MovieChat Forums > Salem's Lot (1979) Discussion > '79 Vs '04 Vs Sequel

'79 Vs '04 Vs Sequel

posted 8 years ago by elmadman_99
27 replies | jump to latest

Hi All,

It will come as no surprise to anyone who is a fan of the 1979 version that I have always HATED the 1987 'in-name-only' 'sequel' to 'Salem's Lot', which was (very misleadingly) titled: 'A Return to Salem's Lot.'

For a start it is a Larry Cohen movie i.e. It's Alive, The Stuff, Q - The Winged Serpent etc. which should have been warning enough. From the get-go (as a director at least) Cohen is a purveyor of cheap, schlock, horror, which is simply not on the same level as the 1979 movie, or the very fine 1975 novel which inspired it.

I watched the movie once on VHS video, and only then because the cover was almost identical to the 1979 movie (with the same visage of Barlow looming over a township) and supposedly 'Based on characters created by Stephen King.'

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, could be further from the truth. If there was any justice in the world the VHS casing for the movie should be taken up under The Trades Description Act for how badly it misrepresented the product inside the case.

There is no Ben Mears, no mention of Barlow, no mention of the Marsten House, or in fact any connection WHATSOEVER with the 1979 film (or book) that we all respect and love.

I was conned (as I suspect were other fans) out of my £2.00 (that was the price of a video rental in the UK in 1987) for hoping that the move (ARtSL) would at least fire off some of the same synapses and offer at least a memory of the chills affored by the 1979 version.

Oh, boy was I ever wrong.

There is no connection AT ALL between the two movies, and I was (as others were) left very disappointed, and probably feeling robbed by the schlock I got for my hard-earned £2.00. I would imagine that that I made a solemn vow at the time to never watch the (so called) 'sequel' again.

I vow I recently broke, I might add, the only thing I can say in my defence is that I paid no money this time around.

I watched it again this week, as a prelude to writing this review, and to see if I could find any redeeming qualities AT ALL to ARtSL.

There were no redeeming qualities.

Cohen managed to get the name 'Salem's Lot' levered into the script on no less than 7 occasions that I counted, and two visual ques (once on a road sign, and once on the door of a police car.)

However, with that aside (and I think Cohen was working over-time to make that many references to the towns name) the movie ARtSL is nothing more than a standalone cheap piece of schlock garbage.

The movie could just as easily been called 'A Return to Grover's Corner', or 'A Return to Raven's Creek', or 'A Return to Cleves Mills', for all of the difference it made. In fact the film ARtSL could have been given any title IN THE WORLD, such was its complete lack of connection with the source material!

There is only one tiny (and I do mean tiny) connection between the two movies. in ARtSL between 131:56 – 133:58 stock footage from the 1979 movie is used (the burning of the Marsten House from the original film.)

The only effect of that is to damn the so-called 'sequel' with faint praise.

All of which left me wondering why Larry Cohen even bothered in the first place, I mean apart from the fact that the VHS cover and title was a very obvious marketing scam to get rental fees out of unsuspecting fans - And let's face it I was one such fan.

Then as I was reading the 'Trivia' section for the 1979 film it came to me as follows:

'Larry Cohen wrote the first draft of the movies script but producer Richard Kobritz said Cohen's script was "really lousy" and chose Paul Monash to write the screenplay. Cohen attempted an appeal to get some writing credit on the film, but he was rejected screen credit.'

Looks to me that Larry Cohen had both 'Revenge' and 'Money-spinning' in mind when he made this garbage. and I suppose (from his point of view) both were valid motivations, but it does leave one central question unanswered:

Did he really have to make such a BAD movie as ARtSL?

Did he do it on purpose?

Was he actually trying to take out his anger and vitriol on Stephen King's work and on the fans of the book and '79 movie?

If that was Cohen's motivation, then I would say that he was a highly successful fellow indeed in his endeavours!

I am no great fan of the 2004 re-make of this film, but believe me that pales in comparison to how I feel about this piece of garbage.

To sum up in one word: Avoid.

Anyway, in an attempt to get back 'On-Topic' I will say this. There are no amount or re-makes, sequels, or re-boots that will affect how good the original material (book and '79 version) really are, and obviously if a person doesn't want to watch a movie like ARtSL then they probably shouldn't.

