Maybe one day they'll get around to a mini series and do it properly. Until then I'll say Midnight Mass is the best we'll get as far as something in a similar vien (pun intended)
The whole scene with Matt Burke (when he had his heart attack) "teacher.... Look at mee.. look. At me teacher." That was my absolute favorite part and they really just .... Ruined that
I was looking forward to that intense moment and honestly, I can't even remember how they reworked it now. It was a jump scare thing that I've forgotten already.
Agreed. I liked the movie despite its flaws, and the way that man dies isn't one. He is the first adult to understand something is wrong in a supernatural sense, he manages to warn some people and he gives a good fight.
I agree. All the sexual stuff was taken out. For example, in the novel Barlow forces the faithless priest to drink his blood. That is some sick shit that would have made the movie better.
I said the EXACT same thing. I think maybe people who have no idea about the book would like this but it’s my favorite King book. You really didn’t get to know any of the characters, just right into the vampire killing. The build up of the town starting to become vampires was wayyyyy slower. Pullman was decent, Susan was verrrrry attractive and their chemistry was good, the 70s vibe was cozy. Hate to say it but I preferred the ‘79 and the ‘04 versions better. Hope y’all are well! 🎃
I'm still looking for anyone to point out that this is set in the 70s, before cars had a safety release in the trunks. And I do think one trunk looks like the lock had been busted out, but it's still a hole. A hole that sunlight can get in.
You could say this is the fourth attempt of continuing the Salem’s Lot saga in the Stephen King film-verses. Theres 1997’s The Night Flier where in the short story Dwight is revealed to have come from Salem’s Lot I believe.
This adaptation feels like having someone explain the book to you from their fever dream drunken memory of the 1979 versions which come to think of it they may not have actually watched.
idk, if you watched it (can't find the review on channel) - tv series "chapelwaite" with adrian brody, they made very long series out of king's short 'jerusalem's lot', the case when they didn't have enough original material, and end result is very solid, i'd think that it was h.p. lovecraft's writing not king as for new salem's lot movie - yeah, it is very rushed, no biuld up, but in some scenes they kind of had some tension, also it looked very bad in parts, very digital, night scenes, set design too fresh
Its like going trick-or-treating expecting a great candy bar and you get that carmel popcorn ball, from the old lady you grandma knows, instead...Then after you've eaten all the good candy and your hungry....well...2024 Salems lot....its a Popcorn ball... (The great candy bar was the original '79 series)
I have seen an interview where dauberman has said that the original cut of the movie was around 3hrs long and the studio got involved to cut it down. Hopefully we can get a directors cut at some point.
What I didn’t like was when people get hypnotised they get the Batman-eyes effect. When that effect isn’t present in previous versions it’s a lot creepier.
I still love the original. The sequel is just bizarre. I need to revisit the one with Rob Lowe. I don't remember much. They rushed with the recent one. Midnight Mass did it better.
Midnight Mass is a masterpiece, as is anything Flanagan does. I like to think of it as a companion piece to Salem's Lot. The scene where Riley rows out in the middle of the ocean waiting for the sun to rise was both disturbing and heartbreaking.
Best review I've heard as a reader and viewer(with high hopes!) of both previous adaptations. So much was always left out or oddly mixed in. I think Hoopers version feels more real, but the '04 (oddly a year or two after I first read) version fully introduced the truest Barlow. If nothing else. The season was off, the date was modernized, but the story was there. We didn't even find out a damn thing about Ben: the main character. Alas, it was still pretty fun
This definitely felt like a remake of the 1979 version (to a point) rather than a different adaptation of the novel. In the novel, Barlow is more of a traditional vampire that appears human initially and tempts and seduces people before "turning" them. The 1979 version turned him into a mute "monster" vampire, possibly to condense the story, but this was actually very effective as he was scary as hell. The 2024 version clearly copies this approach, basically turning Barlow into a bad CGI version of the 1979 rendition (albeit with a few lines this time). I agree with everything in the video about the pacing. It's like they were trying to throw in all the characters from the original, but a lot of them are in just one scene or even just referenced in passing. Why even bother? You may as well have just cut them out completely. But then it's not really Salem's Lot any more, is it? Even aside from the "poor adaptation" problems, I didn't think it was a good movie. A major issue for me, especially towards the end, was the inconsistent dangerousness of the vampires and Barlow. Early on, the vampires are lightning fast and super strong, picking people off with ease. Then in the third act the characters with plot armour are easily able to run away from them and fend them off to allow time for an escape. At one point Ben manages to physically hold off 3 vampires at once who have him pinned down for about a minute 🙄 And Barlow seems to turn into a dumb, clumsy creature at the end so that he can meet his demise.
Spot on. Def studio interference, has to be. Sooooo rushed, esp Barlow. Very annoying that they butchered it this way. My biggest gripe was that they treated us like idiots, we are capable of understanding what's going on yet they had to explain it to us as they did it. Show, don't tell is a basic rule of writing. For example when they struggled to open the coffin, he looked around and said 'I need to find something to break it open' before rushing off. We know, it was made perfectly clear by just looking up and around. This happened all the time during the film. Awful. If there's a longer version without these bits, more character development like you said then I'll watch it, other than that....total failure.
