The Vampiress Comparison: Salem's Lot 1979 vs 2004
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 жов 2022
- A comparison of female vampires between the 1979 and 2004 mini series versions of the Steven King Novel "Salem's Lot".
Fang Scenes
#1 - 2:12
#2 - 4:40
#3 - 6:37
#4 - 8:07
#5 - 8:59
#6 - 9:59
Become a Patron
/ vampirebeauties - Розваги
the 1979 version had far creepier vampires. The Glick boys were scary and the scene where Burke confronts Mike Ryerson was chilling
Very true.
The scenes where the Ralphie appears outside the window, Mike Ryerson slowly rocking in the chair and Marjorie's sheet starting to move are what made the 1979 version nightmare fuel for me as a kid.
The original Salem's Lot still creeps me out to this day. Something about the quiet, serious, eerieness. I didn't really like the remake, much. The cheesy, comedic edge turned me off. But I am looking forward to the one coming out. I'm hoping they keep with the scary tone of the original.
Agree completely pretty lady 😁
@@crencottrell7849 thanks 😊
I didn’t even make it thru the first half hour of the remake…but the original is still up there with my top favorite scary movies. Spookiest vampires ever. I’m also looking forward to the remake, if it ever comes out!
For me, it was those vampire eyes. I can't tell if they were white or light yellow, but they made the vampires seem more inhuman.
@@robwalsh9843 yes, they did a great job making those vampires scary! The window scenes were the best…those and the whole part with the gravedigger at the cemetery and then him coming back to the teacher’s house. That was my favorite part of the novel as well, so creepy.
Definitely the 1979 version. There’s something unique about the older version.
It is unique on who bad it is!
1979 version has a creepy atmosphere...2004 version is stale and boring.
@@gerardhiggins4827 Agreed
Yes. The 1979 Salem's Lot is the only scary vampire movie I've ever seen.
Sorry i meant that comment about the 2004 version,yes the 1979 version is a classic!
1979 was so superbly cast and everyone was spot on, in their character. Truly a classic
I agree.
@@BarryHart-xo1oy its a terrible movie kid.Its a comedy watching it now.Its a caricature of vampire movies with the fake mist and other stuff that aged horrible.
The vampires in the 1979 version were a million times scarier. The 2004 Salem's Lot was a joke.
The David Soul movie was scary as hell. These vampires are too damn much, love how it ties in with all of the other SK movies.
Yes! It's still very creepy to me, even with the outdated effects. I,too, love how SK movies tie in with each other. I love making the connections. Anytime I see a movie set in Derry, Maine, or nearby, I know it's SK!
Scariest scene (in all movie history): Mike Ryerson rising up out of the rocking chair hissing
"Look at my teacher. Looooook. Look at me"
End of the scene: "Ooooohh, sleep by the dead teacher" 😱
@@ds0904 I'm i the only one who saw Ralphie Glick get kidnapped in his clothes the see him visit his brother in his P J s weird!
@@stevegordon5689 😱😱😱😱😱😱
He was very good in it, too. He looked legitimately terrified in the morgue. Too many heroes in vampire movies face their first vampire encounter like it's no big deal.
I always felt David Soul's Ben Mears character's pain and heartbreak--as he staked Susan--that he felt that he hadn't protected her from the vampiric evil that took over the town.
Agreed. Seeing Susan as a vampire was more tragic, than scary when compared to the other vampires in the movie. I think Ben was resigned to the fact that he was never going to see her again. Not as a human at any rate. As much as it hurt him when he staked her, he knew that it was no longer her. It probably reinforced his determination to destroy these creatures once and for all.
yeah, the only reason i am would not have accepted her kiss, is i am knew the vampire only gets to be you, not the other way around
@@zAvAvAz What i wanted to know is how Susan made it all the way to Mexico without a familiar like Straker preparing the way!
Truly interesting to say the least. All possibilities are endless.@@stevegordon5689
Very true.
"Salem's Lot"(1979) 100% Vampire horror movie masterpiece! "Salem's Lot"(2004) 75% good enough and decent Remake!
