Look at it this way there were some slow parts in 1979 movie pond for one school on the stage. And many more take that away get to the action and u might have a really good movie even tho the 1979 is still a classic
👍 Agreed: This "Trailer" reminds me of the *_Remake_* of *The 🌫️ FOG'* (I e. There's a reason this film 📽️ was *_panned_* by *Test Audiences.* & this held 🔙 back for 2 years). And Stephen 👑 King endorsement is *_No Metric* indeed
As a kid around 7-8 watching the 1979 version not gonna lie, I was terrified, it was horrific I think I honestly slept with the light on until I was 14. Revisiting this movie in my mid 20s tho, I've gotta say it was sorry is one of the cheesiest movies I've ever seen. Ok, remove the original childlike fear of the unknown watching movies, but nothing about it scared me again and it was actually laughable when Barlow shows up and makes his comical groans. The 2000 version just sucked, added more of the novel to it but had no effect. While in the comments the majority think this shoulder been reworked into another mini series, which I'd totally agree, this version going by the trailer actually gives me some hope of revisiting some of the creepiness from the 79. The fact they have an actor known for playing creepy characters with creepy makeup playing Barlow suggests it's gonna be a good attempt. 79 version is not untouchable though, not by a long shot
Salem's Lot is one of the few King novels I have enjoyed reading (along with The Stand and many of his short stories), but I really like this one. Each October, I'll take an evening and watch the 1979 version. It's one of my favorite mini-series. Just love it! I have many versions of Dracula (I'm a woman, how could I not like a Dracula-type vampire?), and also the movie, The Thing From Another World. I saw it in a $5 bin at an electronics store, and when I expressed my great pleasure at finding it, and my daughter, who had never heard of it, thought I'd lost my mind!
@marjoriedonnett5467 Dracula was always my favorite monster growing up, especially the Christopher Lee portrayals. Once I saw his performance, I couldn't take Bela Lugosi seriously again (although Lee had tremendous respect for Lugosi). Have you ever seen the 1977 BBC production? If not, you should really check it out sometime. As a Dracula fan, you'll probably enjoy that. I love Howard Hawks' The Thing From Another World. It's such a great movie and even holds up well even today. An enduring classic!
The miniseries from the 70's is a classic....scared the living $&*P out of me a kid and the book itself remains one of my favourites. Cautiously optimistic for the upcoming movie so am keeping my fingers crossed. Would like to see an adaptation of that short story done with family on a road trip during a winter storm...that one got to me as well :)
Speaking personally, although the 1979 Salem's Lot miniseries is one of my all-time favorite vampire movies, it is beaten by "Lat Den Rat Komma In" ("Let The Right One In"), the classic, iconic 2008 Swedish film adaptation of John Avide Lindqvist's novel of the same name. Later remade by Hammer as "Let Me In," and by HBO Max - loosely - as a limited TV series, which I thought was superb but which was cancelled after only 1 season, it is one of those rare movies which is hard to classify. I seriously recommend it.
That's one that I haven't seen, although, as with your comment, I've heard good things about it. I'm going to have to see it eventually. I didn't realize that Hammer made the MAX series. Thanks for your comments!
If you're old enough, and lucky enough to have the original as part of your childhood memories....? You don't need this. There's literally no way this will be anywhere near as good. A mini series directed by Mike Flanagan would have been the way to go. His Midnight Mass proves he could of done something special
Dude, it's Salem's Lot!!! I have been waiting nearly three years for this thing to come out. I saw the 79 version when it premiered on television (I was 9). the ending of part 1 with Danny Glick opening his eyes and then bite Mike Ryerson made me sleep with a light on for the next few years 🤣
I read Salem’s Lot at 15 years of age - until today, it’s my favorite King story. I agree with you - the book is dense with details of the town folks, their daily lives - the good, the bad and the sordid. Watch the two televised versions, with the David Soul version being a little better than the Rob Lowe one. I fail to see how this one would fare any better telling a detailed story in 2 hours.
Thanks for your comment! One of the things I enjoy most about the novel is the fact that the town itself is very much a character in the story. King shows us all of the evils lurking under the surface, and then we have the comment from Constable Gillespie when Ben Mears tries to get his help: "The town...it's dead like he is. They probably like being vampires."
@@TheAtlanteanArchive Exactly! The town is the main character - some fought, some continued in denial and others - like Gillespie, left. My favorite - the letter Barlow left for them to read at the Marsten house. That alone was creepy.
I don't mind the Rob Lowe version so much, it was never gonna be in the same league as the '79 but then again the '79 takes a huge amount of license with the book, I think this new version will fit between the other 2 and probably sit in the middle regarding quality/rewatchability...just don't go into it expecting a classic and then anything positive will be a bonus...
That's pretty much my attitude right now. Anything less than a disaster will be positive for me. It looks like it could have at least a few good moments.
Salems Lot I can't say much about since.. well it's not very known where I live and I haven't seen it. On the other hand, speaking of Dracula.. I haven't watched many of the movies but some I have, Nosferatu being my favorite of course. But Dracula was the first book I ever read and I'm currently re-reading it, and thinking it's a shame that nobody has done it real justice and always changes things. James Rolfe from Cinemassacre did a video where he tried to put together which movie was the most faithful to the book, go check that out if you haven't :) Great stuff man!
Thanks for commenting! I believe that I did see that video. As I recall, he thought that the 1977 BBC Count Dracula was the most faithful. I agree with that, going by all of the adaptations I've seen. I read Dracula again last year and enjoyed it. As some have said, it has too much Van Helsing and not enough Dracula, but there are some tremendous moments in it. My own favorite moment in the novel is when Dracula's brides go after Johnathan Harker. You can watch the 1979 "Salem's Lot" here if you're interested: archive.org/details/salems-lot_202211
I think it looks great, trailer is excellent, cast great, feels very creepy and like the fact that we have yet to see Kurt Barlow in this and I love the Gordon Lightfoot song
Classic tv mini series of Salem's Lot is the best horror movie ever!! Barlow is just the most terrific creature ever!! I hope this one can be ok, but, I dont know... hopefully!! And please, bring back the Nosferatu look of Barlow or the movie is done. Great video.
Thank you! And "amen" on the 1979 miniseries. From what I understand, they are indeed bringing back the Nosferatu look. In one of the preview pics, you see his hand holding Father Callahan's chin, and you can see that Barlow has the long Nosferatu nails. From what I understand, he does have dialogue in this one, though.
Salem's Lot was published when I was a teen, and to this day it is one of my favorite books of any author, not just Stephen King. I've accepted that I don't have an objective view on tv/movie adaptations, in that neither adaptation to date has lived up to what's in my head while reading and I doubt any ever will. Ironically, what piques my interest in the 2024 adaptation is seeing Alfre Woodard in the cast. It's a change in gender for Dr. Jimmy Cody from the novel for sure, but I've been a fan of Alfre's since the 80s. She's an incredible actress and I can't wait to see her in the role.
@snazzybean It's an extremely good novel. As much as I enjoy the '79 adaptation, there are elements of the novel that it leaves out and others that it changes. I'd like to see a more faithful adaptation done at some point, but I'm doubtful that we'll see that any time soon. I'm cautiously looking forward to the new one. It looks like it could have some promise. Thanks for commenting!
I’m excited because the cross is glowing; this is straight from the book but has never been portrayed literally anywhere else. I had very, very little hope of seeing this and low expectations but after seeing the trailer I am more optimistic.
In fact, the idea of a cross glowing was portrayed by David Palumbo in a graphic version of Salem's Lot limited edition years ago. And I think that was amazing put in the film. I hope that the scene with the axe and holy water will be portrayed too
The cross should only glow when the priest shows faith in his faith and not just the symbol of the crucifix, hence....."Throw away the cross, face the Master, faith against faith!" Had the priest Thrown the cross down, a great light would have shone from it causing the vampire to flee, But The father held on to it making his faith not enough! Sure that's how the book puts that bit, or something along those lines.