Just like I did.

Twice.

Glutton for punishment I am.

That's enough said for now.

Please post with any thoughts you might have.

Cheers for now.

[–] stones78 8 years ago

Maybe my reading comprehension is off today, but did you mention the 2004 version in your post at all?

[–] elmadman_99 8 years ago

Hi 'Stones78',

Yes, the '04 version did get an honourable mention close to the bottom of the post - look for the bold type text.

The reason for beginning the thread is to try and start a debate. Please feel free to post with your own 2 cents.

Cheers for now.

Hi All,

It will come as no surprise to anyone who is a fan of the 1979 version that I have always HATED the 1987 'in-name-only' 'sequel' to 'Salem's Lot', which was (very misleadingly) titled: 'A Return to Salem's Lot.'

For a start it is a Larry Cohen movie i.e. It's Alive, The Stuff, Q - The Winged Serpent etc. which should have been warning enough. From the get-go (as a director at least) Cohen is a purveyor of cheap, schlock, horror, which is simply not on the same level as the 1979 movie, or the very fine 1975 novel which inspired it.

I watched the movie once on VHS video, and only then because the cover was almost identical to the 1979 movie (with the same visage of Barlow looming over a township) and supposedly 'Based on characters created by Stephen King.'

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, could be further from the truth. If there was any justice in the world the VHS casing for the movie should be taken up under The Trades Description Act for how badly it misrepresented the product inside the case.

There is no Ben Mears, no mention of Barlow, no mention of the Marsten House, or in fact any connection WHATSOEVER with the 1979 film (or book) that we all respect and love.

I was conned (as I suspect were other fans) out of my £2.00 (that was the price of a video rental in the UK in 1987) for hoping that the move (ARtSL) would at least fire off some of the same synapses and offer at least a memory of the chills affored by the 1979 version.

Oh, boy was I ever wrong.

There is no connection AT ALL between the two movies, and I was (as others were) left very disappointed, and probably feeling robbed by the schlock I got for my hard-earned £2.00. I would imagine that that I made a solemn vow at the time to never watch the (so called) 'sequel' again.

I vow I recently broke, I might add, the only thing I can say in my defence is that I paid no money this time around.

I watched it again this week, as a prelude to writing this review, and to see if I could find any redeeming qualities AT ALL to ARtSL.

There were no redeeming qualities.

Cohen managed to get the name 'Salem's Lot' levered into the script on no less than 7 occasions that I counted, and two visual ques (once on a road sign, and once on the door of a police car.)

However, with that aside (and I think Cohen was working over-time to make that many references to the towns name) the movie ARtSL is nothing more than a standalone cheap piece of schlock garbage.

The movie could just as easily been called 'A Return to Grover's Corner', or 'A Return to Raven's Creek', or 'A Return to Cleves Mills', for all of the difference it made. In fact the film ARtSL could have been given any title IN THE WORLD, such was its complete lack of connection with the source material!

There is only one tiny (and I do mean tiny) connection between the two movies. in ARtSL between 131:56 – 133:58 stock footage from the 1979 movie is used (the burning of the Marsten House from the original film.)

The only effect of that is to damn the so-called 'sequel' with faint praise.

All of which left me wondering why Larry Cohen even bothered in the first place, I mean apart from the fact that the VHS cover and title was a very obvious marketing scam to get rental fees out of unsuspecting fans - And let's face it I was one such fan.

Then as I was reading the 'Trivia' section for the 1979 film it came to me as follows:

'Larry Cohen wrote the first draft of the movies script but producer Richard Kobritz said Cohen's script was "really lousy" and chose Paul Monash to write the screenplay. Cohen attempted an appeal to get some writing credit on the film, but he was rejected screen credit.'

Looks to me that Larry Cohen had both 'Revenge' and 'Money-spinning' in mind when he made this garbage. and I suppose (from his point of view) both were valid motivations, but it does leave one central question unanswered:

Did he really have to make such a BAD movie as ARtSL?

Did he do it on purpose?

Was he actually trying to take out his anger and vitriol on Stephen King's work and on the fans of the book and '79 movie?

If that was Cohen's motivation, then I would say that he was a highly successful fellow indeed in his endeavours!

I am no great fan of the 2004 re-make of this film, but believe me that pales in comparison to how I feel about this piece of garbage.

