Way back on Monday 7th September 1981, amidst the police and hospital dramas, the light entertainment comedy shows and wildlife documentaries, the BBC transmitted the first of a two-part American TV Movie based on a story by Stephen King. I don't know what its viewing figures were like, I am not aware of how critically acclaimed it was, but the following day, virtually everyone I knew was talking about it and how frightening it was. Two days later, after the final part aired, it was the only thing people were talking about. It was, as I remember, a phenomenon.The story: The Marsten House, reputed to be haunted, has long been a source of morbid fascination for writer Ben Mears (an intense David Soul). It is based on the outskirts of the small town of Salem's Lot, where Mears has returned after many years to write his latest book. Immediately he strikes up a closeness with Susan Norton (Bonnie Bedelia) and gets to know the characters who frequent the community, their relationships with one another and the stories they have to tell. Their lives are so meticulously intertwined that we are easily allowed into their world, into which enters Richard Straker, who is about to open an Antiques Shop there. Straker is played by James Mason, an actor of immense power. Charming, affable, elegant and capable of great evil, Straker is played to perfection. His partner, Mr Barlow, is spoken of in hushed tones, but never seen. Straker observes the peccadillos of the townsfolk from an amused distance, for he has bigger plans.The first part of 'Salem's Lot' puts the pieces into place. In the second, most of the characters die in a series of expertly handled horror set-pieces. The outbreak of vampirism results in wild-eyed, fanged children floating outside the window begging to be let in; a sick hollow-eyed gravedigger, Mike Ryerson (an incredibly sinister Geoffrey Lewis) falling from an upper story window and never hitting the ground; people rising from their graves with a familiar sickly pallor. It is difficult to imagine any of these set-pieces being handled better. Director Tobe Hooper keeps things sinister and uneasy, taking the situations from King's book and transferring them seamlessly to screen.When we eventually meet Mr Barlow, actor Reggie Nalder's cadaverous features are well and truly plastered under whitening contact lenses, vampire teeth and Nosferatu-like prosthetics. He is a snarling, inhuman monster, used sparingly – perhaps too sparingly – but never without great effect.'Salem's Lot' is a triumph on every level and still packs a punch today. Only Marc Petrie (Lance Kerwin) threatens initially to irritate – but then, he is something of an outcast, a bowl-haired horror 'nerd' and monster-kid academic. Really, that should endear him, but it doesn't somehow. Yet his swottish leanings are essential in battling what becomes a town of slavering undead, which he does with considerable expertise.Barlow's major scene, where he and Straker gate-crash a Priest's visitation on the Petrie family, where he rises from a black cloak to about 7 feet tall, is one of many highlights. Straker's patronising name-calling of 'holy man' and 'shaman', faith against Barlow's blue-skinned, heavily-veined face, with crucifix proving frighteningly ineffective – all add up to a set-piece of immense proportions, which, like Barlow's involvement, is over far too soon.

When a movie is terrible, I hear online/podcast reviewers say "I watched it, so you don't have to" and mean: they took the bullet for you. I agree with them, today.28 minutes into the extremely over-long Salem's Lot, I almost gave up. I didn't want to. I've wanted to see what this was all about since I was a kid, especially since I've viewed practically every other Stephen King adaptation. Even a lot of the sequels to said films. But, damn, this one was extremely tough to get through.More than a decade before King novels were turned more into miniseries or even TV series than theatrical releases, King's second book was adapted into a mind-boggling 3-hour miniseries and it felt every bit of that TV-vibe. Quick cuts, commercial timing, low-rent horror…all there. And distracting, too.The movie SHOULD have been in theatres, Rated R and cut to 90 minutes tops from 184 minutes. Literally, there was an easy hour and a half that could've been either cut or condensed to make it effective and work on the big screen. But, that didn't happen. So we got……a movie that was remade many years later as (also Stephen King's) Needful Things, only they replaced the villain and close setting with Nosferatu.Truthfully, there were some scary moments, some decent acting – mostly (only?) by the future sometimes Mrs. McClane, sometimes Ms. Gennaro and the multiple story lines helped keep my interest…occasionally. But, overall, it's totally not worth the three freaking hours.I was just thinking: maybe I should've seen the 2004 remake, instead and saved time. Egad, that's over three hours as well. Forget you.***Final thoughts: Day 9 Movie in the Can! I'm watching a NEW-2-ME horror movie every day of October 2016 and this one fascinated me with the cover/poster since I was such a little one. Plus, as I said above, I wanted to see it just to check it off my King Film List. Well, mercifully, I finally did get the experience behind me and now I don't even need to read the book…already read the superior (story of) Needful Things, anyways.

(50%) For a TV movie this is worthy of at least some acclaim as it is quite a well made piece, but the fact remains all too clear: it's way too damn long. There's a fair bit to like here from the decent cast right though to the generally good direction and decent scares, but when your 90 minute horror flick elapses even biblical epics then something is not quite right. There's some memorable scenes here, and some impressively crafted sections, but the scenes of David Soul trying the very best he possibly could in closing the stupid doors to his Jeep have always somehow always stood out in my mind as oddly very funny. If you have three hours to kill this is by far not a terrible way to spend it, and this is one of the better horror TV movies ever, but three hours is a long, long time.

This was an excellent miniseries. I use to own the full length miniseries on VHS as a kid. Idk why so many fans had a problem with making Barlow look more like Nosferatu? Honestly, I preferred this version over the 2004 one and the novel written by Stephen King himself. It just makes more sense. Barlow's appearance in the novel and in the 2004 version wasn't scary. I don't find a vampire with a more human like appearance like Dracula to be frightening. David Soul portrayed a better Ben Mears than Rob Lowe. I also liked the actor who played Mark. I found this version satisfying. Sure, it's not exactly like the novel. But then again it's Hollywood.