Salem's Lot - The Miniseries
|
List Price: Our Price: $5.85 You Save: $14.13 (71%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $5.16 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Salem's Lot - The Miniseries
Movie Review: Salems Lot and Salem's Lot - for the love of both of them
Summary: 5 Stars
You one starers on Salem's Lot Tv miniseries should be ashamed of the one - star views.
The reason for why is because this is simply a miniseries version designed to capture the spirit of the modern times and put it into context aligning with Stephen King's Salem's Lot.
And doing that is not as easy as you think. I watched this film for over 3 or 4 times and know what I'm talking about - I find absolutely nothing wrong with it. Maybe 10 years from now there'll be need to remake Salem's Lot but until then at least let's give this series a chance.
When I say you should feel ashamed I do not mean I am attacking you personally - what I mean is that this TV series is simply brilliant and those of us who know are all in agreement on that.
This TV series is in fact a whole movie that's on a single DVD and it's an awsome film. It'also a return to the vampire who couldn't tolerate crosses in the cinema of the 50's , 60's and 70's , 40's , 30's and even 20's.
If you're gonna remake a film like for instance Vamphyr , I wouldn't be surprised to look at disappointments. But I won't even give myself time to view the reviews of the one starers. By that I don't mean they don't know what they're talking about - all I mean is that those are their views , and my view is my view. And when I state that my view is that the majority of them should feel ashamed , they'll at least try to put themselves into the shoes of the geniuses behind the production of the series. At first I wasn't sure if I was gonna like the TV series or movie or not , but the 180 minutes made me feel as if I had been watching it for shorter time than the old film.
And it's a different atmosphere now , literally when it comes to old movies. Look at how different the atmosphere is then and compare it to what it's like in films that are being produced today. The sky tells us a lot in these films. The vampires are sinister and old - modern. I think that there may be fans of this movie in even the communities of real life vampires. After I watched the film I bought a new version of Salem's Lot which I still keep at home. And I say bravo! This movie is an absolute masterwork in movie remaking. This is a brilliant example in a sucession to remaking and I hope that my comment will not inspire the producers to create worse remakes of other movie projects in the future.
Sometimes when too many people give a movie director's film project similarly sounding positive criticism reviews , the result may be that a future film project becomes not as sucessful because the director was not as serious when he had been focused on that film. So maybe a lot of negative criticism spiced with a few positive ones didn't do any damage.
This series is also in my view far less formula - based than the old Salem's Lot which is equally brilliantly directed. But what the negative reviewers and we positive reviewers on Salem's Lot TV series or film can agree upon , is that the good ol's Salem's Lot will never be remade in the fashion it originally appeared when it was first released in cinemas.
This is a series or film I keep reliving and enjoying each time I watch it.
I strongly encourage newcomers to the world of Salem's Lot and the world of these two films not to take my positive criticism seriously but to form their own judgement after they've seen these films and compared them with each other. There was also a relatively unknown Salem's Lot TV miniseries released before this one was made , and then there was a Salem's Lot 2 which was supposed to be a sequel to the original Salem's Lot , and incredibly I've actually seen Salem's Lot 2!!
Movie Review: Amazing, Simply Amazing
Summary: 5 Stars
Rutger Howard - Barlow
Donald Sutherland - Straker
Rob Lowe - Ben Mears
Daniel Byrd - Mark Petrie
Need I say more? This newer adaptation of the movie is far better than the old one for many reasons. Apparently, 4 out of 6 people found a certain review helpful... too bad the review was horribly misleading. True, the movie did a HORRIBLE job following the book, but it was an amazing movie. Donald Sutherland was amazing as the charming yet evil Straker, and Rutger Howard was an amazing Barlow. But anyone who has read the book knows that Barlow was NEVER a nasfaratu, he was infact very human and very very very charming, like Straker, so to say that the movie didn't follow the book then dog the fact that they made Barlow look like the book Barlow(with the exception of the hair) is a little self contradicting. I enjoyed the movie, and I am as well a HUGE fan of King and Salem's Lot is my favorite favorite favorite book. The movie was absolutely amazing. It didn't follow the book, (Certain specific details of people were missed, and a lot of characters were combined into 1 person, and the story line went a different way.) but I think it did the book perfect justice. The original did nothing for the book, but the new version was absolutely haunting. I have seen the movie over 6 times and every time i jump or get scared. It's amazing, it really is, and the performances are amazing as well. Donald Sutherland's portrayal of Straker was in no way tired, it was in fact very intense. I would not have picked any one else to play the evil Mr. Straker, because Mr. Sutherland got him down to a T. Rutger Howard as the dark Mr. Barlow did an amazing job in his roll as well. His old yet charming and spphisticated looks made one warm up to him before they realized what he really was. It's hard not to like Mr. Barlow at the beginning of the movie because he does such a wonderful job. Finally, there is the wonderfully talented, absolutely gorgeous Rob Lowe as the talented writer Mr. Ben Mears. Lowe did a fenominal job portraying the troubled writer, and he was in no way a "horrible lead" as some people say. His voice, looks, and charm were seemed to be pulled straight from King's mind, And noone but Lowe could pull off the simple helplessness and strength that makes Ben Mears such a tragic hero. Even the young Mark Petrie was portrayed beautifully by the adorable Daniel Byrd. Dan brought out the perfect essence of Mark--the adolescent ability to believe in the darkest possibilities and still have the courage to take it on. I guess what I am trying to say is that this movie is absolutely amazing, and i hope you all will agree.