I wanted to like this but taking all the depth and detail out left us with a 2hr rush job of the story. The 79 Tobe hooper version still holds up as the best. Flanagan's Midnight Mass is the best inspiration of Salems Lot
If no one is afraid of the vampires then horror does not get transferred to an audience. Mark, an 11 year old boy, wasn’t afraid of ANYTHING. A three hour version won’t fix that. I don’t understand what the director was going for in this movie. What did he want to say? It was played serious but also over the top with a few jokes thrown in by people who just killed vampires. Straker was useless. Out of the entire town, Barlow chooses Mrs. Norton to replace Straker??? lol Now that's scary! Cheers.
I went and saw this on the big screen in the uk. I already knew the run time so I knew not to compare it to the original tv series or 2004 version but instead see it as an elseworlds type. To be honest I liked it a lot and it really did benefit being on the big screen so WB are absolute dummies for not fully supporting this.
Salems Lot remains my favourite King novel, possibly because I lived in a small town. Sure it’s dated. Sure, I actively dislike some of the tropes ( Susan decides she loves Ben on the third date?!Seriously, Mr King?! I get the “good” girl had to be in love to be allowed to have sex back in day, but that doesn’t read well today.), but it’s the characters, the townspeople, who make Salems Lot such a rich and horrifying read. The novel’s about the death of an entire small town, after all.
Being one of my favorite Stephen king books I feel that all the adaptations they had don’t hold a candle to that masterpiece. I agree with ya though. Should have been like “house of usher” where it would be better as a 10 episode series. Had high hopes but when they took the sticks and made a cross and wouldn’t work so they’re scrounging around for tape I was out. 🤣 Watched the rest but wasn’t paying much attention.
You are correct this reminds me of the horrible theatrical Justice league vs Zac Snyder's long version in comparison to it if there's a 3 hour version available. It's not a great movie but if a 3 hour version was released instead I think it would have done better. I hope an extended cut is released just to see what was leftout. There was a second long clip of Charlie Rhodes' bus vandalized before a new scene immediately started. The editing was terrible. The Straker representation & actor chose was bad, weak & useless. Mark Petrie was like watching Edgar or Alan Frog, it wasn't supposed to be a comedy. Gun crazy Ann Norton was the worst.
The green screen was worse than than Jeepers Creepers Reborn 🤣🤣🤣 Also lots of non-payoffs, like setting up Mark's Houdini escape act, practicing and failing to remove hand binds during his playground introduction but then isn't reincorporated when tied up later 🤦♂️
This movie is a textbook example of something that was probably cut down from a longer cut. It was a little TOO fast paced, but it wasn't horrible. The black kid didn't give a fxck, he turned into Van Helsing as soon as he saw his first vampire. The scene where Barlow's minion stole the kid was unintentionally hilarious.
It really needed to be a series. I hated the final act in the drive-in. The Marsten house had no build up or importance to the story, which in the book and even the OG TV series the house was important. CGI threw me too
I’ve read the book, big Stephan King fan in general. I really enjoyed this movie. I had such a fun time with it. Obviously it would’ve been better as a mini series but 🤷♀️. Makes me want to reread the book for sure!
Finally got to see it last night. Had low expectations due to the short run time of an adaptation of such a sprawling character driven story and am sad I was right. I really wanted to like it since I've been waiting, like most of us for four years, and it was such a letdown. It's awful, in my opinion. The plot moves at a breakneck pace and most of the characters are easily convinced there's a vampire takeover in progress after the first 30 minutes. Zero character development, barely a nod to the back story of the town itself which IS THE MAIN CHARACTER. The town and it's dormant, complacent evil are the whole point. To the director's credit, it's obvious the studio got their paws on it and ruined it by lopping off important chunks of plot in favor of a shorter movie. The end result is characters we don't know, that don't know each other and the only motivation is to stay alive. There's also no progression to the vampire seige, three people get killed and BAM, whole town of vampires. There could've been several quick cuts from the book showing the townspeople turning each other but instead it's just implied. THE GOOD: The vampires look amazing, although there's too much pointless CGI. The color palette of the film looks great overall creating a foggy, creepy atmosphere. The ending, which I thought I'd hate, actually was clever and even though wildly different from the book's finale, still harkened back to it in a few ways. I thought the Ann Norton scene when Susan goes home was actually creepy as hell and well done. The whole movie could've been like that! Dreamlike and like everyone is under a trance. THE BAD: I thought the casting was another bad omen when it was announced. Just a smattering on character actors and Bill Camp is completely wasted. Lewis Pullman spends the film delivering stilted dialogue with an annoying lip tick that makes it look like he's chewing tabacco the whole time. William Sadler was another total waste. Some movies make stars without heavy hitters but this felt like an old school SyFy original. So that's my rant and I guess I'll re-watch Midnight Mass to scratch the itch and get mad that Mike Flanigan will not be doing a faithful Salem's Lot series because of it. Maybe in a decade or so someone will make the source material their passion project and give it the prestige mini series on premium cable treatment that it deserves.