@@MidNight-fw8zq Yep. The "atomic cross" they called it. "The Fog" is one of my favorite horror films. As a kid, the ads for it really put a scare into me.
@EddieBloecher I think that's the best approach. We might get something worthwhile, even if just a scene or two. The '79 version was definitely nightmare fuel. I couldn't go near an open window at night for several years after seeing it. Thanks for commenting!
However this video has inspired me today. I just pulled out my Salem's Lot Blu-ray. I actually found ot at Family Dollar for like 5 bucks. So it's on in Jerusalem's Lot today since we can't get Packer game here in Pueblo Colorado lol
Good review. Loved the original never saw the 2004 version. But I saw the trailer and the clip for this one. Got some concerns myself but definitely will give it a chance. Btw thanks so much for saying the 1977 bbc dracula was one of the closest adaptation to brass stokers Dracula. Total agreement with you. I thought it was better than Francis Ford Coppella
Thanks for commenting. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Yes, the 1977 Dracula is wonderful. The video-taped portions are a bit jarring at first, but you get used to it. The casting was excellent.
posted this on someone elses video, but felt like dropping it here too: I actually just watched the 1979 and 2004 versions (along with re-reading the book), and I will say that the 1979 vampire effects and atmosphere (the slow emptying of town as the series progresses for example) are the better of the two, but think the 2004 version actually is paced better and overall a "closer" adaptation. It also had a few story beats that I wanted to see from the book in it that the '79 version missed. I'm cautiously optimistic about the 2024 version... the vampires look like they're styling them like the '79 version, which is a plus. Its a bit concerning with the "action" set pieces, but I can kind of fit them into the story after watching the trailer enough. The one thing I'm really hoping to see is a proper adaptation of the kitchen scene in the Petrie house... the glowing cross against Mike seems like they're actually dipping their toes into the faith aspect of the story, and I think both the '79 and '04 versions of the showdown between Barlow and Callahan were lackluster. I'm also a bit concerned of being able to tell all the story beats you need to in 2 hours, but we will see. I wish I could find the theatrical version of the '79 version so I can see how that played out.
@celicynd Thanks for commenting! The 2004 adaptation does track closer to the novel than the '79 version in some ways, which was interesting. As you say, though, it lacks the atmosphere of the '79 version. The camera cuts in the trailer make it hard to judge the action sequences, but I'm hoping they're not hokey or comic book style scenes. Yes, the kitchen scene will be interesting if they handle it faithfully. The 2004 version was just weird, and the '79 version eliminated the faith aspect altogether. It made Barlow more frighteningly powerful, but it was an aspect of the novel that would have been good to see on screen.
no matter wot u can NEVER re-create the atmosphere n general overall feel of the 1979 version of SL! this might be good nobody will know until it airs but impo there won't ever be a replacement of the first OG of this movie!
I guess I'm the minority with the song for the trailer, it took me out of this trailer. Overall trailer looks Great!~ I am very optimistic one of the main reasons I re-subscribed to Max. I will definitely try my best to get the 79 version out of my head while watching this anticipated vision from Dauberman's take on Salems Lot. That Matt Burke scene, I agree wasn't feeling that scene at all either. Very Hokey!!. LOL!!... Forgot to mention I noticed how un menacing the vampires looked they didn't seem to have that animalistic look about them. But the glowing eyes and growls I was very pleased with.
I could see the song doing that, as it's really only those few lines that have any application to the film. I thought it was creative, but the song has nothing to do with horror (other than what Lightfoot may be threatening to do with whoever messes with his woman - LOL). Yeah, I'm going to have to put the '79 version out of my mind as well when I watch this. Not an easy task, though. Thanks for the comment!
6:20 completely agree about that preview footage being pretty bad. Not sure why they would decide to show that unless thats actually considered one of the better scenes which if true means we are in trouble. With that said I agree the full trailer looks better but that the trailer that they showed back in April 2022 at Cinemacon got almost all really positive reviews as well and that was before the test screening and reshoots to correct the issues with the movie meaning they always had usable footage for a trailer even with the movie being a mess early on. Fun fact the original trailer was set to a cover of Daniel Johnston's "Devil Town." Giving the fact that it's going right to MAX I can't see this being that good but maybe fun for first time viewing. I think if you are the type of person who doesn't like most modern horror it's going to fall flat(which I would count myself as I thought the IT remake was pretty lackluster)
I've told friends that Hollywood has mastered the art of making two-minute trailers but has largely forgotten how to do two-hour movies. It's pretty easy to make the trailer for even a bad movie look good. This is another reason why I hate jump cuts and such: they cover a multitude of sins that get uncovered once you watch the full thing. As I mentioned, I'm a little more optimistic now, but not overly so. I didn't like the IT movies, either, and actually expected to get flamed for that comment in the video given how popular they were, but so far no one has mentioned it. Maybe I'm inviting trouble here. LOL I didn't know that about the "Devil Town" song. Interesting. I didn't think about this in time for the video, but Gordon Lightfoot's "Sundown" was released in 1974, and "Salem's Lot" takes place in 1975, so in addition to the imagery of the song, it's accurate to the period as well. Thanks for the comment!
I’m not a fan of constant remakes, but as a huge fan of the novel, I always wanted a Salem’s Lot adaptation that had all the build up and excitement of the novel and while I like the 79 version, I felt we could’ve had something better. This movie on the other hand looks like an action packed vampire movie when both the original movie and book were a slow burn building up to the vampire infestation. I honestly didn’t care much for the trailer, but I will give some credit for 2 things, the casting is good and the vampires look creepy, but idk how they’ll execute it story wise
I would really like to see a faithful adaptation made of the novel as well. It would require a limited series format like what they did with Midnight Mass, which I thought was excellent. I definitely prefer atmospheric, slow-burn horror. As good as the 1979 version is, it definitely does have some problems, particularly around the climax (Did they really wait around all day to go after Barlow until just before sunset?). I have serious reservations about this one as well. At this point, I'm just hoping we get a few good scenes.
Stephen King has seen the film and has said that he liked it, describing it as taking its time beginning with a rewarding payoff towards the end, that is good enough for me to check it out, excited for this, trailer was great!
Stephing King said "Fans of my books will love the Dark Tower movie." Stephen King said " The Flash is the best movie I've seen all year!" He can write great books... But his taste in film & television is Utter Shite.
The trailer looked typical for what I anticipate this film to be. Though I do wish that when this new adaptation was greenlit, it would have been a 6-part series. Need I refresh everyone's memory how amazing Midnight Mass and the first season of House on Haunted Hill was? Both had a strong sense of dread that lingered. Characters were given the time to develop. It's just a hunch, but I'm thinking this new film will be weak on the character buildup. I'm already am bummed that the actor playing Ben feels too young. At first, I dug the song at the start of the trailer, but then wondered if it was kind of campy. I mean, the original was straight-up scary AF. The score alone was nightmare worthy. Let's pray this isn't a cookie cutter horror, though I dread it will.
Thanks for the comment! You're right: the 1979 miniseries soundtrack was a great bit of classic horror scoring, like the soundtrack for Horror of Dracula and John Williams' score for the 1979 theatrical Dracula, starring Frank Langella. Midnight Mass was fantastic, easily one of the best horror projects I've seen in recent years. The acting, writing, character buildup, and storytelling were all top-notch. We need more of that. Ultimately (assuming we can handle another adaptation), I'd like to see Salem's Lot done in a similar fashion...by someone who understands atmospheric horror. I, too, hope this isn't cookie-cutter horror. We've had more than enough of that.
Im hoping its going to be good I ve read the novel multi-le times since i was a kid. Although crappy 2004 was more faithful. Grew up on original seires. Looks likes some changes but also some little touches from the book if you look quickly Danny Glick cops the cross to the cheek when tryinng to get Mark, very quick shot in the trailer. Ill check it out
It was one of the first adult horror novels that I read (needless to say, a bit jarring after the kid's editions of Dracula and Frankenstein that I'd read prior to that!). It still holds up well, and is definitely one of King's better novels. I'll have to watch that part of the trailer again. I tried slowing it because they cut certain parts so quickly, and I saw Danny pinning Mark to the wall (at least that's what it looked like), but I missed the cross. Thanks for commenting!
