Its closer to the book than the 1979 film, but it isn't even close to as scary as the 1979 film. I think Tobe Hoopers film was the last vampire film where vampires were actually unholy, undead creatures and not the angelic superheroes they've become.
I quite like this adaptation of king's 1975 classic novel. For me James Cromwell steals the entire show as drunken priest father Callahan and Rutger Hauer is also quite good as an all together more human Kurt Barlow. Rob Lowe is fine as Ben Mears. Samantha Mathis is good as Susan Norton. Robert Mammone is another standout as doctor James '' Jimmy '' Cody. Young Dan Byrd is fine as monster obsessed Mark Petrie. Donald Sutherland is also quite good as a flamboyant Straker. Andre braugh is ok as Matthew Burke , but not sure why they made the character gay , but it's not a problem and it works well , I feel. The Dud Rogers character from the novel is included here , played by Brendan Cowell. He's another standout. And the Charlie Rhodes character from the novel is also included, as played by Andy Anderson. At last we get to see the scene were vampire kids attack Charlie Rhodes on his own school bus and it's mildly affective, as is maybe a few of the other vampire scenes . However , on the whole , the vampire scenes are not scary and are certainly no match for the late Tobe Hooper's pale - skinned glowing - eyed bloodsuckers. But it has to be said it follows king's book much better than Hooper's original version. So it's pretty good but not perfect.
I'm really glad to have both adaptations. This was the first King I had read, and was really into it when I discovered it in high school (which was only a couple years after the reboot had aired). I remember buying both on DVD, having my friend over after class one Friday, ordering Chinese takeout, and watching both versions for the first time, and back to back. Will always have a soft spot for each.
Mathew Burke was not considered a pedo in the 2004 version, he was though made to be gay, but mainly single since as a change the 2004 version was bringing the negative aspects and other changes characters and of the town in a more modern take than in the novel. In fact Mr. Burke was also described by Ben in his narration as being one of the very few Black residents of the town because the town was mainly Dutch, Scottish and French descended by saying that "Matt Burke (the forever bachelor) was like a pinch of Pepper in a bucket of Salt" and that "His alternative life style was tolerated by the community as long as he kept it out of the school". Charlie Rhoades (The school bus driver that hated Mark Peitri) however was suspected to be a pedo but also a war criminal that collected pictures of mutilations and morbid actions committed to the corpses of the civilians in the Vietnam war (implied by his pictures that he himself and his platoon members may have committed all of these) whom which he was a "Bitter Vet of Nam". Ruth Crocket and Larry Crocket did have an incestuous relationship, though apparently forced by Larry Crocket himself, hence as she tells Dud Rodgers that she hates her father more than Dud could ever do. The changes to me were a good thing because it made the town to be more contemporary but also many of these things are mentioned though not as directly in different expressions about the town itself in the original novel.
Interestingly,the opening scene with Ben and the priest fighting closely resembles a scene King described for a planned (but dropped) sequel he was thinking of writing in the 80s.
I liked both TV versions but nether was very close to the book. It would have to be a 8 part series to capture Kings vision. Example Both versions say Danny Glick was turned into a vampire by his little brother. But in Kings Book the little brother was killed by Starker before Barlow was even in the town. Straker sacrificed him in some dark ceremony paving the way for Barlow's arrival. He was not turned into a vampire. I was lucky enough to read kings book when it first came out. So I had no idea what it was about. I was nearly a third way through the book when what is really going on hits you like a slap in the face. In fact I read it a second time just to see where I missed any hints. I hadn't, it was just the way he wrote the story. The reader felt like he was a resident of Salem's Lot. By the time you under stand what is really going on, you have the sinking feeling it's already to late to do much about it.
It's Barlow who attacks the Glick boys in the woods, he kills Ralphie as a sacrifice to his master and then turns Danny..there's an unedited version of that whole scene in a special edition of the novel.
