertaining story. Not taking something that is said and just misunderstanding it the way your example kind of implies.
Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts! It's an interesting discussion to have.
Very interesting. I like the books that makes me think and contemplate.. i doubt i would have read many books, if i thought they all had an absolute, set in stone, meaning.
@@BlackDiluvian That's interesting since most books would never have been written if they did NOT have an absolute, set in stone, meaning...
I agree, it wasn’t amazing, but I did appreciate how they treated some of the the crucifix scenes. Some might find it hokey, but as a hardcore vampire movie fan, I love it when protagonists are equipped with these specific 'tools' to fight evil. I always feel so empowered in these scenes. The little kid in me just loves it! I thought the moment when Burke used the cross against the vampire at his house (the cemetery guy-forgot his name) was well done. You could really feel the power of the cross pushing the evil away. When it comes to horror, I love the folklore surrounding the evil forces, and even though we all know the 'rules,' I actually wish the movie had gone into more detail about it. I hated how they decided to just gloss over all that like we're supposed to know everything about vampires because if that's the case, why the hell make the movie? I almost cringed when the little boy (who was the best character in the film) put his yeti in the holy water fountain - i was like, we've seen that so many times! But yeah, overall it was just okay. I did appreciate the cinematography and some other elements, though.
Yeah and I thought the way the crosses glowed was cool. That was a detail from the book too, like they could feel the power emanating from the crosses.
I saw another reviewer who was confused though because he was like, I guess crosses don't work for Barlow since it didn't protect the priest. So the movie didn't seem to do a good job conveying why the cross failed for him in that instance.
@@WhytheBookWins Oh wow I actually didn't read the book and I love that detail is an original element in the book. RE Barlow, I actually did think that myself--that maybe Barlow was too "strong" for the cross, but you are right! It's because the priest lost his faith!
I remember when the Beatles came to America. It was the slow death of days
for our parents. It was everything Stephen King described about the small
town: it was the small minds of a generation ill equipped for change.
Years later, the crew that hosted and brought the soon to be world sensations
to America recalled feeling a sense of dread, feeling as if... well, as if...
the Beatles weren't the Beatles.
I've read the book six times. It's a brilliant story, well told and so claustrophobic at times it's breathtaking. The Tobe Hooper and David Soul adaptation takes a few liberties for the sake of screen scares but only a few and they work. So I'm a devotee on both counts. I watched this 2024 version last night and it is utterly awful in every regard. They should be embarrassed about this awful sub standard Scooby Doo episode. Just avoid it.
Wow, I watched the 1979 version when it was originally on tv on two successive Sundays. I disliked scary things way back then but,alone at home my 2 year old asleep and my husband playing in the NHL, I watched it alone. Oh my, I remember it and everything that went on in and around it way back when. It scared the bejesus out of me. It took me years to re-watch and by then found it silly.
Will watch the one on MAX tonight just to see the difference.
The book by far I read much later was better as it usually is.
Thank you for letting me remind myself about David Soul and the young boy back in 1979. 😊 and me being so scared and my husband once he knew I watched it found it funny to scare me a few times-I didn’t find it funny.
Yeah even as an adult I thought the 79 effects were still effective!
Fantastic review job 👏 but wish the movie was a ' further adventures ' instead of a remake.big fan of the original TV mini series 😂❤
Apparently the original cut of the new movie was 3 hours long and had a lot more backstory of the Marston House. It'd be interesting to see the full version.
Oh interesting! If they release the 3 hour cut I would definitely watch it!
I love your use of pics from Dracula: Dead and Loving It 😂
Lol thank you! I'm glad someone noticed 😆
I think Mike Flanagan's Midnight Mass was a good version of a Salems Lot type of story adaptation in film. It really played up the relationship between a priest and vampire.
I really liked the new one! I love competent characters like Mark, Mr. Burke, and the doctor!
I’m in the minority, but I really liked this movie. I thought it was fun. I personally think the best Stephen King adaptations are the ones that don’t really stick to the book that much, specifically the supernatural books (sorry), see The Shining, IT, Stand By Me and Shawshank Redemption. I could never get into the other 2 Salem’s Lot adaptations, so in my mind, this was my favorite adaptation.
I'm glad you liked it!