Neither one got Barlow right.Yes im a fan of the book.
James Mason in the original. Enough said. The dialogue between Ben and Straker in the antique shop is fantastic.
"You'll enjoy Mr Barlow, and He'll Enjoy you" - is often referred to the best quote, but I prefer "what an unfortunate way to acquire knowledge" personally!
The conversation between Straker and the police chief we’re also epic😂
Chow.lol
The 79 version was LEGENDARY. The window scratching scenes are so, so creepy. BUT...I have a connection with the 2004 version, which was filmed in australia. I received a letter asking if they could use my house for external shots. They musta found a more appropriate house, coz I never heard back from them, but it was nice to know my house looked scary enough to be considered.
That’s impressive.
1979 all the way, Mike in the rocking chair and floating Ralphie and Danny at the window scenes remain some of the most haunting images ever in a vampire tv show or movie. Not to mention for its time, the Master was the ultimate in creepiness.
And the original had the one and only James Mason, and that is no small thing. And the Mike Ryerson in the rocking chair scene was one of the all time creepiest vampire scenes in any movie ever.
@@michaelphillips2079 Without a doubt. How could I have left James Mason off that list? He was outstanding.
The OG Salem's Lot is the far superior film. Especially with vampires, effects, and likable characters. Stephen King's book was terrific! Hoping new film will be similar to 1979 version, but with some more of King's novel's side stories included.
I watched the first salems lot with my mum when I was a kid.
My mum was very religious and any type of film like this,especially demonic or dark had her in palpitations.
The breaking point was when the glick kid started floating to the window.
My mum jumped up and switched off the tv.
She later joked she thought the kid was going to come through the television haha.
What a great horror movie.
IT was the scariest vampire movie i every saw🥶😊
James Mason was ace in this as Striker, the sarcastic way he would tell them they were to be one of Barlow's meals was really quite blatant but creepy and excellent. I was about 12 when this first aired, 1980 in the UK. The lad floating around in his friends bedroom window is screen gold and has been copied many time. I have a life size bust of Mr. Barlow, i have terrified my wife and kids with it on many occasions, hahaha i know it's cruel but it's so funny.
Floating Ralphie Glick in the '79 version can't be beat, IMHO.
He is definitely one of the creepiest vampires I’ve ever seen.
I really enjoyed both versions. The first one was something completly new for me about the vampire universe. They are perfect choices for Halloween.
I saw the 1979 version at age 6 when it came out and read the book around age 10, both are my favorite movie and book, both scared me for years as a kid and I loved it! Lol the vampires are vicious, nasty, and Barlow's unmatched to this day as the most terrifying master vampire ever 🤘 far superior to the 2004 version!
Spot on man, I re-read the book every five years or so, and seeing the tv movie at 8 years old scared me so much that I had to read the book, which got me into Stephen King and into reading novels in general. I still think it's his best book...so perfectly representing how I imagine small town life in America (as someone from the UK), and then slowly dismantling it into a waking nightmare. Ive read so much King that Maine feels almost like a second home to me in some ways. I so badly want to visit there before I die.
6????
I loved Tobe Hooper's version way better than the 2004 reboot. While the reboot might be more faithful to King's novel than Hooper's version, it wasn't nearly as scary. The mortuary scene with Marjorie Glick in the original was one of the most terrifying scenes in the movie. It scared me as a kid, and still gives me the shivers.
Yes - the actress hanging from wires with crimped hair didn't do it for me either. ALL of the set piece vampire scenes fell flat in the remake, but the town sub plots were handled better. You're so right about it not be scary, it's too glossy and edited like a music video. The flashbacks are so fast it's like they couldn't wait to get it over with lol.
@@restlessbohemian26 ~ I know, right? I'd say the creepiest vampire scene in the reboot was when Ralphie made his move against Danny in the hospital. Even then it seemed kind of inane. He was already inside the building. Why did he need permission to pass the curtains? I don't know. Maybe I'm looking too deep into it. All in all, the movie was underbaked, in my opinion. Even the ending was a letdown. Somehow, it didn't seem fitting.