@@sinistercinemareviews5420 I saw someone else in the comments mention Chapelwaite which I loved and was sad to see it didn't get renewed. I think that series could've laid the groundwork for a Salem's Lot series and it almost seemed like that was the original intent. Maybe someone with more talent than me and resources could resuscitate it. Season Two could've been centered around the Marsten murders. Fans of the book know Marsten corresponded with Barlow and set the stage for his arrival. Could've easily tied that in and the great fire. And then season three could've been a proper retelling of Salem's Lot. Just think this is a great property that has seen many missed opportunities. Also thought the short story "One for the Road" would've made an awesome opening scene for this movie.
Not all but most people today around 40ish and younger, don't have the attention span to watch movies. If there isn't movement and is dialog heavy they tune out and get bored .
Haven't read the book. Didn't watch the series. I thought this movie was prettttty good. By that I mean it had a ton of creepy imagery/scenes and I just loved the cinematography
they used only 30% of the book. Its super sad cause like you its my fav Kings novel. Never in a million years this novel could be made into a 113min movie.
I don't know if that's true. James Ivory and Ismail Merchant made a classic adaptation of E.M. Forster's A Room with a View that was just under two hours, for example.
This had potential. I'd say it was fairly good through about 2/3 of the run. It really fell apart at the end, though. It fell into the trap that so many horror movies fall into -- it just devolved into a chaotic cgi-fest. Left a bad taste in my mouth. Which is too bad. I was really looking forward to this one. Feels a lot like a missed opportunity.
Movie was completely rushed. Even with a 2 hr runtime, they could have fleshed out the characters, history and lore of the town slow burn style for the first hour then they could have went balls deep after establishing its universe but it was very boring and bland to me
I thought it was fun for what it was. Love all the familiar faces, but I prefer the original and of course, A Return to Salem’s lot. I still need to finish the remake someday. I always avoid it or start thinking about it when doing my Salem rewatches.
I haven't even gotten to see your whole review, but yet, you get thumbs up from myself due to the PURE FRANKNESS that oozes from you and your host.-- James D. Watkins, artistic director of PHOENIX PRODUCTIONS.
I thought it was terrible i laughed through most of it. Ill take the 2004 flick over this new one and thats saying something! The 79 flick is the best. It blows my mind why they cant do good make up these days and have to cgi everything it looks so fake. The vampires in 1979 was so much more terrifying
The biggest problem I have with the movie is that it’s not a limited series. My favorite King book is Pet Sematary & just like Salems Lot the characters make the book. Two hours is way to short for these types of stories.
I felt it was a good movie,but rushed,like no one had a problem believing vampires were real,other than Marks parents,it kinda took you out the movie for that reason alone,it was like oh there is vampires,let’s go slay them team lol.I mean though it is what it is,it had a great cast,the vampires looked good,and it had some pretty good scenes.I feel it was a decent HBO Max movie in my opinion overall.I mean if you know nothing about Salems Lot,and watch this you will probably like it,other than some stuff not being believable,like Mark driving a car,and like I mentioned everyone believes there is vampires so easily,now if you are a hardcore Salem’s lot lore person from the book,you probably won’t like it…
As soon as it began with them taking the crated coffin down into the cellar, I knew it was going to be soooooo rushed and was gonna suck..I cannot believe that this hasn’t been make into a Netflix series by Mike Flanagan..Barlow looked straight up like the Nun in cgi, but just bald, haha..Stephen King novels absolutely cannot be made into 2 hour movies, unless they are either broken into several parts, or if they are from one of his short stories from “Night Shift”, “Nightmares and Dreamscapes”, “Skeleton Crew”, etc..As a kid from the late 70’s and 80’s, it is so cool to see this generation still wanting practical effects in these sorts of film..If only this generation still wanted physical media the way they still wanted practical effects..Oh well, one can dream, haha..
I haven’t seen or read the previous iterations… that being said, my kids and I loved it, this could be because it’s our only reference point for the story. Loved the tone, look of the vampires and Mark was cool. My only gripe was how easy it was to defeat Barlow.
This sure was a movie alright. It literally was the cinematic equivalent of beige chinos. There is a 3hr cut apparently that we will never see, but not sure that would help, it was just like white noise. I had to remind myself I was watching it & I’m a King fan, like first edition collecting fan, so that’s saying something about the mediocrity on display here.
Great review! I agree, rushed and to me somewhat boring. Alfre Woodard was the best. Nothing can compare to the 1979 version, the best! They tried, but this will be long forgotten and added to other blah remakes. Disappointed 😢
Entertaining, Yes!, A lot of elements are definitely missing!. Opportunities definitely missed, Vampire designs Ok. Wasn't like Tobey's. The Casting was Ok, not bad. Should've had more backbone of the characters, it went too quickly. Some Jump scares wasn't bad. Could've been better as usual. Wasn't really feeling the Vampires, felt more like an Alien invasion film than a Vampire film. Barlow designs needed more grittiness, like the other Vampires, they were too soft looking, like Dolls. LOL!~. Really like the final battle, but wanted more!. overall! a small spoon feed. Lukewarm!.