To sum up in one word: Avoid.

Anyway, in an attempt to get back 'On-Topic' I will say this. There are no amount or re-makes, sequels, or re-boots that will affect how good the original material (book and '79 version) really are, and obviously if a person doesn't want to watch a movie like ARtSL then they probably shouldn't.

Just like I did.

Twice.

Glutton for punishment I am.

That's enough said for now.

Please post with any thoughts you might have.

Cheers for now.

[–] gary_overman 8 years ago

You know, Mr E, that holding your feelings in like this is not healthy. Don't be inhibited now; tell us how you really feel.

[–] elmadman_99 8 years ago

😊

[–] jangoq 8 years ago

Please don't encourage him Gary.

[–] jangoq 8 years ago

It's so hard to follow this guy's posts.

[–] elmadman_99 8 years ago

Hi Jangoq,

Posts my follow to hard so it is why?

😊

[–] jangoq 8 years ago

You say too much in each of your posts, and it sometimes comes out confusing.

Try to divide your thoughts into multiple posts instead of cramming them all into one post at one time.

Also, try to read previous posts of others people's thoughts so that you won't repeat something that has been covered multiple times already.

[–] elmadman_99 8 years ago

Hi Jangoq,

I believe the term you are looking for is 'verbose', and yes the point is well taken indeed. For what it is worth - The reason for writing so much on the subject is simply an attempt to get a debate started, not to annoy anyone at all.

Cheers for now.

[–] jangoq 8 years ago

I didn't mean to offend you or discourage you elmadman. It can be a little exhausting sometimes though, because no one is running for office or picking who's winning the game this Sunday on here. Most of the people here just enjoy discussing (not necessarily debating) one of their favorite movies and discovering different viewpoints.

Please continue to do what you want to do on here.

BTW, the Blu Ray version should be out today, I'm going to get my copy.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] elmadman_99 8 years ago

Hi All,

OK, I would like to get back 'On Topic' with a comparison of the '79, '04, and 'sequel' movies. I would like to preface this by saying that remakes will always tend to raise the ire of fans who hold an 'original' work in high esteem, and as a result any remake will already have the bases loaded against it.

Here are two reprinted posts from an earlier thread: 'Rocking chair scene' -

By 'Jangoq':

I'm not saying your opinion is not valid, of course it is. I just find it inconsistent with what I perceive to be your usual focus.

I have a general idea of how old you are and I know you've watched some of the greatest movies of all time. The acting in the 2004 version is subpar, the special effects( Floyd coming through that drainpipe) is laughable, the reconfiguration of Burke, and a host of other things make this movie substandard even by typical movie standards.

How did you like Marjorie Glick bending over backwards? Did that do it for you? How about Dud Rogers' asinine dialogue?

There are a ton of bad movies that I like, but I will be the first to admit that they are bad movies. I like them, but I would never show them to others at a movie night nor defend them in spite of their lack of quality.

If the book never existed and they released the '79 and '04 versions as stand-alones I find it hard to believe that you would like the latter as you say you do. It's the book that you like, and '04 is closer to it.

If you watch it again I bet you'll see more clearly what I mean.

By 'Gary_Overman':

I like the 1979 film, okay? But I like the 2004 film a bit better.

What I don't get is this seeming exasperation on your part because of this. I don't understand this effort on your part to 'convert' (for lack of a better word) me. Why does this matter so much to you? It is a movie for Pete's good sake!

OK, there is a (very obvious) difference of opinion there. It is not my intention to annoy anyone, an opinion is just that: an opinion. I would far rather spend my time in starting a debate.

[–] elmadman_99 8 years ago

For my part, anyone who reads the postings here will know that I have a deep and abiding respect for the original movie. The fact is that it scared me greatly as a little kid, and once I got over that I have always greatly liked the movie. I have watched in on any number of occasions, and have read and listened to the 1975 novel numerous times as well.

I have only watched the 2004 version of the movie three times (over a period of 12 years) and I don't hold the remake in anything like the esteem of the original 1979 movie. Like I say it's an opinion.

I had a great amount of anticipation built up about the 2004 version before it came out, but after I saw it I was a little disappointed and underwhelmed by the content.