@@DBarns7 Probably the biggest crime was Danny Glick's coffin reveal just being a quick cut away! WTF!?!?!? Why would you even bother making Salem's Lot without that scene?
Having read Salem’s Lot after watching the ‘79 miniseries (which became my first Stephen King novel that I read and made me a fan), the miniseries left out one detail and that is Kurt Barlow spoke in the book. The ‘04 adaptation in which Rutger Hauer played Barlow, did it perfectly.
The character of Constable Parkins Gillespie hadn’t changed much except in the’04 adaptation, he had a minor scuffle with Larry Crockett in trying to find out what Straker’s real intentions in buying the Marston house was.
Straker was a man of mystery and loyal to Barlow in both adaptations.
It was said that in the ‘79 adaptation, Barlow was stalking about the streets of Salem’s Lot spying on his potential victims. Unfortunately, those scenes were cut out. It would have been even more scary if it was in the miniseries.
Reggie Nalder was in an episode of Thriller with Boris Karloff. He played a Familiar. He seemed to play these creepy characters with ease.
I enjoyed both adaptations. But, my heart is with the ‘79 adaptation because it was the scariest miniseries on television.
I look forward to seeing the new adaptation when it comes out next year.
"You will serve as a mortal" 😨🧛♂
The original 1979 miniseries was the only movie I thought was better than the book. Haha!
I'm so bummed about the new one being yanked off the calendar entirely though, with no clear explanation. I can only hope it's not going the way of Batgirl. 😑
@@mac888spectral7 same
@@mac888spectral7 They recently have it a rating finally. Giving it an R rating so hopefully thats a good sign and step to it being released
The original salems lot movie was absolutely outstanding excellent video thanks
The Vampires in SL #1 were scary and creepy as hell. When they spoke, you literally got a chill up your spine. The female vampires weren't sexy and they were downright scary. In the morgue scene, the female vampire leers at David Soul's character like she's sizing him up for dinner. The Vampires of SL #2 seem to get all of their talking points from Buffy the Vampire Slayer and get their attitude from the Spice Girls. So hands down, Salem's Lot #1 was the best.
However, I will say that the school bus scene in SL #2 was very scary. But i think the bus driver should've been trying to get out of the bus than standing these while the vampires approach.
#2 handled the town folk a little bit better and I'll take the Ruthie Crocket and Dr. cheating with the trailer trash couple over Boom Boom Bonnie anyday lol. Everything else about #1 is far superior. #2 is fun but it isn't at all scary and is actually more dated with cheap looking cgi.
I prefer the original. It has a gritty feel to it that the remake lacks.
Number 'one' on my list. Great effects, makeup and costumes. David Soul was ideal for this movie.
The 70s Salem lot is a good classic in my mind, never seen 2004 version
I think it's good. You might like it. 'Return to Salem's Lot' (1987) on the other hand is bad.
I watch the original about twice a year. Masterpiece, never gets old and always terrifying. I seen the '04 once and I dont remember it. I dont remember hating nor liking it. James Mason was creepy as hell, the Glick boys were terrifying, Ryerson gave me nightmares. The Marsten houses' back story and Hubie Marsten was chilling. The subplots with the cheating wife and jealous boyfriend was even a good fit.
Tobe Hooper was one of the best horror directors, he knew how to creep you out and get under your skin. He made Barlow into a monster because it works better, cinematically... Barlow in the book is more of a Dracula type and it works better that way in a novel. I think I watched the 2004 once and all it achieved was to show you how good Hooper was and how bad this genre can be in the hands of someone who doesn't understand it.
Spot on sir! Having Barlow a monster elevated the importance and creepiness of Stryker. He seemed irrelevant in the remake. In the novel Barlow is highly intelligent and playing a game of chess - they went for that but didn't quite succeed. Barlow needed more screen time or a more clever script to pull this off. He ended up a forgettable, run of the mill Dracula type. Probably cast too old as well lol.