Good call on the look of the vampires. The ‘79 vamps were grimey and ghoulish and legitimately terrifying. Dolls is a good way to describe these vamps. I’ve been trying to put my finger on that. Too clean, too slick. Barlow looked pretty good in literally a couple frames during the kitchen scene but was otherwise so cgi’d that he looked like a video game. What a shame :/
Didn't like this remake because the story moved way too fast. They also had Mark doing things I would never imagine an 11 year kid doing, for me that didn't feel natural. Not a terrible movie but this is another sequel we didn't need.
@sinistercinemareviews5420 at a glance, the yellow background on her side, optically makes it look like she's streaming from another location/split screen.
Not much like the book. So much to unpack here. 1. Why a reimagining of certain characters that get race swapped? Pandering, 2. They gave it away in the first few seconds when they showed a map from London to Maine with a blood trail. 3. This movie isn’t even a standalone movie. 4. The mini series with Rob Lowe is more accurate and authentic to the book. 5. This movie jumps around too much and takes an unnecessary amount liberties that are unnecessary. 6. Stop trying to remake something that isn’t in need of it and stop with the race swapping bs. 7. ENOUGH Crap movies! 8. Oddity is 1000 times better
I personally don't understand the nostalgia for the 1979 adaptation, which isn't true to the novel whatsoever. The book is all about slow and insidious evil, which people cannot tell is present, except for that chill at the back of your neck. Barlow in the novel is a nameless stranger walking around town at night, interacting with people, as a man, playing on their hopes and dreams. He's not a Nosferatu style monster, and never has been. It is also about a very haunted and dark person returning to exocize demons. One thing i felt strongly that was Lewis Pullman was too boyish to fit Ben Mears. This is about a Count Orlok monster, and a boy band style writer with no mention of his dark past. All in all it comes across as a very different story. If you want a book faithful adaptation, watch Robb Lowe and Rutger Hauer. In the end, i fully agree that Salem's Lot would be best served as, a full 10 episode series like has recently been done for The Outsider or Mr Mercedes. But that's my ten cen cents. Awesome review!
Maybe one day they'll get around to a mini series and do it properly. Until then I'll say Midnight Mass is the best we'll get as far as something in a similar vien (pun intended)
The whole scene with Matt Burke (when he had his heart attack) "teacher.... Look at mee.. look. At me teacher." That was my absolute favorite part and they really just .... Ruined that
I was looking forward to that intense moment and honestly, I can't even remember how they reworked it now. It was a jump scare thing that I've forgotten already.
I don’t get this? Just watch the 1979 version. Just read the book. Absolutely no point in someone remaking exact same thing. I
No bus scene
Agreed. I liked the movie despite its flaws, and the way that man dies isn't one. He is the first adult to understand something is wrong in a supernatural sense, he manages to warn some people and he gives a good fight.
@@silentassassin2000 I don't think her point was that she wanted the exact same thing.
Original mini series was so effective and still holds up decades later. This felt like I was watching an episode of Goosebumps.
And this is the R rated version haha
@@sinistercinemareviews5420 yeah 😂 are you checking out the new V/H/S?
I agree. All the sexual stuff was taken out. For example, in the novel Barlow forces the faithless priest to drink his blood. That is some sick shit that would have made the movie better.
The little boy Mark is like young BLADE in training. 😊
Mark was the MVP for me in this we don't need a blade movie Just make a mark movie 😂
Haha
I said the EXACT same thing. I think maybe people who have no idea about the book would like this but it’s my favorite King book. You really didn’t get to know any of the characters, just right into the vampire killing. The build up of the town starting to become vampires was wayyyyy slower. Pullman was decent, Susan was verrrrry attractive and their chemistry was good, the 70s vibe was cozy. Hate to say it but I preferred the ‘79 and the ‘04 versions better. Hope y’all are well! 🎃
She sure was
Even the rob Lowe one is better.
Haven’t seen it in a long time
I don’t know why the Rob Lowe one got so much hate. 2004 made this look like The Shining.
I'm still looking for anyone to point out that this is set in the 70s, before cars had a safety release in the trunks. And I do think one trunk looks like the lock had been busted out, but it's still a hole. A hole that sunlight can get in.
That’s what you are focused on?
You could say this is the fourth attempt of continuing the Salem’s Lot saga in the Stephen King film-verses. Theres 1997’s The Night Flier where in the short story Dwight is revealed to have come from Salem’s Lot I believe.
This adaptation feels like having someone explain the book to you from their fever dream drunken memory of the 1979 versions which come to think of it they may not have actually watched.
idk, if you watched it (can't find the review on channel) - tv series "chapelwaite" with adrian brody, they made very long series out of king's short 'jerusalem's lot', the case when they didn't have enough original material, and end result is very solid, i'd think that it was h.p. lovecraft's writing not king
as for new salem's lot movie - yeah, it is very rushed, no biuld up, but in some scenes they kind of had some tension, also it looked very bad in parts, very digital, night scenes, set design too fresh
I haven’t yet
You guys nailed the analysis. you hit almost all of the things that infuriated me about this.