The 1979 miniseries was the scariest on television at the time. And it still is the scariest. The 2004 adaptation followed a lot in the book and even had a few Easter eggs like Susan Norton’s vehicle being the same Jeep Wrangler that Ben Mears drove in the 79 miniseries. I think having Ben as an author of book about his time in Afghanistan was simply thrown in. Barlow the Vampire spoke in the book. Barlow didn’t speak in the 79 adaptation because that was the wish of Tobey Hooper. The scene where Barlow gets out of the box in the basement of the Marston house had a scene where in the foggy night, Barlow roams the town and looks in on his potential victims. Those scenes were cut out. I like the 04 adaptation for having Rutger Hauer as Barlow speak. I can tolerate the Ben Mears narration. It wasn’t perfect, but it was the fact that we are following Ben on his harrowing and horrific journey. To me, Stephen King’s is based on the things that are familiar to us. What if those familiar things become something different? Something threatening and dangerous?
Personally, I would like a film version that is really faithful to the original plot of the book. I really don't understand the need to create an 'adaptation', when there already exists a tale that, if interpreted accurately authentically, would be a real success. I consider this 2004 version a modernized and imaginative transposition of King's masterpiece, nothing more. Hoping for director Gary Dauberman's new attempt scheduled for April 2023...
The 1979 TV version of "Salem's Lot" will always be the definitive film for King fans. However, the 2004 TNT mini-series does add something interesting things that the 1979 film could not. Neither of these films are entirely faithful to the novel. However, I don't think that really matters because they each "re-see" the story of Salem's Lot in unique ways. Both are set in different time periods. If you want to enjoy the novel, read it for yourself. I say, Both of these films are worthwhile in their own different ways.
Sometimes liking a remake requires putting your love for the original in a corner you have to meet the Remake on its own terms and accept its its own thing
I guess the '04 version of "'Salem's Lot" was more "true" to Stephen King's story, but the "MONSTER" in the '79 version WAS SO MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE TO CONVEY HORROR! Both "Strakers" (James Mason and Donald Sutherland) were GREAT! The '79 version, however, built up the horror and MADE IT WORK, MUCH BETTER!
Matt Burke is not hitting on a child or teen! We are flat out told he is gay in the opening, and he somewhat embarrassedly reacts to Mike's attractiveness. Mike Ryerson is a beautiful grown man in his twenties. The next night, as a vampire, Mike uses that to try to get to Matt. Straight men seem to have a real problem with this plot enhancement, but there's a vein of homophobia running through the original novel, and Filardi just tapped into it.
Although this version did some new things, they seem minor next to the massive changes they made in the original. Don't get me wrong, the Tobe Hooper version was by no means bad, but the remake is far more faithful to the book, and not just in the way Barlow is presented. Major characters like Jimmy Cody, Matt Burk, and Father Callahan are either not present or get very minor screen time. Not to mention almost all of the side characters like the Mcdougalls, Ruthe Crockett, and Dud Rogers are all missing. The 2004 adaptation redeems all of this. That being said, great video, I'll definitely like to it.
I vividly remember watching this live . In the summer of 2004 I was in a new town and really bored and had no friends. In late august I went into a bookstore and made a point to buy a king novel to pass the time- never read a king book before - really enjoyed the atmosphere of the book. Then out of the blue the tv shows was on in October of that year . I enjoyed the tv show/film .
The novel Salem's Lot is my absolute #1 favorite book by Stephen King and also one of my favorite books of all time by any author. I was bitterly disappointed in both movie versions which were poor and inaccurate adaptations. A lot of people who praise the 1979 version probably haven't read the novel. The 2004 version was a bit more faithful and accurate to the novel but was still a disappointment. I don't mind a film version taking liberties with minor scenes or minor characters of the book, but making a major change to the story such as Ben Mear's death at the end is just plain wrong. Any movie based on a novel should be 100% faithful to the novel. If the new film version of Salem's Lot is an accurate portrayal of every major scene and every major character in the novel, it could be one of the greatest horror films of all time.
I'm in the same boat as you. I'm not crazy about either one of the miniseries. However they both have moments that I do enjoy, but because it's my favorite novel I guess I'm expecting so much more and both versions miss the mark for me. I've noticed though if you criticize the 1979 miniseries at all people get in such an uproar.
Though closer to the novel, the 2004 version lacked the creepy atmosphere of the 79 version and the characters were portrayed totally wrong, with a couple of exceptions.