I am going to make a long story very short here:

I strongly felt that the 2004 version was NOT SCARY in any way, and that contributed to the rather low opinion that I have of the remake.

Instead of going off on an extended monologue here I have chosen to reprint a review that I read on Amazon. It is not my writing, but the work of an anonymous poster, it just so happens to reflect my feeling (and probably more succinctly than I would chose to express them:

This was 'salem's Lot? Purleeze.

By A Customer on 26 Dec. 2004

Format: DVD

'Salem's Lot is easily the most terrifying of Stephen King's novels. A dark and evil tale that scares the crap out of you. The 1979 version although annoying to purists (including myself) for the monsterfication of Barlow and some dodgy script-writing had one thing in common with the novel - it too was terrifying, it positively traumatised some viewers.

Bottom line: This is no more frightening than a tame episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it's an absolute pile of rubbish..... I find it very sad that a director can take such extraordinary material and turn it into something so utterly pedestrian.... and make no mistake here... the main problem was not the script, nor even the acting but the direction.

Three of the major scenes in the book and '79 version were ruined by the director here -- Danny Glick at the window, Marjorie Glick in the mortuary and the return of Mike Ryerson. How can you possibly ruin these scenes? A talentless child holding the camera couldn't ruin these scenes.

The result is very tame and unexciting, there are no thrills of fear here - the vampires of the novel and first film that chilled us to the bone are just people with fangs who disintegrate noisily ala 'Blade' when somebody raises their voice.

The small-town Stephen King thing is kind of ok but it's been done much better elsewhere - the acting carries the direction, hell, everything carries the squandered crappy direction.

Thoroughly disappointing, even more so because now Salomon has queered the pitch for everyone else -- no one else will be able to make this again for the next twenty years.

Like I say not my work, but an accurate portrayal of my feelings. Thanks to the anonymous writer on Amazon for that.

Please feel free to post with any thoughts

[–] TheSolarSailor 8 years ago

By 'Gary_Overman':

I like the 1979 film, okay? But I like the 2004 film a bit better.

What I don't get is this seeming exasperation on your part because of this. I don't understand this effort on your part to 'convert' (for lack of a better word) me. Why does this matter so much to you? It is a movie for Pete's good sake!

OK, there is a (very obvious) difference of opinion there. It is not my intention to annoy anyone, an opinion is just that: an opinion. I would far rather spend my time in starting a debate.

Don't apologize to that idiot. "It's just a movie" says the dope who infests threads, hijacking them with his idiot buddies and talking down to everyone. If you don't agree with him, he gets all condescending because he thinks his opinion is the one by which all others are to be judged. He and his little clique aren't worth talking to. Just ignore them.

- - - - - - -
I am not a fan. I just happen to enjoy movies. Fans are embarrassing.

[–] gary_overman 8 years ago

By 'Gary_Overman':

I like the 1979 film, okay? But I like the 2004 film a bit better.

What I don't get is this seeming exasperation on your part because of this. I don't understand this effort on your part to 'convert' (for lack of a better word) me. Why does this matter so much to you? It is a movie for Pete's good sake!

OK, there is a (very obvious) difference of opinion there. It is not my intention to annoy anyone, an opinion is just that: an opinion. I would far rather spend my time in starting a debate.

Don't apologize to that idiot. "It's just a movie" says the dope who infests threads, hijacking them with his idiot buddies and talking down to everyone. If you don't agree with him, he gets all condescending because he thinks his opinion is the one by which all others are to be judged. He and his little clique aren't worth talking to. Just ignore them.

And this 'sailor man' is calling me an idiot?

Interesting.

[–] Dan_Garten 8 years ago

The 1987 movie is pretty underrated.

[–] elmadman_99 8 years ago

By 'Dan_Garten':

The 1987 movie is pretty underrated.

Dan, I would like you to take a few moments of your time to explain why you think the 1987 movie ARtSL is an underrated film.

I would like to hear your thoughts.

Cheers for now.

[–] jangoq 8 years ago

Are you serious?

[–] stones78 8 years ago

...said by no one.

[–] jangoq 8 years ago

????

[–] stones78 8 years ago

I replied to Dan...not sure why you got it.

[–] jangoq 8 years ago

I'm suspicious of anyone who likes that "version", which is as you say, no one.

