Salem's Lot

report broken trailer
< Previous Trailer  |   Add to My Scrapbook  |   Next Trailer >
Salem's Lot movie poster

Do you want to see this movie?

My Friends Said...

Salem's Lot Recent Reviews

Register or sign-in to see your friends' reviews !

Recent Reviews

Salem's Lot Recent Reviews
  • stopitgoaway
    July 27, 2009
    stopitgoaway
    Stephen King's repertoire of books turned into films isn't all that good on the whole, but the list does have a few solid entries; and Salem's Lot is one of them. The cut that I saw was the cinema version, which has been cut down from the three hour TV version. Because of this, t...( read more)he film is overlong in places and incoherent in others; but if you ignore that little fact, what you have here is a nice little vampire flick. The story takes place in the small town of 'Salem's Lot'. If I were to name a town, I wouldn't call it 'Salem's Lot' because with that name, something evil is bound to happen. It's like calling your town 'Werewolf Creek' or 'Demonic Possession Falls' - you just wouldn't do it! Anyway, Salem's Lot becomes a town of vampires after the local weirdo orders a strange package from somewhere. The plot follows a writer that has gone back to Salem's Lot to finish his book. Once murders start occurring, the inept police sergeant suspects the local weirdo, but the writer has more imaginative ideas about what's going on...and sees that it may be down to vampires!

    The special effects in Salem's Lot are very cheesy - so cheesy, in fact, that I got the impression that they were like that on purpose. The way that the small town is presented is good, and it gives director Tobe Hooper lots of chances to create an atmosphere around the story. He handles the atmosphere side of the film with great skill, and that makes up one of the film's best assets. There's a reason why many fans consider this Hooper's only good movie besides The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and the atmosphere is probably it. The story does take a while to get going, but the way that it introduces the characters is good and through it's atmosphere and the way that the story moves; the film never gets boring. I haven't read the book of 'Salem's Lot', so I cant comment on how the film relates to the writing; but I can say that it's nice to see the man that is probably the best contender to the crown of 'modern master of horror' handling a story about vampires in a traditional way. I loved the way that King didn't try to distance the story from the genre clichés, and it's nice to see a 'true' vampire film. Overall - good stuff and highly recommended!
  • kiriyamakazou
    March 27, 2009
    kiriyamakazou
    Another Stephen King 3 hour miniseries. I'd say overall it's successful. The chills and tactics used are still fairly impressive, though some have dated horribly. Like Stephen King's IT the film has an excellent slow build up, but an underwhelming pay off. I love getting to know ...( read more)the characters and slowly see how the story progresses, but still I want something a little more by the end. The acting is brilliant, thumbs up to both the casting of James Mason and James Mason himself. He adds that unrivaled talent and star quality to a sinister role. Also great to see Fred Willard in a serious role, lately he seems to always be a bit mad. The story is very similar to Dracula (and not just the vampire elements), but these references are handled with respect and adapted, rather than just chucked in, to fit an excellent story.
  • harrycaul
    August 22, 2008
    harrycaul
    I hate reviewing movies that meant a lot to me as a kid, especially when they're not actually as great as they seemed at the time; it's so difficult to be honest! Part of me wants to pull this movie to pieces, yet I absolutely refuse to give it any fewer than four stars. My broth...( read more)er and I were allowed to stay up and watch the original two-part version of "Salem's Lot" some time in the mid-'80s, and it had a profound effect on us both. Terrified but blown away by it, we spent the better part of the next decade taping subsequent, variously truncated TV screenings in the vain hope of seeing that full version again, complete with its meandering subplots and silly Guatemalan epilogue. It took me 20 years to see the full thing again!

    Looking at it now, the main problem with the long version is that, though there's more than enough exposition to make us question what the hell most of it has to do with the main thrust of the story (the answer: not much), there's still not quite enough to give us a credible feeling of an entire community being decimated in the second half. I used to think that David Soul was super cool in this but, watching it now, his Ben Mears is pretty surly and unappealing; his first meeting with Susan Norton (Bonnie Bedelia) is ridiculously corny, and would surely have earned him a liberal Maceing and a kick in the balls in the real world. The brilliant idea of a fantasy-horror nut (Lance Kerwin) using his expertise to battle real-life vampires is disappointingly squandered; though I hate to admit it, "The Lost Boys" makes better use of the same theme. Anyway, I'll wrap this up before I start getting hypercritical. Great cast, great music. Sayonara!