I guess i need to re watch it. I remember thinking Ben and Susan's characters didn't even really like each other, let alone being in love. I did like Barlow character more than the 1979 version
My first impression of the voice over came to mind Michael Anderson, I figured the director was going that route. My reason for not liking this version was because of the contrast between the boys at the window in Hooper's version, and here they're not that scary. Over time, though, this version has grown on me. It isn't scary. But it has the ring of King, which is always nice to see, didn't mind the grainy flashback at all, hehe. Would you consider doing Rose Red?
I prefer the 2004 version. The 2004 version sticks with the book more, which I think is important. Also, I never liked that they made Barlow into a Nosferatu-looking thing, in the 79 version, who doesn't talk.
I just want two things in the adaptation coming out in November. The true father Callahan and Barlow confrontation and the invasion on the marsten house
Absolutely not. They changed so much. The Father Callahan killing Matt Burke scene was beyond stupid. And other scenes were embarrassing...like Dud crawling into Floyds cell.
I *almost* really loved this version. I loved that it was more about the whole town, which was what I really liked about the novel. I loved all the actors (and subsequently all the characters) So it took a couple re-watches to realize what I was missing was more chemistry between Ben and Sue, or Ben and Mark. Otherwise, same critiques about early 00s TV film tricks and tropes...
Only copy of this I ever saw was a DVD scratched all to he'll so I missed a lot 😰 but I liked what I saw. Except Rutger. That poor man had already played so many campy vampires I just COULDN'T take him seriously!!!
I put together an Outline (223 pages) for a 10 Episode 'Salem's Lot Limited Series. It's an amalgam of the Salem's Lot Novel, BOTH the 1979 and the 2004 Mini Series and the BBC Radio Drama. I REALLY think that you would like it. Let me know if interested. Thank You.
I'm surprised you didn't highlight this particular aspect, but for me the biggest deal breaker was that the the '04 remake completely changes the season and year of the story to fit modern day. Cell phones, modern cars, etc. In the novel it's Fall of 1975. In this version it's 2004 in the dead of Winter. Unsurprisingly, also the practical effects of T.Hoopers 1979 adaptation are WAAAY better than the sometimes lazy and sometimes over done effects of the newer version. Which is funny because 2004 they could've really nailed it with the available special effects. Another problem I have is the lighting. The OG Salem's lot had great lighting and more appropriate camera equipment. It felt more like you were right there watching it, while the 04 attempt felt more like you were watching people act it.
I think the bad thing about the 2004 Salems Lot movie is the way Barlow was portrayed as a Count Dracula character the vampires in the 2004 were not as scary. The vampires in 1979 were more terrifying especially Barlow
I really enjoyed the tv adaptation of Salem's Lot in the same way as I enjoyed the tv adaptation of The Shining (prefer it over the Film version - not in filming style but narrative). Not being a big King fan I don't have the rabid passion as many fans have lol. I read the Book - Love the book and I think both versions are good - not perfect and never liked the Nosferatu looking version from the original movie, but the other vampires looked damn creepy with the way their eyes shined out of the darkness.
I think the general attitude about the movie can be summed up by the fact that the credits appear to the tune of a pop-punk cover of “Don’t Fear The Reaper”.
I don't agree, in Tobe's version the town feels more genuine in that everyone knows each other. In the 2004 version, major characters introduce themselves to each other for the first time several times. That didn't seem right.
Yeah Also When you clockwork orange Also do play Is basic Anthony Burgess fixed up what kubrick did in same why king with the shining mini series Short story is basic the book with lot change is not super faith unlike the mini series
I liked this adaptation but I hate that the vampires are kind of humanized. In this version when matt burke finds a mike Ryerson in his room after he died instead of matt driving him off mike realizes something is wrong and leaves. The books vampires have memories but they care more about satisfying their thirst. And the worst part is that in the book king hints at the vampires no like being vampires but in here they make the people regret being vampires where in the book they liked being them.
I’ve noticed how polarising this film is. I’ve watched the movie and the original. Both have flaws but the new one has way more in my opinion. Some people really like the new one though.
Ive read salems lot a few times. Its a great book. The 1979 movie will always be a classic. It scared the ever living shit out of me as a child. The 2004 version is also good. It has a lot of really good acting.. I guess I mostly just like it because its salems lot. its part of the franchise. All that being said..... Im really looking forward to the new 2024 version. I hope the movie is as good as the trailer is making it look.