I saw this as a kid and it scared the life outta me, never forgot the movie but couldn't remember the name of the movie! Thanks!
The original 1979 version had an overall more threatening feeling. The escalating sense of things getting worse was more effective. And the vampires were much scarier! Truly an undead plague. In the books Kurt Barlow is more of a traditional charming gentleman vampire, while the 1979 was a Nosferatu-like vampire lord, a true monster.
I bet the transformation of Barlow surprised a lot of people who already read the novel... especially the jailhouse reveal scene. I think millions of people who tuned in that night crapped in their pants in unison.
I do think that Rutger Haur did make a pretty decent Barlow.
The original Salems Lot. These are perhaps the scariest vampires in cinematic history. And true to traditional vampire folklore - I.E. they're somewhat ethereal, like wraths of the dead, mostly physical, but not quite, pure predators and parasites that are mostly lacking former human characteristics, they don't kill instantly, but methodically return multiple times to drain their victims via putting them into a trance.
A masterpiece of a movie that stands apart from everything else.
I watched the made for CBS television version in 1979. I was housesitting for some friends in their late 1800s century house. There weren't any other houses for a couple of miles. At the same moment the Glick kid started scratching on Mark Petre's bedroom window, a windblown tree branch scraped against the pane of the window next to where I was sitting. That was a little tense. I had a big crush on Bonnie since I first saw her in the pilot for "Then Came Bronson." Bonnie's vampire Susan is my choice - hands down. Encountering "her" on a mild and windy Autumn night in a deep forest would make for a beautiful but nightmarish scenario. Before Susan "kissed" me, I would inform "her" that I'm Romanian on my mother's side and English on my father's side. 🐺🦇
Big movie watcher when I was a kid. Always thought, "Scraping on the window" was a goofy movie device. The first time I stayed in an old house (in New England!) and there were tree branches scraping the windows and siding I freeeeked out! Ha,ha!
Barlow scared the hell out of me as a kid. Now I have him tattooed on my chest. The 79 version was very good. The 04 was okay. Cannot wait for the new one
A new one?
Between the two, I preferred the 1979 one, it was scarier even it had Barlow as a monster rather than a normal looking man. I'm re-reading the book now and it is very good. If it is remade, maybe they could do it a chapter at a time, like Midnight, Texas was a chapter a week and worked out very well. The second just wasn't interesting to me. Good video 🤗👍
I grew up watching both David Soul and Lance Kerwin and in 8th grade, that series was Scary as hell. Some really great moments. In some ways the Rob Lowe version was equally good. I had just been medevaced from Afghanistan in 2004 when that version came. High on pain meds, it also was scary. They both stand on their own.
In the original Salem's Lot (1979) the vampires are more real. These vampires smell bad, and they have very bad breath. When Marjorie Glick comes back to life as a vampire she smells like shit, and have you noticed her teeth and fangs? They are rotten, causing her to have foul breath.
Also the main character show real fear.
The original Marjorie Glick was MUCH better (Where are you Danny darling?) The re-make she seemed to be playing games, contorted in that funny position. And she wasn't dead on the kitchen floor as she was talking to her husband, telling him Danny had said to her "Mummy, Mummy I'm so glad to be home."
Mark didn't kill Susan Norton in either version. Ben Mears did
Otherwise interesting video. And thanks for the heads up about the remake coming out next April 🧛♂🧛♀
I agree with you. The original Marjorie Glick is so creepy. She has rotten teeth and fangs, and she has stinky breath, her breath smells like shit.
CANT BEAT THE ORIGINAL👍
1979 wins by a mile.
No contest.
I was 12 when the 1979 TV miniseries when Salem's Lot came out. SCARED THE CRAP OUT OF ME, but also spawned my love for vampire films
My favorite is the book (the true original) both mini series were based on. It's easily one of the best vampire stories ever written and while the adaptations are neat, they make their own thing out of it. Unfortunately both fail to really capture the creepy-ness or the feeling of melancholy and loss the book has. Although the 79 version has some creepy moments.
