Watch Salem's Lot For Free

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

What begins as a feel-good-human-interest story turns into a mystery, then a tragedy, and ultimately an outrage.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

King's classic story of vampires in Salem's Lot was remade as a two-part story on TNT in the summer of 2004. The movie was number one in programming both nights it originally aired, beating basic cable by garnering four million viewers. It's a shame that cable programming doesn't provide more original or adapted movies like Salem's Lot but it's Sharknado or other fake reality shows getting the nod. Mikael Saloman representation of Salem's Lot was quite the pleasant surprise, the Marsden house looked great and the collection of characters were an appropriate mix and screen time.If you're looking for something that stays 100% true to King's writing this is definitely not for you. The film wasn't necessarily rated based on this factor but I was taken aback by how many changes were made to the storyline. Otherwise the script had a great pace, for being over three hours long, it's easy to sit and watch the film in one sitting. Rob Lowe and Donald Sutherland were phenomenal catches for the film and they certainly had a part in carrying the film. Salem's Lot (2004) has it's pitfalls, tacky scenes with special effects and bad dialogue but it was an enjoyable movie that's worth taking a peak.

This movie was pretty decent, though it did suffer from a relatively low budget. More realistic special effects would have made it more believable. Without the great acting performances though it would have been boring to watch. Rob Lowe does really well as Ben Mears, the writer who returns to the town of Jerusalem's Lot to face his demons, and André Baugher (who by the way also played in The Mist, which is a better Stephen king adaptation than this) also does well as Matt Burke, the literature teacher who becomes involved in the quest to expel the evil from Salem's Lot. One disappointment though was the character of Mark Petrie. It's not as if Dan Bryd doesn't play him well, it's just that he is described totally different in the book (is that right? English isn't my native language). Also the movie skips through some of the best parts of the book relatively fast (I was expecting much, much more from the scene where Mark escapes the Marsten house). I also enjoyed the bits of narration here and there, they weave the story together really well.To conclude:Good:Excellent acting,great story (of course),narration Bad:Screenplay adaptation of the character of Mark Petrie,very obviously fake 'special effects', skipping of scenes that shouldn't be skipped.This movie is worth watching, especially if you're a Stephen King fan. But if you're not, you'll still have a good time. And that, in the end, is what movies are for

I have been a Stephen King fan all of my life, and rank "Salem's Lot" and "The Stand" as his two essential, indispensible works. I read Salem's Lot at the ripe age of 8 (over three decades ago) and even after becoming an e-book lover still keep a paperback copy on the shelf so I can appreciate it in all of its yellowing-paged-original-glory.I saw the original "Salem's Lot" miniseries with David Soul and Lance Kerwin when it originally aired on television in 1979 and thought nothing could ever compare to the feelings of terror that it provoked in me. The scenes where Ralphie Glick (and later on Danny Glick) appear in the windows as vampires have haunted me to this day - and I was unsurprised to hear that many of my generation felt the same way.So I was with some excitement that I viewed this 2004 remake of the story, to see what was done with the tale. After having read the comments and reviews I must admit I was skeptical that it was adapted to the screen successfully. As things turned out, it was a decent piece of work. Not as good as the book or the first movie, but it had some strong components.This film doesn't start out particularly strong. I spent the first hour shocked at the sluggishness with which the plot moved, envisioning how I would trash it in this online review, frankly. The original story was set in Maine in the 1970's, and the advent of cell phones, e-mail and other technology seems so foreign to the story. I am also a fan of keeping as true to the original tale as possible - changing Matt Burke from an aging white man to a younger gay black man was an odd, though acceptable, course of action, but having Dr. Jimmy Cody involved in a sleazy affair with teenaged Sandy was an offense.However, as I watched past the weak beginning I could see some strong roots of this tale beginning to take hold. David Soul was a capable Ben Mears, but Rob Lowe outshined him, I feel. I could tell Lowe had really studied the character and tried to present his personality as realistically as he could. And while beautiful Bonnie Bedelia was believable as Susan Norton in the original film, Samantha Mathis takes the lead in this one. The 1979 miniseries transformed Jimmy Cody's character into Susan Norton's father, who was a bit player at best. It was good to see a real adaptation of Jimmy Cody - a likable and reliable figure in the book - show up in this movie. This isn't to say every cast member was an improvement; certainly Christopher Morris's Mike Ryerson doesn't belong in the same room as the character played by Geoffrey Lewis in the 1979 film - who was so frightening when he returned from the dead in Matt's house, unlike Morris's weak and confused appearance.Straker was magnificently played by James Mason in 1979. Donald Sutherland did his best in this role, but fell a bit short. However, Rutger Hauer's Barlow - though given a pitifully small amount of screen time - is far truer to the book than Reggie Nalder's "Nosferatu" version. One of the strongest elements of the book was Barlow's charming, intelligent, charismatic personality. His booming laughter, his easygoing guile, his believable role as the Master was better represented by Hauer, though woefully underutilized. I believe Hauer appeared in all of 3 scenes.Then there is the working relationship between Ben Mears and Mark Petrie. Of course the level of detail the book offers into the curious pairing of these two, so much alike, can't be fully transferred to the screen, but the manner in which all of their allies drop one by one, leaving these two as the sole survivors responsible for saving what's left of the town, seems a credible fit.An odd turn of events twists Father Callahan from a pathetic failure who flees the town into a pathetic failure who replaces Straker as Barlow's human sidekick doesn't ring true at first. However, after further inspection it seems to fit an appropriate niche. Who better to turn into a vampire's living henchman than a doubtful priest? The plot twist serves as an intro to the movie as well as providing material for the denouement and I think ultimately it works.Overall, I didn't find the sense of stark terror that I did in the original book and movie, but I found nearly comparable levels of suspense and intrigue. Some of the vampire scenes were a bit cheesy - Ed and Eva's "wedding" for instance, but I appreciated the fact that some elements not in the first film adaptation - Charlie Rhodes and his school bus from hell, for instance - were included this time around.In summary, some elements worked well, and others bellyflopped, but it was a valiant effort and a mixed bag of success. Worth the viewing to see how it compares to the book and first movie.

I own the original Salem's Lot on DVD, so when I saw this at the store I decided to buy it. I enjoyed the remake of The Shining and was hoping for a more in depth and psychological thriller. God was I wrong. I've read the book, and I'm okay with artistic license, so that wasn't the problem. This film was just a disaster. It was not scary, it was not a thriller, it didn't frankly keep my interest. Problem number one. Rob Lowe. I know he can do better than this. His narrative was grating, so wordy and pointless. I also swear he is wearing a hairpiece or wig in this. He was just going through the motions in this one, unfortunately. I never understood the lack of chemistry with "Susan". He was supposed to be in love with her, but they got along like bickering siblings. So when he offs her in the end, it was like "So?". At least David Soul and Bonnie Bedelia had some chemistry and you could feel the pain when he killed Bonnie. Number two. Matt Burke. He is supposed to be Rob's old English schoolteacher. He is like a year older than him? Made no sense. Number three. The acting. These were most likely locals who decided to try acting just for this movie. The Glick brothers were the absolute worst. Just horrible horrible acting. Dud was just that. I was embarrassed for his cerebral palsy portrayal. Awful. Number four. Straker. If I were a vampire and trusted my life to someone to watch me, well, Straker would be the last guy on earth i'd entrust that to. He was crazy, made public spectacles, and called attention to himself. Didn't make sense. Oh well. This was such a disappointment. Horrible acting, so many plot problems. I mean why were the vampires at the end walking around like zombies? Dud could move in a flash, and now it's Night of the Living Dead? A total mess.