In terms of adaptation this is the better version but I would still say the 79 version to be my preferred version. That atmosphere and designs were perfect and though things were different king himself approved of them. The 79 Salem's Lot literally changed my life. It got me into vampires more then I ever had been before and is what got me started in kings novels. I feel if I had seen the 2004 version instead I would have left the movie saying "hmm that was decent" and moved on. I am excited for the new film when (and if) we get it.
its closer to the book, but thats like saying the shining mini series was closer to the book, it was shit, and so was this, no tension no scares and messes up every single classic scene from the 1979 version, however this 2004 version is a masterpiece to the giant pile of shit that just came out.
i liked this movie better, but did not like the ending with ben dying. i liked the idea of ben and mark becoming vampire hunters and continued to do so.
This beats the 79 series to pieces, boxes them up, and sends them to the end of the world turn left. It's more alive and has more blood in its brain. And I couldn't stand Dr. Cody getting killed. It also showed the ultimate fate of Father Callahan, something the first failed to do. King once speculated that if he wrote a sequel to Salem's Lot, it would start with finding out about Callahan, so 2004 to it right.
I didn't hate the 2004 version but it can't touch the Tobe Hooper film. Sometimes books don't translate to film. Hooper changed things to make a better film. The 2004 film just wasn't as terrifying either! The child scratching the window the look of Barlow! The 2004 version did do a good job of bringing some more stuff from the book to film. For me the 78 film is a 10 the 2004 a 7
Movie wise, the original version is creep a true classic! You can never really get the book into film & the original just did a better job of adapting!!
Rob Lowe is 100 times a better actor than David soul ever was, is, or wanted to be. I know that Soul was a bigger star at the time but both he and Bonnie Bedelía were as animated as slugs. Lowe and Samantha Mathis were far better as Ben and Susan. Lowe's an underrated actor who radiates brains and a regular guy - ness that's rare in someone you can't possibly make unattractive. Zac Efron needs to emulate him, since both look like they were made in Tim Curry's lab on Valentine's Day. I liked Lowe in The Stand a lot also, much more than Gary Sinead. Lowe should serve an apprentice ship under Christopher Walken or Woody Harrelson in general Badassery and Weirdness. I have no idea how old Lowe is so maybe Efron should serve that apprenticeship. Come on! What would life in these United States be without Walken or Woody? Or Depp? He's another bizarre badass who looks great. I once thought Steve Railsback would be the biggest or best actor in Hollywood on the strength of three early performances. I also don't understand why the Velvet Underground and Roxy Music aren't mentioned in the same breath as the Beatles and the Stones and why Paul McCartney had a solo career at all while John Lennon had to die. Why did Bob Dylan get a Nobel prize before Springsteen or John Prine? Why did Jerry Lee Lewis not become as big as Elvis? These are things I don't understand but I know I like rob Lowe a lot more than David Soul on ice.
Its closer to the book than the 1979 film, but it isn't even close to as scary as the 1979 film. I think Tobe Hoopers film was the last vampire film where vampires were actually unholy, undead creatures and not the angelic superheroes they've become.
Signs of the times. 30 days of night is a pretty good vampire movie that isnt too old.
I just finished Salem's Lot book and it was very amazing.
I quite like this adaptation of king's 1975 classic novel. For me James Cromwell steals the entire show as drunken priest father Callahan and Rutger Hauer is also quite good as an all together more human Kurt Barlow. Rob Lowe is fine as Ben Mears. Samantha Mathis is good as Susan Norton. Robert Mammone is another standout as doctor James '' Jimmy '' Cody. Young Dan Byrd is fine as monster obsessed Mark Petrie. Donald Sutherland is also quite good as a flamboyant Straker. Andre braugh is ok as Matthew Burke , but not sure why they made the character gay , but it's not a problem and it works well , I feel. The Dud Rogers character from the novel is included here , played by Brendan Cowell. He's another standout. And the Charlie Rhodes character from the novel is also included, as played by Andy Anderson. At last we get to see the scene were vampire kids attack Charlie Rhodes on his own school bus and it's mildly affective, as is maybe a few of the other vampire scenes . However , on the whole , the vampire scenes are not scary and are certainly no match for the late Tobe Hooper's pale - skinned glowing - eyed bloodsuckers. But it has to be said it follows king's book much better than Hooper's original version. So it's pretty good but not perfect.