Its like going trick-or-treating expecting a great candy bar and you get that carmel popcorn ball, from the old lady you grandma knows, instead...Then after you've eaten all the good candy and your hungry....well...2024 Salems lot....its a Popcorn ball...
(The great candy bar was the original '79 series)
I have seen an interview where dauberman has said that the original cut of the movie was around 3hrs long and the studio got involved to cut it down. Hopefully we can get a directors cut at some point.
Not unless we spam them with #Releasethedaubermancut
What I didn’t like was when people get hypnotised they get the Batman-eyes effect. When that effect isn’t present in previous versions it’s a lot creepier.
I still love the original. The sequel is just bizarre. I need to revisit the one with Rob Lowe. I don't remember much. They rushed with the recent one. Midnight Mass did it better.
Midnight Mass is a masterpiece, as is anything Flanagan does. I like to think of it as a companion piece to Salem's Lot. The scene where Riley rows out in the middle of the ocean waiting for the sun to rise was both disturbing and heartbreaking.
Yeah. Muuuuuch better
Not a sequel.
Best review I've heard as a reader and viewer(with high hopes!) of both previous adaptations. So much was always left out or oddly mixed in. I think Hoopers version feels more real, but the '04 (oddly a year or two after I first read) version fully introduced the truest Barlow. If nothing else. The season was off, the date was modernized, but the story was there. We didn't even find out a damn thing about Ben: the main character. Alas, it was still pretty fun
And that last part regards the 2024 adaptation. I enjoyed the use of narrative in the 04 version. Which included lines straight from the story
This definitely felt like a remake of the 1979 version (to a point) rather than a different adaptation of the novel.
In the novel, Barlow is more of a traditional vampire that appears human initially and tempts and seduces people before "turning" them. The 1979 version turned him into a mute "monster" vampire, possibly to condense the story, but this was actually very effective as he was scary as hell. The 2024 version clearly copies this approach, basically turning Barlow into a bad CGI version of the 1979 rendition (albeit with a few lines this time).
I agree with everything in the video about the pacing. It's like they were trying to throw in all the characters from the original, but a lot of them are in just one scene or even just referenced in passing. Why even bother? You may as well have just cut them out completely. But then it's not really Salem's Lot any more, is it?
Even aside from the "poor adaptation" problems, I didn't think it was a good movie. A major issue for me, especially towards the end, was the inconsistent dangerousness of the vampires and Barlow. Early on, the vampires are lightning fast and super strong, picking people off with ease. Then in the third act the characters with plot armour are easily able to run away from them and fend them off to allow time for an escape. At one point Ben manages to physically hold off 3 vampires at once who have him pinned down for about a minute 🙄 And Barlow seems to turn into a dumb, clumsy creature at the end so that he can meet his demise.
Spot on. Def studio interference, has to be. Sooooo rushed, esp Barlow. Very annoying that they butchered it this way.
My biggest gripe was that they treated us like idiots, we are capable of understanding what's going on yet they had to explain it to us as they did it. Show, don't tell is a basic rule of writing. For example when they struggled to open the coffin, he looked around and said 'I need to find something to break it open' before rushing off. We know, it was made perfectly clear by just looking up and around. This happened all the time during the film. Awful.
If there's a longer version without these bits, more character development like you said then I'll watch it, other than that....total failure.
Supposedly there is a 3 hour cut
@@sinistercinemareviews5420 Cool, needs it. I bet a fan cut could be good.
I wanted to like this but taking all the depth and detail out left us with a 2hr rush job of the story. The 79 Tobe hooper version still holds up as the best. Flanagan's Midnight Mass is the best inspiration of Salems Lot
Danny Glick in this one looked similar to the previous Danny
Homelanders kid… haha
If no one is afraid of the vampires then horror does not get transferred to an audience. Mark, an 11 year old boy, wasn’t afraid of ANYTHING. A three hour version won’t fix that. I don’t understand what the director was going for in this movie. What did he want to say? It was played serious but also over the top with a few jokes thrown in by people who just killed vampires. Straker was useless. Out of the entire town, Barlow chooses Mrs. Norton to replace Straker??? lol Now that's scary! Cheers.
Lot of questionable decisions
I went and saw this on the big screen in the uk. I already knew the run time so I knew not to compare it to the original tv series or 2004 version but instead see it as an elseworlds type. To be honest I liked it a lot and it really did benefit being on the big screen so WB are absolute dummies for not fully supporting this.
Salems Lot remains my favourite King novel, possibly because I lived in a small town. Sure it’s dated. Sure, I actively dislike some of the tropes ( Susan decides she loves Ben on the third date?!Seriously, Mr King?! I get the “good” girl had to be in love to be allowed to have sex back in day, but that doesn’t read well today.), but it’s the characters, the townspeople, who make Salems Lot such a rich and horrifying read. The novel’s about the death of an entire small town, after all.