OK. It's 09/27/24 and I just watched the final trailer for Dauberman's 'Salem's Lot. I've also watched some reviews from UA-camrs who have apparently received an early screening of the movie. The reviewers used words like, "Comedic and Comedy" to describe the movie. These are words that shouldn't be used to describe any Stephen King adaption, let alone, 'Salem's Lot. And from what I've seen of Mr. Barlow, he looks like an orc from middle earth who has fangs. And some of his movements seem to have been created using CGI. For those who don't know: CGI sucks compared to practical effects, but it's cheaper to implement. I think I'm beginning to understand why this movie didn't go into theaters. I think I'm beginning to understand why WB shelved this movie for 2 yrs. Dauberman is known for making "jump scare" movies. "Salem's Lot isn't a jump scare movie, but I think that's what we're going to get on Oct. 3rd. Now, I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't what this movie is really going to be like. I'm sure it will have plenty of good scenes, but will they add up to a good movie?
Sorry, I just now saw this comment. Have you seen it yet? There are definitely some goofy moments in it, along with over-the-top ridiculous action sequences, and scenes that don't work well are given more screen time than other scenes that could have worked better (or should have been developed more). I posted a general review yesterday, and I'm thinking I was probably more generous than I ought to have been with it.
I'm afraid of that possibility, yes. If Disney had made this, yeah, Susan would kill Barlow and carry Ben off on her shoulder while snapping a Polaroid (a 70s selfie) with her free hand. We shall see.
My concern like many others is a ~2hr movie won’t be enough time to complete the story properly. I’ll stay optimistic until I see it. Off topic, would love a remake of Near Dark.
i’m of the same mind this should have been a series similar to Chapelwaite. i did enjoy the 2000s remake about as much as the first one. The cast was what did it for me. Both have issues but i’ll wait till I see the new one to pass judgment. Newer “movies” look weird to me with what looks like i’m viewing it through a filter.
They do have a strange, sort of off-color look to them. Maybe because of the digital filming technique? I don't know enough about film production to say what gives modern movies that kind of look. It's a good point.
I really enjoyed the trailer, and Lewis Pullman is a great young actor. I love the atmosohere in this trailer. I can't wait to see it. I'm down for it.
@@TheAtlanteanArchive Nice! Glad I'm not alone. We seem to be in the minority, which is a shame. I bet it turns out to be pretty good. They're complaining because a horror movie has humor in it (Scream, anyone?). Ridiculous.
@@guiltybyproxy1 I like a movie to tell me what it's doing up front rather than changing its tune along the way. Movies like Fright Night and The Lost Boys mixed horror with humor, and they clued you in right from the start.
Looking forward to this. Not sure how it’s going to be released in the Uk, but hopefully it will get one in some format or other.🤞 I’m currently reading the novel for the first time, and I’m surprised how different the 79 tv mini series is from the book. Really gripping read, and I loved the original to version. It scared me to death as a kid! 😱I tried to watch the 04 version, but it just didn’t catch my interest in the same way as the 79 did. I will be curious to see if the 24 version will be the closest adaptation to the novel. Kind regards from 🇬🇧 and thanks for posting, it’s always good to listen to people’s opinions 😃👍
@michellezimmermann9160 Thanks for watching and commenting! I've heard that it will be getting a theatrical release in the U.K., although I can't confirm that. Yes, the novel is significantly different than the 1979 miniseries in a few ways, especially at the end. I agree that the original miniseries is excellent. It's easily one of the best horror movies I've ever seen, and I consider it to be the best vampire movie ever made. The novel is excellent as well. I go back and forth on Stephen King, but this is certainly one of his best books. I don't have terribly high hopes for this new adaptation, but I'm giving it a chance. Thanks again!
Strange that you didn’t mention Richard Matheson’s outstanding I Am Legend novel, concerning vampire novels. Another recent vamp movie that I liked was The Last Voyage of the Demeter, based on one chapter of the Dracula novel. Well worth watching, I thought. And yes, I know that the Will Smith I Am Legend adaptation is bloody awful. 😂
I haven't watched "Demeter" yet, but I totally agree with you on "I Am Legend." I've reviewed two other Matheson titles on this channel and have mentioned it both times, but I have yet to do a dedicated review. In fact, I thought about that after I made this video: would I rank Salem's Lot or I Am Legend second to Dracula? It's close, but Legend probably wins out. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Horror movies are traditionally inexpensive to produce and market. Low stakes overall. So my only hesitation with this adaptation is why it was shelved for so long. Reshoots happened, which can be a red flag for initial bad storytelling and action scenes. Maybe they thought they had to jazz it up a bit. King owns response of "slow burn" doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the way he used it. I'm happy that it is finally coming out, but my main curiosity is if it was worthy of a theatrical release. The trailer leads me to believe that it could have gotten a theatrical release. At least it's coming out, and we can enjoy the experience of loving or hating it. Or meh. Ciao.
Thanks for the comment! I have a lot of the same thoughts and feelings about this. When a movie has to resort to re-shoots, something is definitely wrong. The rumor mill went crazy about that before Disney released "The Rise of Skywalker," and, as far as I'm concerned, they didn't re-shoot extensively enough. LOL I agree on the theatrical release. The runtime was obviously built around that idea, so why not just go ahead with it? If they'd known they were going with a streaming release instead, maybe they would have taken more time with it. Ciao!
@@TheAtlanteanArchive Don't get me wrong, it looks very creepy just like the novel. The desolation alone, how this town gets corrupted is even more chilling than the vampires.
Hope it does good , and is close to the novel .....but to many remakes/reboots seems like every 20 yrs and they never hold up to the original adaptation
Looks like they've taken incredible liberties with the character of Susan. It seems like our 'heroes' have banded together like some sort of Scooby gang and Susan's fate has been switched with Matt Burke's. This is really disappointing as Susan's fate is shocking, unexpected and key to the overall narrative. It's also an essential driver of Ben's story arc. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
I agree. I don't know why they're switching Matt Burke out for Susan. I haven't heard any spoilers regarding that aspect of the plot. Susan's death and Ben's part in being forced to destroy her is a main driving force in the latter part of the novel. Ben was pretty well ready to run otherwise. Barlow sealed his fate with that.
From what i seen from the trailers the movie looks good. The only scene i'm not so sure aboitmis where mat burke meets mike ryerson in is home. It'ts not like in the original tv movie where is character crashes through a window
@brianmuirhead5727 Yes, that scene just looks weird to me in the trailer. I guess the strange motions are supposed to be disturbing, but I thought it just looked goofy. I don't know why they changed that scene from the novel and the original miniseries. As I said to someone else, when does Hollywood not like to break glass? LOL
you didnt mention francis ford copolas dracula which follows bram stokers book to a t. that and your hate for the 2004 version which followed stephen kings book way closer then the 1979 version. the whole mike ryerson scene in the 2004 version was epic. plus the marsten house looked better in the 2004 version then it does in the new trailer imo.
So much of this is subjective and a matter of taste. The 2004 version did adhere to the novel more faithfully overall, with its portrayal of Barlow being the standout example, although it deviated in other ways that seemed bizarre to me. Yeah, the new Marsten House set doesn't look that great. It doesn't have much character.
I think overall it will be a solid vampire ‘action’ movie. The colour gradient is a little too like all Blumhouse and other modern horror nowadays. The demonic voice of Marjorie Glick is tacky though and I don’t like it as it’s not scary. It is in theatres in the UK as well as Max as it’s advertised at a cinema not too far away from my town.