You make an interesting point about the best adaptations of King's supernatural books are the ones that don't try to be super faithful. I had never made that connection with the most faithful adaptations that work well are the non-paranormal ones!
This is true special with his early novels that are filled with so much character depth and flash backs. The whole first section of The Shining is filled with flashbacks laid out to tell the whole story of Jack and Wendy's relationship. And while it has been awhile since I read it I remember a good deal of Salem's Lot is just character drama and the Barlow doesn't show up on the page until half way through the book or somewhere near the end.
Making it a one off movie from a very in-depth character driven book was a mistake it needed a 2nd movie
Hi. In the film it wasn't a medical solution (saline, desinfectant etc.), but rabies vaccine.
You're correct! In the moment while filming it didn't seem important enough to differentiate.
to me, this movie was awesome in many ways, having only seen the 70s version back when I was a kid - and having strong imprints of that on the back of my head - and having read the book around the same time. I find all your criticism on point, and I believe a lot of this movie could have been lost on the cutting floor. It seems rushed, while still managing the slow pace at times that this would need. There are some visually stunning scenes here, the end sequence with the shadow moving in. My favourite is the one where straker is following the kids into the woods like the predator he is. This made my blood freeze.
I hope there will be a recut release of this movie, as I have high hopes this could do a lot better.
Yeah there were some very cool moments and that one with the boys and Straker in the woods was effective. Just too bad so much was cut!
I understand that part of film adaptation is compromise and that not everything is going to make it in but like you stated some of the omissions just made this film feel hollow. There were some really cool moments and clever ideas like the church sequence towards the end and I though the cinematography at parts was excellent. But to me the biggest offense is the treatment Barlow and Straker get in this film they just feel flat and devoid of the charm and malice that made them so frightening in the book. Anyway great video!
Thanks!
Yeah Straker didn't have much to do here. There eye some cool moments, but unfortunately not enough 😔
Being a DT veteran, Father Callahan’s arch is so good.
DT is Dark Tower? I want to read the series but feel like I need to read The Stand first.
I think they should have made it as a two part film. I will go and watch it when it's at the cinema in England next week.
As a teen I saw the 70s Salems Lot, It was a great ride. After that movie I’ve really liked isolationist types of films. Ravenous comes to mind. I saw the movie again as an adult, it’s still really good.
Thanks for the advice, I won’t be watching the new one. I should have learned my lesson after watching the remake of The Fog.
Yeah, most fans of the book or 79 version will be disappointed.
As someone who's never read the book or seen any previous film adaptations, this 2024 remake was my introduction to the story and I thought it was just okay. The scene where danny gets sacrificed was horrific and definitely unsettle me, but that's near the beginning of the movie and seemed like it was setting the stage for the horrors to follow, but it never gets to that level again. So yeah, I thought it started strong but weakened over its runtime and by the end I felt a bit disappointed. But overall I was entertained and thought it was an enjoyable halloween flick... but nothing special. I 100% agree Mark was awesome and by far the most memorable character and best part of the whole movie!
I thought is was scary, and clever. It looked great. And many of the actors are giving very good performances.
But it is thin dramatically. The ending, while exciting, is smarmy rather than moving.
The lore of Jerusalem's Lot is spread out through other short stories. Barlow was only a small part of the evil and was attracted there by that evil.
It would be great to see a well made remake as a mini series where Barlow is a combination of the book version and a Nosferatu monster
Agree, they could do it like Fright Night. The facade Barlow shows is the charming, mysterious European, but the reality is the Nosferatu. Perhaps quickly shifting as he actually bites the victim so in the final seconds the horrifying aspect is revealed.
Very rarely watch movies (don't own a television 📺 no time) but HUGE fan of Kings Novels Pet Semetary Salem's Lot and Gerald's Game and knew there was no way they could make a great movie version of the book in 2 hours and could look at the pre-views and knew it would pardon the expression suck!!!
I’ve never read Salem’s Lot nor have I seen its adaptations. At most I’ve watched some TH-cam videos on it and listened to my dad talk about it. So when my dad said let’s watch the new HBO movie I said sure. It started out good, then got goofy (the crosses made me laugh), then frustrating to the point I started yelling at the tv. I did however watch all of it, not once did I take out my phone. Though I started checking out near the end. Personally I fond myself wishing the story was following the teacher and Mark. I didn’t really care about the author or Susan lol. My dad called it “weird, like it’s an abbreviated copy.”