    The following are just a few points that have puzzled me over the years, products of the fact that so much of the action happens off-screen. SPOILER ALERT: DO NOT READ ON IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THIS MOVIE!:-
    1. Who kills Mike Ryerson's (Geoffrey Lewis) dog? Since Barlow hasn't yet arrived on the scene, Straker (James Mason) presumably. But why?
    2. Who 'kills' Ralphie Glick? Although the health benefits of wrapping someone in plastic and placing them in the boot of a car are open to question, I think we have to assume that Ralphie is still alive when Straker carries him into the cellar of the Marsten house; though still in transit at the time of Ralphie's abduction, only Barlow could turn the lad into a vampire at this stage.
    3. Whose is that scrap of black fabric, found by Ben Mears when searching for Ralphie Glick? Straker's or Barlow's? Of course, we only have Straker's word for it that the two black suits he presents to the police constable are his only two. Sloppy police work, if you ask me!
    4. Who dumps Larry Crockett's (Fred Willard) body by the lake, and for what reason (other than to tie a largely superfluous subplot to the main storyline)? The supposition is that two vehicles were used for this piece of mischief, one presumably driven by Straker, the other by Barlow, which seems reasonable enough at the time - until we actually meet Barlow, that is. For all we know, he may wear sensible driving shoes and his clutch control may be second to none, but at risk of exposing a lack of imagination on my part, I find it impossible to visualize Reggie Nalder's Nosferatu clone driving that car. Given that his wife's lover has died in suspicious circumstances, I also find it incredible that the police allow Cully Sawyer (George Dzundza) to leave town so swiftly.
    5. What happens to Jason Burke (Lew Ayres) after his heart attack? Helpless in a hospital bed as vampirism and fire rage though 'Salem's Lot, the old man's uncertain fate is perhaps the bleakest and most unnecessary loose end in the whole movie. Why couldn't he just die of that heart attack? Similarly, what happens to Susan's mother when her husband and daughter fail to come home?
  • armybratgeo
    June 20, 2008
    armybratgeo
    I just finished reading the Novel by Mr King and so everything was fresh in my mind. They did pretty good, some of it was changed and not for the better but most of it was just like the Book. I understand they had to cut some to cut the movie a bit shorter but overall it was good...
  • BloodyKitten
    June 19, 2008
    BloodyKitten
    Pretty good. Salem's Lot is a delightfully sinister film, although it flounders a bit with its pacing. Still, a classic vampire movie that must be seen by all genre fans!
  • alpelaez2003
    March 14, 2010
    alpelaez2003
    I HAVE NO DESIRE TO VISIT ENGLAND.
  • Phonex
    February 23, 2010
    Phonex
    Stephen King's Horror Segment which is not my cup of tea.
  • romy861
    January 29, 2010
    romy861
    I am really quite embarrassed to admit I screamed out loud at one point here (will not disgrace myself further by revealing which part!). Needless to say, it should not have happened as the special effects and make up are really not that convincing in this 70's horror, and I hav...( read more)e certainly seen worse with less of a response.
    What can I say, I blame it on a throwback to my childhood - the original Amityville Horror still scares me as well because I was so scared of it as a child, even though watching it, I can see it's crappy. I didn't actually ever watch this one before, but it has that feel to it.
    At 3 hours it is very long and does drag out a little in places, but I enjoyed it. It's nothing amazing, but I do tend to like Stephen King's stories, and 70's/80's movies in general, so I guess the era appeals to me as much as the story. Anyone with similar taste should enjoy this, I think.
  • siochain11
    January 4, 2010
    siochain11
    One of my favourite Vampire movies!
  • Eryri
    December 18, 2009
    Eryri
    Brilliant vampire tale. The vampire child tapping on the window still gives me the creeps.
View All Reviews

Opening This Week

Top Box Office

Upcoming Movies

New on DVD