@tonyyoung_wry I guess they think that things like the Glick voice and Mike Ryerson doing his slinky thing around the corner are 'disturbing,' but to me, they're just goofy. I don't understand why they would do that, especially with Ryerson. Come on, just knock him out of the window like it happens in the book. When does Hollywood not like to break glass? LOL
👍 Agreed: This "Trailer" reminds me of the *_Remake_* of *The 🌫️ FOG'* (I e. There's a reason this film 📽️ was *_panned_* by *Test Audiences.* & this held 🔙 back for 2 years). And Stephen 👑 King endorsement is *_No Metric_* indeed 🐱 💩
Huh, you're saying when It came out in 1979, Salem's Lot was a 'Mini-Series'? The Version I have on DVD is 1 Complete Movie! And when I first saw it in the 1980's on VHS it was a Movie.
@michaeloneill1360 It was initially released as a miniseries that ran over two nights and clocked in at a little over three hours in length. Later, they released a truncated version called Salem's Lot, the Movie. From what I understand, this version was actually shown in theaters in Europe at some point. I also remember it being the only version that was available for rental at Blockbuster and other stores back in the day. The version you have on DVD should be the miniseries. I have that, too, and it just plays like a movie. There's no Part One or Part Two or anything like that. It clocks in at a little over three hours. This may help: screenrant.com/salems-lot-1979-miniseries-cuts-versions-explained/
Its gonna suck...pun intended. S.L has a lot of story to fit a two hour movie format. They changed the ending as well to be at a drive in movie! They should have kept the original score from 79. Imagine if they Remake JAWS but instead of the Cello, we get Baby shark do do do do do do. This will be worse than A return to Salem's lot! Lewis Pullman CAN act and act well. but he just isn't Ben Mears! I am interested to see if they do a decent make up job on Mr Barlow/Alexander ward!? But I fear The CGI worse than the Vampires, that's not right lol! I want to be excited for this but I'm struggling!
Worse than A Return to Salem's Lot would be pretty darn awful! The CGI does worry me. That's one of the things that I really didn't like about the 2004 adaptation: the computer eye effects and the CGI fangs. I thought they looked awful. I read something just yesterday from someone who worked on the film. They said that Barlow's makeup was effectively creepy. I guess we'll see! I'm trying to remember if I've seen Lewis Pullman in anything... Thanks for the comment!
@@TheAtlanteanArchive Yeah A Return was pretty bad huh. I shouldn't judge without seeing maybe though. Am just nervously excited. I liked some aspect's of the Rob Lowe version but absolutely the CGI eyes and fangs were a bit obvious. I thought Donald Sutherland was inspired casting for Mr Straker. Rutger should have been a good Mr Barlow and I'm sure he did the best with the way it was done. I know Straker should be the Bald fella in the novel but I just prefer the way Tobe Hooper changed them round, it seems to fit the story better. No offence to Mr King its still the great vampire story in my eyes. That's good news About Barlow. Alexander Ward looks like he has the face to wear that make up. I am sure he will be great. Lewis Pullman I have only seen in one thing and that was "Bad times at the El Royale" which was an overlooked gem in case ya haven't seen it. Young Lewis does a fine job with the role he has there.
@michaelmclellan573 Donald Sutherland and Rutger Hauer (James Cromwell also) were great casting choices and gave me a lot of hope for it when it debuted. As you said, they just didn't have much to work with. James Mason was excellent as Straker. So refined in his manner and appearance, but then so ruthless on top of it. The guardian and enabler of a monster. How he wound up with Barlow in the first place would make for an interesting story all by itself.
I've had many friends complaining that Dauberman has changed the films storyline around and added scenes that aren't in the book. Who cares!!! Really, who cares??? As long as Dauberman remains true to the spirit of King's book, it will be fine. I'm sure any changes he's made, he ran past King first. When you have a book as long as the "LOT" and you want to put it onto the silver screen or TV, compromises MUST be made to make it work. What's on the written page doesn't always translate well to the Silver Screen. Remember, Studios don't really want to entertain you. They want your money. And any movie that's over 90 minutes long isn't welcome, unless it has the words, "Star Wars" in front of it. Had this movie actually been made for MAX from the beginning, we might have got a 4- or 5-hour movie split into two parts, but that's neither here, nor there now. I am interested in what Barlow is going to be like. How will Dauberman and Alexander Ward have this character portrayed? I hope it's more Nosferatu-like but with the ability to talk, not just screech.
I said that same thing to someone else who commented here: it's too bad that they didn't know they were going to do a streaming release, as they could have taken their time with it. Ultimately, I'm hoping for a limited series production like "Midnight Mass," which was absolutely brilliant, in large part because it took its time building the characters and setting. Yeah, creators have always had to battle studios and execs when it comes to story. When Peter Benchley wrote "Jaws," he was forced to incorporate changes at the insistence of the editor (the sex subplot being part of that). I've often wondered what he might have done more with a freer hand. I'm definitely curious about Barlow as well. They're keeping him pretty well hidden. Thanks for the comment!
I like the trailer wish it was limted time series. I have a question is it just me or was some of the characters race swap. I am not judging it wait until I watch the movie.just wondering why.
@livingtonu They probably just had a general casting call for the role without respect to the character's race in the novel. I do wonder about the decision to cast Dr. Cody as a female, though, given that the character is literally named Jimmy in the novel.
@JJSS-vg1qs Not especially. My biggest complaints have to do with shoddy production and things that look goofy. I probably seemed pretty hard on the 2004 remake, but it's because some of the scenes were comically silly to me. An example is the climax where Barlow tries to tell Ben that he's actually the vampire.
Because some people don’t let racism cloud their judgement and actually care about the quality of the movie regardless of what ethnicity the characters are .
I'm happy sticking with 1979's Salem's Lot. Thank you!
@@hoibsh21 Not a bad choice at all.
Wish they would've made this a limited miniseries instead of an under 2 hour movie. I think this will be a mixed bag tbh.
@Tek-Knight5592 Yes, ideally, that would be the way to go.
Came here to say that.
Look at it this way there were some slow parts in 1979 movie pond for one school on the stage. And many more take that away get to the action and u might have a really good movie even tho the 1979 is still a classic
@@seantapper498 that's a good point actually
👍 Agreed: This "Trailer" reminds me of the *_Remake_* of *The 🌫️ FOG'* (I e. There's a reason this film 📽️ was *_panned_* by *Test Audiences.* & this held 🔙 back for 2 years). And Stephen 👑 King endorsement is *_No Metric* indeed
Salems Lot 79-Untouchable !
They can do nothing against the master. 👍
@@TheAtlanteanArchiveindeed! 🙂✌️
As a kid around 7-8 watching the 1979 version not gonna lie, I was terrified, it was horrific I think I honestly slept with the light on until I was 14. Revisiting this movie in my mid 20s tho, I've gotta say it was sorry is one of the cheesiest movies I've ever seen. Ok, remove the original childlike fear of the unknown watching movies, but nothing about it scared me again and it was actually laughable when Barlow shows up and makes his comical groans. The 2000 version just sucked, added more of the novel to it but had no effect. While in the comments the majority think this shoulder been reworked into another mini series, which I'd totally agree, this version going by the trailer actually gives me some hope of revisiting some of the creepiness from the 79. The fact they have an actor known for playing creepy characters with creepy makeup playing Barlow suggests it's gonna be a good attempt. 79 version is not untouchable though, not by a long shot
Salem's Lot is one of the few King novels I have enjoyed reading (along with The Stand and many of his short stories), but I really like this one. Each October, I'll take an evening and watch the 1979 version. It's one of my favorite mini-series. Just love it! I have many versions of Dracula (I'm a woman, how could I not like a Dracula-type vampire?), and also the movie, The Thing From Another World. I saw it in a $5 bin at an electronics store, and when I expressed my great pleasure at finding it, and my daughter, who had never heard of it, thought I'd lost my mind!
@marjoriedonnett5467 Dracula was always my favorite monster growing up, especially the Christopher Lee portrayals. Once I saw his performance, I couldn't take Bela Lugosi seriously again (although Lee had tremendous respect for Lugosi). Have you ever seen the 1977 BBC production? If not, you should really check it out sometime. As a Dracula fan, you'll probably enjoy that.