Not gonna lie I began pulling my phone out here and there sometime beginning in the first 30 minutes 😬
@@WhytheBookWins in the interest of transparency, I made sure to leave my phone in a different room before watching the movie 😝
@@mmem4264 smart!
Great review. I think another hour of runtime could have fixed many of the issues. Maybe we will get that with a director's cut.
Thanks! And I am so curious to see the 3 hour cut.
You should do a review of the French Book La Motocyclette, which was made into the movie The Girl on a Motorcycle with Alain Delon and Marianne Faithful
Ooo every since watching plein soleil I've wanted to cover more with him so I'll keep this one in mind!
*Attention horror movie fans who's seen all 3 Salem's
Lot movies & read or know of the book*
Salem's lot movie-character/movie ranking:
Salem's lot 1979,2004& 2024:
Paste and post in comment section!
Ben Mears:
Mark Petrie:
Kurt Barlow:
Richard Striker:
Susan Norton:
Jason Burke:
Ralphie Glick:
Danny Glick:
Mike Ryerson:
Movie Dog:
Larry Crockett:
Ruthie Crockett:
Bonnie Sawyer:
Cully Sawyer:
Constable Parkins:
June Petrie:
Ted Petrie:
Marjorie Glick:
Henry Glick:
Eva Miller:
Gordon "weasel" Phillips:
Dr Cody/Dr Bill Norton:
Ned/Floyd Tebbets:
Ann Norton:
Father Callahan:
Deputy Nolly/Officer Taylor:
Ben Mears Vehicle:
Ben/Susan romance:
Ben/Mark chemistry:
Ben/Jason Burke dynamic:
Salem Lot town:
Marston House:
Best movie Easter egg (what?):
Movie special effects/wardrobe/filming:
Chilling/terror/scariness:
Movie score/soundtrack:
True to book story:
Overall Story flow:
Movies Epilogue:
Favorite version of film:
It's been a very long time since I've read the book so I didn't remember a lot to compare to. One thing that really annoyed me in the movie was how the whole town were suddenly vampires. No build up to it whatsoever. I don't recall how it was in the book but I kept thinking of my all time favorite King novel, Needful Things. How the destruction of the town was this slow build up that they needed to do here. I guess having a movie length run time didn't help.
Yeah the book was a slow burn which worked great.
Thank you!
You're welcome! 🤗
The novel was SO creepy when I first read it. I love how King let us get to know the town and people in it before he slowly but surely let us know something awful was happening in Salem's Lot. Great suspense. And the 1979 movie was like that too. Everything happened way too fast in the new film.
Agreed! I've noticed in King books like this, Pet Sematary, The Shining, the fist half tends to be character development before then really getting into the horror (there are of course bits in the first half that give us a look into the horror to come but that isn't the focus so much). It works so well because when the scary stuff starts happening, I am so invested and it makes such an impact on the reader!
Good review. I read the book 21 years ago and it’s King’s second best for me. I really liked the ‘79 mini-series and loathed this film. Mark in this film, seemed like he belonged in another film like IT rather than this film.
I appreciate you going over the book - since it’s been a minute for me. Also, the house burning down footage in the ‘79 version was stock footage from another film.
Thanks! Yeah true, Mark did seem like a kid from It.
I think it’s due to the studio or whomever - I have a feeling due to lack of imagination- “Hey, we got the guy who adapted IT, let’s try for that success again!” With Mark - I think they saw it as their chance to go after that type of feel and audience. Also the look of the film is similar to the IT films.
The 1979 version is far greater. I watched it on TV when I was six. My first book report was 'Salem's Lot. I got an A+ for the report.
The first one is classic. David Soul makes the film , a very underrated actor
Agreed! He has some songs I actually really like too.