I feel the same the book is the best out of the 3.
Can’t beat the original
In the 1979 version, I am surprised the main character just didn't let Susan take him. At least he could be with her I guess.
I work at a hotel where Samantha Mathis stayed while working on a new movie. She is so cool. I waited on her everyday. The entire crew I became friends with. When they left they asked me to work for the company as a PA. I am gonna do it man. Just seems so cool and they told me I could make 30,000 in 5 months..I'm so excited!!!
The 79 version with David Soul was way better and way scarier it's going to be hard to top that version even though I wish success for the remake they have some big shoes to feel.
I have no faith in the remake. I know they are going to be more concern in making it "diverse" and "inclusive" than trying to make a good movie that do the source material justice. I bet Mark is going to be either gay, gender or race switched. They will insert in an interracial romance by turning Susan Black or Asian and have her survived. I can be sure that the villains, Barlow and Straker, will remain heterosexual cis white males.
@@PungiFungi no Susan is not going to be black they show the actors playing and in the original changes also I have no concern about if they do make it a diverse cast if it's a good movie that's made into a movie or TV series is going to be a hundred percent like the material all you need to be concerned about is it's going to be a good movie which I think it's going to be Mark Petrie in the TV version older the version with the nineties was terrible and it was more like the book you can't judge
It's going to be a bad movie a diverse cast that's like judging a book by its cover.
This movie scared the crap out of me, as a kid. Those eyes. For the second one @8:08 I remember her saying he didn't have enough to stop her from coming in, and replying he did because she "pushed him to it".
I loved the original. I watched it when it first came out and have watched it a dozen times since. The second iteration was OK, but I love how it ended! The second movie was crimp-tastic.
I've only ever seen the tv mini series when it had a singular airing in the UK in September 81 and have never had the chance to see the other adaptation - but it looks like it has some decent fx and set pieces. The kids on the bus looks creepy enough.
I was a kid when the first came out so it hits me different. Love it.
I’ve never seen the remake but if the Marjorie Glick scene is any indication, I’m glad I haven’t seen it. The original was terrifying as a kid. It was on regular network TV and very one I know was freaked out by it. Those glowing eyes, the kids at the window…the stuff of nightmares.
I love how David Soul just act bored or was lazy at acting, but when he confronts the lady vampire in the morgue, thay acting skills shoots up and I'm like "That's why you're the MC of the movie!!!" I know he couldn't act like that in the whole movie, but still. He had fear in his face, voice trembling that was great acting!!! I rewind that scene 3x to re-watch it every time I watch this movie!!!! Love the morgilue scene, well except her vanishing, but the scream was great!
I own the Rob Lowe version seen it once when it first aired tried watching it a second time a month ago thinking it couldn't have been THAT bad, I was wrong. It was a lit worse than I remembered it being... Only good actor in film was the Rob Lowe's sidekick he was more believable then the entire cast.
In the ‘79 version, Ben stakes her, not Mark.
The first 10-15% of the novel we learn about all the dark secrets of the little town, its vices, how its residents are banal and later become vampires as most of the town succumbs to vampirism.
One of the problems w/ TV (& sometimes even cinema) adaptations of King's work is people want to subsist purely on the narrative & ignore atmosphere, tone, & mood w/ mediocre photography, slick effects (both practical & CGI), & uninspired casting. The ABC remake of The Shining was more faithful to the story, but it didn't have any of Kubrick's atmosphere. It's film, & that matters. People forget that.
Well said. I think you’re absolutely right about most of King’s tv adaptations. In fact, one of the only exceptions is the original Salem’s Lot. I feel like Hooper DID do the work of setting up atmosphere and mood, which is why it’s lived on when far more recent tv adaptations aren’t talked much about anymore.
@@StevenAbney Agree completely. The 1st adaptation of Salem's Lot is one of the best.
I actually preferred the TV remake of "The Shining" over the Kubrick version... especially the topiary animals and actress Rebecca DeMornay!