I love Howard Hawks' The Thing From Another World. It's such a great movie and even holds up well even today. An enduring classic!
The miniseries from the 70's is a classic....scared the living $&*P out of me a kid and the book itself remains one of my favourites. Cautiously optimistic for the upcoming movie so am keeping my fingers crossed. Would like to see an adaptation of that short story done with family on a road trip during a winter storm...that one got to me as well :)
@@jamesthomson47 Yes, "One for the Road." I'd like to see something done with that as well.
Speaking personally, although the 1979 Salem's Lot miniseries is one of my all-time favorite vampire movies, it is beaten by "Lat Den Rat Komma In" ("Let The Right One In"), the classic, iconic 2008 Swedish film adaptation of John Avide Lindqvist's novel of the same name. Later remade by Hammer as "Let Me In," and by HBO Max - loosely - as a limited TV series, which I thought was superb but which was cancelled after only 1 season, it is one of those rare movies which is hard to classify. I seriously recommend it.
That's one that I haven't seen, although, as with your comment, I've heard good things about it. I'm going to have to see it eventually. I didn't realize that Hammer made the MAX series.
Thanks for your comments!
I just found both versions of Let the Right one in and the American version Let me In at local pawn shop for 50 cents each. Happy Find!
I thought Hammer did the remake Let Me In.
@@hoibsh21 I haven't watched it yet so I'm not sure.
@@hoibsh21 Yes it's Hammer and an additional distribution company. You're correct.
If you're old enough, and lucky enough to have the original as part of your childhood memories....? You don't need this. There's literally no way this will be anywhere near as good. A mini series directed by Mike Flanagan would have been the way to go. His Midnight Mass proves he could of done something special
Dude, it's Salem's Lot!!! I have been waiting nearly three years for this thing to come out. I saw the 79 version when it premiered on television (I was 9). the ending of part 1 with Danny Glick opening his eyes and then bite Mike Ryerson made me sleep with a light on for the next few years 🤣
I couldn't go near an open window at night for years after seeing it! I shut every curtain after dark. LOL
I read Salem’s Lot at 15 years of age - until today, it’s my favorite King story. I agree with you - the book is dense with details of the town folks, their daily lives - the good, the bad and the sordid. Watch the two televised versions, with the David Soul version being a little better than the Rob Lowe one. I fail to see how this one would fare any better telling a detailed story in 2 hours.
Thanks for your comment! One of the things I enjoy most about the novel is the fact that the town itself is very much a character in the story. King shows us all of the evils lurking under the surface, and then we have the comment from Constable Gillespie when Ben Mears tries to get his help: "The town...it's dead like he is. They probably like being vampires."
@@TheAtlanteanArchive Exactly! The town is the main character - some fought, some continued in denial and others - like Gillespie, left. My favorite - the letter Barlow left for them to read at the Marsten house. That alone was creepy.
@@FaizalNazaruddin-ko8dw The letter is a great touch! It drips with condescension.
I don't mind the Rob Lowe version so much, it was never gonna be in the same league as the '79 but then again the '79 takes a huge amount of license with the book, I think this new version will fit between the other 2 and probably sit in the middle regarding quality/rewatchability...just don't go into it expecting a classic and then anything positive will be a bonus...
That's pretty much my attitude right now. Anything less than a disaster will be positive for me. It looks like it could have at least a few good moments.
Salems Lot I can't say much about since.. well it's not very known where I live and I haven't seen it.
On the other hand, speaking of Dracula.. I haven't watched many of the movies but some I have, Nosferatu being my favorite of course. But Dracula was the first book I ever read and I'm currently re-reading it, and thinking it's a shame that nobody has done it real justice and always changes things.
James Rolfe from Cinemassacre did a video where he tried to put together which movie was the most faithful to the book, go check that out if you haven't :)
Great stuff man!
Thanks for commenting! I believe that I did see that video. As I recall, he thought that the 1977 BBC Count Dracula was the most faithful. I agree with that, going by all of the adaptations I've seen.
I read Dracula again last year and enjoyed it. As some have said, it has too much Van Helsing and not enough Dracula, but there are some tremendous moments in it. My own favorite moment in the novel is when Dracula's brides go after Johnathan Harker.
You can watch the 1979 "Salem's Lot" here if you're interested: archive.org/details/salems-lot_202211
I think it looks great, trailer is excellent, cast great, feels very creepy and like the fact that we have yet to see Kurt Barlow in this and I love the Gordon Lightfoot song
@leekitchen1195 It definitely looks better than I expected, so I'm going in with an open mind.
Classic tv mini series of Salem's Lot is the best horror movie ever!! Barlow is just the most terrific creature ever!! I hope this one can be ok, but, I dont know... hopefully!! And please, bring back the Nosferatu look of Barlow or the movie is done. Great video.
Thank you! And "amen" on the 1979 miniseries. From what I understand, they are indeed bringing back the Nosferatu look. In one of the preview pics, you see his hand holding Father Callahan's chin, and you can see that Barlow has the long Nosferatu nails. From what I understand, he does have dialogue in this one, though.
Salem's Lot was published when I was a teen, and to this day it is one of my favorite books of any author, not just Stephen King. I've accepted that I don't have an objective view on tv/movie adaptations, in that neither adaptation to date has lived up to what's in my head while reading and I doubt any ever will. Ironically, what piques my interest in the 2024 adaptation is seeing Alfre Woodard in the cast. It's a change in gender for Dr. Jimmy Cody from the novel for sure, but I've been a fan of Alfre's since the 80s. She's an incredible actress and I can't wait to see her in the role.
@snazzybean It's an extremely good novel. As much as I enjoy the '79 adaptation, there are elements of the novel that it leaves out and others that it changes. I'd like to see a more faithful adaptation done at some point, but I'm doubtful that we'll see that any time soon.
I'm cautiously looking forward to the new one. It looks like it could have some promise.
Thanks for commenting!
I’m excited because the cross is glowing; this is straight from the book but has never been portrayed literally anywhere else. I had very, very little hope of seeing this and low expectations but after seeing the trailer I am more optimistic.
@@hazelowl7893 Yes, that's a good touch!
In fact, the idea of a cross glowing was portrayed by David Palumbo in a graphic version of Salem's Lot limited edition years ago. And I think that was amazing put in the film. I hope that the scene with the axe and holy water will be portrayed too
The Fog by John Carpenter features a glowing cross.
The cross should only glow when the priest shows faith in his faith and not just the symbol of the crucifix, hence....."Throw away the cross, face the Master, faith against faith!" Had the priest Thrown the cross down, a great light would have shone from it causing the vampire to flee, But The father held on to it making his faith not enough! Sure that's how the book puts that bit, or something along those lines.
@@MidNight-fw8zq Yep. The "atomic cross" they called it. "The Fog" is one of my favorite horror films. As a kid, the ads for it really put a scare into me.
Nuanced, inspired take, my friend. Subbed.
Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it, and I appreciate the sub!
I saw the 1979 when it aired. I was in 4th grade and it was nightmare fuel. The Gordon Lightfoot song won me. I'll give new one a chance
@EddieBloecher I think that's the best approach. We might get something worthwhile, even if just a scene or two. The '79 version was definitely nightmare fuel. I couldn't go near an open window at night for several years after seeing it.
Thanks for commenting!
@@TheAtlanteanArchive Are you kidding? I had to sprint to bathroom while avoiding windows for a year! Lol
However this video has inspired me today. I just pulled out my Salem's Lot Blu-ray. I actually found ot at Family Dollar for like 5 bucks. So it's on in Jerusalem's Lot today since we can't get Packer game here in Pueblo Colorado lol
@@EddieBloecher Nice! A good use of time, especially if you haven't seen it for a while.
@@EddieBloecher LOL! I can relate.