King went back and forth retconning a lot of stuff to do with Salem's lot - there's a prequel that talks about early settlers being worshippers of subterranean cthulhuesque cosmic monstrosities, as if the Lot was always a place of evil power? And then he blended his novel characters into the Dark Tower stuff, particularly Father Callahan and the whole race of immortal Barlow type vampires as a demon race linked to the other vamps in Dr Sleep and the entities in the shining... I kinda wonder if the repeated attempts at rebooting Salems Lot is a push by some rich studio guys to try and kickstart the Dark Tower extended universe or something?" A lot of King adaptations have really not been the best. The only REALLY shit scary one IMHO is The Night Flyer (which coincidentally you can watch for free on TH-cam here th-cam.com/video/VbzDBIchy9c/w-d-xo.html)
My mind could be playing tricks on me but wasn't the sacrifice to whatever was in the ground, "The Worm" or whatever it was in the short story prequel in Night Shift?
Hm i haven't read Night Shift so I'm nat sure
I couldn't remember anything about the original, I've never seen the 2004, and I never read that book, even though I read all the other 80's Stephen King books. I only know the story from pop culture. I liked the movie well enough, but I'll never seek it out again. If I ever do watch it though, it'll be to cheer Mark on while he takes care of business while the other guy holds his backpack for him. Go Mark!!
Mark is awesome!
The original "Fright Night" has tons of references to Salem's Lot, just done with an 80's flair! LOL
It's been a long time since I've seen that one but I remember loving it! It spoils me fun to do a video comparing that with the remake with Colin Farrell.
Thank you, Laura, I was not really interested in seeing this adaptation and you summed up my reason succinctly by asking 'why? What reason was there to even make this adaptation'?
As always, think you for being the voice of reason, although I do disagree with you with every exception you took with the book. It is still - from cover to cover - one of my top 5 Stephen King books of all time.
*Also have to disagree with you on the hunt for Dracula in the book. I agree with King in that respect, as well. Sure the suspense was more action-oriented than drawing-room in the first 3/4 of the book, but I appreciated the need for the relentlessness of the 'hunt', showing that Britain will seek out and destroy all that threaten their nation. Especially since Dracula was written at the height of distrust of foreigners in England, due to the influx of immigration into the country at that time - especially London - and Dracula was their biggest fear come to light: foreigners taking over the country.
Anyway, thank you again for another great 'cautionary' video.
You're welcome! Thank you for sharing your thoughts, your point about Dracula definitely makes sense.
Great Book Review on Stephen King's novels.
Thank you!
In the book Father Callahan promises to throw his cross away, if Barlow lets Mark go. But when Mark is released,Callahan does not throw away his cross. This causes him to think too much and doubt his faith.
Ahhh that's right!
79 is best 2024 is 2....I been thinking about what the deal is between the 2 versions.....the only thing .....79 has a very serious feel even when nothing is vampire it has a serious tone....what i think 2024 did well 1 Straker he was very proper and posh but he was up front sinister how he stole Ralphie, I think that was moore creepy. 2 the harmonica bit..it was pretty chilling how Ralphie was toying with Danny then the attack was from above and if they figured how to give it that serious over bearing tone that 79 had it may have been better. we would be afraid of going out side in fog vrs windows if we saw this when we young. 3 I really liked how they did Mike setting in the bar in the dark...and then burke was talking to him that part where he was holding his breath right befor he said I am sacared" was really awesome.....then we see the window being shut and Mikes eyes are glowing just a tad bit red. .....here is a thought if the would have done the eyes like in blade runner i think it would been cool kinda like shinning a light in a dogs eye per say .... well that is what I thought hit the hardest.
Watching this remake is like reading a book with more than half the pages missing.
We need at least an eight to ten hour series
I agree 100% with everything you said. Great review 👏
Thanks! Glad you liked it 😊
There were good parts to this new adaptation, but there were so many scenes that ruined the pace and atmosphere of the narrative that had me asking why is this here, taking me completely out of the story. I'll have to rewatch the 1979 movie again to make a good comparison. I preferred the 2004 mini-series.
I actually think that vampire bites being treated with traditional medical equipment isn't too jarring. In the book, Dr. Cody explains that vampires' garlic aversion may be just an allergic reaction they have, rather than something paranormal or otherworldly. It's pointed out that even if the vampires are supernatural creatures, they are corporeal and still have to follow some laws of nature. So a vampire's venom being countered with medicine like how snake venom can be treated actually makes sense to me (although I do wish holy water was used in that scene).