I did enjoy the 2004 Salem's lot i watched it years before I read the book
I'm really glad to have both adaptations. This was the first King I had read, and was really into it when I discovered it in high school (which was only a couple years after the reboot had aired). I remember buying both on DVD, having my friend over after class one Friday, ordering Chinese takeout, and watching both versions for the first time, and back to back. Will always have a soft spot for each.
Mathew Burke was not considered a pedo in the 2004 version, he was though made to be gay, but mainly single since as a change the 2004 version was bringing the negative aspects and other changes characters and of the town in a more modern take than in the novel. In fact Mr. Burke was also described by Ben in his narration as being one of the very few Black residents of the town because the town was mainly Dutch, Scottish and French descended by saying that "Matt Burke (the forever bachelor) was like a pinch of Pepper in a bucket of Salt" and that "His alternative life style was tolerated by the community as long as he kept it out of the school".
Charlie Rhoades (The school bus driver that hated Mark Peitri) however was suspected to be a pedo but also a war criminal that collected pictures of mutilations and morbid actions committed to the corpses of the civilians in the Vietnam war (implied by his pictures that he himself and his platoon members may have committed all of these) whom which he was a "Bitter Vet of Nam". Ruth Crocket and Larry Crocket did have an incestuous relationship, though apparently forced by Larry Crocket himself, hence as she tells Dud Rodgers that she hates her father more than Dud could ever do.
The changes to me were a good thing because it made the town to be more contemporary but also many of these things are mentioned though not as directly in different expressions about the town itself in the original novel.
Interestingly,the opening scene with Ben and the priest fighting closely resembles a scene King described for a planned (but dropped) sequel he was thinking of writing in the 80s.
I liked both TV versions but nether was very close to the book. It would have to be a 8 part series to capture Kings vision. Example Both versions say Danny Glick was turned into a vampire by his little brother. But in Kings Book the little brother was killed by Starker before Barlow was even in the town. Straker sacrificed him in some dark ceremony paving the way for Barlow's arrival. He was not turned into a vampire. I was lucky enough to read kings book when it first came out. So I had no idea what it was about. I was nearly a third way through the book when what is really going on hits you like a slap in the face. In fact I read it a second time just to see where I missed any hints. I hadn't, it was just the way he wrote the story. The reader felt like he was a resident of Salem's Lot. By the time you under stand what is really going on, you have the sinking feeling it's already to late to do much about it.
It's Barlow who attacks the Glick boys in the woods, he kills Ralphie as a sacrifice to his master and then turns Danny..there's an unedited version of that whole scene in a special edition of the novel.
The 1979 miniseries was the scariest on television at the time. And it still is the scariest.
The 2004 adaptation followed a lot in the book and even had a few Easter eggs like Susan Norton’s vehicle being the same Jeep Wrangler that Ben Mears drove in the 79 miniseries. I think having Ben as an author of book about his time in Afghanistan was simply thrown in.
Barlow the Vampire spoke in the book. Barlow didn’t speak in the 79 adaptation because that was the wish of Tobey Hooper. The scene where Barlow gets out of the box in the basement of the Marston house had a scene where in the foggy night, Barlow roams the town and looks in on his potential victims. Those scenes were cut out.
I like the 04 adaptation for having Rutger Hauer as Barlow speak. I can tolerate the Ben Mears narration. It wasn’t perfect, but it was the fact that we are following Ben on his harrowing and horrific journey.
To me, Stephen King’s is based on the things that are familiar to us. What if those familiar things become something different? Something threatening and dangerous?
Personally, I would like a film version that is really faithful to the original plot of the book. I really don't understand the need to create an 'adaptation', when there already exists a tale that, if interpreted accurately authentically, would be a real success. I consider this 2004 version a modernized and imaginative transposition of King's masterpiece, nothing more. Hoping for director Gary Dauberman's new attempt scheduled for April 2023...
The 1979 TV version of "Salem's Lot" will always be the definitive film for King fans. However, the 2004 TNT mini-series does add something interesting things that the 1979 film could not. Neither of these films are entirely faithful to the novel. However, I don't think that really matters because they each "re-see" the story of Salem's Lot in unique ways. Both are set in different time periods. If you want to enjoy the novel, read it for yourself. I say, Both of these films are worthwhile in their own different ways.