@@Titan52berg Again, that was more faithful to the original material. I appreciate that, too. But I thought the photography & mood was vastly inferior to Kubrick's. If we could meld the 2, we'd have a brilliant film.
In both the 79 and 04 movies when that broad comes off the mortuary table, I mean it scared the shit outta me!! A kid in 79 and as a adult in 04 that scene got me both times!
The "broad" was actress Clarissa Kaye Mason, wife of actor James Mason who played Straker in the same mini-series.
@@Titan52berg that broad ..Lol. who even says that word now days.
excellent movie review, I watched the original 1975 version as a kid and it scared the shit out of me
I by far enjoyed the 1979 version best. Barlow was far scarier, as were all the other vampires.
The first one was much better and will always be my preference however the 2004 version was not all that bad I do have both on DVD and watch the first one definitely more often and I am looking forward to the new one that is coming out in April I'm really bummed because this was supposed to have been released September of 2022 but got pushed up to April of 23
Same here. It's sometimes fun to watch the 2nd movie just for differences. I always remember it better than it actually is and find a few things I feel were done better than the first. I hope the new movie takes 75% of the original movie and 25% of the second story wise -- keeping Mr. Barlow as close to 79 as possible with a few startling moments of speech and more screen time. One can dream!
The original 1979 version decimates even other movies as well.
As a child the window scene in the 2004 version and the first hospital scene with the two kids were the scene that scared the shit out of me!!!
the 79 version at least had James Mason. however I didn't care for the Barlow being a blue Orlok/Dracula knock off. I much prefer the 2004 version. while different from book it has basic elements and I agree it's much darker.
Nothing will beat the original.
I'm going to say something sacrilegious. I like the 2004 version better than the 1979 version. The 2004 version follows the book better than the 1979 version, and I positively hate the Nosferatu-looking Barlow in the 1979 version.
Danny Glick frightened the shit out of me and my brother Dean the oldest is the best miss you brother RIP 😢
🙏🏼
The 2004 version is often criticised but the 2004 movie has some very creepy scary parts.
1979 film was closer to a Nosferatu sequel than to the actual book but a really good film.
The 2004 was a campier version closer to the book but it wasn’t a good movie at all.
The book is the best for me though.
Barlow is way more evil and intelligent which the 2004 tried more to portray but failed to get right.
I've seen both tv miniseries and the original starring David Soul is still the best! Way better than the remake starring Rob Lowe. The actor who played Barlow, the vampire was way better than Rutger Hauer did.
was twelve when the original came out. still scares me shitless. didn't know about '23 remake. can't wait for it.
I never knew there had been a remake up until now, much less that it was being re-made yet again next year. I was 11 when it was on TV in '79 and I found it scary enough then as a child and then later as a teen renting it from a video store. Probably now I'd find it almost amusing...the way I do with so many things I once thought were frightening.
Yeah... that happens to mostly everyone once they've experienced the initial shocks. You always know what's coming by repeated viewings...
There will be another third remake on the big screen.
Not sure about the shade thrown at the original mini-series. That movie was suspenseful and scary. A classic horror movie. And directed by Toby Hooper! Loved it! Remake was good, but didn't compare in mood, suspense, or scares. Also, though both have differences from the book. The original is closer to the book.
The 1979 version is so much better
Eu queria saber porque não se encontra esse conteúdo no UA-cam ,viro e revirou e nunca acho.
The 1979 version is easily the best, and the standard by which the other two will be measured
I like both. The original with David Soul was the creepier of the two...but the remake was more faithful to the novel.
The bit they cut from the 1979 version is when he proceeds to rawdog the vampire at the end of the movie post staking
The best vampire movie, I would watch all remakes
'79 film is tops. Glick boy floating in Mark Petrie's window, Danny sitting up in his coffin and attacking Mike Ryerson, Mike sitting in the rocking chair and confronting his teacher, and ESPECIALLY Marjorie Glick awakening to attack Ben- all extra creepy terrifying stuff!