Movie Review: What's the fuzz about? This is the one true version!
Summary: 5 Stars
Most of the critics here compare this mini-series to the first movie adaption of 1979 and not to the book. And I guess most of them knew the 1979 version before they read the book (if they read it at all), and they did it as boys or girls, being scared and thrilled and loving it ever since. If it was the other way round - reading the book first and then watching the two movies (without the fond memories of thirty years inbetween) - the contest wouldn't even be close: This is by far the more faithful adaption of the original story.
Most critics keep coming up with totally irrelevant details: So Straker isn't bold anymore. Who cares? So Matt Burke is an African American and gay. What's the problem there? I find it pretty annoying that most of the detractors here are complaining about this. It's the 21st century, for christ's sake! True, King didn't put any minorities in the book, but this was the 70s, and I'm quite sure he would today.
King had a whole book to develop characters and relationships. This movie only has three hours. So to speed up character development they gave them back stories that weren't originally there: Ben was in Afghanistan, Burke is gay, the doctor had a crush on Sandy, etc. etc. It is all in sinc with the feel of the mood of the original story. This is movie making 101, actually.
And then Barlow. What an improvement on the first version! I mean, James Mason was a fine Straker in 1979, and Donald Sutherland is slightly overacting here. But coming from the book's Barlow I was sorely disappointed to find that Tobe Hooper had turned him into a blue skinned caricature of Max Schreck. Here we have Rutger Hauer - who was born to play King's seductive and charming villain. Again, the choice isn't even close.
So, if you don't mind having black and gay characters in your story and if you love the book, especially its non-horror aspects, this is the movie for you. Of course, you can always turn to a wooden 70s monster flick, if you like. But don't pretend it has anything to do with Stephen King.
Movie Review: to be watched again and again...fun stuff
Summary: 5 Stars
There are plenty of purists who will disagree with me but this version is awesome. The whole production is of high enough quality to make you think, "Wow this isn't bad...in fact, it's kinda good...in fact, I LOVE IT!"
The cast does an outstanding job bringing this creepshow to life. Andre Braugher, Donald Sutherland, and James Cromwell??? (even Rob Lowe who I've never been a big fan of is both smart and moving) Plus who else could you want as Barlowe than Rudger Haugher? The supporting cast has their moments as well (also their doozies too, I'll admit) but mostly everyone stands up with the big boys or at least remains solid.
I also enjoyed the writing. Rob Lowe's narration established the mood well and seemed to have been taken right out the book - which I always appreciate. The television adaptation was modern, much to the horror of many reviewers here. I personally I thought making Andre Braugher's character homosexual worked. Nor did I mind their making Ben Mears former Iraqi war journalist - it brought the timeless tale into the here and now, and tied in well to his character arc.
I have to say I also enjoyed the music. Lisa Garard's vocals haven't sounded this good on a soundtrack since Gladiator and the producers milked it for all it was worth.
This might not be Hamlet but it's as good a Stephen King treatment as you'll find anywhere, especially among the tv mini-series which usually suffer from weak performances or lack of any real swagger. This is one that I pop into the DVD player when I'm feeling tired on an autumn night.
Movie Review: Did The Makers Of This Turkey Even Read The Book?
Summary: 5 Stars
This 2004 remake makes the 1979 version look like a masterpiece. I kid you not. In this movie-
(1)Robe Lowe does not make a convincing writer and you never see him typing.
(2)He sounds very bored as he is doing the narration.
(3)For some obscure reason he was held captive by the Taliban.
(4) Matt Bourke is gay . Presumably this is the way the makers of this film envisage a middle aged guy who lives alone.
(5) Susan Norton has an on/off relationship whereas in the book they were madly in love.
(6) Eva Miller is now French and has a kinky past and accepts a marriage proposal from The Town Drunk Ed.
(7) Ruthie Crocket is being sexually molested by her father.
(8) For some obscure reason the vampires are also flesh eating zombies.
(9) The Head Vampire Kurt Barlow has a discussion about Morality with Ben while he has a wooden stake pressed against his chest!
I do believe that any resemblance of the book in this movie is entirely coincidental. The only good thing about it are the Special Effects and Cinematography . I give this movie 5 stars because it was filmed in the goldfields region of Victoria , Australia and hopefully the cast and crew managed to inject the local economy with some much needed cash.