Salem's Lot - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Salem's Lot Reviews

Page 1 of 19
June 16, 2017
Engaging story, kind of a rushed ending.
June 25, 2016
Even at three hours, it still plays like a cliff-notes version of the book, and a hollow one at that. Plus, Rob Lowe could not appear more bored to be playing his role. Plus it's missing a good chunk of the creepiness and horror of the Tobe Hooper version.
½ January 17, 2016
This movie is all around bad with the exception of one likable character, I could barely get through it. They had a great book for source material and a pretty good previous film adaptation to go off of and they still blew it.
January 7, 2016
This updated Salem's lot followed the book making the movie an upgrade from the original
Super Reviewer
October 5, 2015
A small town in New England is visited by slow dawning horror just as some new people move in: could there be a connection? This handles that slow burn pretty well although the ending could have used a little more pepper. The stars do enough, but Sutherland is exemplary conveying "I'm gonna get you!" menace played nonchalantly. Wish there was more of him in this.
August 7, 2015
Allow me to preface this review by saying that I'm a fan of both the novel and the 1979 David soul version. However... this version takes the story into a march darker more atmospheric place. The story of a man returning home to face his demons and a small town that is seemingly idyllic but holds it's own secrets. Many people I know disliked this version but I found it fascinating, thoroughly enjoyable movie. The acting is superb, the camera work and direction excellent. In all ways a film that earns it's place a one of the best among the vampire genre.
June 10, 2015
Good Stephen King Movie, (1979) Was Scarier...
January 8, 2015
Incredible story! Love it! Good dreadful movie for a night watch
½ October 29, 2014
This adaptation is fairly true to the source material and is entertaining enough for a watch.
½ August 2, 2014
I have started rereading all of Stephen King's books (my favorite writer). this time as an added twist, I am also watching all of the film adaptations I can get my hands on. It was rather interesting to compare the original miniseries from the 70's with this one. BOTH play somewhat loose with the book. this one changes some characters and plot points seemingly arbitrarily with no real reason, but it at least follows the book more closely than the 70's version. In particular, I liked the attempt they made to mirror the somewhat episodic form of the novel in which king introduces us to a NUMBER of different characters and we then follow each of their separate but intersecting storylines (a device he would expand on in the stand).
I also think rob lowe made a better ben mears than david soul. the boy playing mark was excellent as well. there was a vulnerability to him that was not present in the 70's version. Rutger hauer was a nice change too as barlow. he resembled the one from the book much more closely than the hideous nosferatu-like creature in the other. Donald sutherland is much less successful as straker. he sorely lacks the cold sophistication of james mason.
But enough comparisons. what i objected to the most about this version in particular is that it took king's premise that small towns aren't as innocent and pure as we think (an idea he shares with doyle's sherlock holmes) and magnified it by a hundred. king was subtle. here they hit you over the head with it. the biggest crime though is that they can't even allow the "heroes" to be relatively pure. they actually go so far as to INVENT guilty secrets for each of them (with the possible exception of mark) which were NOT in the book. I feel this is a mistake. if they are just as flawed as everyone else in town how can they triumph against the evil threatening it ? but then three of them don't. in the end only mark and ben survive to fight another day, so maybe they aren't too far off king's point after all.
½ April 12, 2014
Should have cut the first hour out and it would have been ok.
Super Reviewer
December 5, 2013
TNT presents a modern telling of Stephen King's classic vampire tale 'Salem's Lot. The story follows a small New England town that destroys itself when an ancient vampire named Barlow moves there and takes up residence in a house that carries a history of evil. Featuring a large ensemble cast that includes Rob Lowe, Donald Sutherland, James Cromwell, Rutger Hauer, and Samantha Mathis, there are some good performances. However, there are too many characters and subplots going on to get invested in the film. Still, the overarcing story is rather interesting and the horror elements are effective at creating suspense. 'Salem's Lot is a flawed film, but still delivers an intriguing vision.
½ November 27, 2013
Better than I could have managed it would be. This movie manages to give you Hauer Sutherland and Cromwell as vilians when most movies would be blessed to get one of these legends.
½ November 24, 2013
Ugh. I should have spent the extra money to get the 1979 version. Great book, great cast, but one of the worst adaptations I have *ever* seen (and I'm a fan of MST3K). Except for some set pieces, names, and quotes, this is *not* Salem's Lot. But like Weird Al and his ringtone, I've spent the money, and I feel obligated to finish this turd. I would gladly give it to the first taker who wants it. 3 hours of a hack whizzing all over this King masterpiece.
July 27, 2013
Too long to be interesting in one setting. The story is decent but confusing, and the characters aren't too great. Takes too long to get to the vampires and eventually you get bored waiting around. Plenty of stuff that could have been left out to make it a shorter, though it isn't a entirely a bad watch.
½ June 25, 2013
"In a small town, evil spreads quickly..."

It saddens me to say that much of Stephen King's work is adapted so... dare I say cheap? With the exception of a few major studio motion pictures (The Shining, Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, The Mist), most of King's novels are adapted in the form of a miniseries, or a b-movie. It is a shame, because many of the novels, including this one, have the backbone to carry a movie with a budget. So... I am forced to put special effects aside, and review 'Salem's Lot for its story and performances.

Having read the novel long before I saw this adaptation, I was already familiar with the story and setting. Regardless, the characters are remarkably fleshed. The plot concerns a writer named Ben Mears, who returns to his home town of Jersualem's Lot following a lengthy absence. As a child, Ben witnessed a murder/suicide in the notorious Marsten house, which looms over the town like a gargoyle. Upon his return, Ben sees that he was not the only one whose life was destroyed. Jerusalem's Lot is a cesspool of bad marriages and broken souls just waiting to be torn apart long before anything supernatural arrives. The characters are given great reason to want to kill each other right from the start, and Ben begins to understand that the Marsten House is a beacon for evil. A centuries old vampire has been summoned to 'Salem's Lot, and when the plague begins to spread, the monsters who already live in the town are finally given the power to act out their sick fantasies.

I consider 'Salem's Lot to be one of the best Stephen King miniseries adaptations. The story takes its time picking up, but the characters are so incredibly detailed and believable that the wait is well worth it. The whole vampire aspect is merely a metaphor for the decimation of a broken town; we feel the emotion in every death, and the murders seem to be a long time coming. If you can ignore the TV quality special effects, which are the films primary and solo downfall, then you just may find that this is one of the greatest vampire movies ever made.
½ April 22, 2013
I really liked this version. It was a little rushed toward the end, but it still came off well on the whole.
November 18, 2012
Actually quite good, better than I expected it to be
November 16, 2012
loved it, I thought it was a good movie, I actually want this movie on DVD, It was ok movie, it starred Rob Lowe, Donald Sutherland and Andre Braugher, it was directed byMikael Salomon
September 8, 2012
Se toma bastante libertades respecto al libro y como actualización resulta bastante sorprendente (para ser una película para TV) y aterradora incluso más que el clásico de Tobe Hooper, pero aún así no logra rozar la genialidad que plasma King en las hojas.
Page 1 of 19