Being one of my favorite Stephen king books I feel that all the adaptations they had don’t hold a candle to that masterpiece. I agree with ya though. Should have been like “house of usher” where it would be better as a 10 episode series. Had high hopes but when they took the sticks and made a cross and wouldn’t work so they’re scrounging around for tape I was out. 🤣 Watched the rest but wasn’t paying much attention.
You are correct this reminds me of the horrible theatrical Justice league vs Zac Snyder's long version in comparison to it if there's a 3 hour version available. It's not a great movie but if a 3 hour version was released instead I think it would have done better. I hope an extended cut is released
just to see what was leftout.
There was a second long clip of Charlie Rhodes' bus vandalized before a new scene immediately started. The editing was terrible.
The Straker representation & actor chose was bad, weak & useless. Mark Petrie was like watching Edgar or Alan Frog, it wasn't supposed to be a comedy. Gun crazy Ann Norton was the worst.
I’d definitely watch a longer version
The green screen was worse than than Jeepers Creepers Reborn 🤣🤣🤣
Also lots of non-payoffs, like setting up Mark's Houdini escape act, practicing and failing to remove hand binds during his playground introduction but then isn't reincorporated when tied up later 🤦♂️
Yeah that was weird
This movie is a textbook example of something that was probably cut down from a longer cut. It was a little TOO fast paced, but it wasn't horrible. The black kid didn't give a fxck, he turned into Van Helsing as soon as he saw his first vampire.
The scene where Barlow's minion stole the kid was unintentionally hilarious.
Very good, very accurate review. As a fan of the book and Tobe Hooper version, I was sooooooo disappointed with this one. Like vampires, it sucked.
😢
The original Dauberman cut was three hours, apparently. So why not just release that, with no cuts? 🤔
It really needed to be a series. I hated the final act in the drive-in. The Marsten house had no build up or importance to the story, which in the book and even the OG TV series the house was important. CGI threw me too
The house is non existent
Yes! In the book and original movie it was a big part. The final battle happened there. Very disappointed
I’ve read the book, big Stephan King fan in general. I really enjoyed this movie. I had such a fun time with it. Obviously it would’ve been better as a mini series but 🤷♀️. Makes me want to reread the book for sure!
I need to as well
I would like a series version
Please
This story could not sustain ten one-hour episodes. More like three, four max.
So I did a “watch the original” then watched “the new one.” And oh my god what a shocker! Wasn’t terrible but yes, it was disappointing.
😢
Finally got to see it last night. Had low expectations due to the short run time of an adaptation of such a sprawling character driven story and am sad I was right. I really wanted to like it since I've been waiting, like most of us for four years, and it was such a letdown. It's awful, in my opinion.
The plot moves at a breakneck pace and most of the characters are easily convinced there's a vampire takeover in progress after the first 30 minutes. Zero character development, barely a nod to the back story of the town itself which IS THE MAIN CHARACTER. The town and it's dormant, complacent evil are the whole point.
To the director's credit, it's obvious the studio got their paws on it and ruined it by lopping off important chunks of plot in favor of a shorter movie. The end result is characters we don't know, that don't know each other and the only motivation is to stay alive. There's also no progression to the vampire seige, three people get killed and BAM, whole town of vampires. There could've been several quick cuts from the book showing the townspeople turning each other but instead it's just implied.
THE GOOD: The vampires look amazing, although there's too much pointless CGI. The color palette of the film looks great overall creating a foggy, creepy atmosphere. The ending, which I thought I'd hate, actually was clever and even though wildly different from the book's finale, still harkened back to it in a few ways. I thought the Ann Norton scene when Susan goes home was actually creepy as hell and well done. The whole movie could've been like that! Dreamlike and like everyone is under a trance.
THE BAD: I thought the casting was another bad omen when it was announced. Just a smattering on character actors and Bill Camp is completely wasted. Lewis Pullman spends the film delivering stilted dialogue with an annoying lip tick that makes it look like he's chewing tabacco the whole time. William Sadler was another total waste. Some movies make stars without heavy hitters but this felt like an old school SyFy original.
So that's my rant and I guess I'll re-watch Midnight Mass to scratch the itch and get mad that Mike Flanigan will not be doing a faithful Salem's Lot series because of it. Maybe in a decade or so someone will make the source material their passion project and give it the prestige mini series on premium cable treatment that it deserves.
Yup. Pretty much everything I said
@@sinistercinemareviews5420 I saw someone else in the comments mention Chapelwaite which I loved and was sad to see it didn't get renewed. I think that series could've laid the groundwork for a Salem's Lot series and it almost seemed like that was the original intent. Maybe someone with more talent than me and resources could resuscitate it. Season Two could've been centered around the Marsten murders. Fans of the book know Marsten corresponded with Barlow and set the stage for his arrival. Could've easily tied that in and the great fire. And then season three could've been a proper retelling of Salem's Lot. Just think this is a great property that has seen many missed opportunities.
Also thought the short story "One for the Road" would've made an awesome opening scene for this movie.