I loved Midnight Mass on Netflix & if they make it similar tone, I think I would this 2023 version on the horizon 🤔
I feel the same but I think midnight mass is already an alternate version to Salem’s lot.
79 all the way. Creepy as hell. 11 when I saw it 1st. Couldn't sleep for weeks. Still has that atmospheric creepiness. Cast excellent. James Mason et al. Just watched both and yep 79.
The OG still scares the hell out of me.
Nothing can compare to the the original. It was created during the era of horror movies.
Where i can download salem's lot 2004?
Lets be real. The original is the best!! As a kid I had night-mares for years! Who knew a made for tv Vampire movie would scare the shit out of us kids in the late 70's...
Ultimately, "Salem's Lot" is an adaptation. The goal of any adaptation has to be its adherence to the source material. And in this respect, 2004 wins. The novel was not a camped out Hammer Horror production, with Nosferatu ruling the night like Count Orlok, or Bram Stoker's Dracula. It just isn't the point.
The novel was about a haunted man returning to a small town where he grew up to confront his fears, and seeing the town consumed by an evil which wore a human face. This is what Rob Lowe does. Andre Braugher was great as Matt, though i might be biased, as i could not really get into the 1979 adaptation of Matt. James Cromwell and Rutger Hauer are also real highlights of the film. And Rutger Hauer wins as Barlow, hands down, over the 1979 puppet.
Dang! Now, I'll have to read the book.
The original salems lot is a dam master piece. Mine n my moms fave. Still gives us the creeps to this day. We drop quotes from it to each other all the time.lol
Love the female vamps. In fact, there is a book on Amazon about the three brides of Dracula called THE THRRE BRIDES - RESURRECTION. Great read.
"You're Lost Little Girl" (The Doors) -- for both versions of vampire Susan.
I liked the original better, I hope they go with the look of the master from 79 that's the best looking vampire in a movie. I think the tone of the 79 movie was better also.
I was 14 when the David Soul/Lance Kerwin (God Rest his soul) came out. Terrifying. It was all we could talk about the next day. More visually jarring than the Kochak female vampire (which was scary as hell). The book only came out four years prior. The 2004 version was great; Rob Lowe is convincingly hopeless but the first version will always be the one that mattered. It effected an entire generation. Great topic! Deep.
The 2004 version is a joke. Can't even compare it to the original which was a masterpiece. Does anyone know whatever happened to the new film that was supposed to come out this past September? It was filmed in my home state of Massachusetts. I know it was delayed but I never heard any more about it.
Sad parody
While I love the original Salem's Lot, I found it a little silly that taping together a couple of tongue depressors becomes a crucifix that is deadly to vampires.
He was making do with what was available in the funeral home.
I really haven't seen the 2004 version of Salem's Lot but I'll check it out before the 2023 version comes out.
The first one was much better. Creepier, scarier. If they do the new one right, and if Mr. King writes the screenplay, it should be AWESOME! Here's hoping.
vampires became servants to the ted eye 'Crimson King' it's not mentioned directly in either of the movies . They keep their identity ,but hunger and the will power of Crimson King keeps them in servility
The 1979 version is so far ahead of the 2004 mini-series, they're not even in the same universe.
I remember reading the book, then watching the 1979 version. I thought that it was decent, not great. My main issue with the movie is that Kurt Barlow (the vampire) WAS NOT a Nosferatu!!! He was an attractive and charismatic gentleman. The reason why I loved the book so much is because he was able to charm his victims; the interactions with his victims were amazing, terrifying and sometimes funny. Someone behind the scenes decided to change him for effect. It worked. I respect that alot of people appreciated the Nosferatu, love the movie; but, it messed up for me. Never saw the 2004 version.
There's no question in my mind that the 1979 version is better.
Did you say Ken Barlow? The audio is getting really loud and then getting back to normal so I couldn't tell. 79 was awesome but the remake was closer to the book. Are we ever going to see the new remake? They should just dump it on Halloween and just make money because it's already been delayed three or four times.
1979 version will always be better
I like how the 1979 SL is filmed in a town that really looks like it's in Maine.