[–] elmadman_99 8 years ago

by Dan_Garten - Fri Sep 30 2016 20:05:33:

The 1987 movie is pretty underrated.

That's an interesting statement, Dan.

By any chance does your definition of the word 'underrated' mean:

'cheap, schlock, inferior, unrelated, horror garbage, directed by Larry Cohen, attempting to cash in, and trade on, the name of a far superior earlier movie.'?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Please post with any thoughts you might have.

Cheers for now.

[–] TheSolarSailor 8 years ago

Many years ago I watched A Return to Salem's Lot on TV and was absolutely appalled by how awful it was. Absolute trash. Even if it had been released under another name with no relation to the 1979 film at all, it still would have been absolute trash.

I think you are right that Cohen just made a lousy movie to get revenge, though one must wonder why no one related to the original mini-series was tapped for a sequel. Did Cohen just come along years later and offer to make a sequel? Whatever the case, he deserves to be punched in the nose for such trash.

Funny enough, like every absolutely awful movie out there, you will find a handful of "fans" who enjoy the garbage for some reason.

The 2004 version was terrible as well. For the second time, we have gotten a remake of a Stephen King film (or maybe I should say a new adaptation of the same novel) that was closer to the book, yet really wasn't very good when all is said and done. That is no slam on the source material by any means, but movies like The Shining and Salem's Lot have paled in comparison to the original attempts. I didn't mention the new version of Carrie, since I have not seen it and have no idea if it is actually closer to the source material or not. Maybe Stephen King's IT will be a better attempt at a second adaptation to screen.

In any case, the 2004 version of Salem's Lot committed the cardinal sin of having vampires that were not one bit scary. Well, with exception to the kids on the school bus, which I seem to recall being creepy. Mr. Barlow was a joke. Mr. Straker was a joke. It just wasn't scary, and it really wasted an otherwise great cast.

One thing I really wish would get done again is The Langoliers. What a great story that is just begging to be redone as a motion picture with a larger budget and a better cast. The original mini-series is just dull, and it was a lot longer than it needed to be. A TV miniseries just wasn't the way to go in that particular instance. The cast wasn't interesting at all, and those special effects! Yikes! Even in 1995 they looked atrocious.

- - - - - - -
I am not a fan. I just happen to enjoy movies. Fans are embarrassing.

[–] elmadman_99 8 years ago

By Justin Miller

Reprinted from:

The Saquarry Analyses

"I think you might want to try reading a book every now and then to get those creative juices flowing, it sounds like your brain and thinking capacity has disappeared somewhere within your exaggerated sense of self worth."

Monday, October 1, 2012
Movie Appraisal: A Return to Salem's Lot (1987)

This may in fact be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It certainly is an insult to 'Salem's Lot and every adaptation of that wonderful Stephen King book. I could say a ton about how much this movie gets wrong. I could say just how much this insults me as a fan of the original story and the original miniseries, both of which I really enjoyed. I could say a lot of things, and I will, don't you worry, but I'll also say that as bad as this movie is, it does have some decent parts... but none of them have anything to do with the original story or characters. Hell, this movie doesn't even deserve to have "Salem's Lot" in it's title. Besides this movie taking place in the town, it has very little (read: nothing) to do with "Salem's Lot" to the point where I have no idea how this movie even comes to pass as a sequel to the events from the 1979 miniseries.

For a year or more now I've been waiting to watch and review this movie. I knew it would probably be bad, but what I didn't expect was just how bad it would be. It's not that I personally dislike it because it's not the perfect sequel to Salem's Lot that I wanted. It's terrible because almost every aspect of this film is a total and complete failure. The editing is terrible and choppy. The film somehow looks worse than its black-and-white predecessor from eight years prior. The acting is at times astoundingly bad. The direction is awful, just awful. The scenery is cheap and looks terrible. And the plot makes no sense and doesn't work in any sense of that word. And that's not even scratching the surface as to how wholly abominable this movie actually is.

For one, that tagline up on that poster: "Based on characters created by Stephen King." makes absolutely no sense. There are no characters based on Stephen King's stories. There is a town that is wholly different than what King wrote. There are vampires that are totally different than what King wrote. There is a non-burned down 'Salem's Lot, which makes no sense since 'Salem's Lot always burns down when Ben and Mark light the town on fire at the end of any version of 'Salem's Lot. So, why is this town intact? Why no burn marks? Why is it burnt down all over again at this end of this film?