Not all but most people today around 40ish and younger, don't have the attention span to watch movies. If there isn't movement and is dialog heavy they tune out and get bored .
I’d say early 30s and below.
Haven't read the book. Didn't watch the series. I thought this movie was prettttty good. By that I mean it had a ton of creepy imagery/scenes and I just loved the cinematography
Glad you enjoyed it ❤️
they used only 30% of the book. Its super sad cause like you its my fav Kings novel. Never in a million years this novel could be made into a 113min movie.
No way
I don't know if that's true. James Ivory and Ismail Merchant made a classic adaptation of E.M. Forster's A Room with a View that was just under two hours, for example.
This had potential. I'd say it was fairly good through about 2/3 of the run. It really fell apart at the end, though. It fell into the trap that so many horror movies fall into -- it just devolved into a chaotic cgi-fest. Left a bad taste in my mouth. Which is too bad. I was really looking forward to this one. Feels a lot like a missed opportunity.
😢
It kind of reminded me of fright night..... Or something like it was trying to be family friendly
Same
Movie was completely rushed. Even with a 2 hr runtime, they could have fleshed out the characters, history and lore of the town slow burn style for the first hour then they could have went balls deep after establishing its universe but it was very boring and bland to me
Yup
I had not seen the OG. So I thought this was a fun vampire movie. I need to watch the OG Salem’s Lot.
I’ve watched it so many times already, it great to me, worth the wait.
Let’s remake Shaft with an All White cast!
Uh, .. why?
I thought it was fun for what it was. Love all the familiar faces, but I prefer the original and of course, A Return to Salem’s lot. I still need to finish the remake someday. I always avoid it or start thinking about it when doing my Salem rewatches.
I haven't even gotten to see your whole review, but yet, you get thumbs up from myself due to the PURE FRANKNESS that oozes from you and your host.-- James D. Watkins, artistic director of PHOENIX PRODUCTIONS.
I don’t know how to be any other way
@@sinistercinemareviews5420 That's the way to be and that's why I'm subscribed to your channel. -- J.D. Watkins.
I thought it was terrible i laughed through most of it. Ill take the 2004 flick over this new one and thats saying something! The 79 flick is the best. It blows my mind why they cant do good make up these days and have to cgi everything it looks so fake. The vampires in 1979 was so much more terrifying
Good review, almost my thoughts exactly.
The biggest problem I have with the movie is that it’s not a limited series. My favorite King book is Pet Sematary & just like Salems Lot the characters make the book. Two hours is way to short for these types of stories.
Way too short
I felt it was a good movie,but rushed,like no one had a problem believing vampires were real,other than Marks parents,it kinda took you out the movie for that reason alone,it was like oh there is vampires,let’s go slay them team lol.I mean though it is what it is,it had a great cast,the vampires looked good,and it had some pretty good scenes.I feel it was a decent HBO Max movie in my opinion overall.I mean if you know nothing about Salems Lot,and watch this you will probably like it,other than some stuff not being believable,like Mark driving a car,and like I mentioned everyone believes there is vampires so easily,now if you are a hardcore Salem’s lot lore person from the book,you probably won’t like it…
Everything is streamlined
Salem's Lot is supposed to be a slow burn and this was like the Cliff Notes version.
Agreed
They also shoehorned it into two hours.. 4:04 i know right
Such a bad decision
As soon as it began with them taking the crated coffin down into the cellar, I knew it was going to be soooooo rushed and was gonna suck..I cannot believe that this hasn’t been make into a Netflix series by Mike Flanagan..Barlow looked straight up like the Nun in cgi, but just bald, haha..Stephen King novels absolutely cannot be made into 2 hour movies, unless they are either broken into several parts, or if they are from one of his short stories from “Night Shift”, “Nightmares and Dreamscapes”, “Skeleton Crew”, etc..As a kid from the late 70’s and 80’s, it is so cool to see this generation still wanting practical effects in these sorts of film..If only this generation still wanted physical media the way they still wanted practical effects..Oh well, one can dream, haha..
I doubt he would want to do a vampire movie or series again
Just watch Midnight Mass
@@silentassassin2000 I did watch it…It angers me that Netflix won’t allow both Midnight Mass and Gerald’s Game to be released on Blu Ray..
@@anarche4900 doesn’t have to be Flanagan..I’m just using him as an example..No matter who does it, it needs to be made into a limited series..
Mike Flanagan + Stephen King = Wonderful
The kid who played danny was good
9:04 Couldn’t agree more. A missed opportunity.
The guy who played Straker was horrible. It really should have been its own movie it was so different
You mean Euron Greyjoy? Lol
He was in it for 5 minutes and killed off so easily
@@sinistercinemareviews5420 mark killed more people than the adults
I haven’t seen or read the previous iterations… that being said, my kids and I loved it, this could be because it’s our only reference point for the story. Loved the tone, look of the vampires and Mark was cool. My only gripe was how easy it was to defeat Barlow.
So easy
I liked it!