Good review. Loved the original never saw the 2004 version. But I saw the trailer and the clip for this one. Got some concerns myself but definitely will give it a chance. Btw thanks so much for saying the 1977 bbc dracula was one of the closest adaptation to brass stokers Dracula. Total agreement with you. I thought it was better than Francis Ford Coppella
Thanks for commenting. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Yes, the 1977 Dracula is wonderful. The video-taped portions are a bit jarring at first, but you get used to it. The casting was excellent.
posted this on someone elses video, but felt like dropping it here too:
I actually just watched the 1979 and 2004 versions (along with re-reading the book), and I will say that the 1979 vampire effects and atmosphere (the slow emptying of town as the series progresses for example) are the better of the two, but think the 2004 version actually is paced better and overall a "closer" adaptation. It also had a few story beats that I wanted to see from the book in it that the '79 version missed. I'm cautiously optimistic about the 2024 version... the vampires look like they're styling them like the '79 version, which is a plus. Its a bit concerning with the "action" set pieces, but I can kind of fit them into the story after watching the trailer enough. The one thing I'm really hoping to see is a proper adaptation of the kitchen scene in the Petrie house... the glowing cross against Mike seems like they're actually dipping their toes into the faith aspect of the story, and I think both the '79 and '04 versions of the showdown between Barlow and Callahan were lackluster. I'm also a bit concerned of being able to tell all the story beats you need to in 2 hours, but we will see. I wish I could find the theatrical version of the '79 version so I can see how that played out.
@celicynd Thanks for commenting! The 2004 adaptation does track closer to the novel than the '79 version in some ways, which was interesting. As you say, though, it lacks the atmosphere of the '79 version.
The camera cuts in the trailer make it hard to judge the action sequences, but I'm hoping they're not hokey or comic book style scenes.
Yes, the kitchen scene will be interesting if they handle it faithfully. The 2004 version was just weird, and the '79 version eliminated the faith aspect altogether. It made Barlow more frighteningly powerful, but it was an aspect of the novel that would have been good to see on screen.
no matter wot u can NEVER re-create the atmosphere n general overall feel of the 1979 version of SL! this might be good nobody will know until it airs but impo there won't ever be a replacement of the first OG of this movie!
@TinaLouise73 I believe you're right. The 1979 version is amazing even now. They did something truly special with that.
I guess I'm the minority with the song for the trailer, it took me out of this trailer. Overall trailer looks Great!~ I am very optimistic one of the main reasons I re-subscribed to Max. I will definitely try my best to get the 79 version out of my head while watching this anticipated vision from Dauberman's take on Salems Lot. That Matt Burke scene, I agree wasn't feeling that scene at all either. Very Hokey!!. LOL!!... Forgot to mention I noticed how un menacing the vampires looked they didn't seem to have that animalistic look about them. But the glowing eyes and growls I was very pleased with.
Song had no place in the trailer -- uncreative, low hanging fruit. The general public will likely eat it up.
I could see the song doing that, as it's really only those few lines that have any application to the film. I thought it was creative, but the song has nothing to do with horror (other than what Lightfoot may be threatening to do with whoever messes with his woman - LOL).
Yeah, I'm going to have to put the '79 version out of my mind as well when I watch this. Not an easy task, though.
Thanks for the comment!
6:20 completely agree about that preview footage being pretty bad. Not sure why they would decide to show that unless thats actually considered one of the better scenes which if true means we are in trouble.
With that said I agree the full trailer looks better but that the trailer that they showed back in April 2022 at Cinemacon got almost all really positive reviews as well and that was before the test screening and reshoots to correct the issues with the movie meaning they always had usable footage for a trailer even with the movie being a mess early on. Fun fact the original trailer was set to a cover of Daniel Johnston's "Devil Town."
Giving the fact that it's going right to MAX I can't see this being that good but maybe fun for first time viewing. I think if you are the type of person who doesn't like most modern horror it's going to fall flat(which I would count myself as I thought the IT remake was pretty lackluster)
I've told friends that Hollywood has mastered the art of making two-minute trailers but has largely forgotten how to do two-hour movies. It's pretty easy to make the trailer for even a bad movie look good. This is another reason why I hate jump cuts and such: they cover a multitude of sins that get uncovered once you watch the full thing.
As I mentioned, I'm a little more optimistic now, but not overly so. I didn't like the IT movies, either, and actually expected to get flamed for that comment in the video given how popular they were, but so far no one has mentioned it. Maybe I'm inviting trouble here. LOL
I didn't know that about the "Devil Town" song. Interesting. I didn't think about this in time for the video, but Gordon Lightfoot's "Sundown" was released in 1974, and "Salem's Lot" takes place in 1975, so in addition to the imagery of the song, it's accurate to the period as well.
Thanks for the comment!
I’m not a fan of constant remakes, but as a huge fan of the novel, I always wanted a Salem’s Lot adaptation that had all the build up and excitement of the novel and while I like the 79 version, I felt we could’ve had something better. This movie on the other hand looks like an action packed vampire movie when both the original movie and book were a slow burn building up to the vampire infestation. I honestly didn’t care much for the trailer, but I will give some credit for 2 things, the casting is good and the vampires look creepy, but idk how they’ll execute it story wise
I would really like to see a faithful adaptation made of the novel as well. It would require a limited series format like what they did with Midnight Mass, which I thought was excellent. I definitely prefer atmospheric, slow-burn horror.
As good as the 1979 version is, it definitely does have some problems, particularly around the climax (Did they really wait around all day to go after Barlow until just before sunset?).
I have serious reservations about this one as well. At this point, I'm just hoping we get a few good scenes.
Stephen King has seen the film and has said that he liked it, describing it as taking its time beginning with a rewarding payoff towards the end, that is good enough for me to check it out, excited for this, trailer was great!
@@CyrusCyrus6 I'm going in with a more positive attitude than I had initially.
Stephing King said
"Fans of my books will love the Dark Tower movie."
Stephen King said
" The Flash is the best movie I've seen all year!"
He can write great books...
But his taste in film & television is Utter Shite.
Yeah, his record to date doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
He also prefers the horrible abc miniseries version of The Shining over Kubrick's masterpiece. How anyone could prefer that is beyond me.
@@josebro352I believe he funded or produced it
The trailer looked typical for what I anticipate this film to be.
Though I do wish that when this new adaptation was greenlit, it would have been a 6-part series. Need I refresh everyone's memory how amazing Midnight Mass and the first season of House on Haunted Hill was? Both had a strong sense of dread that lingered. Characters were given the time to develop.
It's just a hunch, but I'm thinking this new film will be weak on the character buildup. I'm already am bummed that the actor playing Ben feels too young. At first, I dug the song at the start of the trailer, but then wondered if it was kind of campy. I mean, the original was straight-up scary AF. The score alone was nightmare worthy.
Let's pray this isn't a cookie cutter horror, though I dread it will.
Thanks for the comment! You're right: the 1979 miniseries soundtrack was a great bit of classic horror scoring, like the soundtrack for Horror of Dracula and John Williams' score for the 1979 theatrical Dracula, starring Frank Langella.
Midnight Mass was fantastic, easily one of the best horror projects I've seen in recent years. The acting, writing, character buildup, and storytelling were all top-notch. We need more of that. Ultimately (assuming we can handle another adaptation), I'd like to see Salem's Lot done in a similar fashion...by someone who understands atmospheric horror.
I, too, hope this isn't cookie-cutter horror. We've had more than enough of that.
Im hoping its going to be good I ve read the novel multi-le times since i was a kid. Although crappy 2004 was more faithful. Grew up on original seires. Looks likes some changes but also some little touches from the book if you look quickly Danny Glick cops the cross to the cheek when tryinng to get Mark, very quick shot in the trailer. Ill check it out
It was one of the first adult horror novels that I read (needless to say, a bit jarring after the kid's editions of Dracula and Frankenstein that I'd read prior to that!). It still holds up well, and is definitely one of King's better novels.
I'll have to watch that part of the trailer again. I tried slowing it because they cut certain parts so quickly, and I saw Danny pinning Mark to the wall (at least that's what it looked like), but I missed the cross.
Thanks for commenting!