See, the problem here is that this movie is no sequel to 'Salem's Lot or Salem's Lot. It is instead a completely different canon. It simultaneously a remake of the miniseries with different characters and its own story entirely. And that's where I found myself confused. Why didn't they just call this movie something completely different? It has nothing to do with Salem's Lot as a town or a book or a movie. The vampires are wholly different, no longer the shambling zombies they are in the book- they instead are humans with fangs and a hatred of light. The only vampire in 'Salem's Lot who was intelligent and coherent was Barlow, but here that whole aspect is thrown away in favor of talking vampires for some reason. This cuts away all of the horror while also taking away the point of 'Salem's Lot, the message of a charismatic and powerful person taking away the will to think of an entire populace.

I can keep going on about how the plot is ridiculous and the acting is pretty awful. I can keep saying how this movie seems pointless and kind of insulting. I can keep ripping apart every aspect of the film, from the pointless and antipathetic characters to TWO ridiculous "romance" plots... and all the way to some terrible fight sequences... terrible cinematography... terrible editing... terrible direction of almost every sequence. I just found this entire movie disheartening and incredibly insulting. I didn't like it and would never recommend it... but... but there were some okay things in the movie, and although I find the flick wholly reprehensible, I'd like to focus on the more positive aspects of the movie (the few that there are) because I find that there is no point in tearing the terrible and forgotten movie apart. It's already out of the public's memory. I think that speaks volumes about how terrible this movie actually is.

The opening of the movie is actually kind of fun, with a kicking opening tune and a psychedelic LSD vision. I enjoy a good strange opening and this one worked for me, getting me pumped up for a much better film than this one turned out to be. The music in general for this movie is pretty good actually, being one of the few redeeming features to an otherwise completely unremarkable film. The scene with the natives and Michael Moriarty's character, Joe, filming a ritual of one of the native's getting his heart pulled out is pretty good. I had no idea what was going on, but the effects were pretty decent. It had me believing this movie might actually look kind of interesting. In my mind, Cannibal Holocaust kept running through my head... and I guess I must have thought maybe I would get a movie more in line with that kind of film. It would have been a whole hell of a lot better than what there is.

The special effects sure are "special," especially when none of them seem to look good until the very end of the movie. Even then- they don't look good... it's probably more that I actually saw something that didn't make my eyes bleed which was better than this movie had been doing to me. And even though there are scary monster faces sometimes, the movie is mostly boring. There is no horror here, no tension. The vampires show up quickly and do nothing else. Yes, people are bitten with some terrible blood effects, but mostly the vampires stand and talk... and then stand and talk some more. Every once in a while they- wait for it- SIT and talk. WOW. Wow. Oscar calibre performances, people. There is overacting galore, although the kid, Ricky Addison Reed, and Michael Moriarity to a pretty good job at keeping cool. If "keeping cool" is swearing constantly and at the weirdest and most inappropriate times. I can't blame the actors for the odd lines though. The script seemed to be the real culprit here.

So, this is Tara Reid'd first role... if that interests you at all. Doesn't really mean much to me, I have to say. Knowing what movies that girl would be in- well, I'm not surprised this is where she started. Kind of fitting in a way. And kind of sad too. She is easily the worst actor here... and that's saying a ton. I seriously wanted her to stop talking every time she opened here mouth. Her "death?" scene was also painful to watch. I can't believe that that was the take they decided to go with. Did they even know what a good performance was? The sad thing is, they really must have because one actor really shines and rises this movie above absolute garbage. Oh, he's not really even introduced until two-thirds of the way through the movie or so... after you go catatonic because it's that bad... but once Samuel Fuller enters the flick as Van Meer, the Nazi Killer, the movie takes a turn to getting a lot more interesting. Samuel Fuller is wonderful here and seems to be having a great time. The man takes the performance and sells it for all its worth. He easily outshines everybody else. He is the only likable character as well as the only one worth cheering for. He chews the scenery up at times, but he is such a joy to watch that he alone makes the movie a little bearable. For the twenty or thirty minutes he decides to grace the screen with his kooky hair and bad dude stance, he is the greatest thing around. Hell, I would love more stories based on his character alone. Again, he's the only good character here in this movie.

