I don't understand the complaint that it's not scary. I just watched it as an uninterrupted three-hour movie, and I found it gripping, atmospheric and scary the whole way through. I never saw it on TV, so I have a guess why people may not have found it scary there: commercials. If it was shown in two parts then each part was 1½ hours stretched out by 30 minutes of commercials to fill a 2-hour block, and there was at least a 24-hour break between halves. With that much interruption and delay it couldn't help but be watered-down. The directing, acting, and visuals were all first-rate. I'll recommend it enthusiastically to my friends.

I've pretty much given up trying to understand what people here consider good films or find entertaining. Seriously...I was not expecting much because the original 1979 version is a bit of a minor classic in a way. And truthfully, MOST Stephen King adaptations are pretty poorly done. BUT... I was quite amazed at how involving and engaged I was with the way they did the story. It was not done in the same traditional mold as the original mini-series, and it was somewhat 'updated' in some ways which some may consider unnecessary. But, even so, the quality of the writing, acting, and direction were quite good, really. And most surprising was ol' Rob Lowe did a pretty decent job!At first I was kind of put off by both Donald Sutherland and Rutger Hauer playing the parts of Straker and Barlow (mainly because of strong images of James mason and 'Nosferatu' from the original) But, after reflecting on it, I do feel that using them DID work in this updated version, making them seem a bit more contemporary as opposed to the traditional feel of the original version - and I really DO like Rutger Hauer anyway : )So, if you can buy into the updating of the story, mood, and look of the film and you appreciate good writing, acting and execution of the story (which happens RARELY with Stephen King) then you should indeed enjoy this gripping, updated version of the classic story!

While this version of Stephen King's epic vampire novel, "'Salem's Lot", is by no means perfect, it is better than the 1979 TV movie tho James Mason as Richard Straker will be hard to beat in any version ever attempted ... it is also better than the rating on here or on the competitor's site, Rotten Tomatoes ...Rob Lowe does an excellent job handling the lead role and his voice-overs of various passages make me want to hear him read a King novel for an audio book ... he has a perfect touch with the voice-overs and that hooked me before he was halfway thru his opening speech over the scenes driving thru "the Lot" ... he also does a fine job portraying Ben Mears, perhaps it's obvious to others but he is much better than David Soul who played the role as he played all his roles: he's a 'hunky blonde' and that's all he needs to be ... Lowe puts out a top drawer effort and it's obvious he worked to get it right ...some of the complaints are about changes made to the original book and everyone is entitled their opinion of course but the film makers tried to update the work a bit since it wasn't set in the '70s any longer and bringing in some 'modern problems' such as a black gay teacher in what is obviously a predominantly white town ... and as Lowe's voice over explains, this is just fine as long as he, the English teacher Matt Burke, keeps his alternative lifestyle out of the classroom and up in Lewiston (if i am recalling the line correctly ... at least meaning that he go to the nearest 'big city' to 'be gay' and probably 'be black' as well) ... this is how it still is these days even in smaller towns throughout the USA sad as it is to say ... but it gives this version an updated feel and i don't see why it would be a problem ...as far as other casting goes, Rutger Hauer and Donald Sutherland as the "antiques dealers" Kurt Barlow and Richard Straker respectively, do a great job portraying the vampire and his 'watchdog' as Straker is described .... Barlow in the '79 version is a nothing character, nothing more than a manikin really ... and while Mason is hard to beat, Sutherland gives it a very creepy and energetic reading and it works nearly as well as the smooth and aristocratic style Mason applied to the same work ... Hauer of course gives a performance better than the manikin in the original but aside from that, he gives it a nice smooth-talking vampire style at first but when it comes to the physical power of the vampire he really kicks it up (with the help of special effects for the 'ceiling crawling' scene) and makes it work perfectly ...and while Lance Kerwin did a very good job in the original, Dan Byrd gives Mark Petrie, the poor kid who teams up with Mears to try and beat the vamps, a whole different feel and makes it a strong and important part ... i haven't seen him in much else since but this role showed a lot of promise with his talent ...overall, this is a very good TV-quality translation of a King novel into film ... TV has certain restrictions that the big screen doesn't have but i doubt that any studio is going to risk this film being made as two parts which is what it needs to be to fit in all of the story (it's not King's thickest novel but there is a ton of story jammed between the covers) ... perhaps they'd risk it for "the stand" but it seems "'salem's lot" is getting to be a bit overlooked in the King lexicon which is unfortunate since it is the best vampire book i've ever read ... this film is one of the best vampire movies as well and considering the restrictions with TV, i think it's a very good effort

I held off on watching this mostly because of the bad reviews here.OK the 1979 TV version might be classic and a lot closer to the book. This one is deviates more from the book. The teleplay author took some creative licenses here and there et al.As other reviewers pointed out Matt Burke is a homosexual in this version but he isn't over the top nor is there too much attention on this in the story.Despite some six years since 2004 when it was originally aired, I found it pretty entertaining. The key characters are there, and still feels like Stephen King. If you've seen the 1979, read or listened to the book then give this spin a chance..