As for my thoughts on the movie versus the book, the book is obviously superior to the film for a couple simple reasons that can't be easily mended with good acting, cinematography and visual effects. First of all, when reading Salem's Lot for the first time, it's not explicitly made clear that vampires are invading the town. Rather, characters pick up on clues over time and realize the truth. Due to the fact that movies are a visual medium, we're able to see clearly that "Oh, that is a vampire." The characters (and to a lesser extent, the reader), discover this over time and build intrigue in the novel, which was a huge draw for many people I presume. Secondly, the story of Salem's Lot needs a lot more time to brew. A single movie can't accomplish the same tension, even a rather long one. It baffles me that they decided to release this on a streaming service and make it a movie. If it was a movie, why did it not release in theaters? Did WB not have enough faith in it? And again, if you release it on a streaming service, it makes way more sense to make it a miniseries, to hook viewers and retain attention for weeks rather than a movie under 2 hours.
Overall, those are my thoughts. Great video! I'll definitely check out more of your channel after this.
Yeah that's a good point about the medical solution/rabies treatment. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and I'm glad you liked my video 😊
Much prefer the book. I find book Barlow far superior because he is charming as hell. Bastard infected a whole just by knowing where to bite and took it all as a game .
He is what I expected Bram Stoker's Dracula to be... Man that book was a disappointment ! Salem's Lot as a story runs circles around it...
I think the best adaptation is out there to be watched, it's the non-canonical Midnight Mass
Yes, the book wins and the '79 version film (year of my birth 😁) is the best. This is the best vampire story ever since Dracula, for I like the classic vampires and the old school vampire-hunters with crucifixes, holy water and wooden stakes.
So piety, here is no sequel to Salem's Lot. And it could be go more in the background of Jerusalem's Lot, for King hisself gave enough aspects and ideas because the town is pure evil itself. I like to play with mythologies and religions, so Salem's Lot would be perfect for further stories I think. As like Dracula, he never die and the best sequel to Bram Stoker is by Freda Warrington "The Undead". And maybe it would very interesting to combine Dracula with Salem's Lot... foc Barlow aka Beichen comes from slavic backgrounds, right? 😉
I always get this book mixed up with Needful Things, which I preferred.
I haven't read that one yet, but I've heard good things!
I understand why Warner had to keep the run time to an hour and a half since the movie was planned to be released theatrically. But when they decided to release it on Max, they should have shot more scenes to fill it out. It felt like a rough outline of the story, and not the complete story.
Apparently, it was originally like 3 hours! So they already had a longer version that they still didn't release for streaming for some reason.
I’m suprised by all the hate for this movie.
Movies are subjective though.
I enjoyed it a lot BUT this felt rushed and felt unfinished.
Should have been a 3 to 6 episode miniseries to flush out the book.😢
It is similar to other shows though like From and mid night mass
The "English men not liking the outsider" idea doesn't really work. Two of the group opposing Dracula aren't English. Quincy Morris is American and Van Helsing, who alerts everyone and convinces them of the threat is Dutch.
Yeah i thought of Van Helsing, he isn't trying to get with Mina or Lucy though. But Morris is so you have a point there!
We've now had Pet Sematary, Firestarter, and SL remakes, and they've all been severely lacking compared to the originals, the originals were flawed, yet they make even worse versions, the film industry is most strange.
The body snatchers comparison was *chef kiss*
I agree that Dracula loses steam in the last part (albeit one could argue it's very important for the characters, especially Lucy vs Movie Lucy which changed her dramatically here). After all, Murnau and Herzog's Nosferatu movies don't have similar parts but focus more on the creeping evil with a sudden destruction.
Thanks!
And I still need to watch all of the Nosferatu movies! I'm planning on doing that closer to the release of the new movie really excited to watch the original.
As far as this version goes, it seemed to have an act 1 and act 3, but no act 2. The story of what happens to the town is not in this movie. As to the other versions, I barely remember the 2004 version except that Rutger Hauer and Donald Sutherland should have switched roles. The 1979 version was quite suspenseful and for TV it's pretty damned scary. Compared to the other two I'd have to say it is the best version, but I do have a major problem with it and with this new one. Those of you who have read the book can correct me if i'm wrong, I have read the damn thing 3, 4, maybe even 5 times, and I do not remember Kurt Barlow looking like Count Orlock from Nosferatu. I do remember⁵ Werner Herzog's version of Nosferatu being released that same year and the mini-series ripping it off. In the novel Barlow appeared to be an ordinary man. I think he even had interactions with some of the towns people. I would expect it was some network executive's idea to rip-off Nosferatu. It's cheapens the show and made it less than what it should have been. So basically there's no really good film version of 'Salem's lot.