Sometimes liking a remake requires putting your love for the original in a corner you have to meet the Remake on its own terms and accept its its own thing
Fair enough. But the 1970s original was still better by miles.
I guess the '04 version of "'Salem's Lot" was more "true" to Stephen King's story, but the "MONSTER" in the '79 version WAS SO MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE TO CONVEY HORROR! Both "Strakers" (James Mason and Donald Sutherland) were GREAT! The '79 version, however, built up the horror and MADE IT WORK, MUCH BETTER!
Matt Burke is not hitting on a child or teen! We are flat out told he is gay in the opening, and he somewhat embarrassedly reacts to Mike's attractiveness. Mike Ryerson is a beautiful grown man in his twenties. The next night, as a vampire, Mike uses that to try to get to Matt. Straight men seem to have a real problem with this plot enhancement, but there's a vein of homophobia running through the original novel, and Filardi just tapped into it.
Although this version did some new things, they seem minor next to the massive changes they made in the original. Don't get me wrong, the Tobe Hooper version was by no means bad, but the remake is far more faithful to the book, and not just in the way Barlow is presented. Major characters like Jimmy Cody, Matt Burk, and Father Callahan are either not present or get very minor screen time. Not to mention almost all of the side characters like the Mcdougalls, Ruthe Crockett, and Dud Rogers are all missing. The 2004 adaptation redeems all of this. That being said, great video, I'll definitely like to it.
Thanks for watching!
Yup Stand By Me was playing on jukebox during Ben and Susan's first date.
Excellent video, new subscriber here. Rewatched The original Salams Lot last night and looking forward to rewatching this version shortly.
Thank you for the kind words. Be sure to let us know what you think!
I vividly remember watching this live . In the summer of 2004 I was in a new town and really bored and had no friends. In late august I went into a bookstore and made a point to buy a king novel to pass the time- never read a king book before - really enjoyed the atmosphere of the book. Then out of the blue the tv shows was on in October of that year . I enjoyed the tv show/film .
The novel Salem's Lot is my absolute #1 favorite book by Stephen King and also one of my favorite books of all time by any author. I was bitterly disappointed in both movie versions which were poor and inaccurate adaptations. A lot of people who praise the 1979 version probably haven't read the novel. The 2004 version was a bit more faithful and accurate to the novel but was still a disappointment. I don't mind a film version taking liberties with minor scenes or minor characters of the book, but making a major change to the story such as Ben Mear's death at the end is just plain wrong. Any movie based on a novel should be 100% faithful to the novel. If the new film version of Salem's Lot is an accurate portrayal of every major scene and every major character in the novel, it could be one of the greatest horror films of all time.
I'm in the same boat as you. I'm not crazy about either one of the miniseries. However they both have moments that I do enjoy, but because it's my favorite novel I guess I'm expecting so much more and both versions miss the mark for me. I've noticed though if you criticize the 1979 miniseries at all people get in such an uproar.
Though closer to the novel, the 2004 version lacked the creepy atmosphere of the 79 version and the characters were portrayed totally wrong, with a couple of exceptions.
I guess i need to re watch it. I remember thinking Ben and Susan's characters didn't even really like each other, let alone being in love. I did like Barlow character more than the 1979 version
I like this adaptation of Salem's lot. It's got it's own unquic draw in .
My first impression of the voice over came to mind Michael Anderson, I figured the director was going that route. My reason for not liking this version was because of the contrast between the boys at the window in Hooper's version, and here they're not that scary. Over time, though, this version has grown on me. It isn't scary. But it has the ring of King, which is always nice to see, didn't mind the grainy flashback at all, hehe. Would you consider doing Rose Red?
We'll absolutely be covering Rose Red! But going in release order so may be a bit!
I prefer the 2004 version. The 2004 version sticks with the book more, which I think is important. Also, I never liked that they made Barlow into a Nosferatu-looking thing, in the 79 version, who doesn't talk.
I would love to see a mix of both adaptations to get the actual definitive version.
I just want two things in the adaptation coming out in November. The true father Callahan and Barlow confrontation and the invasion on the marsten house
We're getting a new movie adaptation in 2022, directed by the writer of the IT movies. Thoughts?