OK. It's 09/27/24 and I just watched the final trailer for Dauberman's 'Salem's Lot. I've also watched some reviews from UA-camrs who have apparently received an early screening of the movie. The reviewers used words like, "Comedic and Comedy" to describe the movie. These are words that shouldn't be used to describe any Stephen King adaption, let alone, 'Salem's Lot. And from what I've seen of Mr. Barlow, he looks like an orc from middle earth who has fangs. And some of his movements seem to have been created using CGI. For those who don't know: CGI sucks compared to practical effects, but it's cheaper to implement. I think I'm beginning to understand why this movie didn't go into theaters. I think I'm beginning to understand why WB shelved this movie for 2 yrs. Dauberman is known for making "jump scare" movies. "Salem's Lot isn't a jump scare movie, but I think that's what we're going to get on Oct. 3rd. Now, I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't what this movie is really going to be like. I'm sure it will have plenty of good scenes, but will they add up to a good movie?
Sorry, I just now saw this comment. Have you seen it yet? There are definitely some goofy moments in it, along with over-the-top ridiculous action sequences, and scenes that don't work well are given more screen time than other scenes that could have worked better (or should have been developed more). I posted a general review yesterday, and I'm thinking I was probably more generous than I ought to have been with it.
Looks like we will have a boss girl in the movie... DOI policy...
I'm afraid of that possibility, yes. If Disney had made this, yeah, Susan would kill Barlow and carry Ben off on her shoulder while snapping a Polaroid (a 70s selfie) with her free hand. We shall see.
My concern like many others is a ~2hr movie won’t be enough time to complete the story properly. I’ll stay optimistic until I see it. Off topic, would love a remake of Near Dark.
@@LandoTomato Yeah, I think it clocks in at 113 minutes. A Near Dark remake might be interesting...if it falls into the right hands.
i’m of the same mind this should have been a series similar to Chapelwaite. i did enjoy the 2000s remake about as much as the first one. The cast was what did it for me. Both have issues but i’ll wait till I see the new one to pass judgment. Newer “movies” look weird to me with what looks like i’m viewing it through a filter.
They do have a strange, sort of off-color look to them. Maybe because of the digital filming technique? I don't know enough about film production to say what gives modern movies that kind of look. It's a good point.
I really enjoyed the trailer, and Lewis Pullman is a great young actor. I love the atmosohere in this trailer. I can't wait to see it. I'm down for it.
@@guiltybyproxy1 I'm looking forward to it.
@@TheAtlanteanArchive Nice! Glad I'm not alone. We seem to be in the minority, which is a shame. I bet it turns out to be pretty good. They're complaining because a horror movie has humor in it (Scream, anyone?). Ridiculous.
@@guiltybyproxy1 I like a movie to tell me what it's doing up front rather than changing its tune along the way. Movies like Fright Night and The Lost Boys mixed horror with humor, and they clued you in right from the start.
Looking forward to this. Not sure how it’s going to be released in the Uk, but hopefully it will get one in some format or other.🤞 I’m currently reading the novel for the first time, and I’m surprised how different the 79 tv mini series is from the book. Really gripping read, and I loved the original to version. It scared me to death as a kid! 😱I tried to watch the 04 version, but it just didn’t catch my interest in the same way as the 79 did. I will be curious to see if the 24 version will be the closest adaptation to the novel. Kind regards from 🇬🇧 and thanks for posting, it’s always good to listen to people’s opinions 😃👍
@michellezimmermann9160 Thanks for watching and commenting! I've heard that it will be getting a theatrical release in the U.K., although I can't confirm that. Yes, the novel is significantly different than the 1979 miniseries in a few ways, especially at the end.
I agree that the original miniseries is excellent. It's easily one of the best horror movies I've ever seen, and I consider it to be the best vampire movie ever made. The novel is excellent as well. I go back and forth on Stephen King, but this is certainly one of his best books. I don't have terribly high hopes for this new adaptation, but I'm giving it a chance.
Thanks again!
Strange that you didn’t mention Richard Matheson’s outstanding I Am Legend novel, concerning vampire novels. Another recent vamp movie that I liked was The Last Voyage of the Demeter, based on one chapter of the Dracula novel. Well worth watching, I thought. And yes, I know that the Will Smith I Am Legend adaptation is bloody awful. 😂
I haven't watched "Demeter" yet, but I totally agree with you on "I Am Legend." I've reviewed two other Matheson titles on this channel and have mentioned it both times, but I have yet to do a dedicated review. In fact, I thought about that after I made this video: would I rank Salem's Lot or I Am Legend second to Dracula? It's close, but Legend probably wins out.
Thanks for watching and commenting!
Horror movies are traditionally inexpensive to produce and market. Low stakes overall. So my only hesitation with this adaptation is why it was shelved for so long. Reshoots happened, which can be a red flag for initial bad storytelling and action scenes. Maybe they thought they had to jazz it up a bit.
King owns response of "slow burn" doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the way he used it. I'm happy that it is finally coming out, but my main curiosity is if it was worthy of a theatrical release. The trailer leads me to believe that it could have gotten a theatrical release. At least it's coming out, and we can enjoy the experience of loving or hating it. Or meh. Ciao.
Thanks for the comment! I have a lot of the same thoughts and feelings about this. When a movie has to resort to re-shoots, something is definitely wrong. The rumor mill went crazy about that before Disney released "The Rise of Skywalker," and, as far as I'm concerned, they didn't re-shoot extensively enough. LOL
I agree on the theatrical release. The runtime was obviously built around that idea, so why not just go ahead with it? If they'd known they were going with a streaming release instead, maybe they would have taken more time with it.
Ciao!
1979 version was awesome especially with Geoffrey Lewis in Burkes house and this movie looks promising
@@jeffreylofton5713 That rocking chair scene is still extremely creepy even today.
I agree that a 10 episode mini series would have done it justice I mean I've the read the book and it's a lot of lore.
We might have gotten something like that if they'd realized from the start that it was going to streaming rather than theaters.
@@TheAtlanteanArchive Don't get me wrong, it looks very creepy just like the novel. The desolation alone, how this town gets corrupted is even more chilling than the vampires.
The Warren's back as teenagers i believe!!Cool 👍
I think it’s being released in cinemas in UK so will be going to see this one
@leekitchen1195 If it's actuslly any good, they'll be wishing they had released it in theaters here as well.
Trailer looks great.
@popey129 Better than I expected, yes.
What odds on a much expanded Director's cut further down the line?
I hadn't thought about that. It's probably a good possibility, depending on the response.
Hope it does good , and is close to the novel .....but to many remakes/reboots seems like every 20 yrs and they never hold up to the original adaptation
Yep. I'm not holding out exactly high hopes. If we get at least one or two decent scenes, I think we'll be lucky.
Looks like they've taken incredible liberties with the character of Susan. It seems like our 'heroes' have banded together like some sort of Scooby gang and Susan's fate has been switched with Matt Burke's.
This is really disappointing as Susan's fate is shocking, unexpected and key to the overall narrative. It's also an essential driver of Ben's story arc.
If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
I agree. I don't know why they're switching Matt Burke out for Susan. I haven't heard any spoilers regarding that aspect of the plot. Susan's death and Ben's part in being forced to destroy her is a main driving force in the latter part of the novel. Ben was pretty well ready to run otherwise. Barlow sealed his fate with that.
Its Dracula in America! Its been done 100 times already - it should be impossible to mess it up.
One would think! Hollywood seems to view ruining things as a challenge these days, though.
From what i seen from the trailers the movie looks good. The only scene i'm not so sure aboitmis where mat burke meets mike ryerson in is home. It'ts not like in the original tv movie where is character crashes through a window
@brianmuirhead5727 Yes, that scene just looks weird to me in the trailer. I guess the strange motions are supposed to be disturbing, but I thought it just looked goofy. I don't know why they changed that scene from the novel and the original miniseries. As I said to someone else, when does Hollywood not like to break glass? LOL
1979 version was really good the second version with Rob Lowe was terrible this version looks like it's going to live up to the 1979 version .❤
@@Ken-v7m I hope so. 2004 was a real mess.