This sure was a movie alright. It literally was the cinematic equivalent of beige chinos. There is a 3hr cut apparently that we will never see, but not sure that would help, it was just like white noise. I had to remind myself I was watching it & I’m a King fan, like first edition collecting fan, so that’s saying something about the mediocrity on display here.
You never know, we might see that cut
The super nerd trope and happy ish ending sunk an unnecessary version
Great review! I agree, rushed and to me somewhat boring. Alfre Woodard was the best. Nothing can compare to the 1979 version, the best! They tried, but this will be long forgotten and added to other blah remakes. Disappointed 😢
😢
I give it a 6.7 out of 10
I’d probably give it a 5
Entertaining, Yes!, A lot of elements are definitely missing!. Opportunities definitely missed, Vampire designs Ok. Wasn't like Tobey's. The Casting was Ok, not bad. Should've had more backbone of the characters, it went too quickly. Some Jump scares wasn't bad. Could've been better as usual. Wasn't really feeling the Vampires, felt more like an Alien invasion film than a Vampire film. Barlow designs needed more grittiness, like the other Vampires, they were too soft looking, like Dolls. LOL!~. Really like the final battle, but wanted more!. overall! a small spoon feed. Lukewarm!.
Good call on the look of the vampires. The ‘79 vamps were grimey and ghoulish and legitimately terrifying. Dolls is a good way to describe these vamps. I’ve been trying to put my finger on that. Too clean, too slick. Barlow looked pretty good in literally a couple frames during the kitchen scene but was otherwise so cgi’d that he looked like a video game. What a shame :/
Lukewarm is where I’m at for sure
never read the book but even for someone like me I was like, what?!? this shit feels rushed😅😅
So rushed
at least it wasn't a musical
I love musicals
@@sinistercinemareviews5420vampire musicals? brave soul
Sorry for previous confusion, watched the wrong one.
Didn't like this remake because the story moved way too fast. They also had Mark doing things I would never imagine an 11 year kid doing, for me that didn't feel natural. Not a terrible movie but this is another sequel we didn't need.
Definitely too fast
You guys have a split screen effect
Huh?
@sinistercinemareviews5420 at a glance, the yellow background on her side, optically makes it look like she's streaming from another location/split screen.
The 79 original version is so good and has so much going for it ... Sorry to say, for me , this one was instantly forgettable.
Fair
The 2024 version ending was rushed .also Barlow was to fast. He went for the boy then died. Sad
Way too fast
Does is suck? Yes.
Well, vampires suck ... literally.
The It Sequel was so bad, I don't think I will have faith in anything made by the people behind it.
Boo
I started this movie twice and I found it so bland and anodyne is that I see no incentives to ever finish it. I would rather rewatch the miniseries.
So many people aren’t finishing it
I still say this guy talks too much. He likes to listen to his own voice.
nope. i tried, but it lacked.
😢
The movie is okay.
Agreed
Not much like the book. So much to unpack here.
1. Why a reimagining of certain characters that get race swapped? Pandering,
2. They gave it away in the first few seconds when they showed a map from London to Maine with a blood trail.
3. This movie isn’t even a standalone movie.
4. The mini series with Rob Lowe is more accurate and authentic to the book.
5. This movie jumps around too much and takes an unnecessary amount liberties that are unnecessary.
6. Stop trying to remake something that isn’t in need of it and stop with the race swapping bs.
7. ENOUGH Crap movies!
8. Oddity is 1000 times better
I personally don't understand the nostalgia for the 1979 adaptation, which isn't true to the novel whatsoever.
The book is all about slow and insidious evil, which people cannot tell is present, except for that chill at the back of your neck. Barlow in the novel is a nameless stranger walking around town at night, interacting with people, as a man, playing on their hopes and dreams. He's not a Nosferatu style monster, and never has been.
It is also about a very haunted and dark person returning to exocize demons. One thing i felt strongly that was Lewis Pullman was too boyish to fit Ben Mears.
This is about a Count Orlok monster, and a boy band style writer with no mention of his dark past. All in all it comes across as a very different story.
If you want a book faithful adaptation, watch Robb Lowe and Rutger Hauer.
In the end, i fully agree that Salem's Lot would be best served as, a full 10 episode series like has recently been done for The Outsider or Mr Mercedes.
But that's my ten cen cents.
Awesome review!
It sucked. They changed both the story and the lore to make it a generic action-flick instead of a horror story.
They definitely changed a lot
Meh. I give it a C+.
Fair
This movie was so cheesy and dare I say “childish”. Not a fan. It wasn’t scary at all. It’s geared more forwards younger adults
It did feel pretty tamed down
I watched a little over an hour and shut it off. It just wasn't good. Very rushed and silly.
Very rushed
I think i got in about 20 minutes and couldn’t take it anymore. Just bad, boring, lackluster ugh
😢
Another instance of a great stephen king work made into A poor film.
Studio interference. I’m calling it
This was horrible
😢
This was a garbage 🗑️ movie 🍿
😢
It's terrible.
😰
I've seen 20 minutes. Judging from that, it's pretty terrible
I hope that’s not a common practice