I loved the rob Lowe version
Mike ryerson got an autopsy how they put a stake in his heart he got no organs?
Absolutely not. They changed so much. The Father Callahan killing Matt Burke scene was beyond stupid. And other scenes were embarrassing...like Dud crawling into Floyds cell.
I love Donald Sutherland in the 2004 version. Interesting fact: he had no idea they were filming a movie. 😂
I think it is. It is much closer to the book and to King’s vision of Barlow. I loved it.
Thank You for ANOTHER Great and In Depth Review and Video 😀
U said his narraration wasn't in the book? Not only was it in the book but it was word for word, but instead of Ben mears it was Steven King saying it
I *almost* really loved this version. I loved that it was more about the whole town, which was what I really liked about the novel. I loved all the actors (and subsequently all the characters) So it took a couple re-watches to realize what I was missing was more chemistry between Ben and Sue, or Ben and Mark. Otherwise, same critiques about early 00s TV film tricks and tropes...
I find this adaptation just lacking in heart and chemistry
Disagree
Why did young Ben just lay down instead of running?!
Only copy of this I ever saw was a DVD scratched all to he'll so I missed a lot 😰 but I liked what I saw. Except Rutger. That poor man had already played so many campy vampires I just COULDN'T take him seriously!!!
I put together an Outline (223 pages) for a 10 Episode 'Salem's Lot Limited Series. It's an amalgam of the Salem's Lot Novel, BOTH the 1979 and the 2004 Mini Series and the BBC Radio Drama. I REALLY think that you would like it. Let me know if interested. Thank You.
I'm surprised you didn't highlight this particular aspect, but for me the biggest deal breaker was that the the '04 remake completely changes the season and year of the story to fit modern day. Cell phones, modern cars, etc. In the novel it's Fall of 1975. In this version it's 2004 in the dead of Winter. Unsurprisingly, also the practical effects of T.Hoopers 1979 adaptation are WAAAY better than the sometimes lazy and sometimes over done effects of the newer version. Which is funny because 2004 they could've really nailed it with the available special effects. Another problem I have is the lighting. The OG Salem's lot had great lighting and more appropriate camera equipment. It felt more like you were right there watching it, while the 04 attempt felt more like you were watching people act it.
I read the book and watched and enjoyed both mini series.
I think the bad thing about the 2004 Salems Lot movie is the way Barlow was portrayed as a Count Dracula character the vampires in the 2004 were not as scary. The vampires in 1979 were more terrifying especially Barlow
I really enjoyed the tv adaptation of Salem's Lot in the same way as I enjoyed the tv adaptation of The Shining (prefer it over the Film version - not in filming style but narrative). Not being a big King fan I don't have the rabid passion as many fans have lol. I read the Book - Love the book and I think both versions are good - not perfect and never liked the Nosferatu looking version from the original movie, but the other vampires looked damn creepy with the way their eyes shined out of the darkness.
I think the general attitude about the movie can be summed up by the fact that the credits appear to the tune of a pop-punk cover of “Don’t Fear The Reaper”.
Where the hell can I stream the 2004 version
Currently, nowhere. Took time to get it at my library as well
Amazon Prime as of today. $10
I don't agree, in Tobe's version the town feels more genuine in that everyone knows each other. In the 2004 version, major characters introduce themselves to each other for the first time several times. That didn't seem right.
Yeah Also When you clockwork orange Also do play
Is basic Anthony Burgess fixed up what kubrick did in same why king with the shining mini series
Short story is basic the book with lot change is not super faith unlike the mini series
I liked this adaptation but I hate that the vampires are kind of humanized. In this version when matt burke finds a mike Ryerson in his room after he died instead of matt driving him off mike realizes something is wrong and leaves. The books vampires have memories but they care more about satisfying their thirst. And the worst part is that in the book king hints at the vampires no like being vampires but in here they make the people regret being vampires where in the book they liked being them.
Some crap on this version but I enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed the first TV adaptation. The performances and tone were spot on for me.
I’ve noticed how polarising this film is. I’ve watched the movie and the original. Both have flaws but the new one has way more in my opinion.
Some people really like the new one though.
Callahan is just fine.... He's running around the Dark Tower.
Neither adaptions got Barlow right!
I disagree. This version is closer to how King wanted Barlow to be.
