Salem's Lot - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Salem's Lot Reviews

Page 1 of 19
Super Reviewer
September 8, 2007
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.
Super Reviewer
February 2, 2008
not bad for a tv miniseries
nuheart
Super Reviewer
½ December 26, 2006
Judging it on its own, and not comparing it to the book or the 1979 TV mini, this really isn't a bad flick -- up to the last ten minutes or so. Then it kinda blows. But for a 3hr movie, that's not a bad ratio.
deano
Super Reviewer
December 21, 2006
This remake TV movie is more thrilling, scary and much longer than the original.
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.
chadroesti
Super Reviewer
½ June 18, 2009
Not very many decent movies made from Steven King novels. This is one that does stink too much. Wait a minute, haven't seen this version yet. Need to rent.
Super Reviewer
August 13, 2007
Great adaptation of the book.
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.
½ November 23, 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.
January 4, 2012
This is easily my favorite Stephen King novel, and this version of the movie is a solid adaptation. In fact, it's much better than the original version was. Rob Lowe's performance is fantastic.
October 3, 2011
As far as basic cable made for TV movies go, this has to be near the top. One of the better adaptations of a Steven King story for sure.

Filmed as a mini-series, it has the luxury of taking its time, developing characters, and adding in alot of the subtext that would otherwise have to be glossed over. The acting is pretty good. I'll have to throw Lowe under the bus a little bit, because he is just so freaking over dramatic. But Cromwell, Mathis, Sutherland and Braugher are all quite good. Hauer's portrail of Barlow is great in particular.

Not particularly scary, but it is creepy. The 3 hour run time really doesn't hinder the film in anyway, as it moves quickly and is very engaging. The last 10 minutes does drag a bit, but aside from that, the pacing is quite good. The script is about as faithful to the novel as it can be, and it is filmed quite effectively as well.

Complaints would be that it lacks a bit of the guttural scariness of the novel, as it no doubt had to be toned down in its language, goriness and general menace. Still a terrific adaptation of a classic.
December 8, 2011
As far as basic cable made for TV movies go, this has to be near the top. One of the better adaptations of a Steven King story for sure.

Filmed as a mini-series, it has the luxury of taking its time, developing characters, and adding in alot of the subtext that would otherwise have to be glossed over. The acting is pretty good. I'll have to throw Lowe under the bus a little bit, because he is just so freaking over dramatic. But Cromwell, Mathis, Sutherland and Braugher are all quite good. Hauer's portrail of Barlow is great in particular.

Not particularly scary, but it is creepy. The 3 hour run time really doesn't hinder the film in anyway, as it moves quickly and is very engaging. The last 10 minutes does drag a bit, but aside from that, the pacing is quite good. The script is about as faithful to the novel as it can be, and it is filmed quite effectively as well.

Complaints would be that it lacks a bit of the guttural scariness of the novel, as it no doubt had to be toned down in its language, goriness and general menace. Still a terrific adaptation of a classic.
June 3, 2010
more faithful to the novel but really silly in parts. I love how Barlow accuses BEN MEARS of being the true vampire who "sucks" the lives out of other people to fuel Mears' writing career--a professional writer can not sustain a living unless he sucks and gorges himself on the life-stories of others when the writer doesn't really have a life of his own.

It feels like two directors made it because some parts are really, really stupid (like the vampires' wedding ceremony and the part where the toast slices pop out of the toaster to startle Mark Petrie)

It felt like in SUPERMAN where Richard Lester was hired to shoot scenes that Richard Donner hadn't gotten to (SUPERMAN goes from serious to tounge-in-cheek to serious all throughout the film).

Donald Southerland is VERY FREAKY and SCARY as STRAKER and the scene where Straker kidnaps Ralphie Glick is Frightening indeed. the little boy flows under the ice in some dark woods. VERY GOOD.

It should be a 90% but its a 100% because SALEM'S LOT the remake has FLARE (good prologue and good epilogue that are different from the novel)
½ January 13, 2010
This film is fine. But the run-time is like 4-hours long! Not really a horror film at all, 98% is drama.
½ September 19, 2009
The definitive version of "Salem's Lot" will always be the 1979 original, based on Stephen King's terrifying novel. The film makers must have realized this as well, because they take a bit of different storytelling path with this re-working, and the end result is only so-so. While the pacing is alright, the film lacks any real tension or suspense, and for that reason alone, 2004's "Salem's Lot" falls short. It is not a bad film, however; it is watchable, and is even moderately entertaining, in a "small screen" kind of way. It all just seems a little unnecessary.
½ August 28, 2009
This is my favorite Stephen King novel (or one of them at least) and though there are some considerable differences, I was impressed with the performances of Rob Lowe and even Samantha Mathis. Donald Sutherland was haunting and so scary I almost peed my pants as was Rutger Hauer, who always does a great villain. At times, this movie got too slasher for the depth of the tale, and the ending was a bit much and completely different from the book, but in the end I was left satisfied at the structure and I was spooked.
July 24, 2009
scary as hell, because i'm choosing to stay up until day light, but great movie! I couldnt stop watching!
May 11, 2009
I watched this movie to see Rob Lowe because i think the is really good looking. It turned out that i really liked the movie and Rob Lowe looked good in it.
Page 1 of 19