_JUMP SCARE! .......JUMP SCARE! .....VAMPIRE!_
Blink and you'll miss it, too.
my expectations are low, however, the trailer isnt half as bad as i thought it would be
@darkestfugue I was surprised as well.
you didnt mention francis ford copolas dracula which follows bram stokers book to a t. that and your hate for the 2004 version which followed stephen kings book way closer then the 1979 version. the whole mike ryerson scene in the 2004 version was epic. plus the marsten house looked better in the 2004 version then it does in the new trailer imo.
So much of this is subjective and a matter of taste. The 2004 version did adhere to the novel more faithfully overall, with its portrayal of Barlow being the standout example, although it deviated in other ways that seemed bizarre to me. Yeah, the new Marsten House set doesn't look that great. It doesn't have much character.
I think overall it will be a solid vampire ‘action’ movie. The colour gradient is a little too like all Blumhouse and other modern horror nowadays. The demonic voice of Marjorie Glick is tacky though and I don’t like it as it’s not scary. It is in theatres in the UK as well as Max as it’s advertised at a cinema not too far away from my town.
Oh and the Mark Ryerson flying backwards was sadly reminiscent of his scene in the rubbish 2004 version.
@tonyyoung_wry I guess they think that things like the Glick voice and Mike Ryerson doing his slinky thing around the corner are 'disturbing,' but to me, they're just goofy. I don't understand why they would do that, especially with Ryerson. Come on, just knock him out of the window like it happens in the book. When does Hollywood not like to break glass? LOL
@@TheAtlanteanArchive lol exactly all of that mate!
👍 Agreed: This "Trailer" reminds me of the *_Remake_* of *The 🌫️ FOG'* (I e. There's a reason this film 📽️ was *_panned_* by *Test Audiences.* & this held 🔙 back for 2 years). And Stephen 👑 King endorsement is *_No Metric_* indeed 🐱 💩
@margaretwood152 I have never seen The Fog remake. I've never heard a single good thing about it, so I've been holding off.
Hollywood can’t make original movies anymore so they make remakes of great films and ruin them
Unfortunately, this is often the case.
Original master tops any Vamp past or present!!
@@Si_digs A true classic.
Huh, you're saying when It came out in 1979, Salem's Lot was a 'Mini-Series'? The Version I have on DVD is 1 Complete Movie! And when I first saw it in the 1980's on VHS it was a Movie.
@michaeloneill1360 It was initially released as a miniseries that ran over two nights and clocked in at a little over three hours in length. Later, they released a truncated version called Salem's Lot, the Movie. From what I understand, this version was actually shown in theaters in Europe at some point. I also remember it being the only version that was available for rental at Blockbuster and other stores back in the day.
The version you have on DVD should be the miniseries. I have that, too, and it just plays like a movie. There's no Part One or Part Two or anything like that. It clocks in at a little over three hours.
This may help:
screenrant.com/salems-lot-1979-miniseries-cuts-versions-explained/
@@TheAtlanteanArchive Thanks
Its gonna suck...pun intended. S.L has a lot of story to fit a two hour movie format. They changed the ending as well to be at a drive in movie! They should have kept the original score from 79. Imagine if they Remake JAWS but instead of the Cello, we get Baby shark do do do do do do. This will be worse than A return to Salem's lot! Lewis Pullman CAN act and act well. but he just isn't Ben Mears! I am interested to see if they do a decent make up job on Mr Barlow/Alexander ward!? But I fear The CGI worse than the Vampires, that's not right lol! I want to be excited for this but I'm struggling!
Worse than A Return to Salem's Lot would be pretty darn awful! The CGI does worry me. That's one of the things that I really didn't like about the 2004 adaptation: the computer eye effects and the CGI fangs. I thought they looked awful.
I read something just yesterday from someone who worked on the film. They said that Barlow's makeup was effectively creepy. I guess we'll see!
I'm trying to remember if I've seen Lewis Pullman in anything...
Thanks for the comment!
@@TheAtlanteanArchive Yeah A Return was pretty bad huh. I shouldn't judge without seeing maybe though. Am just nervously excited. I liked some aspect's of the Rob Lowe version but absolutely the CGI eyes and fangs were a bit obvious.
I thought Donald Sutherland was inspired casting for Mr Straker. Rutger should have been a good Mr Barlow and I'm sure he did the best with the way it was done. I know Straker should be the Bald fella in the novel but I just prefer the way Tobe Hooper changed them round, it seems to fit the story better. No offence to Mr King its still the great vampire story in my eyes.
That's good news About Barlow. Alexander Ward looks like he has the face to wear that make up. I am sure he will be great.
Lewis Pullman I have only seen in one thing and that was "Bad times at the El Royale" which was an overlooked gem in case ya haven't seen it. Young Lewis does a fine job with the role he has there.
@michaelmclellan573 Donald Sutherland and Rutger Hauer (James Cromwell also) were great casting choices and gave me a lot of hope for it when it debuted. As you said, they just didn't have much to work with.
James Mason was excellent as Straker. So refined in his manner and appearance, but then so ruthless on top of it. The guardian and enabler of a monster. How he wound up with Barlow in the first place would make for an interesting story all by itself.
2:45 Hahahaha!! Nice. 😂😂😂 👍 👍 👍
@@josebro352 LOL!
tax right offs
You may be right!
I've had many friends complaining that Dauberman has changed the films storyline around and added scenes that aren't in the book. Who cares!!! Really, who cares??? As long as Dauberman remains true to the spirit of King's book, it will be fine. I'm sure any changes he's made, he ran past King first. When you have a book as long as the "LOT" and you want to put it onto the silver screen or TV, compromises MUST be made to make it work. What's on the written page doesn't always translate well to the Silver Screen. Remember, Studios don't really want to entertain you. They want your money. And any movie that's over 90 minutes long isn't welcome, unless it has the words, "Star Wars" in front of it. Had this movie actually been made for MAX from the beginning, we might have got a 4- or 5-hour movie split into two parts, but that's neither here, nor there now. I am interested in what Barlow is going to be like. How will Dauberman and Alexander Ward have this character portrayed? I hope it's more Nosferatu-like but with the ability to talk, not just screech.
I said that same thing to someone else who commented here: it's too bad that they didn't know they were going to do a streaming release, as they could have taken their time with it. Ultimately, I'm hoping for a limited series production like "Midnight Mass," which was absolutely brilliant, in large part because it took its time building the characters and setting.
Yeah, creators have always had to battle studios and execs when it comes to story. When Peter Benchley wrote "Jaws," he was forced to incorporate changes at the insistence of the editor (the sex subplot being part of that). I've often wondered what he might have done more with a freer hand.
I'm definitely curious about Barlow as well. They're keeping him pretty well hidden.
Thanks for the comment!
I like the trailer wish it was limted time series. I have a question is it just me or was some of the characters race swap. I am not judging it wait until I watch the movie.just wondering why.
@livingtonu They probably just had a general casting call for the role without respect to the character's race in the novel. I do wonder about the decision to cast Dr. Cody as a female, though, given that the character is literally named Jimmy in the novel.
You seem hard to please?
@JJSS-vg1qs Not especially. My biggest complaints have to do with shoddy production and things that look goofy. I probably seemed pretty hard on the 2004 remake, but it's because some of the scenes were comically silly to me. An example is the climax where Barlow tries to tell Ben that he's actually the vampire.
Should've stayed on the shelf... Looks terrible.
You people would agree huh
As I mentioned in the video, I'm hoping for at least a few decent scenes. We may not even get that. We'll know before much longer.
They have a black kid playing Mark Petrie. WHY not talk about THAT!
Because some people don’t let racism cloud their judgement and actually care about the quality of the movie regardless of what ethnicity the characters are .
@@FilmFactsUncoveredwell said, sir! 👍
And they have a white guy playing Ben Mears. What's your fucking point?
@@josebro352 Your mother N.L.
@@FilmFactsUncovered N.L.