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 $5.19 (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: A Modern Re-make
Summary: 4 Stars
'SALEM'S LOT first aired on TNT in 2004. The budget for the two part miniseries was equal to that of a major motion picture and the look and feel of the film seems like a movie, not a television miniseries. Despite having been published around 25 years agao, the book that the movie is based upon remains one of Stephen King's most popular works.
'SALEM'S LOT is King's examination of what would happen if Dracula came to America. Author Ben Mears (Rob Lowe) returns to his hometown of Jerusalem's Lot, commonly known as Salem's Lot, to get some privacy and work on his latest book. Around the same time that Ben returns home, an antique dealer purchases an infamous house on the hill overlooking town for his "employer". A few days later strange events begin happening. A boy named Danny Glick disappears. A dog is impaled on the fence surrounding the community's graveyard. Danny Glick's body is found but looking not quite like Danny. The events quickly esculate until Ben and a small group of others realize that Dracula is in 'Salem's Lot and if they don't do something fast, no one will escape alive.
The movie changes several things from the original novel. However, a movie and a book are not the same things and overall the movie stays true to the spirit of the novel. My only complaint is what ends up happening to Father Callahan. Salem's Lot was one of the few books that Stephen King ever considered writing a sequel to, mostly because of Father Callahan. He later decided against it, but Father Callahan didn't disappear and has a major role to play in the Dark Tower series.
There have been a lot of comparisons of this movie with the made-for-tv 1979 version that was directed by Tobe Hooper. There really isn't much of a comparison. The 1979 version gains points for effort, but that's about it. Overall, the 1979 version is a mess of bad acting, bad writing, bad lighting and sets, and cheesy "special effects". That film does not hold up well and is nowhere near suspenseful, let alone frightening. This version holds up much better and though it makes more changes to the original storyline, this version flows much better, has better writing, excellent acting, and good special effects. It's a modern re-make made right.
Movie Review: More dynamic but still the same old tale
Summary: 4 Stars
This recent (2004) TV film is adapted from Stephen King's novel Salem's Lot. This adaptation had been waited for and expected by many years since the first old adaptation and especially the scandalous second episode that had transformed Jerusalem's Lot into a blood farm for a community of vampires. This adaptation is very faithful to the novel though it adds a different end in concentrating the hatred against vampires onto the probably catholic priest who had been obliged to drink some of the vampire's blood, going as far as making the main character trace him in New York and kill him, though in a traditional way, which makes us doubt he will die. The second element in this film is the great dynamism, the upgrading and updating of the world that has cell phones and other modern technology. This gives to the film a modern look and feel and that is good and bracing. The characters are also speaking today's language and behaving in today's fashion. The film has also gotten rid of some of the gross surreal if not supernatural elements in the very looks of the two culprits, the vampire and his ghoul. They look so much more human than in previous adaptations. But I remain doubtful about the message of the film, or of the novel. The vampire is in no way regenerated and the myth is taken in exactly the same terms as it had always been taken, or nearly, up to Anne Rice's rewriting of it. I think this vision is making the audience get used to the necessity to kill and destroy the foreigner because he is the very image of evil, even if he does not look evil at all. This adaptation also has the merit of lightening the sentimental side of things, the various love affairs and the innuendo about such possible sexual perspectives. Everything is better concentrated on the vampire and his action and conquest of the town.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
Movie Review: Better than the original and a nice twist on the pulp novel
Summary: 4 Stars
Come on guys - it's not THAT bad. In fact, I'll put my neck out and say that it's better than the original (which did tend to drag on a bit). True, there are a heck of a lot of characters to keep tabs on, and with a couple of exceptions they're all thinly drawn, but I remember Stephen King saying way back that he intended Salem's Lot to be Peyton Place with vampires, so the mass of characters shown here is, I believe, in keeping with the author's original vision. It does have it's faults; the main one being that for the first hour we're treated to Ben Mear's bitter diatribe about the small town and how all the people in it are a pack of ratbags. As a result, we don't really care what happens to them. Things shift in the second half (after one of the characters says that Ben only sees the bad in people and ignores the good), but by then the damage has been done. I was also a bit uncomfortable with the climax, where fast moving vampires suddenly became shambling flesh-eating zombies.
Otherwise, I felt this was an enjoyable piece of horror pulp that worked as well as it could within the confines of a TV movie (it really needs to be turned into a three hour horror epic for the big screen where all of King's sexual and violent visions can be given full rein). Visually it's far superior to Tobe Hooper's version, and we've got a better cast (Donald Sutherland hams it up wonderfully and James Cromwell's interpretation of the priest who has fallen from grace is suitably seedy). Rob Lowe is a much more haunted man than David Soul, Rutger Hauer's Barlow is far superior to Reggie Nalder's Nosferatu rip-off, and even if the bulk of the supporting players are Australians and New Zealanders putting on broad American accents (which is always a weird experience for a New Zealander to watch), they all do a fine job. I recommend it.
Movie Review: The Movie, Reviewed as a Movie: Not Compared to the Original
Summary: 4 Stars
This is not at all a bad movie. Ben Mears is a likable protagonist, who I found myself rooting for all the way along. The supporting characters are also cast well, and that is important as this movie depends a lot on them. Unlike many of todays movies and books, this story does not only focus on the protagonist, it also follows the lives (and deaths) of the lesser characters. We come to know their struggles, how they feel about certain things, and their relationships.
The vampires in this movie are clearly no Lestat's. They are monsters, who are simply out for blood. There is no romantic quality to them, and they appear to look more like zombies at certain points than vampires, which works for the movie.
Now, onto the complaints. The characters should have been more freaked out! There wasn't much reluctance in certain characters to believe that vampires were taking over the town, and even less reluctance to rely on the legendary means of killing a vampire. And, there is also one big hole in the plot. This movie clearly follows the legend that vampires cannot enter a home unless invited--that actually plays a MAJOR part in the movie. However, in one scene, Barlow (a vampire) breaks into a woman's house through the window and kills her! I do not know if this happens in the book, and if there is an explanation, but the movie surely offers no explanation. Other than the aforementioned, the movie isn't bad.
7/10
Movie Review: THE BOOK WILL ALWAYS BE THE BEST VERSION
Summary: 4 Stars
...in fact, why hasn't anyone just stuck to the books structure and characterizations? The original would have made a marvelous mini-series. I do give credit to this made for TV effort for many reasons: it does follow the basic premise of the novel, and it has some interesting camerawork and a few good performances. Can one imagine this movie with an actor like Tom Hanks playing Ben Mears? Rob Lowe does a commendable job, but he comes across as so self-absorbed, and the depth of his persona is never fully realized. Samantha Mathis does a credible job as Susan Norton, but she too comes across self-centered and judgmental. Donald Sutherland and Rutger Hauer camp it up and are effective, but they never seem truly evil. James Cromwell succumbs too quickly to Hauer's influence, and even Daniel Byrd as young Mark Petrie doesn't seem to see beyond his own feelings. Some of the lesser known Australian actors fare better: the town's sheriff; the lovely Eva, the landlady at the boarding house; the seductive Sandy McDougall; and even the town retarded man, Dud. Andre Braugher tries to be Denzel Washington, but this talented actor is miscast in the role, and tying him to a hospital bed for the majority of his role hinders his performance. So why four stars? I love the book and I enjoyed this movie, but I wish Stephen King would get someone to film the book as it was written, and with really top notch actors; then we might get the penultimate Salem's Lot!