Ive read salems lot a few times. Its a great book. The 1979 movie will always be a classic. It scared the ever living shit out of me as a child. The 2004 version is also good. It has a lot of really good acting.. I guess I mostly just like it because its salems lot. its part of the franchise. All that being said..... Im really looking forward to the new 2024 version. I hope the movie is as good as the trailer is making it look.
In terms of adaptation this is the better version but I would still say the 79 version to be my preferred version. That atmosphere and designs were perfect and though things were different king himself approved of them.
The 79 Salem's Lot literally changed my life. It got me into vampires more then I ever had been before and is what got me started in kings novels. I feel if I had seen the 2004 version instead I would have left the movie saying "hmm that was decent" and moved on. I am excited for the new film when (and if) we get it.
I'm a huge fan of the Novel and 1979 miniseries. That being said, I do enjoy this version but the 79 is the better version in my opinion.
Great review but afterwards i dont know weather to watch it or not
I loved it. I loved the original as well. But I really enjoyed the 2004 remake
This version of "'Salem's Lot" JUST DID NOT WORK!
I do have a recommendation the beer The Naughty Nurse when you do your video with Misery. It is also a Connecticut made beer too!
This 2004 version was too satirical and I couldn't stand it.
On my opinion, this version is so much better.
its closer to the book, but thats like saying the shining mini series was closer to the book, it was shit, and so was this, no tension no scares and messes up every single classic scene from the 1979 version, however this 2004 version is a masterpiece to the giant pile of shit that just came out.
i liked this movie better, but did not like the ending with ben dying. i liked the idea of ben and mark becoming vampire hunters and continued to do so.
This beats the 79 series to pieces, boxes them up, and sends them to the end of the world turn left. It's more alive and has more blood in its brain. And I couldn't stand Dr. Cody getting killed.
It also showed the ultimate fate of Father Callahan, something the first failed to do. King once speculated that if he wrote a sequel to Salem's Lot, it would start with finding out about Callahan, so 2004 to it right.
It was shite
Crap CGI Crap Acting 😑
@@paulhudson1931 I am right and you are wrong. And that's pure science.
I own it. Digital.
I didn't hate the 2004 version but it can't touch the Tobe Hooper film. Sometimes books don't translate to film. Hooper changed things to make a better film. The 2004 film just wasn't as terrifying either! The child scratching the window the look of Barlow! The 2004 version did do a good job of bringing some more stuff from the book to film. For me the 78 film is a 10 the 2004 a 7
Rob Lowe was GOOD as "Ben Mears", but David Soul was BETTER, and all the narration DID NOT HELP!
Movie wise, the original version is creep a true classic! You can never really get the book into film & the original just did a better job of adapting!!
Rob Lowe is 100 times a better actor than David soul ever was, is, or wanted to be. I know that Soul was a bigger star at the time but both he and Bonnie Bedelía were as animated as slugs. Lowe and Samantha Mathis were far better as Ben and Susan. Lowe's an underrated actor who radiates brains and a regular guy - ness that's rare in someone you can't possibly make unattractive. Zac Efron needs to emulate him, since both look like they were made in Tim Curry's lab on Valentine's Day.
I liked Lowe in The Stand a lot also, much more than Gary Sinead. Lowe should serve an apprentice ship under Christopher Walken or Woody Harrelson in general Badassery and Weirdness. I have no idea how old Lowe is so maybe Efron should serve that apprenticeship. Come on! What would life in these United States be without Walken or Woody? Or Depp? He's another bizarre badass who looks great. I once thought Steve Railsback would be the biggest or best actor in Hollywood on the strength of three early performances. I also don't understand why the Velvet Underground and Roxy Music aren't mentioned in the same breath as the Beatles and the Stones and why Paul McCartney had a solo career at all while John Lennon had to die. Why did Bob Dylan get a Nobel prize before Springsteen or John Prine? Why did Jerry Lee Lewis not become as big as Elvis? These are things I don't understand but I know I like rob Lowe a lot more than David Soul on ice.
Easy answer: No.
The 2004 is much superior
To answer the title of this video
No
Good job though I,ll give you 👍 for your hard work of making this video but I hate this version
I adore Rob Lowe, but yeah, that narration is terrible.
I loved it because it goes deeper into the Marston house.