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.

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!

Wow...What an atrocious movie! Doesn't hold a candle to the original made for TV movie directed by Tobe Hooper. This new version of Salem's Lot is poorly written, badly acted & terrible special f/x. What a waste of time but glad I was able to see it so that I could be subjective. Don't waste your time on that drivel; find a copy of the original Salem's Lot starring David Soul as Ben Mears. That version has some truly scary scenes that involve Danny Glick appearing at Mark's window and of course who can forget the great character actor Geoffrey Lewis rocking back & forth in Matt Burke's spare bedroom. Yikes! The best scene though is when Marjorie Glick come to life on the mortician's table. Unlike the 2004 film (which actually plays for campy comic relief) the original SL is waaaaaay scarier. That movie still frightens the hell out of me to this day.

First out, I have to say that this show contains perhaps the worst editing I've ever seen. There will never be a reason to release an extended version of this debacle, as the original is the "every frigging scene ever shot" version. Were the editors constantly drunk, on strike, cut out of the budget or just fled the scene when they realized what was coming from the cameras? Or were they just forced to fill the drama out with every piece of crap they could come up with, to fill out the two incredibly drawn out episodes with the promised TV time? The progress of the story is so slow and dull that I actually considered turning the whole thing off at least four times and I regret I didn't. The subplots are aggravatingly numerous, surprisingly ill-timed - thanks again, non-existent editors - dragging the tempo down to a constant freezing point and of nothing but the "Who the frigging cares!", "Just stop this!" and "For the love of... *sigh*" kinds. To make matters even worse, you feel no sympathy whatsoever for the incredibly non-believable soap opera characters. And to put the stake in the heart, basically every single (non-believable) character has the standardized main flaw of having the rationality of a drunk ship rat, making you almost wish just everyone will perish before you do.For classifying itself as a horror movie, it really set the question in my head if this wasn't really a parody that I was watching. As it's my firm belief it certainly wasn't the intention of being so, I can only conclude this show was downright laughable and amateuristic in basically every important element.My final question is; did any of the actors choose to participate in this show for any other reason than the money? You probably just have to read the pathetic manuscript to realize what was coming. Perhaps they didn't.