So, the biggest thing that bothers me is the departure from the established lore of the freaking franchise that this movie is a sequel to. How do these vampires know their own history with both Straker and Barlow dead? Didn't Straker and Barlow come from Austria and England (basically Europe) too? Why are these vampires American and like 300 years old? Why are they here when all the vampires here were supposedly made by Barlow? Did they take over the town after Mark Petrie and Ben Mears from 'Salem's Lot burned the whole town down? Did they rebuild it? Or were they always there, these vampires, as Barlow made the whole town under his thrall? Because that would have been stupid. This is one of the big reasons this movie has to be its ow separate canon. It would make no sense otherwise. Why does Axel say that he's 300 years old? What is the point of that? Is it supposed to make him scarier? Or is it some kind of convenient way of saying, "Dude, this vampire's hardcore!" Well, it doesn't work. The line is awful; it doesn't make him more intimidating, it makes him seem like a petty bastard. Barlow was the first vampire there, but he's totally forgotten... well, except for the art of him on the box and poster. Yeah, that's definitely Barlow from the Salem's Lot miniseries. So, these seem to be in canon with one another... which would only really be possible if nothing made any sense any more. They would have to be implying that this town already had vampires in it. Or that they came later? I mean, is this movie saying that it takes place in the far-flung future of 2287? What? What? WHAT? What? I keep saying "what" so often it doesn't even sound like a word anymore...

The vampires were mindless like zombies in the movie, the book, and the canon, not like this... except for Barlow. It was scarier that way and so much more effective. This is just stupid. And then somehow the town name keeps changing between Jerusalem's Lot and 'Salem's Lot... when it's been established that the town name was officially changed to 'Salem's Lot. It's in the book. What am I even saying? They didn't read the book. Why would I give them the credit of reading the book? I must be insane. EVEN THINKING that these numbskulls would have considered reading the book... or (HA HA) watching the movie that this movie was a sequel too. Because they didn't watch that movie either. They didn't care about stupid things like consistency... or canon... or anything established. Hell, how is this even based off of anything Stephen King did? I mean, sure some of the plot is ripped off wholesome from the book... but calling this a sequel is like calling me a sane and smiling person. It's just not true and nobody should ever say things that they can't take back like that.

Oh, at least we get to see breasts... said Saquarry dryly. His face was likened to a rock. Breasts were not going to help this movie. They were just going to tell how bad a movie this was. Trying to distract with breasts was never going to work. There is so little of substance here and... this movie is entirely classless. And clueless. Why even include a scene like this? Are you establishing a romance? No, not really. Are you establishing how it might be difficult for Joe to hurt his beloved? No, not really. Oh, it's mentioned once, but never amounts to anything. The romance and the sex scenes are pointless. These are pointless breasts that make the entire movie worse because they have no point. I'm not saying that naked women are wonderful in movies, but they are usually meant to establish something (or for pure fanservice), and this movie doesn't seem to be doing either. These are breasts for the sake of breasts and there's just no point beyond that... and the shots aren't even good. They don't try to make the act of sex look vicious or terrible or sweet or sexy... the directing does NOTHING AT ALL. This is a terrible movie. This is such a terrible film.

Wow, it turned daylight very very quickly towards the end of the movie. BAM. Night to day. There we go. That's how the sun comes up. No gradual rise. No tension. Nope. One second as dark as the dead of night and the next it is noontime. Wonderful. I get the feeling nobody associated with this movie has ever seen a sunrise...

Look, let me reason with you, the reader, here. Do not watch this movie. Do not seek it out. Do not think that you should watch this movie in any way. Despite a good performance by Samuel Fuller and a pretty good film score, this movie is a waste of time to watch. It has nothing to do with 'Salem's Lot as the town, the book, or the movie except in name. It has nothing to do with Stephen King either except for stealing some of his plot-points much worse than he ever wrote them. Some of the effects towards the end of the film also look okay, but no better than any other movie out there. Avoid this movie at all costs. This is The Reaping level of bad, and I'm not taking that back. So, I guess this October starts off wonderful... hopefully the next thirty nights go better than this one did or else I'm going to be a very unhappy fella.

[–] Gary O. (1009) 4 years ago

Don't be shy, Mr. Miller. Tell us what you really think!!