Yeah in the video I talk about how in the book Barlow looked like a man. I didn't realize one of the Nosferatu movies came out that same year-they definitely seemed to have copied that look.
Thanks for commenting your thoughts!
Wow. Thank you for responding and so quickly too. I am impressed. You got yourself a new subscriber.
I thought the book was OK and the movie was surprisingly good. Not sure why people LOVE this book so much. It was fine. Not scary, not his best story. Maybe back in the 70's it could have been considered scary. Now days it seems kind of bland and unmemorable.
Yeah, the 2024 movie loses so much of the book that there's nothing much to scare anyone with. Most of my favorite scenes and characters are gone: the cruel school bus driver and the wonderfully eerie way all the children show up as vampires to have their revenge is one of my favorite scenes, and the entire section with the garbage dump caretaker and his love of shooting rats is gone ( as well as the much better use of the rats later on for the threat in the trap in the Marsten House basement, as King originally wrote. In the book as released, the knives are the threat in the trap, but King wanted to explain where the rats went from the dump by having the entire stair trap swarming with rats, and having the person who falls into the trap be torn apart by rats and try to crawl up the stairs and cry out for help, only to have a rat leap into his mouth and rip his tongue out. The editor of the hardcover was nauseated, and asked King to tone the trap down, so he lined the trap with knives. ). The only thing that remains from the book that I loved in the movie is Father Callahan losing his faith and Barlow hissing how sad it is to see a man of God lose his connection to his power. That's the only time in the movie that Barlow is actually creepy.
I could have sworn that this was supposed to have been a mini series when it was first announced. I wouldn't be surprised that it probably was at some point. Then the studio butchered it, and used covid as an excuse. Having said all that, I'll still give it a shot. Just for the fact that Salem's Lot adaptations has always had mixed opinions. Hell, i know a few book readers who said that the source material is actually boring and overrated. In these situations it's best to just see for yourself 🤷🏾♂️
Yeah I've heard there is at least a 3 hour cut, I wouldn't be surprised if there was talk of it being a show initially.
And yeah, it's all very subjective! I agree it's always best to check things out for yourself and form your own opinion.
Since Wicked is coming out in cinemas, i would love for you to compare it to the book. I know you dont like fantasy, but it doesnt read like one. It's dark, gritty, and tackles issues like racism and politics
I am definitely covering that! I will also be covering the original Wizard of Oz early in November.
@@WhytheBookWins OMG I'm sooo excited. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was my favorite book growing up! Can't wait! I love your comparisons
You are not the only one that noted the invasion of the body snatchers King has noted it as well.
Oh cool! I love how he combines that with Dracula while still making it his own.
Oh boy, there's more than 2 versions of Invasion of the Body Snatchers
You have the 2 versions you watched, but there's also Body Snatchers in 1994 & Invasion with Nicole Kidman in 2007 that adapt the story.
The Faculty & Assimilate are loose adaptations.
Yeah i mention both of those as well in that video!
@@WhytheBookWins ahh okay will check that soon.
I just discovered you so will look more into it. I'm not sure if you've done Anne Rice, especially with the TV shows being done but love seeing the comparisons people do for those films
I have two videos for Interview withe Vampire coming out this week!
@@WhytheBookWins awesome
How can you possibly compare the two? King's novel is a sprawling character exercise with numerous back stories and sub-plots. Gary Dauberman's film is a two hour whistle stop tour of the more visceral aspects of the narrative. A page faithful adaptation of Salem's Lot would make for a very boring cinema exercise. The modern take on the source is all juice and no pith. Not one of the adaptations thus far have honoured King's original source work and from a personal standpoint, that's not a bad thing. After all, what was Salem's Lot other than a rip off of Bram Stoker's Dracula?
It should be a series since you can't mush them up in almost 2 hour movie.